Chapter 14.

CHAPTER 14.

The use of this doctrine.

AND now, having proved our Lord’s divinity, and answered (I hope) the most material objections that are made to it, I shall close this treatise when I have added a few words respecting the use of this doctrine.

1. And its use appears, first, in that it is closely connected with all the offices, which, according to the Scriptures, Christ sustains, and, in the execution of which, he is our Saviour and Redeemer. It is closely connected, even with his office of a prophet. “This is my beloved Son (says the Father) hear ye him.” In order that we may. hear him with becoming reverence, entire confidence, and ready obedience, it is necessary that we should regard him as the Father’s “beloved Son;” and that in a higher sense than any prophet, or apostle, or angel, ever was, or can be—his Son: a Son in whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell: yea, all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Hence, as we have seen, he is the very Word of the Father, and what he speaks, the eternal truth, wisdom, and love of God speaks in him. He is the Divine Oracle, and all he says is as important and infallible as what was uttered of old from between the cherubim, upon the mercy seat; and should be received with as much implicit faith, and dutiful submission, as the high priest, or people of Israel of old, received answers from that most holy place.

2. It is true, what was delivered by Moses and the prophets, by the evangelists and apostles, is also the word of God; for “prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost:” but not in so high a sense as what was spoken by Christ. When God spoke by them, he spoke by his servants; when he spoke by Christ, he spoke by his Son. They had the Spirit “by measure,” he “without measure.” They deliver his truths and declare his laws; he is the truth itself, and the lawgiver among his people. They come to us with authority from another, and say, “Thus saith the Lord.” He speaks as one having authority in himself, and his language is, “I say unto you.”

3. And if the doctrine of the proper and peculiar Sonship of Christ be closely connected with his prophetic office, it has still a closer connection with the office of a priest. We have already seen that the virtue of his atonement depends upon it, and that, if he had been but a mere man, or a mere creature, his single and temporal life could not have been a ransom, or “redemption price,” for the innumerable and eternal lives of all men. And with regard to his appearing in the presence of God for us, as our Advocate and Intercessor, let those who deny his divinity inform us how we are to obtain access to him, that we may acquaint him with our wants and griefs, and put our cause into his hands? Or how we are to be assured that he knows, and therefore is touched with the feelings of our infirmities, so that he does and will sympathize with us, and afford us grace to help in time of need?

4. Nay, and even as to his kingly office,—what sort of a king would he be, who could neither know his subjects, nor deliver, nor protect, nor govern them? Poimena lawn, “The shepherd of his people,” is a common phrase with a heathen poet, when speaking of a heathen king. All good kings, whether heathen or Christian, are the shepherds of the people, and, as such, watch over, protect, and govern them. It is true, this can only be done very imperfectly by men, as men are very imperfect in knowledge, and power, and goodness. But the King whom God hath set upon his holy hill of Zion, is the “good Shepherd,” who “gave his life for the sheep,” and who says, “I know my sheep, and am known of mine;” and again, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. He comes with a strong hand, and his arm rules for him: he feeds his flock like a shepherd, gathers the lambs with his arm, carries them in his bosom, and gently leads those that are with young.”

5. As a King, he reigns in, as well as over his subjects, subdues their lusts and passions, casts down their imaginations, and even brings into captivity their thoughts to the obedience of himself. He “dwells in their hearts by faith;” is “in them their hope of glory;” and his kingdom of “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” being set up in their hearts, is to them, at once, a preparation for, and a pledge of his kingdom of glory. Now all these particulars suppose his divinity; suppose him to be omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent; possessed of boundless wisdom, power, and love, and every Divine perfection.

6. Add to this, secondly, that the Holy Ghost, speaking by David, connects our worshipping of him with his sustaining this office of a king: “He is thy Lord, and worship thou him.” And we have seen, in a former chapter, how certainly it is our duty to comply with this Divine injunction. Herein, then, especially appears the use of this doctrine concerning the divinity of Christ—that while we worship him, (which we are in duty bound to do,) we may know, and be persuaded, we are not guilty of idolatry, in worshipping a mere creature. “We are commanded to ‘fear the Lord our God, and serve him,’ and that with such an emphasis, as by him we are to understand him alone, because the ‘Lord our God is one Lord.’ From whence, if any one arose among the Jews, teaching, under the title of a prophet, to worship any other beside him for God, the judgment of the rabbins was, that notwithstanding all the miracles which he could work, though they were as great as Moses wrought, he ought immediately to be strangled; because the evidence of this truth, that one God only must be worshipped, is above all evidence of sense. Nor must we look upon this precept as valid only under the law, as if, then, there were only one God to be worshipped, but since the Gospel we had another; for our Saviour hath commended it to our observation, by making use of it against the devil in his temptation, saying, ‘Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’ If, then, we be obliged to worship the God of Israel only; if we be also commanded to give the same worship to the Son, which we give to him, it is necessary we should believe that the Son is the God of Israel. When the Scripture ‘bringeth in the first begotten into the world, it saith, Let all the angels of God worship him;’ but then the same Scripture calleth that ‘first begotten Jehovah, and the Lord of the whole earth,’ Hebrews 1:6, and Psalm 97:6, 7. For a man to worship that for God which is not God, thinking that it is God, is, although not in the same degree, yet the same sin. To worship him as God, who is God, thinking that he is not God, cannot be thought an act, in the formality of it, void of idolatry. Lest, therefore, while we are obliged to give unto him Divine worship, we shall fall into that sin, which, of all others, we ought most to abhor, it is necessary we should believe that Son to be, (in union with his Father,) that eternal God, whom we are bound to worship, and whom only we should serve.”

7. Thirdly, our belief of this doctrine is necessary “to raise us to a thankful acknowledgment of the infinite love of God, appearing in the sending of his only begotten Son into the world to die for sinners. The love of God is frequently extolled and admired by the apostles. ‘God so loved the world,’ saith St. John, ‘that he gave his only begotten Son.’ ‘God commendeth his love toward us,’ saith St. Paul, ‘in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; in that he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.’ ‘In this,’ saith St. John again, ‘was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.’ If we look upon all this as nothing else but that God should cause a man to be born, after another manner than other men, and when he was so born, after a peculiar manner, yet a mortal man, should deliver him to die for the sins of the world, I see no such great expression of his love, in this way of redemption, more than would have appeared in any other way.

8. “It is true, indeed, that the reparation of lapsed man is no act of absolute necessity, in respect of God, but that he hath as freely designed our redemption, as our creation: and, considering the misery from which we are redeemed, and the happiness to which we are invited, we cannot but acknowledge the singular love of God, even in the act of redemption itself. But yet the apostles have raised that consideration higher, and placed the choicest mark of the love of God, in the choosing such means, and performing in that manner our reparation; by sending his ‘only begotten Son into the world;’ by ‘not sparing his own Son;’ by giving and delivering him up to be scourged and crucified for us. And the estimation of this act of God’s love must necessarily increase proportionably to the dignity of the Son so sent into the world; because the more worthy the person of Christ was before he suffered, the greater was his condescension to such a suffering condition; and the nearer his relation to the Father, the greater his love to us, for whose sakes he sent him so to suffer. Wherefore to derogate any way from the person and nature of our Saviour, before he suffered, is so far to undervalue the love of God, and consequently to come short of that acknowledgment and thanksgiving which is due unto him for it.” (Pearson on the Creed, pp. 143, 144.)

9. Let me illustrate this in the words of a translation of Abbadie: “In the deliverance of the ancient Israelites from Egyptian bondage, two things may be remarked. God redeems them from the slavery under which they groaned; and previous to their deliverance, he commands them to kill the paschal lamb, and to sprinkle its blood on the door posts of their houses. The love of God to the tribes of Jacob, in granting them deliverance, is greatly to be admired; for they were reduced to a sad extremity, and had long desired to be relieved. But we should think ourselves much abused, if any one endeavoured to persuade us, that the love of God to them appeared in a wonderful manner, because the blood of a lamb was the sign to the destroying angel to spare their first born, or because the sacrifice of the passover was a mean, in the hand of God, of working out their deliverance. Should any one exclaim, ‘Behold, how God loved the Israelites! He loved them so that he put a lamb, nay, many lambs to death, that he might redeem them from slavery!’ would you not think him delirious?

10. “But here I shall be reminded, ‘That the life of Christ, as a mere man, is incomparably more precious than the life of a sacrifice under the law.’ Suppose it be; yet as the life of a lamb bears no proportion to the temporal deliverance of the Israelites, the temporal life of Jesus, as a mere man, of a mere creature, can bear no proportion to the eternal life of mankind. Nay, in the former of these two cases there is some proportion, and a comparison may be formed; but none at all in the latter. For as the life of a lamb is temporal, so was the life of an Israelite, which was redeemed by it; and it must be allowed, that, between temporal and temporal, there is some proportion. But the life of Christ, as a mere creature, is temporal and of a limited worth; whereas, the life he purchased for us is eternal, and of infinite value; between which there is, there can be no proportion.” To dwell a little longer upon this:—

11. “The love of God appears, it may be said, not in giving a man, simply considered, but in giving one, that is, his own Son. But is Jesus the Son of God in a proper, or in a figurative sense? If only in the latter, I desire to be informed, whether it be an extraordinary and an astonishing effort of Divine love, to give a man for our redemption, who is the Son of God only by a metaphor? Suppose a sovereign were obliged to destroy a great number of his subjects, to assert the rights of justice, and maintain the honour of his laws, except some person were found worthy of being admitted as their substitute, who, by laying down his life, should deliver them from death. Suppose, farther, this prince, being moved with compassion, should engage to give the life of his own son for their redemption; you could not but conceive the highest idea of his mercy and love to his offending subjects. But if, afterward, you should be well informed, that he did not give his own son, and be also assured, that, properly speaking, he never had a son of his own; but that all the mystery of this astonishing love, which made such a noise in the world, consisted in this,—he adopted one of his subjects; took him out of a state of extreme indigence; educated him like the son of a prince; determined to give him up to death, as a ransom for his perishing subjects; and then, if it were possible, to reward his sufferings by making him the heir of his crown: in such a case it would be immediately said, Though the conduct of this prince is very extraordinary, and though his clemency is worthy of admiration, in pardoning attainted rebels, and in redeeming those who deserved to perish; yet it is a childish hyperbole to exclaim, ‘Behold, how he loved his kingdom! He so loved it, that he gave his son, his own son, his dearly beloved, and only begotten son, to die for his offending subjects!’

12. “Still more to illustrate the point, we may borrow an instance from the sacred Scriptures. The offering up of Isaac, it is allowed, was a type of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Isaac, the delight of his father, and his only son, was bound in order to be sacrificed by Abraham himself, notwithstanding all the yearnings of parental bowels. Thus he became a lively type of Christ, of him, who is the only begotten of the Father, and in whom he takes infinite and eternal delight. As Abraham offered up his only son, so the Divine Father delivered up to death his only begotten Son. Suppose, then, any one were to persuade and convince you, that Abraham did not offer up his only son, nor his own son, but that he took the son of Eliezer, gave him the name of Isaac, and, if you will, put on him the clothes of Isaac; you would immediately forbear to wonder at the obedience and faith of the renowned patriarch, in making no scruple to sacrifice his own and only son. We have been wont to look for the image only, in a type, and for the reality in its accomplishment; but, if we believe our adversaries, we must look for the reality in the type, and the image in its accomplishment. According to this new mode of interpretation, Abraham performed a great and wonderful act of obedience, by which his faith in the promises, and his love to God, have been rendered illustrious to all generations; for he offered up his own son, his dear and only son, and this he did in reality, not in appearance only, But God, in delivering up Jesus to death, gives us only a servant, whom he calls his Son, that there might be a greater appearance of love in his dying for us.”

13. “If, then, (as Bishop Pearson adds,) the sending of Christ into the world be the highest act of the love of God which could be expressed; if we be obliged unto a return of thankfulness, some way correspondent to such infinite love; if such a return can never be made without a true sense of that infinity, and a sense of that infinity of love cannot consist without an apprehension of an infinite dignity of nature in the person sent; then it is absolutely necessary to believe that Christ is so the ‘only begotten Son’ of the Father, as to be of the same substance with him, of glory equal, of majesty coeternal.”

14. A fourth use of this doctrine, and the last I shall mention, is to convince us, that (as our poet says)

No man too largely from heaven’s love can hope,

If, what he hopes, he labours to secure.

For, as the apostle argues: “He that spared not his own Son, but freely delivered him up unto death for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” But then this implies that Christ was more than a mere man, or mere creature: for, “would it be logical, would it be rational, thus to argue? If God, in his great love, delivered up one mere man, or mere creature, to death, we may safely conclude he will deliver millions from it. If he delivered up one to temporal sufferings, he will certainly deliver vast multitudes from eternal torments: if he gave a person infinitely inferior to himself, to endure the pains of crucifixion for us; he will undoubtedly grant us the enjoyment of himself, to make us completely and everlastingly happy. How different the apostle’s manner of arguing in this passage! Whoever duly considers how he speaks of God’s own Son, of us all, and of all things, cannot but observe he supposes it quite evident, that there is no proportion between Jesus Christ and all the redeemed, though taken collectively; nor between the gift of him and the grant of all other blessings. But such a way of speaking is absolutely unaccountable, is highly absurd, on the hypothesis opposed:” but, on our principles, God’s “not sparing his own Son, but freely delivering him up unto death for us all,” gives us the highest assurance that he will perform all his gracious promises, and “freely give us all things.” For he that has done us the greater favour, will surely do us the less: he that hath given us such a gift as his own Son, a gift, according to our doctrine, infinite in value, will surely give us every other inferior blessing; especially considering that his Son was given for this very end; that atonement being made for sin, and all the demands of justice being Satisfied, Divine mercy and love might have free course, and God, in a way consistent with his attributes, might bestow upon us all blessings— temporal, spiritual, and eternal.