their having wrought a miracle, concluded that they were gods, with what
zeal and earnestness did they undeceive them! In Acts xiv. 14, 15. it is
said, when they perceived they were going to offer sacrifice to them,
_they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and
saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? we also are men of like passions
with you_. And, at another time, we read, that Peter and John, in Acts
iii. 11-13. when they had cured the lame man, though the people did not
conclude them to be divine persons, yet, perceiving that they were
amazed, and being jealous that some thoughts might arise in their minds,
as though they had a right to that glory, which belongs to God alone, or
that this miracle was to be ascribed to themselves, rather than to him,
we read, that _when Peter saw that they marvelled, and that the people
ran together, he answered, ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or
why look ye so earnestly on us, as though, by our own power, or
holiness, we had made this man to walk?_ and accordingly takes occasion
to shew, that the glory hereof was due to none but God.
But our Saviour takes no such method to exculpate himself from this
charge of blasphemy; therefore we must suppose they did not mistake his
words but that he intended thereby, that they should understand him to
be a divine Person; yea, he is so far from undeceiving them, if they
were deceived, that he rather confirms, than denies, the sense, which
they put upon them. This appears from Matt. ix. 2-5. when they brought
to him a man sick of the palsey, to whom, when he healed him, he said,
_Son be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee_, he perceived, that
_certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth_,
supposing _that none had power to forgive sins but God_. It is true, the
words might have been understood, as though he had said, thy sins are
forgiven thee, only in a _declarative way_, as signifying, that the man
had obtained forgiveness from God, without insinuating thereby, that he
had a power, as a divine Person, to forgive sins. But it is plain, that
the Jews took his words in this latter sense, from their charging him
with blasphemy; but, instead of rectifying the mistake, if it was one,
he asserts, that notwithstanding the meanness of his appearance, while
in his humble state on earth, yet he had a power to forgive sins; and he
not only asserts, but proves this, when he says, ver. 5. _Whether it is
easier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee? or to say Arise, and walk?_
Many suppose, that Our Saviour hereby intends to establish his Deity, by
asserting his infinite power, which was exerted in working a miracle,
and so it is as though he should say: he that can produce any effect,
which is above the laws of nature, as miracles are, at least if he does
it by his own power, must be God: but this he had done, and so proved
his deity thereby, and consequently his right to forgive sins.
But I am sensible it will be objected to this, that since creatures have
wrought miracles, which were as truly and properly so as this that
Christ wrought; therefore the working a miracle will not prove the
divinity of the person that wrought it, unless we could prove that he
did it by his own power, that we cannot do without supposing his deity,
and therefore that ought not to be made use of, as a medium to prove it.
Some, indeed, attempt to prove it from that scripture, Luke xi. 20. in
which he says, _he cast out devils by the finger of God_, supposing he
means hereby his own divine power. Others take notice of something
peculiar to himself as they suppose, in the way of his working miracles,
that herein he spake, and acted like a God. But, since neither of these
arguments will be reckoned conclusive, therefore I would take a method
somewhat different, which is not liable to the aforesaid objection, to
account for this matter; and that is that our Saviour first tells the
man, that his sins were forgiven him, knowing, before-hand, how this
would be resented by the scribes, who would, upon this occasion, charge
him with blasphemy, which accordingly they did; and then, to convince
them that he was a divine Person, and had a power to forgive sin, he
wrought a miracle, and so bade the man, sick of the palsey, to _arise
and walk_; whereby he proved his deity, of which he designed to give an
extraordinary conviction, and consequently of his having a power to
forgive sin, by an appeal to this miracle. Now though miracles do not
argue the divinity of the person that works them, from any visible
circumstance contained therein as but now mentioned, yet they
effectually prove it, provided this be the thing contested, and an
explicit appeal be made to the divine power to confirm it by miracles,
then they are an undoubted proof thereof, as much as they prove any
thing relating to the Christian religion: and, in this sense, I humbly
conceive, Christ proved his deity by miracles, which he is expressly
said elsewhere to have done; as in John ii. 11. speaking concerning his
first miracle in Cana of Galilee, it is said, that thereby _he
manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him_; where,
by _his glory_ is doubtless, meant his divine glory; for the faith of
his disciples, which was consequent hereupon, was a divine faith: and we
never read of the glory of Christ, in his humbled state more especially,
but it must import the glory of his deity, which his disciples are said,
in some measure to behold, when they believed in him. This Christ
confirmed by his miracles, in the same way, as his mission was confirmed
thereby. By this means, therefore, he proved his deity and consequently
his right to forgive sin: and therefore was so far from endeavouring to
convince the Jews, that they were mistaken in thinking him a divine
person, he farther insists on, and proves, that he was so.
There is another conference which our Saviour held with the Jews,
mentioned, John vi. in which we read, that after he had healed a lame
man on the sabbath-day, for which, ver. 16. _the Jews sought to slay
him_, as a sabbath-breaker, he replies, ver. 17. _My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work_; upon which they were more enraged, and as it is
said, ver. 18. _sought the more to kill him, because he had not only
broken the sabbath, but said also, that God was his Father, making
himself equal with God_. It is plain they understood his words, as
importing that he was equal with God; and, indeed they could do no
otherwise, for he compares his works with God’s, and speaks of himself
as working co-ordinately with him. Certainly our works ought not to be
mentioned at the same time with God’s; therefore they suppose that he
asserted himself to be a divine Person, and farther proved it by calling
God his Father; which, according to the sense in which they understood
it, denoted an equality with him. Hereupon they charge him with
blasphemy, and go round about to kill him for it. Now it is certain,
that, if he had not been equal with God, he ought to have undeceived
them, which he might easily have done, by telling them that though I
call God my Father, I intend nothing hereby, but that I worship,
reverence, and yield obedience to him; or that I am his Son, by a
special instance of favour, in such a sense as a creature may be; but
far be it from me to give you the least occasion to think that I am
equal with God, for that would be to rob him of his glory: but we find
that our Saviour is far from denying his equality with the Father, but
rather establishes and proves it in the following verses.
It is true, indeed, in some passages thereof, he ascribes to himself the
weakness of a man, as having therein respect to his human nature, which
is included in his being the Messiah and Mediator, as well as his
divine: thus he says, ver. 19. _The Son_, _viz._ as man, _can do nothing
of himself_; and ver. 20. _The Father sheweth him all things_; but, in
other passages, he proves that he had a divine nature, and farther
confirms what he had before asserted, namely, that he was equal with
God; in ver. 21. _For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth
them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will._ Observe, he not only
speaks of himself, as having divine power, but sovereignty; the former
in that he quickeneth; the latter, in that he does it according to his
own will or pleasure; and, in ver. 23. he signifies his expectation from
men, that _all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the
Father_. Thus he lays claim to divine glory, as well as ascribes to
himself the prerogative of raising the whole world, at the general
resurrection, and determining their state, either of happiness or
misery, ver. 28, 29. _Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation._ From hence,
therefore, we may conclude, that our Saviour was so far from disclaiming
the charge of being equal with God, which they called blasphemy, that he
proves it by arguments yet more convincing.
Another conference, which he held with the Jews about this matter, we
read of in John viii. wherein, taking occasion to speak concerning
Abraham, who rejoiced to see his day, he tells them plainly, ver. 58.
_Before Abraham was, I am_; not intending hereby, as the Arians suppose,
that he was the first creature, but that he was equal with God; and,
indeed, there seems to be something in his mode of speaking that argues
his asserting his eternal and unchangeable Deity. The phrase here used
is the same, with a little variation, with that which is used to set
forth the eternity and immutability of God, in Isa. xliii. 13. _Before
the day was, I am he._ If the prophet is to be understood, as asserting
that God the Father existed before time, before the _day_ was, or the
course of nature began, why may we not suppose our Saviour to intend as
much, when he says, _Before Abraham was, I am_.
However, since it will be objected, that this, at best, is but a
probable argument, though it is such as many of the Fathers have made
use of in defending his Deity, yet we will not lay the whole stress of
our cause upon it, but may observe, that whatever critical remark others
may make on the sense of the words, it is certain the Jews understood
them no otherwise, than as implying, that he thought himself equal with
God; therefore it is said, ver. 59. that _they took up stones to stone
him_; which was a punishment inflicted, under the law, on blasphemers;
and ought he not, had they misunderstood his words, to have cleared
himself from this imputation, if he had not been equal with God? But he
is far from doing this; for it is said, in the following words, that _he
hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of
them, and so passed by_.
Again, there is another conference, which he held with the Jews,
mentioned in John x. in which he speaks like a divine Person in several
verses; as ver. 14. _I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am
known of mine_; which is the same that is ascribed to God, in Psal.
xxiii. 1. _The Lord is my Shepherd_; and he lays claim to his church,
whom he calls his sheep, as his own; and ver. 18. he speaks of himself,
as having a power over his own life; _I have power to lay it down, and I
have power to take it again_; which is a greater instance of dominion
than belongs to a creature, who has not a power to dispose of his own
life at pleasure; and, in ver. 28. he ascends yet higher in his
expression, when he speaks of himself, as having a power _to give
eternal life_ to his people, which is certainly the gift of none but
God; and when, in ver. 29. he owns himself to be inferior to his Father,
as man; notwithstanding, in ver. 30. he plainly asserts his Deity, when
he says, _I and my Father are one_.
_Object._ 1. The Anti-trinitarians object to this, that Christ did not
speak of himself as one with the Father, any otherwise than in consent,
or, at least, as having power and authority derived from him.
_Answ._ To say that those words, _I and my Father are one_, imply
nothing more than that they are One in consent, does not well agree with
the sense of the foregoing words, in which he speaks of the greatness,
and the power of his Father, and in this of his being One with him.
Besides, had he only meant his being One with him in consent, as
implying the subjection of all the powers and faculties of his soul to
him, that is a sense in which every good man may be said to be one with
God; therefore the Jews would not have charged him with blasphemy for
it, which, it is plain, they did, and took up stones to stone him, if
his own words had not given them ground to conclude that he intended
more than this, namely, that he was one in nature with God. It is
therefore farther objected,
_Object._ 2. That the Jews, indeed, misunderstood him, and nothing can
be inferred from their stupidity, to prove his Deity: but he seems, in
the following verses, to do more to the undeceiving them, than he had
done in some of the foregoing instances; for he tells them plainly the
reason why he spake of himself as a God, namely, because he was a
prophet; and these were called _gods, to whom the word of God came_, or,
at least, that he had a right to be so called, from his being
_sanctified, and sent into the world_.
_Answ._ By these expressions, he does not intend to set himself upon a
level with the prophets of old, but they contain an argument from the
less to the greater; and so it is, as though he should say, If some
persons, who made a considerable figure in the church of old, and were
sent about important services to them, are called gods, I have much more
reason to claim that character, as having been sanctified, and sent into
the world about the great work of redemption, consecrated, or set apart
to glorify the divine perfections therein; which work, as will be
observed under a following head, proves his Deity; and therefore we are
not to suppose that he disclaims it, when he speaks of himself, as
engaged therein. Then he proceeds yet farther, in asserting his Deity,
when he speaks of his _being in the Father, and the Father in him_,
which, it is certain, the Jews took in a very different sense from what
those words are taken in, when applied to creatures, for they concluded,
that he spake of himself as a divine Person; for it follows, ver. 39.
that _they sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hand_;
so that he still gives them occasion to conclude, that he was God equal
with the Father.
Thus he asserted his Deity in all these various conferrences with the
Jews; in which, if he had not been what they apprehended him to
insinuate that he was, many charges must have been brought against him;
not only as to what concerns matters of common prudence, as incensing
the people by ambiguous expressions, and thereby hazarding his own life;
but his holiness would have been called in question, had he given
occasion to them, to think that he assumed to himself divine glory, had
he not had a right to it.[141]
And this leads us to consider that last public testimony, which he gave
to his Deity, in the presence of the Sanhedrim, which, in some respects,
may be said to have cost him his life, when he stood before Pontius
Pilate; upon which occasion, the apostle says, 1 Tim. vi. 13. that _he
witnessed a good confession_: this we have recorded, Matth. xxvi. 61.
where we observe, that when false witnesses were suborned to testify
against him, who contradicted one another, in their evidence, upon which
the high priest desired that he would make a reply to what they said, in
his own defence, he did not think that worthy of an answer, and
therefore held his peace: but when he was asked, in the most solemn
manner, and adjured by the living God, to tell them, _Whether he were
the Christ, the Son of God_? that is, the Messiah, whom the Jews
expected, who governed his church of old, and whom they acknowledged to
be a divine Person, or the Son of God; here the whole matter is left to
his own determination. Had he denied this, he would have saved his life;
and if he confessed it, he was like to die for it. On this occasion, he
does not hold his peace, or refuse to answer; therefore, says he, ver.
64. _Thou hast said_; which is as though he had said, It is as thou hast
said, I am the Christ, the Son of God; and then in the following words,
_Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man,
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven_;
whereupon the high priest rent his clothes, and appealed to the people
that they had heard his blasphemy, and accordingly they judged him
worthy of death. Here we observe, that he not only asserts himself to be
the Son of God, and to have a right to the glory of a divine Person,
but, as a farther confirmation thereof, applies to himself a text, which
the Jews, supposed to belong to the messiah, Dan. vii. 13. _I saw in the
night-visions, and behold, one, like the Son of man, came with the
clouds of heaven_, &c. So that, from all this, it follows, that if
Christ, when he conversed occasionally with the Jews, or when he was
called before the Sanhedrim, asserts himself to be the Son of God, which
includes in it his Deity, and so does not shun to speak of himself, as
equal with God, we have the doctrine, which we are defending, maintained
by himself; therefore we must conclude, that he really is what he
declared himself to be, namely, God equal with the Father.
II. We proceed to consider how our Saviour’s Deity appears, from those
divine attributes, which are ascribed to him, which are proper to God
alone; to which we shall add, those high and glorious titles, by which
he is described in scripture. The attributes of God, as has been before
observed[142], are all essential to him, and therefore cannot, in a
proper sense, be any of them, applied to a creature, as they are to
Christ, which will be particularly considered in some following heads.
1. He is said to be eternal, and that not only without end, as the
angels and saints in heaven shall be, but from everlasting: this appears
from Micah v. 2. _Whose goings forth have been from of old, from
everlasting._ If his goings forth have been from everlasting, then he
existed from everlasting, for action supposes existence. Nothing more
than this can be said, to prove that the Father was from everlasting:
and that this is spoken of our Saviour is very plain, from the reference
to this text, in Matth. ii. 6. where the former part of this verse is
quoted and explained, as signifying our Saviour’s being born in
Bethlehem; therefore the latter part of it, _whose goings forth_, &c.
must belong to him. Again, he is said, in John i. 1. to have been _in
the beginning_; observe, it is not said he was _from_ but _in_, the
beginning; therefore it is plain, that he existed when all things began
to be, and consequently was from eternity.
When we consider this divine perfection as belonging to our Saviour, we
militate against both the Socinians and the Arians; as for the former,
they deny, that he had any existence, properly speaking, before his
conception in the womb of the virgin Mary, and interpret all those
scriptures that speak of his pre-existence to it, such as that in John
viii. 58. _Before Abraham was, I am_, or that _the Word was in the
beginning_, as importing either, that he was from eternity, in the
decree and purpose of God, relating to his incarnation, in which sense
every thing that comes to pass was eternal, as fore-ordained by God,
which is therefore a very absurd exposition of such-like texts; or else
they suppose, that his being in the beginning signifies nothing else but
his being the Founder of the gospel-state, which cannot be the sense of
the evangelist’s words, because he is said _to be with God_; and it
immediately follows, _and all things were made by him_, which every
unprejudiced reader would suppose to intend the creation of the world,
and not the erecting the gospel-dispensation; this therefore evidently
appears to be a perversion of the sense of the text.
As for the Arians, they distinguish between Christ’s being in the
beginning of time, and his being from eternity; and so they suppose the
meaning of the text to be, that _the Word was from the beginning_; and
whatever disguise they seem to put upon their mode of speaking, when
they say there was not a point of time in which Christ was not, or that
he was before the world, they are far from asserting that he was without
beginning, or properly from eternity. And, in answer hereunto, let it be
considered, that we cannot conceive of any medium between time and
eternity; therefore whatever was before time, must be from eternity, in
the same sense in which God is eternal. That this may appear, let us
consider that time is the measure of finite beings, therefore it is very
absurd, and little less than a contradiction, to say that there was any
finite being produced before time; for that is, in effect, to assert
that a limited duration is antecedent to that measure, whereby it is
determined, or limited. If we should allow that there might have been
some things created before God began to create the heavens and the
earth, though these things might be said to have had a being longer than
time has had, yet they could not have existed before time, for time
would have begun with them; therefore if Christ had been created a
thousand millions of ages before the world, it could not be said that he
existed before time; but it would be inferred from hence, that time,
which would have taken its beginning from his existence, had continued
so many ages; therefore that which existed before time, must have
existed before all finite beings, and consequently was not produced out
of nothing, or did not begin to be, and is properly from eternity.
Therefore I cannot but think the objection evasive, or a fruitless
attempt to take off the force of this argument, to prove our Saviour’s
Deity, since the expressions of scripture, by which his eternity is set
forth, are as strong and emphatical, as those whereby the Father’s is
expressed, and consequently his Deity is equally evident.