« PreviousContinue »
(4) cessarily is implied subordination and subjection to the will of the father ; but, if what is implied in the word in one instance is acknowledged, why not in the other? If it is allowed that the word Son nécessarily implies subordination to the father; and it certainly in its signification does imply as much ; why is it not to be allowed to imply identity of nature, which it certainly does imply, and in a degree much stronger? for, the identity of nature is of necessity, whereas the subordination is only by condition and circumstance. I meddle not with the artificial glosses by which men endeavour to make the word Son not to signify in the terms ( Son of God” what it evidently does signify, if we are to be governed by the constant usage of the word in every language under heaven: fufficient is it to say, that Jesus is abfolutely declared, in the New Testament, to be the Son of God; and that, in no one instance whatever, is there any where a single syllable added to it, when he is so called, to qualify the terms, as if they were not to be interpreted in that sense which so obviously belongs to them.
But if Jesus is called the Son of God, and we are not mistaken in our conclusion from it, that therefore he is God, then will the Sacred Writings afford as clear evidence to the truth of this conclufion as they do to the truth of the conclusion that he is man because he is the son of man. The Scrip.
tures tures certainly do afford this evidence, as fhall be exemplified. Matt. xi. 27.
« All things are delivered unto me of my Father: 6 and no man knoweth the Sort but the Father. 56 neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son, 66 and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him.”
In this translation xde! should have been rendered no one, and the meaning of the word stryICHEL is not properly expressed. The English word knoweth. is a very indeterminate expreffion, is applicable to any merely personal, any partial, imperfect, knowledge ; but szkyivwc rw fignifies an intimate de.. terminate knowledge of the subject. Luke confirms to us the truth of this interpretation; for, recording the same thing as St. Matthew, his words are, « Ουδεις γινωσκει τις εςιν ο υιος ει μη ο σατης και τις εςιν " • Watup,” &c. Luke x. 22. No one knoweth " who the Son is but the Father, and wbo the Fa“ther is but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall “ reveal him." St. Luke uses the word yi Wotel without the preposition, but, by subjoining Tis to it, conveys as strongly to us the fame idea as with the prepofition."
This paffage, then, plainly and determinately declares, that the Son of God is God; for, he is as incomprehensible as the Father, being equally unknown to every one as the Father is. : B 3
(6) His knowledge also is as the Father's; for, in whatever degree the Father knoweth the Son, in the same degree the Son knoweth the Father; a knowledge which no other being hath, except the person to whom the Son shall be pleased to reveal him. St. John (X. 15.) records our LORD's words thus : “ As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the “ Father.” So far therefore we are justified in our idea, that the Son of God is God, because he is as incomprehensible as God, and because he hath that knowledge which pertaineth to God alone: and, as we know the son of man is man, because he had the infirmities of man, so we know that the Son of God is God, because he hath the exclusive perfections of GOD.
I am aware of the objection which will be urged, that the words preceding the passage under consideration intimate to us that he is inferior to God; fur, it is said, “ All things are delivered to me of my Fa“ ther.”
The weight of this objection is more in appearance than in reality. For, our Saviour had a double character to sustain: he was to evidence to the world that he was the son of man, and that he was the Son of God; and therefore he was to take care, in his declarations, that the hearers should not lose sight. of eithir character. Hence when he had said " All o things are delivered to me of my Father,” which
might imply inferiority to the Father, and which was true of him as he was the son of man, and also in respect of his filiation, he immediately subjoins what was declarative of his being the Son of God, and of his participating in the Divine Nature with the Father. Thus, also, when he has said any thing expreffive only of his being the Son of God, and of his having the Divine Nature, he frequently subjoins something to direct the attention to his being the son of man also. A most remarkable instance we have of this Matt. xxvi. 63, 64. “ I adjure thee “ (faith the high priest) by the living God, that 6 thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the 66 Son of God. Jesus faith unto him, Thou haft “ said. Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall “ye see the Son of Man fitting on the right hand of “ power, and coming in the clouds of heaven;" where the attention is directed as well to his being the son of man as of his being the Son of God. At his transfiguration, a voice came from Heaven, which said, “ This is my beloved Son, in whom I “ am well pleased." The disciples who were with him heard it; but, when he was come down from the mount, he directed their attention towards the sufferings which he was to undergo as the son of man. When Peter had confessed him, “ that he was the “ CHRisT the Son of the living God," after having approved of his confession, he, in like manner, admonishes them of the sufferings he was to undergo at Jerusalem, Matt. xvi. And so in a variety of
other instances. The objection therefore above referred to is of no manner of validity. Written it most certainly is, that “ No one knoweth the Son " but the Father; and that no one knoweth the Fao 66 ther but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall “ reveal him.” And therefore, if we believe what is written to be a divine revelation, we must believe that the Son of God is God; because it is here revealed, that he hath the perfections which belong to God alone, that is, he hath the knowledge of God, and is as incomprehensible as God. But let us proceed. want. .
It is written, Matt. xviii. 18. “ Verily I say unto “ you, whatsoever ye shall bind upon earth shall be I bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose ct upon earth shall be loosed in heaven." These words are authoritative; and he that fpake them must have uncontrolled power in heaven, otherwise they would be nugatory. Εξαι δεδεμενα εν τω έρανο, are terms altogether unconditional; they are the words of authority, ordaining what shall be in heayen. But what man, what angel, what being, of ever so exalted an order, can ordain what shall be in beaven except God alone. But it is the Son of GOD that hath ordained thus, therefore the Son of GOD is God.
: Again; it is written, Mätt. y. I. “And, when he « had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave