great a relation to the Spirit as the Father, appears from this, that as the Father sends the Spirit, so also does he, John xiv. 26. “ The Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name," chap. xv. 26. “ The Comforter whom I will send from the Father.” Observe, the Father sends the Spirit in the Son's name, and the Son sends him from the Father. That the Spirit is his, was taught in effect under the old economy. “ I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplications." Who it is that promis eth, appears from what immediately follows, " and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,” Zech. xiii. 10. The Spirit is said to receive all things from the Son, and all things that the Father hath, belong unto the Son, John xvi. 14, 15. Hence it follows, that the things which the Spirit searcheth, 1 Cor. iii. 10. and which he teacheth, John xiv. 26. belong equally to the Father and the Son; compare John xvii. 10. “ All things which are mine, are thine; and thine are mine." But if their possessions be equal, so must their persons. The Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Christ, as well as the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead, Rom. viii. 9, 11.; the Spirit of the Son, as well as the Spirit of the living God, Gal. iv. 6. 2 Cor. iii. 3. Nor is this to be understood as respecting the Son merely in his mediatory character, as therein he hath received the Spirit without measure from the Father, Isa. xi. 2. Jolin iii. 34. The Spirit is not called his, because given him as a servant, but because proceeding from him as a Son. If called his, because given unto him as the Head of the mystical body, he might also be called the Spirit of the members. But this he never is. He is frequently denominated from his fruits and effects, but never from those in whom he dwells. Never once is he called the Spirit of the saints. A clear intimation that he bears not the same kind of relation to them which he does to Christ. In bim be dwells by nature, in them by grace. And even wit. nessing their adoption, he is called the Spirit, in distinction from theirs, Rom. viii. 14.

3dly. That the Son is equal with the Father, may be evinced from the apostle's celebrated testimony, Col. ii. 9. “ In him dwelleth all the fulness of Godhead bodily.” These words though few, are very forcible. . Stronger could scarce have dropt from the lips of an angel. The Godhead, the fulness of the Godhead, all the fulness of the Godhead, is said to dwell in Christ, and that bodily. By the Godhead is meant the divine nature or essence, Acts xvii. 29. Rom. i. 20. By all the fulness of the Godhead, we are to understand all that plenitude of perfection which is included in the divine nature, eternity, infinity, omnipotence, immuta

, bility, &c. This fulness stands opposed to that emptying of himself, of which we read in the words immediately following my text. It is not the fulness of a vessel which was naturally empty, and derived all its contents from without. No, it is the fulness of an ocean. The fulness here is not the same with that mentioned, chap. i. 18. That is mediatorial; this divine: that was the effect of the Father's good pleasure; this is as necessary as his existence: that was peculiar to Christ's office; this inseparable from his person. It is not simply said the fulness, but all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in him. There is not one fulness of Deity in the Father, and another in the Son. But the self same pleni. tude is in both, and therefore they are one and the same God. Whatever the Father hath, that hath the Son also. There is not a perfection in the Father, which is not in the Son. If there were, all the fulness of the Godhead could not be said to dwell in him. The personal property of the Father cannot be urged as an exception here. Paternity and filiation distinguish them from one another, but are no indications of pre-eminence or inferiority. As each of these relations implies the other, so also that the persons thus related are altogether equal.

Both hath the same divine nature, though the one has it in one manner, intimated by his being called the Father, the other in another, intimated by his being called the Son. The apostle adds one word, which is not without its emphasis." In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.This word bodily stands not opposed to the shadowy, or typical manner in which God was said to dwell in the temple, i Kings vüi. 12, 13. As if the meaning were, that God dwelt truly in the one, and typically only in the other. So shadow and body are opposed, verse 17. Something vastly more than this must be intended. For God dwells not typically, but truly in the saints. The a. postle prays that they may be filled with all the fulness of God, Eph. iii. 19. But no where is it said that the Godhead dwells bodily in them. When therefore all the fulness of Deity is said to dwell in Christ, the sense must be, that it dwells essentially in him; or, as the Evangelist expresses it, “ that the Word was made flesh."

He who was God assumed human nature, cal. led a body, Heb. x. 5. into a personal union with him. self. In that nature, as in a temple, dwells all the fulness of the Godhead. If Christ be possessed of all that fulness, he must be equal to the Father, for what can the Father have more?

4thly. That the Son is equal with the Father, appears from the names which are given him. To col. lect all these would far exceed the limits to which we mean to confine ourselves; therefore instead of many, we shall only select a few. He is at every turn called God. The Father is represented as calling him so. Heb. i. 8. Unto the Son, he saith, “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” John i. 1. “ The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” God is an absolute term; Lord a relative: the one expressing what he is in himself; the other what he is in relation to the creatures. Compare Psalm xlv. 11. Acts ii. 36. Accordingly my text says, “ that he was in the form of God;" and the following context bears, that he as Lord hath dominion over all. Thomas joined both in his confession, saying, “ My Lord, and my God,” John xx. 28. He is not only called God, but the “ true God," i John v. 20. « The great God," Tit. ii. 13. “ The mighty God,” Isai. ix. 5. Nay, he is called

[subsumed][ocr errors]

“ Jehovah,” Jer. xxiii. 6. Hos. i. 17. which is a name never ascribed unto any, but “to the living and the true God,” Psal. Ixxxiii. ult. and quite different from the relative word Lord. Compare Psal. cx. 1.“ Jehovah said to my Lord.” Now if such great and glorious names be given him, he must surely be all that they can import. He must be God in the highest pos. sible sense of the word. Not a God in name or title only, 1 Cor. viii. 5. but a God by nature and in truth. The apostle reminds the Galatians, that when they knew not God, they did service unto them who by nature are no gods, Gal. iv. 8. Hence we may infer on the surest grounds, that Christ is by nature God. Were he not, he could not be God at all: he could not be God, except in title only. A God, but not by nature, is as palpable a contradiction as a made God. He who is not by nature God, cannot possibly be so by donation. This is as obvious and certain as that a being who is not by nature infinite, eternal, and immutable, cannot possibly be made so. To be made eternal, is to be made to have no beginning. An absurdity this as gross as that of the Papists, who make their Maker, and eat their God. To be without beginning is incommunicable to a creature. But this suggests,

5thly. That the Son is equal with the Father appears from the attributes ascribed unto him in scripture. Perfections incompatible to created being are there said to be his. Let me instance in five only; cternity, omnipresence, immutability, omnipotence, and absolute sovereignty. With respect unto the first, we read that his goings fortlı have been of old, from the days of eternity, Mic. v. 2. It is remarkable that it is the Father who thus speaketh of the Son.

« Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel: whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” In the one part of the verse, his nativity as man is foretold, in the other his eternity is asserted. As man he was to come forth out of Bethlehem; but as God the Son, his goings forth were from the days of eternity. Omnipresence is attributed to him. " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt. xviii. 20. And to his disciples it was his parting promise, “ Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” chap. xxviii. ult. Observe in what a majestic manner his expressions run. It is not I will be,“ but I am in the midst of them: I am with you al. ways.” This phraseology intimates at once the eternity of his existence, and the immensity of his presence. Whether he speaks of the past, John yiii. 58. or of the future, Matt. xxviii. ult. he still expresses himself in language becoming none but God, “I am.” His immensity is clearly taught in his words to Nicodemus, John jii. 13. “No man bath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven.” Here it appears in the most convincing manner, that while as man he was on earth, at the same time as God he was in heaven. For he does not say, the Son of Man who shall ascend into heaven, but who is just now in heaven. Immutability belongs to him. So the Father himself testifies. Un. to the Son he saith, “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. The heavens shall perish, but thou remainęst. As a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall 'not fail,” Heb. i. 8, 11, 12. This import.

8 ant truth is also asserted, chap. xiii. 8. “ Jesus Christ

“ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” Omnipotence he challenges as his own, Rev. i. 8. “ I am Al. pha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” The same style he uses chap. xxi. 6. xxii. 13. What a majesty in these words, “ I am Alpha and Omega!" There is an allusion to the Greek alphabet, the first and the last letters of which are so named. In explication of this metaphorical manner of speaking, he adds, “ I am the beginning and the ending. I am the first cause, and the last end of all. I am their ac. tive beginning, and therefore existed before them.

« ForrigeFortsett »