I

up the ghoft, he faid, Truly this man was the Son of God, Mark xv. 39. As Jefus expired, while his natural strength was unabated, the Centurion seems to have concluded that his death was a voluntary act, and not the effect of his fufferings.

CHA P. III.

Of the Teftimony of Jefus himself, concerning his Sonship.

WE fhould now inquire, in what fenfe our Lord him

felf called God his Father, or claimed the relation of a Son. What belongs to this head has been in a great measure anticipated on the last. The gospel-history, however, affords various proofs of the meaning and extent of this claim, diftin&t from those already illustrated.

1. Jefus reprefents himself as a Son, and as beloved of the Father, before his miffion. Thus, in the parable of the vineyard, he says; Having yet therefore one Son, his wellbeloved, be fent him alfo unto them, Mark xii. 6. Parabolical history, indeed, does not, in all its circumftances, admit of a strict interpretation. But this is abfolutely neceffary with respect to those which conftitute the proper fubject of the parable. Now, as the subject of that referred to, is, the infinite love of God manifefted to his ancient people, notwithstanding their continued unworthinefs, in fending his Son to them; and the greatness of their guilt in rejecting him; unless it be understood that God had a Son, an only Son, who was the object of his love, and effentially his heir, before he was fent, there is not the least propriety in the parable. The diftinction between him and the fervants is loft. The great evidence of the love of the lord of the vineyard, in fending this one fon, his

well-beloved, disappears. We can perceive no just reason for afcribing to God, after the manner of man, a rational ground of hope, that the husbandmen would reverence this last messenger, notwithstanding their rejection of all who preceded him. In a word, if the Son be not effentially fuperior to all the other meflengers, that confideration, which the parable feems defigned to point out, as conftituting the great guilt of these husbandmen, and as expofing them to divine vengeance more than any thing they had formerly done, is found to be a mere illufion.

2. He reveals himfelf as a Son incomprehenfible to all creatures. No one knoweth the Son but ibe Father, Mat. xi. 27. Did we confider thefe words as respecting the degree of knowledge, they would illuftrate the imperfection of that of the most eminent faints. But they especially refer to the kind of knowledge. Paul, much as he knew of the love of Chrift, declares that it paffeth knowledge, Eph. iii. 19. Our Saviour's language also particularly denotes the incomprehenfibleness of the object. Therefore it is thus expreffed in Luke, No one knoweth WHO the Son is, but the Father, chap. x. 22. His effence is a mystery to every creature. His mode of fubfiftence, as the Son, is equally a mystery. Had he been merely Jefus the fon of Mary, or had he been the fon of Jofeph, as many perfuade themfelves; would not his prefumption have been unparalleled, in speaking in this manner?

3. Our Lord declares that he is a Son who perfectly "knows the nature of the Father. No one knoweth the Father, fave the Son, Mat. xi. 27. This may be viewed in connection with what is faid, John i. 18. No one bath feen God at any time: the only begotten-bath declared him, or, bath afted the part of an interpreter. Thefe expreffions, as well as that already confidered, refpect, not merely the degree, but the very nature of the knowledge. The lan

guage

guage excludes all creatures, angels as well as men. They may have fome imperfect ideas of the Father. But adus no one, no creature of any order, bath feen God. All others know him by reflection from his works, or by revelation. The Son alone knows him by intuition; being intimately acquainted with his nature, perfections, purposes and operations. Whatever just apprehenfions we have of the Father, are from the Son: No one knoweth the Father, fave be to whomfoever the Son will reveal him. Our Saviour's language does not merely deny a perfect knowledge of the Father, but any true knowledge of him, except in this way; especially as it is recorded by Luke, No one knoweth WHO the Father is, &c. chap. x. 22. We have the fame declaration elsewhere; Not that any one bath feen the Father, fave he who is of God, that is, by eternal generation, be bath feen the Father, John vi. 46. Our Lord does not merely affert, that he knows the Father in a way different from that of every other, but that he knows him as perfectly as he is known by the Father: As the Father knoweth me, even fo know I the Father, John x. 15. In what manner foever the Father knows the Son, these words, as well as those formerly mentioned, neceffarily imply that in the felf-fame manner the Son knows the Father. Otherwife our Lord hath expreffed himself fo as to expofe his difciples to the most dangerous error. Indeed, this perfect knowledge of the Father is mentioned by Jefus as the foundation and evidence of his perfect knowledge of his sheep, ver. 14. How could he know who were the objects of the Father's eternal love, how could he diftinguish them in all places whither they were scattered, and gather them in all their fucceffive generations, especially as they constitute a multitude which no man can number, unless he perfectly knew the Father; or, in other words, unless his knowledge were infinite? If, then, Jefus declared that there was VOL. I. Са

fo

before the Sanhedrim, according to the more circumstantial narrative of Luke. From the latter we learn, that what is thrown together by the two first Evangelifts, was the fubject of two diftin&t interrogations. It would appear that the firft fimply was, Art thou the Chrift! Luke xxii. 67. To this Jefus replied, If I tell you, you will not believe. And if I also ask you, you will not anfwer me. However, as he acknowledged the obligation of the oath, he added; Hereafter fhall the Son of man fit on the right band of Power; or, as these words are more fully expreffed elsewhere, Hereafter fball ye fee, &c. They could not but understand this as a declaration of his being the Meffiah. For both ancient and modern Jews apply that character, the Son of man, and the paffage in Daniel to which our Lord refers, to the Meffiah *. Although he acknowledged that he was the Chrift, and appropriated to himself these honours which were foretold as belonging to him, they did not yet proceed to charge him with blafphemy. They confider all this merely as prefumptive evidence, and wish for something more direct as to the full extent of his pretenfions. Therefore, then faid they all, Art thou then the Son of God? If they confidered this expreffion as of the fame meaning with the other, the question was abfurd. For he had already acknowledged that he was the Son of man, that is, the Chrift. But they feem to understand it very differently. For as foon as he acknowledged that he was the Son of God, they unanimoufly found him guilty of blafphemy. Thus, there feems to be no good reason to doubt that the Jews affixed an idea of dignity to this defignation, which did not, in their apprehenfion, belong to either of the former.

There is something very fingular in their change of the term. They do not say, Art thou then the Chrift, or the Son

* Zohar in Gen. Bemidbar, &c. See Gill on the place. Chizzonk Emounah, Par. 1. cap. 41.

1

Son of man? which would have been most natural, had all the phrases been fynonymous; but, Art thou then the Son of God? As he claimed fuch fignal honours, they wished to know if he claimed them as a divine person.

If the Jews called it blafphemy to pretend to be the "Chrift," why did they never exhibit this charge against Jefus, when he claimed this character, without the other? Why did they ordain that those fhould be only put out of the fynagogue, who should confefs that he was the Chrift? John ix. 22. Why did they not call fuch a confeffion blafphemy? Why did not the Scribes and Pharifees in this manner take advantage of Jefus calling himself the Chrift, when he provoked their rage by expofing their wickednefs? Mat. xxiii. 8. 10. Why did they not charge the apostles with this crime? For if it was blafphemy to pretend to be the Chrift, it must have been blafphemy to acknowledge a pretender in this character.

If any additional evidence be reckoned neceffary, we are supplied with it in the account given of our Lord's arraignment at the bar of Pilate. The Jews, fuppofing, perhaps, that a heathen would pay no regard to a charge of blasphemy, accufed Jesus of fedition, in saying that he was bimfelf Cbrift a king. But Pilate acquitted him: Ye bave brought, he says, this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and bebold, I, having examined him before you, bave found no fault in this man, touching thofe things whereof ye accufe him, Luke xxiii. 2. 14. This account corresponds with what we have in the Gospel of John, chap. xviii. 29.-40. But, in the following chapter, he adds what had been omitted by the other Evangelifts. After Pilate, upon a fecond examination, had acquitted Jefus, his enemies found it neceffary to disclose that accufation, on the ground of which they had themfelves already condemned him. We have a law, fay they, and by our law he ought to die,

because