« PreviousContinue »
pared by this to be “ touched with the feelings of our infirmities?"
In the tenth chapter of the same Epistle, it is represented, that when the Son was about to come into the world, he said to his Father, “ Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a Body hast thou prepared me.” The Son did
a true body and reasonable soul” hast thou prepared me ; nor, a Man hast thou prepared me; but“ a Body hast thou prepared me.” And does not his language plainly suggest, that he himself was to be the Soul of that Body which God had prepared ? Let common sense decide the question.
5. There is abundant evidence, that the Person, who called himself the Son of Man, had pre-existence; but there is no evidence that he pre-existed otherwise than as the Son of God, or the Angel of God.
That the Son of God had pre-existence, is not doubted by you ; and it is amazing, that it should be depied by any man who professes a respect for the Oracles of God. In addition to all that is said of the Son of God as the Creator, or the one by whom God created all things ; and all that is said of him as the Angel of Gorl ; and at that is said of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was ; and all that is said of his incarnation ; there are a multitude of texts which naturally import his pre-existence.
His pre-existence is naturally implied in the numerous passages which speak of God's sending his Son into the world, and of God's giving his Son. The same idea is implied in all that Christ said of his coming forth from the Father, and coming down from Heaven, and coming forth from God. Such representations naturally import that he had existed with the Father, with God, and in heaven, before he was sent, or before he came into the world.
To the unbelieving Jews Christ said, “If God were your Father, ye would love me : for I proceeded forth and came from God ; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." To his disciples he said, “ For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God : I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world : again I leave the world, and go to the Father.”.
These passages Christ spake as the Son of God; and they plainly import two things....
1. That the Son is a being distinct from God, so distinct that he could proceed forth and come from God
2. That the Son existed with God before he came into the world.
Similar things Christ spake of himself as the Son of Man.
On another occasion he said much of his being the Bread of God which cometh down from heaven. John vi. In this discourse he styled himself the Son of Man. Some of his disciples were displeased with what he said on this occasion. " When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend
What and if ye shall see the Son Of Man ascend up where hi was before ?»
These several passages, compared together, plainly import not only the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, but the identity of the Son of God and the Son of Man.
6. The personal identity of the Son of God and the Son Of Man is plainly implied in the declaration of St. Paul, Eph. iv. 10. Speaking of the ascension of Christ,
“ He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.”_ You will, Sir, it is believed, admit that it was the SON OF God who descended, and the Son of Man who ascended. And if he that descended is the same who ascended, then the Son of God and the Son of Man are the same.
Of course, the Son of God became the Son of Man by becoming the soul of a human body.
7. You will grant that it was the Son of Man, or the Man Christ Jesus, who died on the cross, who was ra sed from the dead, and exalted at the right hand of God. But all these things are distinctly and abundantly affirmed of Christ as the Son of God, or as our LORD and SAVIOR. I have no occasion to produce any passages of Scripture to prove that these things are said of Christ as the Son of Man, but I may produce some passages to show that these same things are affirmed of God's own Son, by whom he made the worlds, and the one who is now our LORD and SavIOR.
“ He that SPARED NOT his own Son." Rom. viii. 32. “ Concerning his Son Fsus CRIST OUR LORD, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and de
clared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." Rom. i. 3, 4.-“Who raised up fesus Our L`RD from the aerd.” Rom. iv. 24.—“ And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise us up by his own power.” i Cor. vi. 14.-“ Wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the deal." ' 1 Thes. i. 10.-" Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our LORD Jesus, that GREAT SHEPHERD of the sheep." Heb. xiii. 20.
In these passages it is plainly represented, that it was in truth that BEING, who is called the Son of God, our LORD, and the GREAT SHEPHERD of the sheep, who personally died on the cross, and was raised from the dead by the power of God.
In the first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, and in the very connexion in which the work of creation is attributed to Christ, he is styled the “ FIRST BORN FROM THE DEAD, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence.” * Respecting this same Son our LORD, David said, “ The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool.” Of the same Son of God it is said,“When he had by HIMSELF purged our sins,sat down on the right hand of the MAJES Y on high.” Heb. i. 3.But after this Son had become united to the Body which God had prepared, he was often called a Man, or the Son or MAN. Therefore the same writer
says, " But this Man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Heb. x. 12.
8. Additional evidence of the identity of the Son of God and the Son of Man, may appear from what is said of Christ as the Lord and the Son, the Root and the OFFSPRING of David.
It was the belief of the Jews, founded on prophecy, that the MESSIAH should be the Son of David. " While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How' then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool ? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” Matt. xxii. 41-45. This, Sir, was to the Pharisees an unanswerable
queso tion ; nor do I see that any rational answer can be given
to it on your theory. For the question plainly supposes the LORD of David and the Son of David to be but one in. telligerst Being. But your hypothesis would be, that the LORD of David was united to a Man who was the Son OF David. But could the LORD of David be thus the Son of David ? No, Sir, the Lord of David would be one Person, and the son of David another. But if the LORD of David became the soul of a body which was of the seed of David, then would Christ be both David's Son and David's LORD.
The other text to be considered, is this, “I am the Root and the OFFSPRING of David."
You will observe, that in this passage, Christ speaks in a personal manner, and as one individual intelligence. He does not say, I am the Root of David, and the Man united to me is the OFFSPRING of David. But as one, and only one intelligence, he says, “ I am the Root and the OFFSPRING of David.”
9. In exhibiting a contrast between Adam and Christ, the Apostle Paul says, “The first Man is of the earth earthy, the second Man is the Lord from Heaven. What is here asserted of Christ, accords with his numerous declarations that he came down from heaven, and came forth from God. The Apostle does not say that the SECOND Man was unitd to the LORD from Heaven ; but, the Second Man is the Lord from Heaven. Suppose, Sir, that Daniel had said in some of his writings, The Man whom I saw in the vision was Gabriel from heaven ; what idea would his words have suggested? Would you not have supposed that Gabriel appeared in an embodied state, or in the likeness of a Man? You will be pleased to answer the question, and make the application.
10. Christ stated to his disciples this question, “Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ?” They answered. He then stated another, “ Whom say ye that I am ?” Peter replied, “ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the LIV • ING God.”—This answer Christ approved in the most de. cided manner. And you will be pleased, Sir, to notice the definite manner in which the question was proposed and answered.-Christ, calling himself the Son of MAN, demands their opinion concerning him. The answer is as definite as the question, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the LIVING GOD." Therefore the SON OF Man is the Sox
OF THE LIVING GOD. The Son of God was not united to the Son of Man ; but the Son of God became the Son of Man by becoming the soul of a human body. Thus the Second Man was the LORD from Heaven.
MR. Caleb Alexander, in his remarks on Mr. Emlyn, has taken ground different from yours.
" Christ is properly a complex Person. He has a distinct human personality and a distinct Divine personality--and yet so united as to make a complex Person. Christ has a proper Divine intelligence and a proper human intelligence." p. 57. He also states, that Christ is called the Son of God in reference to his humanity—“his lowest capac ty and character That he is called the Son of God, because his “ human nature was created by an immediate act.” .p. 43, 44,
These positions are contradicted by Dr. Hopkins, in a very
decided manner. And, if I mistake not, they are contradicted by the general tenor of the GospelThose who may have adopted the hypothesis of Mr. Alexander, will be likely to suppose that my labor has been in vain in attempting to prove that the Son of God and the Son of Man mean the same intelligence. For this they would have admitted without proof.
Though I respect Mr. Alexander, I cannot say that I am any better pleased with his theory than I am with yours. But as I do not learn that his views have been generally adopted, I shall only state some questions respecting them.
In respect to personality, I must think that he takes more correct ground than Dr. Hopkins : For if it be true, that in Christ a Divine Person is united to a proper Man, no reason can be given why they should not be considered as two Persons. But will it not plainly result from Mr. Alexander's theory, that He who died for our offences was strictly a human Person, and no more than a man? That Person might indeed be the Son of God in his sense of the terms ; for in his view the Son of God was no more than a Mana Man united to a Divine Person. But why is this Man called God's own and only Son, the only begotten of the Father ?-He was “ created by an immediate act, says Mr. Alexander. And so was Adam ; and so, probably, were the Angels. How then is Christ God's ONLY