QUESTION I. 42I' former prophets, kings.and magistrates, to whom the word of God came, and who, partly on this account, might becalled gods. Prophets or kings, judges or doctorsof the law were called gods, and children or suns of the Most High, in Psal. lxxxii. 6. and in other places of scripture, because they came from God, they were commissioned by God, and carried with them some . representation of thewisdom, power, authority, and dominion of God in the sight of men. Now our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the great prophet, judge, doctor or teacher, and king of his church, came forth fromGod in heaven, in a literal and more eminent manner, was sent by him into this world with a higher commission, and represented more of the wisdom, power, and dominion of God than any former kings or prophets ever did ; and if they upon thisaccount were dignified with the name or title of gods, or sons pf God, much more right has the Mes- siah, to this name or title. The argument which our Lord uses is a minori ad majus; he puts the reason of his more unquestionable and superior right to this title, upon the superiority of his character and mission, or his more immediate commission from the Father. His words might be paraphrased thus : They who were originally in and of this world were made prophets, teachers or kings, merely by the word of God coming to them, and giving them commission, either by the ordinary directions of the written word, or, at best, they received their authority from the word of God coming to them* by some voice or vision, some divine message or inspi- ration, and yet they had the title ofgods given them. There- fore the Messiah who was not originally of this world, but was with the Father, who was sanctified, that is, anointed with the Spirit, or set apart by God himself, who came forth from the Father in heaven, and was sent immediately by the Father into this world, may surely be called the Son of God without danger of blasphemy. If they are called gods, the Messiah may well be called the Son of God. And he confirms the argument thus : The scripture cannot be broken, a ávralas rvOaya,, cannot be contradicted. As he who acts contrary to a precept is said to break it, hum ; see Mat. v. 19. John v. 18. and vii. 23. So be who contradicts an assertion of scripture isproperly said %.oss, to break it. Therefore, since the scripture which cannot be contradicted, calls those ancient * Oar Lord knew that he himself was the divine Logos or word of God, and it is likely that he used these words, To &tom the word of God came, with this view and meaning in his own mind ; u Surely if those are called gods, to whom the divine Logos or Word made a visit from the Father, the divine Logos himself who came from the Father maybe well called the Son of God without blasphe- my." But he did not think fit to express himself no plainly to the Jews at that time, though he has left it upon record in his instruction. e gospel for our ebmecvatiop and iod3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=