his mediatorial honour. Here, it is a Jewish phrase, and means a divine Person; there, it is a Gentile title, and signifies a heathen demi-god. Nothing can be more illustrious than its purport in one passage; nothing more trivial than its signification in another. It would seem as if an expositor of this class, in the early part of his labours, fixed on some arbitrary interpretation of the phrase, but on coming to a second passage, and finding the former definition inappropriate, was under the necessity of devising another. A third case in which it occurs is not answerable to either, and he therefore takes refuge in a third sense; and thus is the title bandied about, irreverently enough it must be confessed, until, at length, ordinary readers come to regard it as susceptible of almost every signification, and as, in general, a mere redundancy. That it is so in the hands of some theologians, is most certain; and were it blotted out of the New Testament, far from leaving any blank in their system, one can hardly suppose but that they would rejoice in getting rid of a phrase so indeterminate and

vexatious.

It is also to be remarked that, in several of the most common expositions of the title, it is understood as a synonyme only. It does not seem to occur to the interpreters, upon whose expositions we here venture to animadvert, that at all events it is necessary to affix to it some identifying meaning. They appear to be satisfied, if they can only make it signify the same as something else. In almost every case, too, in which it is thus regarded as equivalent to another title, it happens that the latter is the plainer of the two; and that the use of that before us only serves to obscure what otherwise would have been clear and intelligible. Thus, it is frequently alleged to be synonymous with the Messiah. But this is precise and unequivocal; while the title "Son of God" is not readily understood in such a sense.

The sacred writers are thus represented as allowing a distinct mode of expression to be superseded by one that is obscure; or annexing to a term which every one comprehends, another, the sense of which is a subject of considerable doubt.

It is scarcely necessary to show that such a mode of interpretation, one so loose, so arbitrary, so without purpose or force, is not justly applicable to inspired writers. They may certainly claim credit for an equal degree of precision and correctness with authors in general. And if so, it is no longer a matter of question, whether the title before us has an attainable and definite signification. Let this only be granted, and there will be an end of all vague and conjectural exposition; and, whatever may be its correct interpretation, it will at least be allowed to possess a meaning of its own.

In fact, some peculiar and primary signification is necessary' to the emphasis and significancy of those passages, where the appellation occurs in a secondary sense. When divine titles are applied to men, it is manifestly their originally exclusive propriety to the Creator which supplies the force to such uses. Thus, when Moses is said to be a god to Pharaoh, the dignity of his mission is illustrated by the proper divinity primarily implied in the designation. Were the term applicable to superior beings in general, its employment here would be comparatively mean and unimpressive. Were it said, for example, "Thou shalt be a spirit unto Pharaoh," there would be no significancy in the declaration. It is the supremacy and exclusiveness of the title, in its proper use, which gives weight to its secondary application.

Let the same reasoning be applied to the case before us. When Israel is styled the "son of God," or when angels or believers are so designated, it is the recollection of a primary meaning to the appellation, far more lofty

and illustrious, which impresses the mind with its force, and with the glory of those, who, even in a subordinate sense, are counted worthy to sustain it.

But we are not left to conclusions derived from a

collateral argument. There are connected with the New Testament use of this title, certain notes of exclusiveness. Thus Christ is called "the Son of God's love, -the Son of God, the beloved,-the Son, the onlybegotten of the Father,-God's own proper Son.' These epithets not only give emphasis to the passages in which they actually occur, but inform us on the sense in which we are to understand the title in general. The same usage obtains with respect to the other appellations of our Lord, the signification of which, in consequence of a similar latitude of employment, might possibly appear doubtful. Thus Jesus, as a common Jewish name among contemporary Jews, was rendered distinctive, by the addition of the local designation, "of Nazareth." Christ also is limited, by being connected with the name Jesus. Our Lord is described by the apostolic writers as "the great God,-the true God,the only sovereign God and Lord,-God over all, blessed for ever." Not that he is to be regarded as less great, true, and supreme, where these epithets do not occur; but that, as the title "God" has elsewhere a subordinate sense, such phrases might determine the acceptation in which it is universally applied to Christ. The like reasoning holds good with respect to the appellation under consideration; and the correct conclusion is, not that our Lord is the Son, with less eminence or exclusiveness in passages where no determining epithets

* ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ. (Col. i. 13.) ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς. (Matt. iii. 17, &c.) ὁ υἱὸς ὁ μονογενὴς,-μονογενὴς παρὰ πατρὸς. (John iii. 16, &c. ; i. 14.) bidtog viòs. (Rom. viii. 32.)

Tit. ii. 13; 1 John v. 20; Jude 4; Rom. ix. 5,

occur, but that they are to be understood as deciding upon the sole sense in which the title is ever employed.

In seeking this meaning, a very natural question in the first place is, Had the phrase "Son of God," at the time of our Lord's advent, any specific and precise acceptation among the Jews? As those to whom his ministry was primarily addressed, with the whole body of the first Christian Preachers and writers, and the entire original church, were Israelites, it is of the utmost importance to ascertain the current Jewish signification of New Testament phraseology. If among the Jews there were any theological expressions erroneously employed, or calculated to produce impressions false and unscriptural, it seems evident that the Apostles and first Christian Ministers would either decline their use, or would so expressly and unequivocally qualify them, as to leave no room for error upon the doctrines to which they referred.

But if any terms of common occurrence in the New Testament are left without limitation, it is equally plain that they would be understood according to their customary usage and we are warranted in concluding, that such is the sense in which the sacred writers intended them to be received.

Our first inquiry therefore will be into the Jewish signification of the title SON OF GOD. We may then proceed to examine how far the general tenor of the New Testament warrants or repudiates this interpretation. These subjects will be severally investigated in the two following chapters. In connexion with the latter, we propose to enter more minutely into the examination of those parts of the New Testament where the title is employed with peculiar emphasis and frequency; namely, the writings of St. John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The connexion of the views thus elicited, with other Scripture doctrines, will then

be investigated; and to these dissertations will be added a supplementary chapter on the sense of the primitive church.

It is hardly necessary to add that, should a cautious and separate examination of each of these subjects lead to one and the same result, there will be no reason to doubt that such a conclusion is worthy of our utmost credit.