Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

;

with the Father, was a juft confequence of what he had faid. And this he does by afferting, that he could do nothing of himself, independent of the Father, and that what he did was by the ability, direction, and appointment of the Father, and confequently that he was a Being inferiour and fubordinate to him and therefore their inference was unjuft. And as they had taken offence at his faying, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; he adds, that he should perform greater works than thefe, by the enablement, direction, and appointment of the Father, that they might marvel. This I take to be the fenfe of the place. The Father's barely fhewing Chrift greater works than he had hitherto shown him, or Chrift's working barely in imitation of the Father, neither of these could be a foundation for marveling to the Jews: whereas Chrift's receiving direction and ability from his Father, to perform before the Jews greater works than he had hitherto done, would be a proper foundation for their aftonishment. Again,

John x. 33. The Jews answered him, for a good work we stone thee not, but for blafphemy, and for that thou being a man makest thy felf God. The occafion of thele words we have in the foregoing verfes, in which our Lord is faid to call God his Father, and that he and his Father were one; the Jews inferring from hence, that he had defamed God, in as much as he, who appeared to them to be but a man, should set up himfelf to be a competitor with God, and upon this, the Jews took up ftones to ftone him: at which fight Christ puts this question to them, Many good works have I fhewed you from my Father, for which if thofe good works do you ftone me? To which the Jews anfwered, as above, that they did not stone him for any good work which he had done; but for blafphemy, in that he made himself God, or equal to God. To which our Lord replyed, Is it not written in your law, I faid ye are gods: upon which Chrift reafons thus, If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the fcriptures cannot be broken) fay ye of him whom the Father hath fanctified and fent into the world, thou blafphemeft, because I faid I am the Son of God. In which reply, our Lord does not deny that the making himself God (in the Jews fenfe of that word) would have been blafphemy; but what he denies is, that the making himself the fupreme God, or equal to him, could be justly inferred from what he had faid, because the scriptures have given the name god, to those who were fent in God's name; and therefore it could not be blafphemy for him, who was in the most eminent manner fent of God, to fay, that he was the Son of God. Upon the whole, this is what I would remark from the two instances before us, viz. that our Lord was fo far from encouraging the people's taking up an opinion of him, that he was the fupreme God, or equal to him, that on the contrary he endeavours to diffuade them from it, by fhewing, that no fuch thing could justly be inferred from what he had faid, which furely Christ would not have done, if the forementioned opinion had been true; becaufe, then what he faid and reafoned upon the fubject, tended naturally to mislead his hearers, and to obftruct one end of his coming into the world, which he elsewhere tells us, was to bear witness to the truth, John xviii. 37.

The

The force of the prefent argument is as follows, our Lord Jefus Chrift has expressly declared, that his Father is greater than he; yea greater than all: and that he has given unto him all power or authority to execute judgment in heaven and in earth. And from hence I argue, that if our Lord Jefus Chrift is worthy of credit, and if his teftimony is of weight, and fit to be relied upon in the present cafe, then he is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father. But our Lord Jefus Chrift is himself a principal in the prefent question, and therefore he must be a proper judge in the cafe; and confequently his teftimony ought to be admitted as proper evidence. For, tho mens teftimonies are in fome cafes refused, when they become evidences for themselves, they being liable to be partial in their own favour; yet the cafe is otherwise, when they become evidences against themselves, then their teftimony is admitted, allowing them to have the exercife of their reason: and this is the prefent cafe, in which our Lord Jefus Chrift may be faid to be an evidence against himself; like John the Baptift, when the question was put to him, Whether he was the Chrift or not? he confeffed that he was not. So in like manner, our Lord Jefus Chrift, even before the question arofe, Whether he was the fupreme God, or not? he freely confeffed he was not; and frankly and generously afcribed fupremacy to his Father, to whom only it belonged. And, as our Lord gave teftimony, as above, in a cafe in which he was a proper judge, and in which his evidence, in reason, ought to be admitted; fo if Paul, or Cephas, or an angel from heaven should declare any thing, which feemeth to be inconfiftent with, or contrary to what our Lord has fo exprefsly declared, then their teftimony ought to yield to that of Chrift, or elfe to be rejected. That is, they are to be understood in fuch a fenfe, as is confiftent with, and perfectly reconcilable to the teftimony of Chrift, or elfe to be fet afide as of no weight in the prefent question. I fay, this ought in reason to be the cafe, fuppofing their teftimonies feemed to clash, as aforefaid. For as Chrift must be allowed to be the best judge; fo furely his veracity is as fit to be relied on as the others, and therefore his teftimony ought to be admitted as proper evidence. And this I urge as a farther proof of the propofition I undertook to maintain.

ARGUMENT VII.

Seventhly, The Son did pray to the Father in behalf of himself; confequently the Son is inferiour and Jubordinate to the Father, and the Father alone is the fupreme God.

PRAYER

RAYER I take to be (when offered up for the petitioner) the act of a dependent being, whereby the mind is carried out in the act of defire, either after fome good not enjoyed, or for the continuation of that good when enjoyed; or for a deliverance from fome evil either felt or feared, arifing from a fenfe of his own inability to procure that good, or the continuance of it, or to remove or prevent the evil he fears. And when prayer is a rational act, it is

directed

And

directed to a being who has ability, or is fuppofed to have ability to confer, or continue the good thing prayed for, and to remove, or prevent the evil prayed against. And, that our Lord did pray to the Father, as aforefaid, fee John xvii. 1. Father the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. Again, verfe v. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own felf, with the glory I had with thee before the world was. John xii. 27, 28. Now is my foul troubled, and what shall I fay, Father fave me from this hour, but for this caufe came I unto this hour; Father glorify thy name, &c. Matt. xxvi. 39. and fo on. be went away a little farther and fell on his face and prayed; faying, if it be poffible let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt. went away again the fecond time and prayed; faying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. Matt. xxvi. 53. Thinkeft thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he will fend me more than twelve legions of angels, &c. Luke xxiii. 46. And when Jefus had cryed with a loud voice, be faid, Father into thine hands I commend my fpirit; and when he had fo faid, he gave up the ghoft. Heb. v. 7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and fupplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to fave him from death, and was heard in that he feared, &c.

He

In these texts it is declared, that our Lord Jefus Chrift did frequently make application to God by prayer in behalf of himself; and from hence I argue, that if our Lord Jefus Chrift did really want, and could not procure to himself what he prayed to his Father for (which his prayer implies) then this is a manifeft proof, of his being in a state of dependency upon his Father; and confequently, that he is inferiour and fubordinate to him, as I have shewn above. But furely, our Lord did not trifle in his addreffes to his Father, by praying for what he did not want, or what he could have procured to himself; but on the contrary, he stood in need of help, and accordingly he addressed himself to his Father, and was heard and helped in that he feared. And this I urge, as a farther proof of the propofition I have now under confideration.

ARGUMENT VIII.

Eighthly, and lastly, The Son did humble and debafe himself, from being rich he became poor, he was in a greater and leffer degree of glory; confequently he is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father, and the Father alone is the fupreme God.

HAT this was the ftate and condition of our Lord Jefus Chrift, fee T John xvii. And now, 5. O Father, glorify thou me with thine own felf, with the glory I had with thee before the world was. What that glory was, which Chrift here prayed to his Father to be restored to, is needlefs to enquire after; it being fufficient to my present purpose to obferve, that it was such glory as Chrift had formerly enjoyed, but then was deftitute of, and defired that he might be restored to it. 2 Cor. viii. 9. Ye know the grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift, that tho he was rich, yet for your fakes he became poor, that through his poverty, might be rich. The Apostle in the beginning of this chap

E

ye,

ter

ter endeavoured to perfuade the believing Corinthians, to a liberal contribution to the poor chriftians in Judea, from the example of the neighbouring churches of Macedonia; who had to their ability, yea beyond their ability (and that too at a time of their deep poverty and affliction) contributed willingly, and of their own accord, towards the relief of their poor brethren. And tho the Apostle had no fpecial command from Chrift for what he did in this affair; yet that he might make his exhortation fuccefsful upon the Corinthians, he fets before them the example of Christ, which as chriftians they could not but think themselves obliged to follow, and especially as they themfelves were partakers of his graces. For ye know the grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift, that tho he was rich, yet for your fakes he became poor, that ye, through his poverty, might be rich. The force of the prefent argument is as follows. In the above texts is fet forth a diverfity of states with refpect to our Lord Jefus Chrift, viz. his being poffeffed of, and his being separated from, either a state or a degree of glory. His being rich, and his becoming poor. And from hence I argue, that if the truth of the cafe be as it is here reprefented, that is, if the Son of God, our Lord Jefus Chrift, was really under fuch a diverfity of ftates, and did pass through thofe changes, as is declared in the texts above, then he is a dependent controulable being it being abfolutely impoffible that an independent uncontroulable being, fhould be capable of fuch different ftates, as is the present cafe: and if the Son be a dependent being, the confequence is unavoidable, viz. that he is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father (as I have fhewn above) and the Father alone is the fupreme God.

Having, in the precedent arguments proved, or made good, the propofition I first laid down, viz. That the Son of God, our Lord Jefus Chrift, is a Being inferiour and fubordinate to the Father, and that the Father alone is the fupreme God. I now proceed to examine the most material objections, which that propofition, and the proof by which it is fupported, are liable to. And,

OBJECTION I.

Firft, It may be objected, that the above propofition very much detracts from the honour and dignity of the perfon of our Lord, and leffens the value of his fufferings and death, by which alone the redemption of mankind was wrought out; and confequently, it is groundless and falfe.

T

O the first part of the objection I answer, that it is no detraction from the honour and dignity of a perfon to deny him to be what he really is not. It is no detraction from the dignity of Thomas Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, to fay, that he is not the King of Great Britain; becaufe, it is only a denying him to be what he really is not. To detract from any one's dignity, or honour, is to deny him to be what he really is. Thus to fay, that Thomas Herbert is not a peer, but only a commoner of Great Britain, would be to detract from his dignity and honour; because he is really Earl of Pembroke, and confequently is more than a commoner, and is really a peer of Great Britain. And therefore, seeing I have not denied our Lord to be any thing that he real

ly

ly is; but only have faid that of him, which he hath faid of himself, and what the fcriptures teftify of him, it must be a very unjust charge to fay, I have detracted from his dignity and honour; and confequently the first part of the objection is falfe and groundless.

To the second part, viz. that the above propofition leffens the value of Chrift's fufferings and death; I anfwer, that the greater or lefler value of any fuffering (I think) must arife, either from the greater or leffer degree of that fuffering, or the more or lefs valuable end, which it is made fubfervient to, or the greater or less valuableness of the agent, who voluntarily chufes to undergo that fuffering: and when we have confidered the cafe, in all thofe views, I think it will appear, that the propofition here referred to, does by no means leffen the value of Chrift's fufferings and death. For as to the greater or leffer degree of fuffering, or the more or less valuable end, which that fuffering is made fubfervient to; these are the fame with refpect to the fufferings of Chrift, whether the forementioned propofition be true or false. His fufferings were the fame, and the end which they were made fubfervient to, was the fame alfo: and as to the valuableness of the fufferer, or the agent which voluntarily chofe to undergo that fuffering, when the cafe is examined, the difference poffibly may not appear to be fo great, as it is ufually thought to be; and may determine against, rather than in favour of those who make this objection.

Cerinthus, and his followers (as the learned fay) held that our Lord Jefus Chrift fuftained two rational natures, and these acted in a separate and diftinct capacity one from the other; one of these they called Jefus, and the other they called Chrift: Jefus they fay was of an earthly, and Chrift of an heavenly extraction; and that when Jefus entered upon his paffion, Christ took wing and flew away from him and left him to fuffer alone; confequently, according to the Cerinthians, the agent who fuffered was but a meer human creature.

Sabellius, and his adherents (as it is faid) held that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were but one diftinct individual agent or being; tho reprefented by, and under feveral diftinct characters, upon account of his different dealings with his creatures; and that God was united to the man Chrift Jefus, and in, and by that union communicated a divine affiftance to enable him to perform both actively and paffively the whole will of God; but still the agent, or being, who did perform that obedience was but a man. So that in this the Cerinthians and Sabellians agree, viz. that the agent, or fufferer, in the perfon of Chrift, was but a meer human creature.

Socinus, and his followers, are faid to acknowledge the diftinct perfonality of the Father and the Son; but withal, that the Son was no more than a man, tho he received a larger measure of knowledge, and power, and the like abilities than ever any other man did; and was called to tranfact in great affairs, fuch as the redeeming and judging the world, the governing and watching over the church, and the like; as never any other man was called to, or entrusted with. So that Cerinthus, and Sabellius, and Socinus, and their followers, agree in this, viz. that the fufferer, in the perfon of Chrift, was but a meer man. É 2

The

« AnteriorContinuar »