Page images
PDF
EPUB

"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways; before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, before ever the earth was." According to the well known idiom of the Hebrew language, the words rendered possessed, and brought forth, plainly imply generation. That this generation is eternal, is farther manifest from Isa. liii. 8. "Who shall declare his generation." And Mic. v. 2. "Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Pointing not barely to simple existence, but to the date of his Sonship. It seems, therefore, plain, that the name and title Son of God, Only begotten Son, &c. are terms used, not so much to point to the Messiah's office, as to express the divine dignity of him who was invested with it, and who humbled himself, that he might become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. He was not called the Son of God because he was the Messiah; but because he was the Son of God, he was every way qualified to bear the weight of that office.

[ocr errors]

the divine, original dignity of his nature, the passage would be a tautology. That the word Messiah in the Hebrew, is of the same import with Christ in the Greek, is clear from John i, 41. "We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ." But if we consider the term Son of God, as expressing only the Messiah's office, without any reference to the original dignity of his nature, will it not follow that when Paul preached Christ in the synagogue, that he is the Son of God, it only meant that he preached that Christ was Christ, or the Messiah was the Messiah? And Peter's important confession, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God," will be no more than telling, that Christ was Christ.And the disciples' profession of faith, "We believe and are sure, that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God," will be only saying, thou art Christ the. Christ. Such unmeaning tautologies must not be charged upon inspiration. But if we

understand the term Son of the living God, as pointing out the divine, original dignity of the person or character, who is, by divine constitution, appointed to the office of the Messiah, or Christ, the anointed, according to the literal and natural signification of the term, in all languages, then the phrases are not only vastly important, but very plain and intelligible.

Christ's Sonship is also distinguished from his office, and declared to be prior to it, in such passages as these: Speaking of his Father, Christ says, John v. 29. "I know him, for I am from him, and he hath sent me." Being from the Father by an eternal generation, is distinguished from his being sent, In this sense, it is abundantly which relates to his office. Sev-evident, the Jews understood the eral places might also be mentioned, in which, if we understand the term Son of God, either of Christ's inferior nature, or of his office, or as expressing any thing lower thanther, making himself equal with

term, John v. 18. "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Fa

to reason from the less to the greater, and assert the justice of his own claim to that title, he does it in language, asserting his right to divinity, in the highest sense. Observe, he founds his claim to be the Son of God upon three things.-1. Upon his sanctification and mission into the world. Verse 36. i. e. Upon the sanctification of his human nature, which was fitted for office by a union with the divine.-2. Upon his doing the works of the Father. Ver. 37. 3. Upon his being in the Father, and the Father in him. Ver. 38. A claim to a partici

sense. So far was this from correcting any mistake which the Jews might be in about the meaning of the title Son of God, that he admits, in the fullest manner, that sense in which they understood him.

God." John x. 30. "I and my Father are one." Verse 33. "For a good work we stone thee not, but for plasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."-Had the Jews understood no more by this term, than merely his professing himself to be the Messiah, in a language which laid no claim to proper divinity, they could have had no ground for a charge of blasphemy, even if they had disbelieved his pretensions. Or, if their charge had been founded on a misapprehension of the sense of the term, here was a fair opportunity to rectify the mistake, by explain-pation of Deity. in the highest ing the title, which he claimed in its true sense. Or, though it be granted that our Lord did not, at all times, explain things to the Jews, in such a manner as to correct their obvious mistakes, yet, is it not probable that he would have done in this, as he frequently did in similar cases, i. e. explain the matter to his own disciples, who were, probably, in the same mistake, if it was one. But so far from retracting what he had advanced, or from insinuating that the Jews did not understand him right, he goes on, farther, to vindicate the justice of his claim to be the Son of God, from his doing such works as afforded infallible proof of his real divinity; though the Jews were, hereby, more and more exasperated. And although in John x. 30, he reminds the Jews, that they sometimes used the term in a lower sense, and from thence, urges the inconsistency of their charge of blasphemy, seeing they had been accustomed to use the term God, and Son of God in a lower sense; yet when he comes

It is farther worthy of notice, that Christ's Sonship is always supposed, even where it has no respect to his office. He is never said to be made a Son.--He is said to be made a priest. Heb. v. 4, 5, 10. He is said to be made Lord and Christ. Acts ii. 36. He is also said to be raised up as a Prophet, to be set as a King upon the holy hill of Zion, and to be raised up as a Prince and a Saviour; but he is never said to be made a Son.--His Sonship is always supposed, which, I think, shows it to be a divine title, expressing the essential dignity of his nature, irrespective of his office.

No time could be more proper to exhibit Christ 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 case when baptism is administered 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 Ghost."

ous person, who had, in general, some sublime relation to God, and who was also to sustain the character and office of the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.” After rejecting the several other senses, he prefers this as being Farther, to suppose Christ to the true meaning of the term, be called the Son of God, on ac- as it is generally used in the count of his being designated to New Testament; for this reathe office of the Messiah, is, it son, that the doctrine of an appears to me, to fix a meaning eternal Sonship, implying a to the title, not warranted either sameness of nature in the divine by the natural sense of the term, essence, as subsisting in Father or the use of it in Scripture. and Son, was too deep and mysIt will, I believe, be a difficult terious a doctrine, to be propostask to mention a single instance, ed to young disciples. But in which the title, Son of God, is what this sublime relation to used to point out an extraordf- God is, which is something nary office. Angels are called different from either creation, Sons of God, because they de- adoption, angelic likeness, or a rive their beings from him by sameness of nature, we are left immediate creation, and be- to guess. The above-mentioncause, as holy beings, they bear ed worthy author has not told his image; but they are never us, and Scripture, I apprehend, so called because they are ap- gives us no light. It is a subpointed to important offices or lime, unknown, undefined somemissions. Adam was called the thing, none knows what. How Son of God, on account of his this will help the matter, so as immediate creation; and be- to render that article of faith lievers are called Sons of God, less mysterious, and better adapbecause they are spiritually be- ted to the capacities of young gotten of him, and because they disciples, I know not. Indeed are adopted into his family, and I see not what we can make of are made partakers of the heav- this glorious personage, who enly inheritance, by virtue of had, in general, some sublime their union with God's eternal relation to God, unless it be the Son; but ministers or other of- Arian notion of a super-angelfice-bearers in the church, have ic being, and so strip the Saviour never that title given them on of real divinity. So that, howaccount of their constitution in ever friendly those who adopt office. But a sense, perhaps, a this idea of the Sonship of little different, is preferred by a Christ, may be to the real undelate learned and pious author, rived divinity of the Saviour, it whose praise is in the church- appears to me they lay themes.* After naming several sen- selves under great disadvanta-* ses in which Christ may be cal-ges in defending that doctrine; led the Son of God, he men- for if it is but once conceded to tions this with approbation.- an Arian or Socinian, that "The title Son of God, is used Christ's Sonship refers only to in order to point out that glori- | his human nature, or is, at best, * Dr. Watts.

but a mere title of office, not implying real divinity, it appears to me he will be able to prove but such irresistible arguments, as can neither be gain-sayed nor withstood, that all those divine names, Titles, Attributes, Works and Worship, which are in Scripture applied to Christ, and have been introduced so successfully 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, synonymous with that title.Consequently, 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 sense, and Christ will be a God and the great God, and everlasting Father, by office only, and not by nature, as well as a Son.

vious to his conception in the womb of the virgin. He, on this account, speaks more particularly of his divine original.The other Evangelists, having previously written the series of our Lord's generation according to the flesh, he set himself to write a spiritual gospel, beginning it with the divinity of Christ. And it is probable, that, both in his gospel and in his epistle, which were written in extreme old age, and at periods not far distant from each other, he had a particular view to these heretics, who, as they denied Christ's real divinity, must consequently deny any divine Sonship. Now, it is evident, no one of the inspired writers so 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 Apostle and Evangelist. The other Evangelists more frequently call him the Son of Man, to point To this essay, already lon- his relation to our nature. ger than I intended, I shall add, the titles Son of God, &c. are only this one remark more, viz. darling phrases with this AposThat errors, particularly with tle; he uses them more than regard to the person of Christ, fifty times in his writings. But, began, at an early period, to in- if these were names pointing fest the church. The Apostle out his human nature, or are Paul tells us, that the mystery merely titles of office, it did not of iniquity had begun to work well agree with his grand dein his days. And the Apostle sign, (which was to exhibit the John, who survived him many Messiah in his divine original,) years, doubtless saw more of it. to abound with this peculiarity. That he saw much appears But if the name and title be orifrom his epistle. Ancient his- ginally divine, nothing could bettorians, quoted by Dr. Whitbey, ter promote that design than his Mr. Lowman and others, inform so frequent use of it. And his us that St. John wrote his gos- using this name in the same pel, at the earnest desire of the connection, and as synonymous bishops of Asia, with a special with other titles unquestionably view to obviate the early here- divine, puts it beyond all reasonsies of Ebion and Cerinthus,able doubt, that this was his inwho held our Lord to be a mere tention.

man, having no existence pre

VOL. V. No. 4.

But

[merged small][ocr errors]

TO THE EDITORS OF THE CON- | proper to notice, that there is

NECTICUT EVANGELICAL MA

GAZINE.

Gentlemen,

WILL you please to fur. nish your readers with an answer to the following question: "Since God is always found of them that seek him not, what propriety is there in directing sinners to seek him first ?”

ANSWER.

F. C.

HE expression, "Seek ye

Something vague and of uncertain meaning, in that part of the question, which is proposed, as if it were indisputable, "Since God is always found of them that seek him not." There seems to be, in this expression, a reference to a passage of holy scripture, found in Isaiah Ixv. 1. and quoted by the Apostle, Rom. x. 20. "I am found of them that sought me not."But then these words are immediately preceded by the following, "I am sought of them that asked not after me." Perhaps

Tthe Xerd, and directions the sentiment taken for granted

to the same effect, are often used in the scriptures. They imply an exhortation or command, calling us to search, with cordiality and diligence, into the glorious nature and perfection of God, as they are revealed in his word and works. They imply a serious inquiry, from a loyal heart, into the duties which God requires of mandiligent endeavors, after that spiritual acquaintance with him, which consists in having the same spirit, and in holding communion with him in the Holy Ghost-application to him, and dependence on him, for holiness, pardon, comfort and an inheritance in glory-and desires to honor God, and promote his cause in the world. In this way the directions of the word of God, and the examples of his people, recorded for our use, teach us to seek the Lord. This, if it were necessary in this place, might be abundantly proved.

This being the meaning of the directions to seek the Lord, so often repeated to us in the scriptures, it may not be im

in the question, is very different from the scripture, to which it seems to refer, tho' the expression is nearly the same.— The text, as used by Isaiah, and quoted by Paul, means no more, than that the heathen nations shall be brought into the fold of Christ, and that nations, which in past ages, had not sought the Lord, should seek after him and find him. Besides, this is spoken of in the text, as out of the usual course of divine administrations. It does not mean, that people find out the perfections of God, without inquiry; or his will, without seeking to know it, or that they obtain the other blessings, such as growth in grace, joy in God, and the comforts of the Holy Ghost, without asking for them; but that nations, which had not known nor regarded these things, should diligently seek them and find them.

We are also taught in the scriptures, by precept, promise, threatening and example, that men find, in consequence of seeking the Lord; and that there is an inseparable connec

« PreviousContinue »