In this character does he reveal mimself, as illustrating the right that he had to say to Nicodemus; We Speak that we do know, and teftify that we have feen, ver. 11. As the only-begotten, he knew all that he teftified by perfect vifion of the nature and purposes of the Father. He had already declared that he came down from beaven, ver. 13. and to fhew that he was chargeable with no prefumption in this declaration, he proclaims his eternal Sonfhip. When he speaks to Nicodemus of telling him of heavenly things, he at the fame time informs him that he alone was qualified to do so, because of his defcent from heaven. Having declared what muft have appeared a paradox to this ruler, that the Son of man, even while he fpake to him, was in heaven; he fhews that this was true of that Person who appeared to the eye of fense merely as the Son of man, because he was also the only-begotten Son of God, ver. 13. 16. Nothing can be more evident, than that what our Lord fays concerning God's fending his Son into the world, ver. 17. must be understood as fignifying that he indeed came down from heaven, ver. 11. otherwife, the whole dif courfe is a mass of abfurdity.

To the fame purpose, the beloved difciple defcribes him as the only-begottten who is in the bofom of the Father, John i. 18. This denotes not only the infinite love of the Father to the Son, but unity of effence. There is an evident allufion to the love of a father to his own child: and thus Wisdom fays, I was by bim, as one brought up, Prov. viii. 30. His being in the bofom of the Father is clearly mentioned as the evidence of his filiation. The allufion is undoubtedly to earthly things. Now, no one will fay, that a man becomes a Father, by carrying a child in his bosom; but will reverse the matter, concluding, from this peculiar evidence of love, that the child is really his. Especially were it said, “There is the fon in the bofom of the fa

* Vid. Lampe in loc.

"ther;

"ther;" would any one doubt that the mode of expreffion prefuppofed paternity? According to the language of infpiration, the Son must, in the order of nature, be viewed as begotten, and the first person of the Trinity as a Father, before the former be confidered as in the bofom of the latter. The glory, therefore, that the difciples bebeld, wa that of the only-begotten of the Father, who had existed from eternity with God, being himfelf God. He is fo begotten, as to be opposed to all the adopted fons of God, who derive all their privilege from him, by believing in bis Name, as the only-begotten Son of God †.

Many are the cavils of Socinians against this fense of the expreffion; fome afferting that Chrift is called the only-begotten, because of his miraculous conception; others because of his refurrection; fome confining it to the Father's great love to him; and others, to that glory to which he is advanced as King of Zion. While one writer pleases himfelf with one of these views, another finds it neceffary to clafs them altogether, that variety may, if poffible, fupply the want of folidity. But as Dr P. feems carefully to avoid giving any particular view of this appellation, it is unneceffary to trouble the reader with replies to objections, in which the Doctor may refuse that he has any

concern.

CHA P. IV.

Of the Faith of the Difciples concerning the Sonship of Jesus, during his Abode on Earth.

WE

WE are now to inquire, in what sense the difciples understood this character, while Jefus was with them

as to his human nature.

The

Ver. 14. compared with ver. 1.

Chap. i. 12. 14. iii. 18.

The teftimony given by Peter deferves our particular attention, as it expreffes the faith of the twelve: We be lieve, and are fure, that thou art that Chrift, the Son of the living God, John vi. 69. He acknowledges that Jefus is the Son of God in fo peculiar a fenfe, that he effentially poffeffes all that life which belongs to the Father. For this confeffion tmaft be viewed in connection with what the apostle had faid immediately before; Thou baft the words of eternal life, ver. 68. He does not mean that Jefus merely declared the doctrine of eternal life, or gave such instructions as were neceffary for attaining it; but that he had power to communicate this life by the words which he fpake: For his language evidently reduplicates on the testimony which our Lord had given concerning himself, ver. 63. The words that I speak unto you, they are-life. How were they life? Because he that believeth on the Son bath everlasting life, ver. 47. or, as he expreffes the fame truth metaphorically; He that eateth me, even be shall live by me, ver. 57.

From the frequent connection of these terms, the Chrift, and the Son of God, it has been urged that they are perfectly fynonymous. But certainly, it would be far more natural to infer from this circumstance, that the latter denotes some peculiar excellency, which although supposed by the former, is not expreffed by it. If they be fynonymous, they are extremely ill difpofed. For if that expreffion, the Son of God, in its highest sense be applicable to a creature; Peter ought to have faid, "We are fure that thou "art that Son of God, the Chrift." For according to the Socinian hypothefis, that character the Son of God, was far more general than the other, and more likely to be understood in the ordinary fenfe. The Jews often used it as applicable to every individual of their nation; whereas they confined the term Chrift to those who were anointed to the

office of priesthood or of royalty. However, as Peter expreffes himself, it must appear to every candid reader, that he meant to define the sense affixed to the first character, that Chrift, by the fecond, that Son of God.

He firft declares that Jefus is the Chrift, being convin ced that he was that illuftrious Perfon pointed out by the prophets as the Lord's anointed to the work of falvation. With this he conjoins his other character, because no one was to be the anointed of JEHOVAH, but he to whom he had faid, Thou art my Son; this day bave I begotten the, Pf. ii. 2. 7. As he is denominated that Chrift, to disti guish him from all the anointed prophets, priests and kings, who prefigured him: so that Son, to diftinguish from believers, whom he makes fons by adoption; from all the Jews, who, becaufe of their lawful descent from Abraham, faid that God was their father, John viii. 41. and to whom, in a national refpect, belonged the adoption; from angels, who, by creation, are the fons of God; and from those rulers who received this name in a typical sense

If Peter meant only that Jefus was the Meffiah, his confeffion did not furpass that of the carnal Jews, with whom our Saviour had the preceding difcourfe. For they faid, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world, ver. 14. As an evidence of their perfuafion that he was the Meffiah, they would have come and taken bim by force to make him a king, ver. 15. Is it faid, that they feem to have changed their ideas, when Chrift more fully declared his doctrine? It is granted. But what doctrine gave them fuch offence? Was it not that of his divinity? Did they forfake him as unworthy to be acknowledged as the Meffiah? It was on the very fame ground on which pretended Unitarians would have proceeded. To these unbeHieving Jews it was an hard and indigeftible faying, that he came down from heaven. We are, indeed, to understand the

1:

teftimony of the twelve, in connexion with the tenor of the preceding discourse. It was a voluntary confession, arifing from the defign of our Saviour's doctrine: and it has no beauty nor propriety, unless viewed in this relation. When they declare their affurance that he was that Chrift, that Son of the living God, it directly refpects what Jefus had again and again teftified concerning himself, that he was that bread which came down from heaven, ver. 32, 33. 50, 51. 58. and therefore the antitype of the manna; and without any metaphor, that he came down from heaven, ver. 38. and that he was there before, ver. 62. He who denies that this is the sense, while he means to facrifice to reason, really makes a facrifice of it.

This noble confeffion was again made by the same Apoftle, in reply to that question, proposed by Jefus to his difciples; Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? Mat. xvi. 13. 16. The ufe of Tua, rendered whom, fhews that Jefus inquires as to their opinion of his Perfon and effence. They evidently understand it thus. For, although their answer implies that Jefus was not generally supposed to be more than a prophet, it is evident that it does not especially respect the fentiments of the multitude with regard to his office, but their various ideas as to the fpecification of the Perfon: Some fay, John the Baptift, fome Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets, ver. 14. Then he demands their own fentiments: But whom fay ye that I am? We cannot imagine that our Lord wished to know if they fimply believed that he was the Meffiah. His former words may be viewed, either, according to our version, as one queftion; or, according to the punctuation of fome copies, as two; Whom do men say that I am? The Son of man? that is, “Is this what they say?" But which soever of these be preferred, it is evident that the disciples contraft this character, the Son of God, with that of Jesus con VOL. I. fidered

E e