صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

in the instance before us. No other supposition will ac count for our Lord's reply. In making this pretence they had put him to the test. If he were really God supreme, as they pretended his words suggested, it became him to acknowledge that they had interpreted his language aright. But, instead of this, he proceeds to prove to them from their scriptures, that he should not have been guilty of any blasphemy against the great Supreme, even had he assumed to himself the title of God, in order to express his commission from the Father; seeing the scripture itself, which they acknowledged to be of divine authority, gives this title to those, whom God has commissioned. But, says our Lord, I assumed not this title; though, with much more propriety, might it be applied to me, than to the prophets, or rulers of the nation. For, I am the Christ: He whom the Father hath appointed to this distinguished office. This is all that I have said. My words amount merely to a declaration, that I am the Christ, the Son of God. And, whether it be blasphemy against God to say this, judge ye.

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God?" If our Lord considered their pretence, that he had made himself God, a fair and just interpretation of his words; why does he shew them from the scriptures, that the name, God, does not always signify the supreme God, but is bestowed upon such, as God has commissioned? Why affirm, that the amount of the declaration, I and my Father are one, is merely this, I am the Son of God? If he knew himself to be the supreme Jehovah, why does he not say at once, You understand me right. I am verily and truly the supreme God. If you stone me, you do it at your peril. But, instead of this, he asserts only what we have stated above; And proceeds to refer them to the proof, which he had afforded of his being the Christ; to wit, the miraculous works he had performed in his Father's name. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do

though ye believe not me (my bare assertion) believe the works (which can be wrought only by divine influence) that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.

We are not ignorant that some, in their zeal, endeavor to distort these last words of Christ into a declaration, that he is what the Jews pretended. As though he had said, "If I do not perform works, which none but the supreme God can perform, then do not believe that I am the supreme God. But, seeing I do, then know that the Father and myself are one common existence; that I am as much the supreme God, as is the Father." But are not these words fully explained, by his declaration in this very discourse?"The works, which I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." To perform works, in the name of another, is to do them by authority delegated from him. And do not the scriptures say, Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God. Pray, are we hence to infer, that all believers have one common existence with God? That they are the great Supreme?

2. That the unity, which our Lord affirms himself to have with the Father, is not an unity of essence, substance, or being, is evinced from the consideration, that, whenever the unity of two persons is spoken of in scripture, it always means something else; an unity of harmony, agreement in conduct, cause, or design. Thus, He that planteth and he that watereth are one. Now he that planted was Paul. He that watered was Apollos. But were Paul and Apollos, though two persons, one being only?

John teaches the unity, Christ has with the Father, to be an unity of harmony only, in such a striking and convincing manner, as not to be denied. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also, which shall believe on me through their word; that they may all be one ε, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may

*

I John, iv. 15. + I Cor. iii. 8.-To save the critic a reply, we note that, in the Greek, it is of the neuter gender

εν

be ONE EV IN US, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory, which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one v AS WE ARE ONE ; I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one ; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me."*

Need we make any comment, by way of illustration, upon this striking passage? Does it not speak, with suf ficient plainness, for itself? Does not the Lord Jesus pray, that the unity of the disciples with God and one another may be the same, that exists between himself and the Father? And, if that unity be an unity of being or existence, does he not pray, that the disciples may have the very same unity? Is not this passage a full and complete explanation of I and my Father are one? Are the disciples, however, really distinct beings from the Father, and eternally to be so? How, then, does the Lord Jesus Christ pray to the eternal Father, that they may be one in us, as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, and they in us? Did he mean to pray that they might become the great Supreme? Or that they might have one common existence, subsistence, substance, being, with the Father? And is it not equally improper thus to exalt the Son to the very Being of the supreme and infinite God, to whom he is here, as a dependent existence, offering up his fervent prayer and supplication?

Will our opponents say that the Lord Jesus is here. speaking of his human nature? What does this avail them? His prayer would still be, that christians might have the same unity with God, which his human nature has; which, according to their scheme, is such an unity, that his person is not, properly speaking, human, but divine only: Two natures in one person forever says their creed. His prayer would then be, that christians might no longer be distinct beings from God, but so mysteriously united to him, as that it may be properly affirmed of them, that they are the only living and supreme God, And will humble christians believe, that they are to be * John, xvii. 20-23.

partakers of the divine nature in any such manner as this! Do they calculate on becoming human natures of the great Jehovah!

Strange, that, with the holy scriptures in their hands, and in them the solemn and plain declarations of the Lord Jesus in prayer to God, men should not understand the unity, which subsists between him and his Father. Strange, they should not see, that, in the nature of things, as well as from his own declarations, it must be an unity of harmony, affection, pursuit, and design only, and not of existence and attributes. He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the spirit saith unto the churches.

[ocr errors]

SECTION XIII.

ANOTHER important argument, in proof of the su preme and independent divinity of Christ, and on which great emphasis is laid by our opponents, is derived from the divine appearances, recorded in the Old Testament, under the style of THE ANGEL OF THE LORD.

It is confidently asserted, that, by the Angel of the Lord, is meant some particular angel, distinct from all others, and, in his nature, wholly above them. By Trinitarians he is supposed to be Jehovah himself, the second person in the Trinity; even our Lord Jesus Christ. The Arians also acknowledge this Angel to be Christ: But, believing that he has the title of Jehovah, in a secondary sense only, they do not acknowledge him strictly the Supreme God. They consider him a superior messenger, through whom God created, preserves, and governs the

world.

The reason of this opinion, concerning the Angel of the Lord, is, that he speaks and acts in the name and character of Jehovah, the God of Israel. And seeing the word, Angel, denotes one sent on an errand, it is concluded, that the Angel of the Lord cannot be God the Fath-er; because he is always represented as the one who sends, never the one who is sent. It is hence inferred, that the Angel of the Lord must be our Lord Jesus Christ, whose common appellation is the sent of God.

THE true doctrine will be best ascertained by comparing the various declarations, concerning the Angel of the Lord, with one another, and by attending carefully to the illustrations, which different inspired writers have made on the subject.

A number of the most striking instances, where the Angel of the Lord appeared and spake to the ancients, shall now be produced. "And the angel of the Lord

« السابقةمتابعة »