« PreviousContinue »
After Solomon had been anointed King by order of David, Jonathan reported the matter to Adonijah, and said, “Verily our Lord, King David, hath made Solomon King.” And it is not improbable that this event was typical of the conduct of God in anointing and exalting his Son. And as truly as David constituted his son Solomon to be King, so truly hath our heavenly Father constituted HIS SoN to be SA vior, LoRD, and GoD. He hath invested him with Divine fulness and Divine authority, and conferred on him his own Divine names and titles. If the Son of God did not possess a fulness adequate to his authority, we might view the Divine names, as applied to him, as high sounding and empty titles; but while we are assured that all power, or authority, is given unto him in heaven and earth, we are also assured that “it hath pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell; and that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” "
When, therefore, I speak of the Son as called SAvroR, LoRD, and GoD, on the ground of a constituted character, I wish to be understood as ‘mplying not merely official character, but such a perfect union of the Son with the Father, that in him properly dwel's the infinite fulness and all-sufficiency of God, so that in respect to fulness as well as authority he is one with the Father.
We must suppose, that God is the best judge of the ground on which he styled his Son-God. And we know, from the Scriptures, that anointing with oil was an appointed ceremony of induction to office. Thus Prophets, Priests, and Kings, were inaugurated by the command of God. The Oil was an instituted type or emblem of the Spirit; and these ancient inaugurations were probably typical of the inauguration of Christ as the promised Messiah; on which occasion the Holy Spirit, which had been typified by the holy oil, descended and abode upon him. And in the address of the Father to the Son, in which the Son, is distinctly called God, the ceremony of anointing is distinctly brought into view, to show that it is on the ground of a constituted character that the Son is called God— “Therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Thus the Son, being made or constituted so much better than the Angels, hath by inheritance a more excellent name than they.
John the Baptist, in his testimony concerning the Son of god, says, “He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God;” and gives this as the reason whv the words that he speaketh are the words of God, “ For God giveth not the Spirit by measure tonto him.”—And Peter, in his discourse at the house of Cornelius, mentions “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with Power;” by which we may understand, that in this anointing, the Son was endited with Divine fulness, and invested with Divine authority. - In expressing Div ne commands, in foretelling events, and in performing miracles, the Son of God adopted a style of speaking, very different from that of the Prophets. He did not preface what he uttered with a “ Thus saith the Lord ;” but his usual style was, “I say unto you”—“I will, be thou clean,” &c. On this ground, an argument has often been formed, in proof of the hypothesis that Christ was personally the independent God. In 1eference to this argument, I would ask, 1. Was it not to be expected that God’s own SoN would adopt a style corresponding with his DIGNITY as the SoN of GoD : Would you not expect that a King's son should adopt a style in speaking, different from an ordinary ambassador 3–But, 2. I wou d ask, whether justice has been done in urging the above argument? It is indeed a truth, that Christ spake in a style different from the Prophets; but it is also true, that no Prophet was ever more particular and careful than Christ was, to let it be known that he came not in his own name, but in the name of God the Father; that the words which he spake, he spake not of himself; and that the Father in him did the work. How often did he declare, in the most unequivocal manner, to this effect, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of the Father that sent me.”—“I proceeded forth and came from GoD ; neither came I of myself, but he sent me”—“ The words that I speak, I speak not of myself.” If John has given us a true account, Christ distinctly mentioned his being sent of the Father, nearly forty times. How, Sir, has it come to pass, that these ideas have been so much kept out of view in urging the argument from Christ's peculiar style in speaking? I would by no means 68 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ.
suggest a suspicion of dishonesty; but is there not evidence of a strong prepossession, by which good men have been led to overlook some things which are of weight, and to form their arguments without due consideration ?
ACCORDING to your theorv, the SoN of GoD became the SoN of MAN “by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul,” or a proper Man. It is my object to prove, that the SoN of GoD became the Son of MAN by becoming himself the soul of a human body. It has been supposed, that the Son of God could not, with any propriety, be called a man on the hypothesis I have stated. But could he not with much more propriety be called a man, if he became the soul of a human body, than on the hypothesis that he became united to a proper human soul and body or a proper Man 2 If the Son of God became united to a proper Man, the SoN and the MAN were two distinct intelligences, and the union would be properly a union of two Persons. Besides, you say thrt this union does not imply that the Livine nature became Human nature, nor that the Human 2nature became Divine mature, nor that these two Natures were mixed or blended. These positions, if I mistake not, are precisely of the same import as the following—The SoN of GoD did not become MAN, nor did the MAN become the SoN of God, not were the SoN of GoD and the MAN mixed or blended. For so far as I can discern any meaning to your anguage, the SoN or GoD is the same as the DIvin E NATURE of Christ, and the MAN the same as the HUMAN NATURE. It will hence appear, that the SoN of GoD did not become MAN, but only became united to a Man. : There are a multitude of considerations and passages of Scripture, which may be adduced in support of the hypothesis that the Son of God became Man, or the Son of Man, by becoming the soul of a human body... Out of many, I select the following :.... 1. If the Man Christ Jesus had been united to a second Divine and self-existent Person, we might reasonably expect to find, that, in some of his discourses, he had mentioned that union. But in no instance did he intimate that he was united to any Divine Person but the Father. His union with the Father he often mentioned, and he affirmed that it was the Father in him that did the work. 2. Had the Son of God become Man in no other sense than “by taking to himself a true body and reasonable soul,” and had he been, as you suppose, personally the independent God, he could not with any propriety have asserted his personal dependence. For however dependent his human nature might be, as a person he would have been independent and self-sufficient. Yet, it is believed, we have no account of any other person in the Scriptures, who said so much of his personal dependence, as did Jesus Christ the Son of God. In the most personal and most emphatical manner he declared, “I can of MINE own self Do No hisc.” It is remarkable, that any of the friends of Christ should think it dishonorary to him to say that he was depeudent, while he himself so constantly affirmed his dependence on the Father. Not only did Christ abundantly assert his personal dependence on the Father, but, as a PERson, and as a Son, he prayed to the Father for himself as the SoN of God. See his solemn prayer, John xvii. 3. When Angels have appeared “in the likeness of men,” they have been denominated either Angels or Men, just as . the Lord Jesus is sometimes called the SoN of GoD and sometimes the Son of Man.—The Angels who appeared to Lot, in Sodom, are, in the same narrative, several times called Angels, and several times called Men.—The prophet Daniel, in speaking of the Angel who appeared to him, says, “The MAN GABRIEL whom I had seen in the vision.” Shall we, Sir, accuse Moses and Daniel of great impropriety, in speaking of those personages sometimes as Angels and sometimes as Men 2 They were called men, because they appeared “in the likeness of men,” that is, in an embodied state. If a transient or an occasional residence in bodies of human form might be sufficient ground on which to denominate Angels Men, a permanent residence
in a human body might be sufficient ground on which to denominate the SoN of GoD the Son of Man. 4. The Scripture accounts of the incarnation of the Son of God contains no intimation that he took “ to himself a true body and a reasonable soul;” but the contrary is plainly suggested.—“The Word was made flesh.” John i. 14. * God had sworn to David, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne.” Acts i. 30.—“Concerning his Son Jesus 'Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh.” Rom. i. 3.-"Whose are the Fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came.” Rom. ix. 5. Why were these phrases inserted, according to the flesh, or concerning the flesh, but to tea h us that our Lord is of the seed of Abraham and David only accoraing to the flesh, or in respect to the flesh 2 In the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the writer gives us a most exalted character of the Son of God; and in the second, he represents his incarnation. “ For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself ikewise took part of the same.”— Again, “Wherefore, in all things, it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the People : For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.” \ How, Sir, are the children partakers of flesh and blood? Is it by taking to themselves true bodies and reasonable souls : Is it not rather by being reasonable souls of human bodies : Or by being in an embodied state, in union with esh and blood? If so, then for Christ to become like his brethren, a partaker of flesh and blood, he must become in an embodied state, or become the soul of a human body. Before his incarnation, he was not like to the seed of Abraham in respect to partaking of flesh and blood ; but it behoved him so to be, that he might be a merciful High Priest; and that by being himself subject to those temptations which result from a union with flesh and blood, he might know how to sympatize with us, and to succor those who are tempted. But if his incarnation implied no more than his becoming united to a Man, how was he pre