Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

tioned, particularly what Peter says,-" Thou* art Christ, the Son of the living GOD." From which it is inferred, that "as the term Christ refers to his office, the term Son must refer to his divine personality, or there would be a manifest tautology in this, and such like texts, as if Peter should say, "thou art the mediator, the mediator." And this objection is reckoned unanswerable, if the text is read as some critics translate it, distinguishing the terms by what they call the Greek article, THAT, "thou art that Christ, that Son of the living GOD."

Ans. That the terms Christ and Son, present us with the same object of faith as they are used in the new testament, is proved above; but to give the objection its full weight, we shall first consider how Christ is a term of office,-next, what is signified by the term Son in the text,-and then what strength the use of the Greek article affords the

cause.

new.

As to Christ being a term of office, let it be observed, that it is agreed on all hands, that Christ and Messiah are terms of the same import: Messiah in the old testament, is the same with Christ in the Now should I ask the objector, whether he whom the Jews called the Messiah, was a person or office? It would be reckoned of the same consequence, as if I should ask, whether a person be a person or not? Concerning the Messiah it is said, "Thet rulers took counsel against the Lord, and his anointed," (Messiah or Christ.) This passage would read, "They took counsel against the Lord, and his office." The same person who is called his Msssiah or Christ, in the beginning of this psalm,

• Matt. xvi. 16.

† Psa. ii. 1.

*

is a little after called his king, and his Son, which is answer enough to the objection. But further, Daniel tells us that the "Messiah, the prince, should be cut off, but not for himself." This he could not say with propriety of an office. Besides, when Peter says, "thou art the Christ," it would mean no more in that sense, than if he had said, "Thou art the office."

But there is nothing more plain than that the names, king, priest, and prophet, point at persons vested with these respective offices; in like manner, the name Christ points out the person authorized by office, for the discharge of the great work he was appointed to; and if it be granted, as common sense requires it should, that the term Christ is not confined to the office, but to the person bearing the office, then the controversy is at an end, and the whole cause yielded, inasmuch as it has been proved above, that the same official characters are ascribed to the SON, as to CHRIST. The plain consequence is, that both terms point out the complex person of the glorious Redeemer clothed with such offices, who is no other than the blessed EMANUEL; for it is only as such, that he does, or can sustain any office in the business of man's redemption.

Let us next see what is most likely to be the meaning of the phrase, "SON OF GOD," in the text. This will appear exceeding plain, if the scope of the passage is attended to. Our blessed Lord had asked the disciples what the people's sentiments concerning him were. They having told him, he next requires their own; when Peter, in the name of the other disciples, answered, "Thou art CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD."

*Dan. ix. 26.

Now it must be at least supposed, that the answer which Peter gave was direct to the question his master asked in such a plain manner; but the question was, with respect to the character of CHRIST as come in the flesh," Whom say ye, that I the SON OF MAN am?" Therefore the terms in the answer must include his human nature, or they would be no direct reply to the question asked. But that the answer respected his character as EMANUEL, the ALL-SUFFICIENT SAVIOR, is evident from our Lord's reply to Peter, and the sequel of the passage. "Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." What was it that Peter had revealed unto him? Surely the character of the person who was speaking to him. The same that all God's children hear and learn of their heavenly Father, "that he hath sent his Son, whose name is EMANUEL, to be the Savior of the world." This is plain from what our Lord adds, " Upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." What is this rock on which the church is so secure? Surely the truth concerning the character of CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD, which the Father makes known to all his children, as well as to Peter, "For other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST. Brought unto the church, they are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, (the doctrine they taught concerning) JESUS CHRIST himself, being the chief corner stone; in whom, (as a Son that builds his father's house) all the building fitly framed together, groweth into an holy temple in the Lord."

The relative character and work of JESUS CHRIST, the SON of GOD, is the sum of the christian religion, and the foundation of the church's security and privileges, against which the powers of

hell and earth are combined, but according to his promise, they shall not prevail. He next acquaints the apostles with a sacred trust that should afterwards be committed to them, which at that time, they very little understood, viz. the opening up and making known to the world the doctrines, laws, and ordinances, of his kingdom, both with respect to loosing the obligation to Mosaic rites and ceremonies, and the establishing christian ordinances, which should never be altered. This our LORD calls the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Thus they should bind and loose by the doctrines which they should infallibly be directed to teach. But as the suitable time was not yet come, for such an open declaration of his character, "he charged them that they should tell no man that he was JESUS, the CHRIST." This must have a direct reference to what they had confessed him to be; and shews that the sum of their faith, as they expressed it, was,

* I know this way of disposing of the keys, will not please the kingdom of the clergy, whose dominion over men is principally supported upon a notion which they have in all ages taken great pains to cultivate, viz. That they are the apostles' successors, ambassadors of Christ as the apostles were,-have the keys of the kingdom of heaven committed to them, and so can open and shut at pleasure; all which are falsehoods imposed upon the credulous multitude, to keep up that reverence and subjection expected from them, to such as are more like spiritual lords, than spiritual leaders.

If they are successors to the apostles, which of them was called, sent, and ordained to this office immediately by Jesus Christ? Which of them has the power of working miracles as a proof of his mission? If they are ambassadors,-let them shew their commission from heaven to make any new laws, or alter those already made-what new revelation they have in trust to men.--And to say they have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is manifestly to rob Christ,-usurp his throne,--and intrude upon his kingly office, who alone "hath the key of David, he openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth. Be hold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it. I have the keys of hell and of death." Isa. xxii. 22. Rev, iii, 7, and i. 18.

that they believed him to be the true Messiah, or Christ, if we will allow their master to be a proper interpreter of their creed.

If more proof were not superfluous, both Mark and Luke might be produced, as agreeing with their master in the meaning of Peter's words. Mark gives them thus-" Peter answering said, thou art the CHRIST." And Luke says " Peter answering said, thou art the CHRIST of GOD." And adds, "And he straitly charged them and commanded to tell no man that thing," viz. that he was the CHRIST. It is therefore evident from the whole, that our LORD, and the evangelists, thought this expression, "the CHRIST of GOD," sufficient to intimate the full sense of Peter's confession; and we may safely conclude, that CHRIST of GOD, and Son of God, are still terms of the same import and meaning.

It remains to be considered what force there is in the Greek article, to make such a wide difference betwixt the term CHRIST, and SON of GOD, in the text.

This part of the objection might be very shortly dispatched, by denying that there is any occasion for the word that in the text, it being literally rendered in our English bibles: but as the advocates for the distinction I am opposing, have the authority of some critics, and think the weight of their argument consists in admitting them, I shall not dispute the case, but rather shew how little they weaken my argument, or strengthen their's.

And, first, I would observe, that it is paying a very uncomfortable compliment to the unlearned multitude, to tell them, that the grounds of their faith, on which the salvation of their souls depend, are only known by a critical acquaintance with

« FöregåendeFortsätt »