Page images
PDF
EPUB

these three circumstances, the miraculous conception, the office, and the resurrection of Jesus. But none of these three necessarily imply that he existed in a previous state; and, therefore, it appears to me, that although it be natural to form the most exalted conceptions of a person called the Son of God, yet, if no other premises were given us, we should not be warranted to infer the pre-existence of Jesus from his bearing that name. You must first establish by other evidence that he did pre-exist, and then you infer, from his being called the Son of God, that the meaning of that name is not exhausted by his miraculous conception, his office, and his resurrection, but that it serves farther to intimate the manner of his pre-existence. This reasoning would be fair and conclusive if our Lord were called simply the Son of God. But its conclusiveness appears more manifest when you consider those discriminating epithets which are joined to this name. God is our Father by creation, and by the grace of the Gospel, and they who partake of that grace are often called his sons. But Jesus Christ is styled his own Son, the Son of his love, his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased ; and, in the Gospels and Epistles of John, the only begotten Son of God; all which imply that the highest meaning of this title belongs to Jesus. It has been said that the phrase, only begotten Son, which is peculiar to John, means nothing more than beloved. But these two phrases are not synonymous amongst men. A child may be only begotten without being beloved, and he may be beloved without being only begotten. It is irreverent to suppose that so significant a phrase would be employed by John upon such a subject, in a sense so inferior to its natural import. And it is known that the Christians, from the earliest times, adopted in their creeds this phrase, his only begotten Son, or his only Son, as distinguishing Jesus from every other Son of God.

Now you will observe, that although the name of the Son of God is connected in Scripture with the miraculous conception of Jesus, his office, and his resurrection, none of these three come up to the meaning of this phrase, the only Son of God. Not his miraculous conception.-He was indeed conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. But Adam also is called the Son of God; and unless you

deny that Jesus was truly the son of Mary, you must ad mit that there was in this respect still greater propriety in giving the name of the Son of God to a person, who, being formed without father or mother out of the dust of the earth, was still more immediately the workmanship of God. Not his office as Messiah; for many special messengers had been sent by God to men in former times. In allusion to them, Jesus is often styled a prophet, a messenger, the sent of God. But the mark of distinction between him and them, which some prophecies of the Old Testament announce, and which the books of the New Testament often express, is this, that he is the Son of God, his only begotten Son; words which have no meaning, if they refer purely to that commission which he received in common with others, and which are always so introduced as to lead our thoughts to a character which he had before he received the commission. Neither does the resurrection of Jesus come up to the meaning of the phrase, the only begotten Son of God. He was indeed brought by the Father out of the bowels of the earth. But we are taught that all who are in their graves shall rise; and he himself hath said that they who are accounted worthy to obtain the world to come are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection, υιοι εισι του Θεού, της αναστα DEWS VIDI OVTES. According to the views given in Scripture, Jesus is the first that rose from the dead never to die any more, and the resurrection of good men is the effect of his. He is thus, in respect of his resurrection, the first among many brethren. "Every one in his own order, Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's." His resurrection was indeed the demonstration that that name which he had taken to himself during his life did really belong to him; and therefore it is said, he "was declared to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection." But to say that his resurrection made him the Son of God is to confound the evidence of a thing with the thing itself.

These few remarks may satisfy you that neither the miraculous conception of Jesus, nor his office, nor his resurrection, contains the full import of this name, the only begotten Son of God. But there is a more ancient and a more exalted title to this name, which is inseparable from

his nature. I enter not at present into the various and intricate speculations to which this subject has given occasion. We shall be better prepared afterwards for touching them slightly. I meant only, by connecting the mention of this name with those passages which teach the preexistence of Jesus, to make you bear in your minds during the progress of our researches, that the peculiar reasons of a name, which you will find uniformly appropriated to Jesus, are to be sought for not in the history of his appearance upon earth, but in those passages which contain the revelation of his pre-existent state.

365

CHAP. IV.

ACTIONS ASCRIBED TO JESUS IN HIS PRE-EXISTENT STATE.

Creation.

HAVING drawn from explicit declarations of Scripture sufficient evidence that Jesus existed before he was born of Mary, I am next to direct your attention to those passages which ascribe to him different actions in his preexistent state. The nature of the actions, and the manner in which they are narrated, will unavoidably lead us to form some conception of the character and dignity which belonged to Jesus before he appeared upon earth; so that, if this branch of the examination shall confirm the belief of the pre-existence of Jesus, it will not only destroy the first opinion, but will assist us in comparing the grounds upon which the second and third opinions rest.

As no action in which we have any concern can be more ancient than creation, it is natural to begin with those passages in which creation is ascribed to Jesus. The Apostle Paul says, Eph. iii. 9, "God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." But as the last words, di Inoo Xgiorov, are not found in the most ancient MSS. and were not quoted by any of the Christian writers before the Council of Nice, it is conjectured by Mill, in whose valuable edition of the Greek Testament all the various readings are collected, that these words were first written in the margin, as a commentary suggested by expressions in the other Epistles, and were afterwards adopted by the transcribers of the New Testament into the text. The conjecture appears plausible, and the most zealous defender of the pre-existence of Jesus need not hesitate to sub

scribe to it; for our faith in this important article, that he is the Creator of the world, does by no means rest upon this incidental expression, which, supposing that it was not originally written by the apostle, would never have obtained a place in the text, had it not been literally derived from the more full declarations contained in other passages of Scripture.

These full declarations are found in the beginning of the Gospel of John, in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, and in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. All the three appear to teach, explicitly and particularly, that Jesus is the Creator of the world. Yet they have received different interpretations, of which you ought not to be ignorant; and your being able to deduce with certainty that which we account the true meaning of the words, and to defend it against the objections by which it has been attacked, depends upon the knowledge of circumstances which form so essential a branch of your studies, that I think it my duty to give a particular elucidation of these three passages.

SECTION I.

JOHN I. 1-18.

You will begin with observing the steps by which the apostle proceeds in enunciating his meaning. The first five verses do not of themselves mark out the person to whom they apply. It would seem that a person is intended: For time, ev agxn, place, πgos rov OV, and action, ɑɑ δι' αυτού εγενετο, are ascribed to ὁ Λογος. But the name is not clear enough to mark out who he is. In the 6th verse there is the proper name of a man, Iwawns. And it appears from the sequel of the chapter, that this Iwawns is the person whom we are accustomed to call John the Baptist. It is said of this Ιωαννης, in the 7th verse, ούτος ηλθεν εις μαρτυρίαν, ένα μαρτυρήση περι του φωτός. The article defines the word paros, and leads you back to a light already spoken of, and

« PreviousContinue »