« PoprzedniaDalej »
the Doctor surrenders the point, and admits, that the term Son of God, has sole reference to the human nature of Christ, and this too, as appears by his admonition, from a fear that the enemies of Christ,” may make suggestions, that the divine nature of Christ, is derived. We are not disposed to adopt the notion, for it makes a wonderful jargon of types with the anti-type; besides destroying the foundation of the christian's faith, hopes, and confidence
Same subject continued. THERE appears in these notes, something mys. terious, and astonishing to us, and the most so of any thing we have heard advanced in the Christian liturgy, except, in two instances, and these are, 1st, a doctrine held by one kind of universalians, which is, “ man is a part of God;" 2dly, is the doctrine advanced by Mr. Millard, which is, “that eternal substance, which proceeded and came from God, could be, and was changed into flesh, and died."
The Doctor says, “we may plainly perceive here, that the Angel (which spoke to Mary) does not give the appellation of Son of God, to the Divine nature of Jesus Christ.” To this we must in conscience dissent; not only for the reasons we have and may advance, but we are sure the doctrine has left the scriptural and primitive doctrine of Trinitarianism.
We remark, it appears plain, that the Doctor has confuted himself in the most plain manner.
“ The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee;" In this he finds an allusion, or parallel, in Genesis, 1, 2, “ The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” This allusion seems, to have established him in the opinion he has expressed And yet to the note upon this text in Genesis, he defines the word "moving to be a “brooding over, for the word expresses that tremulous motion
made by the hen while either hatching her eggs or fostering her young," which “signifies communicating a vital or prolific principle.” Under the word “ creation” he says, “ it does not in its primary meaning, denote the preserving or new forming things that had previously existed" &c. We think, if he is not self-confuted, he is confused. Here on the the text in Luke, he makes it out, that the Son of Mary is “a real creation" in the womb of the virgin, and in his earlier commentary he says the similar act, is not creation, therefore this shrine, or tabernacle of human na
a real creation” in, and born of the virgin, and is the Son of God. We are not disposed to controvert his definition of the Hebrew words, of the text in Genesis, but are willing to consider them correct, viz. that it is not a real creation but a new forming of substance before created; and “communicating of the vital or prolific principle" to a substance not before prolific, and a form to a substance not before formed. How he run into this error, and became so startled at the text in Luke, as to abandon as untenable, an essential trinitarian doctrine, would have astonished us more, had it not been for our previous acquaintance with the Doctor's works, and our having entertained a higher opinion of his industry and learning than of his judgment as a divine.
If we understand the Doctor, he would have us to understand, that the Son of God is a created or derived being, constituting a separate and distinct person, from the divinity. We wish to preserve the divine Sonship, and its relation and unity with the human nature, if the gospel will authorize it. From woman's first apostacy, came the sentence of the law, and the first promise of mercy, that
from the seed of the woman was to come 'Him, who is of the God-head and of the human nature, in mysterious union; and He was to bruise the serpent's head, and redeem from apostacy. In this case, it is said by the angel, “ the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,” that is probably, in the same way and manner as he, “communicated the vital or prolific principle” in the beginning and whether the process in these instances, are precisely similar to the Apostles union with Christ, or when “the Holy Ghost fell, or was poured out on those that were hearing the Word” consecrating them, is perhaps immaterial. It is to us satisfactory, that the operations of the Holy Ghost made the divine and human nature one, as the divine nature of the Son and Father are one with the HolyGhost and consecrated the union, The Angel further communicated that “the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" that is, protect, and shelter, &c. thereby the union is glorified. This we may know, is an eminent token of God's gracious presence, protecting, sheltering, and giving light in darkness, as in the wilderness, &c. The Son of man was thus formed under the quickening and consecrating influences of the Holy Ghost; and in this overshadowing, the presence, indwelling, and glorifying the human nature, and its union with the Highest, was sensibly manifested in this shrine of manhood; and became the long promised antitype. And the Son of God, or second person of the God-head, at the consecration in the virgin, took upon him man's nature, as a more excellènt tabernacle and temple, as was eternally purposėd, for the display of the divine purposes
of love and holiness, and to save from the der plorable ruins of sin, and apostacy.
The Doctor says, that the Angel in saying to Mary," therefore also that holy thing (or person) shall be called the Son of God," we may plainly perceive,“ does not give the appellation of Son of God to the divine nature of Christ.” We do not know by what rule he has discovered this, for he has given us no aid in this point in any rule which he has brought forward. The Doctor goes on to say, "the divine nature of Christ could not be born of the virgin; the human nature was born of her.” If the Doctor is correct, that the Son was a real creation, in the womb of the virgin, Christ has no more human nature than if he had been really created in any other part of the universe. Nor bears he any relation to God, or man, in his human or divine nature, than any other created being whatever. Let it be remembered, that he states, that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God in his divine nature; and if what he calls the human nature, was a real work of creation in the womb of the virgin, we would seriously ask how he could be called the Son of God, or the Son of man, or the seed of Abraham, with any more propriety than any other being in the universe.
Why then we soberly enquire, does our Lord bear these titles so often in the scriptures ? We find our Lord is called the Son of God, as many as forty-five times, and the Son of man, about fifty times in the New Testament. And if Jesus Christ is called the Son of God in reference to his human nature, what can his name refer to, when he is called the Son of man. It appears on the Doctor's principles, that this last appella