« AnteriorContinuar »
the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Many are the concurrent passages, which might be cited; yet multiplying quotations to a great amount, may have a tendency to weary the mind, more than to convince the conscience.
We will now draw our inferences from, and make our application of the texts above cited. That Jesus Christ did come forth from the Father, and that he hath the Godhead in himself naturally and inherently, as the only begotten, and the proper Son of the Father, we consider an irresistible inference. He might and did say to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life." And the beloved disciple bears testimony, " This is the true God and eternal life."
By reviewing this subject, it will be found it may swell to an immense size. Were we to follow the writings of David, Solomon, and the prophets, and then add what is written in the New Testament, it will augment this chapter much beyond what was intended in the whole work. It is hoped, therefore, the reader will excuse the leaving untouched, hundreds of texts which might be brought in confirmation of the pre-existent dignity of our Lord, his coming in the flesh, and the offices he sustained from love to the human family. These texts, omitted, are really significant, and full of meaning, and are calculated to lead the reflecting mind either to that state and station which he filled before he came in the flesh, or after he came in the flesh, or after his ascension to glory. We think it proper, therefore, to mention a few of the names or titles which our Lord sustained and bore, by way of text, without going into any lengthy explanation of them.
He is called the Almighty God, the everlasting father, the Prince of peace, wonderful, counsellor, a king, a prince, a son, a shield, the bright and morning star, the angel of the covenant, the Lord from heaven, a quickening spirit, the image of the invisible God, the only begotten son of God, the first born of every creature, a creator, a ruler, a judge, a prophet, a priest, a mediator, a redeemer. The Shiloh, the root, and the offspring of David. The chief corner stone, the elect, and precious; a spring, a well of water, the fountin of life. I am that I am, the God of Israel, the God of the Hebrews, the Lord of Sabbaoth, and the Word of God. A branch, a stream, the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the lion of the tribe of Judah; a man, the son of man, the son of David, the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, and the shepherd of Israel. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Immanuel, and perhaps fifty characters and titles more, that we have not mentioned; and mysterious as it may seem to the reader, one line of truths will teach that every name, title, and appellation he bears or claims, is really significant. They signify something in his human, or divine nature, or point us to one or another of his offices which he sustains in cre-t ation, providence, government or redemption.
General remarks on the real deity of the Son,■ from the view3
we hare given Remarks on Sabellionism, Ariauism, and
We have taken up a few pages to exhibit our views upon the pre-existence and dignity of the Son of God, and to defend the real deity of the Son, yet, when we examine the extent of this doctrine, and the greatness of the subject, we can truly say, we have just touched upon it only. We shall, however, leave our mode of pursuing it, presuming the mode pursued will appear something new to many, as we have not found any who have followed the exact mode herein adopted.
It is now thought suitable to make some remarks on what we have written—and some connected and concise remarks on Sabellianism, Arianism, and Socinianism.
It will be borne in recollection, we are inquiring who this character can be which in the old and new testaments, we find assuming many names and titles. We have endeavoured already to show, he cannot be a created being. We have also, concluded, it would be quite as inconsistent for the Father, to make appearance in the mannner we find this character hath done, as for any created being to do it .
For the Father to leave the throne of glory and to Valk^in the garden ; to appear in the form of a man, and converse in a familiar manner with Abraham, and to eat and drink with him; again to Joshua with a sword in his hand, and converse with him on the subject and plan of taking Jericho ; again to Manoah in the form of a man of God, or as an Angel; to discover his dignity to Moses at sundry times, and in divers manners, once in a flame of fire in a bush, at another time standing on a rock, Moses was commanded to smite; we say, for the Father to appear, in this manner, would be contrary to every scriptural analogy of faith.
It would interpose much difficulty in the way of a man of sound sense, reflection, and scriptural reading to believe it. And to us, it would be quite inconsistent, to suppose the Father appeared for the redemption of a nation from a state of bondage, and to give the law on Mount Sinai, and to appear in the tabernacle, seeing it. is every where revealed, the Lord Jesus was to make his appearance for the redemption of the human race at large; and seeing it would be an errand far inferior to that accomplished by the Son of God, our Saviour.
We contemplate the Arian and Socinian plan, with wonder and astonishment. That our opponents should adopt the doctrine, that God the Father should make his appearance as an angel or messenger, appears to us surprising for two reasons, viz. 1st. The errand was far inferior, as we have hinted, to the errand of our Lord and Saviour, who came forth of his Father into the world to redeem mankind. 2d. Should the Father make his appearance as an angel, or envoy, we would ask, who sent him? for an angel or envoy signifies a messenger senW
Many, when they begin to make the Scriptures their study, have but little or no idea of going to the old testament for information on this subject. Some will acknowledge, that when they had but superficially entered into their scriptural studies, and professed to know more about common law, than about the Gospel, that they thought Stephen might be a very good man, but tho't he answered very inconsistently and remotely to the indictment preferred against him; but, that having taking more minute and comprehensive views, and having since found his key, and the force of his allusions, they feel as ready to acknowledge, that of all the portions of divinity, recorded in the scriptures, there is none Which exceeds what he delivered; both in point as relates to the accusation, and in force, in regard to his justification, and correctness in doctrine: and we will add, that is more illustrative of the subject in hand.
We are aware of an objection which will, and has been raised against the doctrine, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in his divine nature, and as such, none inferior to the Father. The objection made is, that if Jesus Christ be truly God in his nature, would it not be as inconsistent for the son to make his appearance in the form of an angel, or that of a man, as it would for the Father to make his appearance in the same way, or in the same character? We answer no, it would not. And we are constrained to say, that if we would lay aside that heat and spirit which generally arises from uncharitableness, bigotry, and controversy, we may see the difference. Yea, we are persuaded, that in the midst of controversy, when the spirits are ever so