Page images
PDF
EPUB

But for the conviction of those who may think that two or three witnesses are needful in the present case, we may add the testimonies of Peter and Paul.

Peter, in his sermon at the house of Cornelius, after stating that he and others did eat and drink with Christ after his resurrection, said, "And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is HE which is ORDAINED OF GOD to be the JUDGE of the quick and the dead."

Paul, in his discourse to the people of Athens, said, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that MAN whom he hath ORDAINED, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

I see no rational way in which these testimonies can be invalidated, without impeaching the characters of the wit

nesses.

An earthly sovereign, whose will is the law of the Empire, can, at pleasure, advance an own and only Son to any. rank or office, which does not involve a contradiction.

The father cannot cause his son to rank with himself as to age, nor can he render the son independent of himself in respect to existence, dignity, or office. But it is in the power of a King or Emperor to confer on his son any office in the army, from an ensign to that of commander in chief. He may also, at pleasure, make his son the governor of a province, chief judge, or sole judge in the highest court of justice, or viceroy of half the Empire, or even a copartner with himself on the throne; and in testimony of the high esteem he has for his son, he may place the son at his own right hand.

Such a course of conduct in an earthly sovereign towards an only son may indeed be the result of caprice or partiality; but it may also be the result of consummate wisdom and benevolence. For the good of the Empire may be in the best manner promoted by such measures.

As an earthly sovereign may advance his son to any office he pleases, so he may confer on him whatever title of dignity he may think proper. He may dignify his son with the title of lord, or arch-chancellor of the Empire, lord chief Justice, Prince of Peace, President of the Princes,

or he may confer on him his own royal or imperial title, as King or Emperor. And in respect to several relations, he may at the same time have various titles of dignity.

These observations present to our view something anal-ogous to the representations given in Scripture in regard to God's conduct in dignifying his only and well-beloved Son. The titles LORD, SAVIOR, and JUDGE, are titles which properly belong to God. But God had a right to confer the same titles on his beloved Son, and to invest him with the authority and self-sufficiency imported by these titles. And if we may safely rely on the testimony of Christ and his Apostles as proof, God has actually thus dignified his Son....He hath “ EXALTED him to be a PRINCE and a SAVIOR"..... "C MADE him to be both LORD and CHRIST".... GIVEN him all power in heaven and earth".... "ORDAINED him to be the JUDGE of the quick and the dead". ...." COMMITTED all judgment unto the Son, and GIVEN kim a Name which is above every Name." And the Scriptures afford no more evidence that Solomon sat on the throne of Israel, by the appointment and pleasure of David, than they do that the Son of God sits on the Throne of the Universe by the appointment and pleasure of GOD his FATHER. There are other titles that belong to God, which by his pleasure are given to his Son.

God often styles himself the HOLY ONE, or the Holy One of Israel. The title of Holy One is also given to the Son. But the Son is plainly distinguished from the self-existent Holy One, by being represented as God's Holy One, or the "Holy One of God."-To the truth, in this case, satan himself was constrained to bear witness. "I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." The words of David, quoted by Peter, are to the same purpose...." Neither wilt thou suffer thine HOLY ONE to see corruption."

The name JEHOVAH, which is often translated Lord in the Old Testament, is a name which belongs to God; but by the pleasure of God this name with some addition is given to the Son. "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch; and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby he shall be called, The LORD [or JEHOVAH] Our RIGHTEOUSNESS."

[ocr errors][merged small]

That the Messiah, the Son of God, in his incarnate state, is intended in this prophecy, there can be no reasonable doubt. And that it is on the ground of a CONSTITUTED CHARACTER, and by the pleasure of God his Father, that he bears the name JEHOVAH our RIGHTEOUSNESS, is sufficiently plain from the passage quoted. It is God himself who gives the information in the text ; and this one God tells us of a Person or Character which he would raise up, and the name by which this Son should be

called.

The name Jehovah being given to the Son, is considered by Mr. Jones as evidence that the Son is personally the self-existent God. But had he compared one of his own remarks with the words of an Apostle, he might have seen his own mistake. Mr. Jones suggests, that the name LORD, in the New Testament, which is given to Christ,. is of the same import as JEHOVAH in the O'd Testament. The Apostle Peter says, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath MADE that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both LORD and Christ." If, then, Mr. Jones be correct in affirming that LORD and JEHOVAH are terms of the same import, and the Apostle be correct in the text just quoted; am I not authorized to say that God hath made, or constituted, his Son JEHOVAH our righteousness?

On similar ground, and by the same Divine pleasure, the Son has his name called Emmanuel-Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace. On the very face of the prophesies, in which these names are brought into view, it is clearly intimated, that it is by the pleasure of God that the Son bears these titles. The Son is manifestly the subject of the predictions, and God the Author. And God says respecting his Son, His name shall be called Emmanuel.....His name shall be called WONDERFUL, &c.

That it is by inheritance as a Son, and by the pleasure of the Father, that Christ bears the name GOD, is plainly revealed in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews -As the chapter was evidently designed to give us a correct and exalted view of the Son of God, and the ground on which he possesses such an exalted character and such Divine titles, I shall quote nine verses :..........

A

"God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Sox, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory; and the express image of his Person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." Before I proceed farther in the quotations, I may make a few remarks.

widently

1. God in this passage is wonderfully spoken of as one distinct Person or intelligent Being, accordingly the pronouns for God are he, his.

2. The Son of God is spoken of as a Person or Being, as distinct from God as any son is distinct from his father ; and as distinct from God as are prophets or angels....God spake by the prophets....so God spake by his Son.

3. As a son is the image of his father, so the Son of God is represented as the express image of the Person of God.

4.

God.

The Son is heir of all things by the appointment of

5. The Son is so distinct from God, that he can sit on God's right hand.

6. By being truly the Son of God, and by INHERITANCE, Christ hath a better name than the Angels... Being MADE SO much better than the angels, as he hath by INHERITANCE a more excellent name than they.... Being truly God's own SON, he INHERITS his Father's Dignity.

In proof that the Son hath a more excellent name than the angels, the Apostle proceeds to state from the Old Testament what had been said respecting the Son, and what had been said respecting the Angels :....

"For unto which of the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son. And again, when he bringeth in the FIRST BEGOTTEN into the world, he saith, And let all the Angels of God worship him. And of the Angels, he saith, Who maketh his Ange's spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and

[ocr errors]

ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy king. dom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore GOD, EVEN THY GOD, hath anointed THEE with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows."

Here we find the Name which the Son of God has by INHERITANCE, which is better than the name given to Angels. The self-existent God has been pleased to dignify his own and ONLY SON with his own Divine Name. And

we find also a reason assigned for this Divine honor :.... "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore GOD, EVEN THY GOD, hath anointed THEE with the cil of gladness above thy fellows."

If we consider Christ as truly the Son of God, in the sense which has been explained, and by inheritance and the pleasure of the Father possessing Divine dignity and Divine titles, the whole passage appears perfectly natural. But if we consider the Son as personally the self-existent and independent God, most serious difficulties immediately arise.... Why is he called God's Son? Why is he uniformly spoken of in contradistinction to the self-existent God? Why is he spoken of as having a GOD who hath anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows? What God could thus anoint the self-existent God?

As

The passage under consideration is not the only one in which the name God is applied to the Son. Nor is this the only passage in which the Son of God is represented as having a God as well as a Father. Christ said to his disciples, "I go to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God"-And in the Epistles we several times read of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ." Solomon, after he was crowned, had a father and a King ; so Christ, on the Throne of the Universe, had a Father and a God. If Christ had been the self-existent God, it would have been just as proper to speak of the God of the Father, as the God of the Son. But if he be truly the Son of God, and as such sustains Divine offices and bears Divine titles, then no difficulty results from his being ca led LORD, SAVIOR, or even GOD. For these titles, as borne by the Son, do not import personal self-existence, but what he is as the SON OF GOD, and by the pleasure of his Father.

I

« PreviousContinue »