420 QUESTIONS CONCERNING JESUS. very answer to their accusation, he represents himself inferior to and dependent on God the Father. Now let us look into the other text where our Saviour is thus accused, and defends himself, viz. John x. 30-39. He saith, I and my Father are one.' 31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32. Jesus answered them, many good: works have I showed you from my Father ; for which of these works do ye stone íne ? 33. The Jews answered him, say- ing, for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man makest thyself God. 34. Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods ? 35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken : 36. Say ye of him, whom the Father bath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest ; because I said I am the Son of God. In which portion of scripture we may observe these three things : 1. That Christ doth neither plainly and expressly own nor deny himself here to be the true God, for this was not a proper time to satisfy the curiosity of the malicious Jews in such a sub- lime doctrine, in which he had not as yet clearly and fully in- structed his own disciples. Yet, 2. He gives several hints of his godhead, or his being one with the Father, when he says, I andmy Father are one ; and when he says; ver. 38. I do the works of my Father, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him ; by which he secretly intimated that the man Jesus had also a divine nature in him, and was personally united to God, though he did not think fit to preach his own godhead plainly at that time. And indeed if he liad not been the true God, and in that sense one with the Father, we may justly suppose, that he would upon this occasion have denied himself to be the true God, and thus roundly renounced the conclusion itself which they pretended to draw from his words, as well as be did deny the justness of their consequence, from his calling himself the Son of God. And therefore since he did not renounce the con- clusion, we may reasonably infer that lie was the true God : But since he does deny the justness of their consequence, we may as reasonably infer that his mere calling himself the Son of God, does not prove nor include his godhead : which appears plainer under the next particular. I say therefore, 3. The chief design of his answer, was to refute the calumny of the Jews, and the weakness of their inference,. by shewing that the name Son of God, Both not necessarily signify one equal to God ; but that the necessarysense of it here can rise no higher than to denote one who was nearer to the Father, and was sane- tided, sealed, and sent by the Father in a way superior to all
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=