Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

be fairly implied in many fcrip- | original dignity of his nature, the paffage would be a tautology. That the word Meffiah in the Hebrew, is of the fame import with Chrift in the Greek, is clear from John i. 41. "We have found the Meffiah, which is, being interpreted, the Chrift." But if we confider the term Son of God, as expreffing only the Meffiah's office, without any reference to the original dignity of his nature, will it not follow that when Paul preached Christ in the fynagogue, that he is the Son of God, it only meant that he preached that Chrift was Chrift, or the Meffiah was the Meffiah ? And Peter's important confeffion, "Thou art Chrift the Son of the living God," will be no more than telling that Chrift was Chrift. And the difciples' profeffion of faith, "We believe and are fure, that thou art Chrift, the Son of the living God," will be only saying, thou art Chrift the Chrift. Such unmeaning tautologies must not be charged upon infpiration. But if we understand the term, Son of the living God, as pointing out the divine, original digni

tures of the old teftament, particularly in fuch as follow. Prov. viii. 22, 23. "The Lord poffeffed me in the beginning of his ways; before his works of old. I was fet up from everlasting, from the beginbefore ever the earth was.' ning, According to the well known idiom of the Hebrew language, the words rendered poffeffed, and bro't forth, plainly imply generation. That this is eternal is farther manifeft from Ifai. liii. 8. "Who fhall declare his generation." And Mic. v. 2. "Whofe goings forth have been from old, from everlafting." Pointing not barely to fimple existence, but to the date of his Sonfhip. It seems therefore plain, that the name and ti tle Son of God, Only begotten Son, &c. are terms used, not fo much to point to the Meffiah's office, as to exprefs the divine dignity of him who was invefted with it, and who humbled himself that he might become the author of eternal falvation, to all them that obey him. He was not called the Son of God because he was the Meffiah; but because he was the Son of God, he was eve-ty of the perfon or character, who ry way qualified to bear the is, by divine conftitution, appointweight of that office. ed to the office of the Meffiah; or Chrift, the anointed; according to the literal and natural fignification of the term, in all languages, then the phrases are not only vaftly important, but very plain and intelligible.

Chrift's Sonship is alfo diftinguished from his office, and declared to be prior to it, in fuch paffages as thefe: Speaking of his Father, Chrift fays, John v. 29. "I know him, for I am from him, and he hath fent me." Be- In this fenfe it is abundantly ing from the Father by an eter- evident the Jews understood the nal generation, is diftinguifhed term, John v. 18. "Therefore from his being fent which relates the Jews fought the more to kill to his office. Several places might him, because he, not only had also be mentioned in which, if we broken the Sabbath, but said also understand the term, Son of God, that God was his father, making either of Christ's inferior nature, himself equal with God." John or of his office, or as expreffingx. 30. "I and my father are one." any thing lower than the divine Ver. 33. "For a good work we VOL. III. No. 7.

M m

ftone thee not, but for blafphe- | right to divinity in the higheft

fenfe. Obferve, he founds his claim to be the Son of God upon three things.-I. Upon his fanc tification and fending into the

my, and because that thou being a man, makest thyfelf God." Had the Jews understood no more by this term, than merely his profeffing himself to be the Mef-world. Ver. 36. i. e. Upon the fiah, in a language which laid no fanctification of his human nature, claim to proper divinity, they could which was fitted for office by a have had no ground for a charge union with the divine.-2. Upon of blafphemy, if they had even his doing the works of the Fadifbelieved his pretenfions. Or, ther. Ver. 37.-3. Upon his beif their charge had been founded ing in the Father and the Father on a misapprehenfion of the fenfe in him. Ver. 38. A claim to a of the term, here was a fair op participation of Deity in the highportunity to rectify the mistake, eft fenfe. So far was this from by explaining the title, which he correcting any mistake which the claimed in its true fenfe. Or, Jews might be in about the mean. though it be granted that our ing of the title Son of God, that Lord did not, at all times, ex- he admits, in the fulleft manner, plain things to the Jews, in fuch that fenfe in which they undera manner as to correct their obvi- ftood him. ous miftakes, yet, is it not probable that he would have done in this, as he frequently did in fimilar cafes, i. e. explain the matter to his own difciples, who were, probably, in the fame miftake, if it was one. But fo far from retracting what he had advanced, or from infinuating that the Jews did not underftand him right, he goes on, farther, to vindicate the justice of his claim to be the Son of God, from his doing fuch works as afforded infallible proof of his real divinity; though the Jews were, hereby, more and more exafpera-fhows it to be a divine title, exted. And although in John x. preffing the effential dignity of 30, he reminds the Jews, that his nature, irrefpective of his they fometimes ufed the term in a office. lower fenfe, and from thence, urges the inconfiftency of their charge of blafphemy, feeing they had been accustomed to use the term God, and Son of God in a lower fenfe; yet when he comes to reafon from the lefs to the greater, and affert the juftice of his own claim to that title, he does it in language afferting his

It is farther worthy of notice, that Chrift's Sonfhip is always fuppofed, even where it has no refpect to his office. He is never faid to be made a Son. He is faid to be made a priest. Heb. v. 4. 5. 10. He is faid to be made Lord and Chrift. Acts ii. 36. He is alfo faid to be raised up as a Prophet, to be fet as a King upon the holy kill of Zion, and to be raised up as a Prince and a Saviour; but he is never faid to be made a Son. His fonfhip is always fuppofed, which, I think,

No time could be more proper to exhibit Chrift by a divine title, than when he is held up to view as being entitled to equal honor and obedience with the Father and Holy Spirit, as is the cafe when baptifm is adminiftered in his name. But here this is the title used. Matt. xxviii. 19. “Go and teach all nations, baptizing

them in the name of the Father; and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft."

the Meffiah, the Saviour of the world." After rejecting the feveral other fenfes, he prefers this as being the true meaning of the term, as it is generally used in the new teftament; for this rea

Farther, to fuppofe Chrift to be called the Son of God, on account of his being defignated to the office of the Meffiah, is, it ap-fon, that the doctrine of an eterpears to me, to affix a meaning to the title not warranted, either by the natural fenfe of the term, or the use of it in fcripture. It will, I believe, be a difficult task, to mention a fingle inftance, in which the title, Son of God, is used to point out an extraordinary office. Angels are called fons of God, because they derive their beings from him by immediate creation, and because, as holy beings, they bear his image, but they are never fo called, because they are appointed to important offices or miffions. Adam was called the fon of God, on account of his immediate creation, and believers are called fons of God, because they are fpiritually begotten of him, and because they are adopted into his family, and are made partakers of the heavenly inheritance, by virtue of their union with God's eternal Son; but minifters, or other office bearers in the church have never that title given them on account of their conftitution in office. But a fenfe, perhaps, a little different, is preferred by a late learned and pious author, whose praise is in the churches.* After naming feveral fenfes in which Chrift may be called the Son of God, he mentions this with approbation."The title Son of God is ufed, in order to point out that glorious perfon, who had, in general, fome fublime relation to 'God, and who was alfo to fuf14 tain the character and office of

[merged small][ocr errors]

nal Sonship, implying a fameness of nature in the divine effence, as fubfifting in Father and Son, was too deep and myfterious a doctrine, to be proposed to young difciples. But what this fublime relation to God is, which is something different from either creation, adoption, angelic likeness, or a famenefs of nature, we are left to guefs. The above mentioned worthy author has not told us, and fcripture, I apprehend, gives us no light. It is a fublime, unknown, undefined, fomething, none knows what. How this will help the matter, fo as to render that article of faith lefs myfterious, and better adapted to the capacities of young, difciples, I know not. Indeed I fee not what we can make of this glorious perfonage, who had, in general, fome fublime relation to God, unless it be the Arian notion of a fuper-angelic being, and fo ftrip the Saviour of real divinity. So that however friendly thofe who adopt this idea of the Sonship of Chrift, may be to the real underived divinity of the Saviour, it appears to me they lay themselves under great difadvantages, in defending that doctrine; for if it is but once conceded to an Arian or Socinian, that Chrift's Sonship refers only to his human nature, or is, at belt, but a mere title of office, not implying real divinity, it appears to me he will be able to prove by fuch irresistible arguments, as can neither be gainfayed nor withstood, that all thofe divine Names, Titles, Attributes

.

Works, and Worship, which are | Chrift. And it is probable, that,

in fcripture applied to Chrift, and have been introduced fo fuccefsfully in defence of the real, underived divinity of the Saviour, are applied to him as the Son of God, and viewed in the relation of a Son to the Father, and are in a manner fynonymous with that title. Confequently, if the title itself has no relation to any real divinity, other names and titles, given to him in the relation and capacity of a Son, can infer none, and must be explained in another fenfe, and Chrift will be à God and the great God, and everlasting Father, by office only, and not by nature, as well as a Son.

To this effay, already longer than I intended, I fhall add only this one remark more, viz. That errors, particularly with regard to the perfon of Chrift, began, at an early period, to infeft the church. The apostle Paul tells us that the mystery of iniquity had begun to work in his days. And the apostle John, who furwi ved him many years, doubtless saw more of it. That he faw much appears from his epiftles. An tient hiftorians, quoted by Dr. Whitby, Mr. Lowman and others, inform us that St. John wrote his gofpel, at the earneft defire of the bishops of Afia, with a fpecial view to obviate the early her. efies of Ebion and Cerinthus, who held our Lord to be a meré man, having no existence previous to his conception in the womb of the virgin. He on this account, fpeaks more particularly of his divine original. The other evangelifts, having previouffy written the feries 'of our Lord's generation according to the flesh, he fet himfelf to write a spiritual gofpel, beginning it with the divinity of

both in his gofpel and in his epiftles, which were written in extreme old age, and at periods not far diftant from each other, he had a particular view to these hereties, who, as they denied Chrift's real divinity, must confequently deny any divine Sonfhip. Now it is evident no one of the infpired writers fo frequently gives our Lord the title of the Son of God, The Son, by way of eminence, and God's only begotten Son, as this apoftle and evangelift. The oth er evangelifts more frequently call him the Son of Man, to point his relation to our nature. But the titles Son of God, &c. are darling phrafes with this apoftle; he ufes them more than fifty times in his writings. But, if thefe were names pointing out his human nature, or are merely titles of office, it did not well agree with his grand defign, (which was to exhibit the Meffiah in his divine original,) to abound with this peculiarity. But if the name and title be originally divine, nothing could better promote that defign than his fo frequent ufe of it. And his ufing this name in the fame connection, and as fynonymous with other titles unquestionably divine, puts it beyond all reasonable doubt, that this was his intention.

T..

Experiences of a pious Woman.

G

OD was pleased, in his ador

able fovereignty, to ftrive with me by his Holy Spirit from my earliest childhood, but how often did I grieve his Spirit, tho favored with every advantage of a religious nature; but how great was his mercy who did not leave me to myself, but made me to

feel the deep pollution of my na- | him to be glorious in his offices as ture, and that the thoughts of the a Prophet to instruct—as a Priestimagination of the heart was evil, to atone for my fins as a King only evil, and that continually; to rule and reign over me, and to and that the carnal mind is enmi- fubdue every thing within me ty against God, is not fubject to difpleafing to himself, and to enahis law neither can be while un- ble me to yield myself entirely to renewed; and those words found-him to work within me both to ed dreadful in my ears, " Ephraim will and to do of his own good is joined to idols let him alone." pleasure, and earnestly to cry to I faw that if God fhould caft me him for holinefs of heart. I was off forever, it would be juft. But at length enabled to take the bleffed be God who did not leave bond of the covenant upon me, me to despair of mercy, but ena- and to call God and the holy bled me to feek him in all the angels to witness, that I did then ways of his appointment, and ear- folemnly give myself to God the peftly to defire that he would Father as my God and Father, make my way plain with regard to God the Son as my Saviour to coming to the Lord's table; and Redeemer-to God the Hoand he was pleased to anfwer my ly Ghoft as my fanctifier, guide request, by putting it into the and comforter; and under an aheart of a dear friend to mention bafing fenfe of my utter inability her defire of joining herself to the to keep this covenant, these words church, and the wished I would came with power, "I am unalfo. I faid I would confider of derftanding, I am ftrength." But it-I had many times endeavored I have powerful enemies and my to give myself up to God in cov- heart is exceedingly deceitful: enant, but always feemed to fall this idea came to me, he is the fhort. captain of our falvation who was made perfect through fufferings I was enabled to enlist under his banner and truft him to work in me both to will and do his whole good pleafure. My foul was delighted with a view of the completeness-the all-fufficiency of this falvation, and I was calling upon my foul and all within me to praife him; well replied my heart, fuppofe he caft you off, muft I yet praise him? Yes-for if he fhould, he is juft, seeing I

I thought I would once more attempt it, and if I was enabled to. do it in private, I might then prefume to make a public profeffion. Accordingly I retired, and I truft was enabled to act this time more fincerely than ever before; but when I was endeavoring to give myfelf up, it came to my mind, "you have no faith, and without faith it is impoffible to pleafe God." It occurred to me, faith is the gift of God: It was alfo fuggefted, you have never repent-rejected his call and grieved his

ed of fin. Then thofe words came to mind, "Chrift is exalted a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance as well as remiffion of fin." I then faw that he was juft fuch a Saviour as my foul needed-every way fuited to my loft and undone condition. I faw

Spirit, and would not that he fhould reign over me. But ftill there remained a hope, that he would not caft me off, and I thought I fhould be willing to beg at his feet all my days, if he would fhew mercy at the last hour. But ftill there remained a fear with

« PreviousContinue »