Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

$

LECTURE II.

JOHN i. 18.

No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

IN the fourteenth verse of this chapter the Evangelist declares, that he and his fellow-disciples had beholden the glory of the incarnate Word, as of the only-begotten of the Father; and here he terms him the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. Is it to be believed, that St. John would have repeated and enforced so remarkable an expression, if he had not wished to convey to his readers a notion, that Christ was the Son of God, in a sense entirely different from, and superior to that, in which the angels, and prophets, and holy men of old, were called sons of God? Christians are confessedly the children of God by adoption and grace; which is more than can be said of any

man under the old covenant; yet how different is the language in which the Evangelist speaks of them, from that in which he describes our Saviour! To as many as received him, gave he power to become sons (or children) of God. But Christ is called the only-begotten Son; i. e. the Son, by a mode of generation peculiar to himself; and therefore not in the same manner in which any other being whatever could be called the Son of God. The Unitarians indeed pretend, that the word, as used by St. John, means nothing more than dearly beloved: but even if we admit this interpretation to be true (which, however, has been again and again refuted*), still it implies the highest possible degree of affection, such as a father feels towards his only son and even in this case we shall be compelled to acknowledge, that Christ is the -object of a peculiar and unparalleled divine love,t and is the Son of God in a sense exclusively belonging to himself.

No man, says the Evangelist, hath seen God at any time, i. e. hath had a perfect compre

*See "A Vindication of the First Two Chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, by a Layman," p. 228.

+ See Dr. John Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. ii. p. 533.

*

hension of his nature and attributes. We may conjecture his power, and wisdom, and goodness, from the works of creation: but to know him, to have a certain acquaintance with divine things, and especially with the secrets of his moral government of the world, is what no man can boast of. Yet this knowledge, to such an extent, as is proportioned to the faculties of the human mind, has been revealed to us by the Son of God, who was always, to use an image expressive of perfect familiarity, in the bosom of his Father; and knew his most intimate counsels; and was therefore able to impart to us that enlarged and just knowledge of God, which neither Moses, nor any of the prophets possessed. Is it credible, that the Evangelist could have said of a mere man, that he was in the bosom of God the Father? Surely such an expression would be little short of impious. Let us put the following case to a Unitarian, who maintains that the simple humanity of Jesus Christ is the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*The original words should probably be translated, who WAS in the bosom of the Father. So in iii. 13, No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven, rather, which was in heaven. The original in both instances is the present participle being. This is the interpretation of the best com

mentators.

plain undeniable doctrine of the New Testa

ment:

[ocr errors]

Suppose that the Gospel had been recently published to the world; and that a diversity of opinions had begun to prevail amongst those who had embraced it, relating to the person and office of Jesus Christ. His favourite disciple, who must naturally be desirous that correct notions should be entertained upon this point, knowing that men's opinions are divided, applies himself to record certain incidents of his Master's life, and certain of his discourses, which may throw some light upon the points in dispute. If he is convinced that Jesus, although an inspired prophet, was no more than a man, he will take care to avoid all ambiguous expressions, which may be construed into an assertion of his divinity.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Now St. John was precisely in that predica, ment; he knew that erroneous opinions were abroad concerning the nature of Christ; for he says in his first Epistle, Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.* Yet how does he begin his account of Jesus Christ? Does he speak of him as a highly

* 1 John ii. 22.

[ocr errors]

gifted and divinely commissioned man? No; he seems to take all possible care to exclude the supposition. He says of John the Baptist (whom our Lord pronounced to be more than a prophet), that he was a man sent from God; but of Christ he declares, in unqualified terms, that he was in the beginning; that he was with God; that he was the only-begotten Son; in the bosom of the Father; that he was God; that he was the Creator of all things, himself uncreate; that he is the source of life, and the light of men; that he was made flesh (which implies that he had borne a spiritual nature before); and that John the Baptist, although older than Jesus, declared that Jesus was preferred before him, for he wAS before him;* i. e. existed before him: an expression which would be well understood by the Jews, who entertained a notion of the preexistence of their expected Messiah.t. Would

*The Unitarian Version says, " for he is my principal." It would hardly edify the class of readers for whom these Lectures are intended, if I were to enter upon a verbal criticism, and show, as others have done before, that this interpretation is wholly unjustifiable.

†The following expression occurs in an ancient Jewish commentary on Gen. xlix. 2. "It is written (Gen. i. 2.) The Spirit of God brooded on the waters. That Spirit is the Spirit of Messiah the King."

« AnteriorContinuar »