(as it appears to me) to support his previous declaration respecting the dominion of the Messiah. This shall be everlasting, (is the argument,) because that eternal almighty Being who gave it him, is unchangeably the same.*

The only difficulty attending the passage is, that the previous quotation (v. 8) is introduced by the words, But unto the Son he saith' (or rather, the Scripture saith), and that this citation is connected with it by And.' If with Mr. Yates we translate the first clause of v. 8, But concerning the Son,' as in v. 7, concerning the angels,'† the abruptness of the citation in the 10th verse does not appear to me to be removed. If, however, I were unable to see how or why the Author introduced this last citation, I could not, without the most undeniable evidence, suppose that he meant to speak of the SERVANT of Jehovah, -who (he himself says) was anointed by HIM above his fellows, and (iii. 2) was faithful to HIM who appointed him, and (v. 8) learned obe

* It may contribute to show the force of the Author's quotation, if the Reader peruse here the prophetic description of the appointment of the Messiah to his sovereignty, by the Ancient of Days,' in Dan. vii. 9-14.-If kat at the beginning of Heb. i. 10, be rendered For, (and that it has occasionally a causal force both in the Septuagint and the New Testament, see Schleusner's Lexicons,) the train of the argument is at once obvious. If not so translated, the implied object of the quotation is the same.

There is no doubt

See Vindication of Unitarianism, p. 197. that poç Tov vov may be rendered concerning the Son; and that in v. 7. poc is best rendered concerning: but that this preposition with an accusative is occasionally "used to denote an address to any one," see Luke xv. 22. Acts viii. 20. xv. 7. I have met with several instances in classical authors; but I suppose Mr. Yates's opinion to the contrary, respects the scriptural usage of πpoç.

dience by the things which he suffered, and (ii. 9.) tasted death for every man, as the CREATOR of heaven and earth, FOR EVER AND UNCHANGEABLY THE SAME. And such evidence must not be sought in minute points of style and composition.

Heb. iii. 3. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, in as much as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.'

Oinos, house or family, is never used in the New Testament in reference to the material world. The argument of the Writer obviously is, that since God hath framed the family, and Moses was only a servant in the family, but Christ was a son, he who bears this near relation to the Founder of the family is worthy of more honour than Moses. The Author of the Epistle, so far from saying that Jesus founded the family, speaks of him (v. 2) as being faithful to Him who appointed (romoavi) him,' and (v. 4) says that He who framed all things, is God.'

These eight passages are all, I believe, which can be adduced in favour of the doctrine, that Jesus was the agent of God in the creation of the world. Now of these, John i. 3. 10. Heb. i. 2. iii. 3. cannot be interpreted as having any reference to the original creation, without departure from the scriptural use of words; the true reading of Eph. iii. 9. prevents that passage from affording any support to the doctrine; in Heb. i. 10. Jesus is not addressed, but He who was indeed

the Creator of all things; and though 1 Cor. viii. 6. will admit of an explanation accordant with the doctrine, it in no way whatever requires it. The doctrine therefore rests for its proof upon Col. i. 16, 17: and that this does not really refer to the original material creation is to my mind exceedingly evident: indeed that it cannot, (whatever be its import,) I have no hesitation in maintaining from the scriptural evidence adduced in p. 161, 167.

SECT. III.

Those Passages which ascribe to our Lord Titles, Perfections, and Powers which are thought to be inconsistent with his Proper Humanity.

John xx. 31. But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the SON OF GOD.'

THIS epithet is given to our Lord about fifty times; and that of Son, implying the same thing, about forty times. It can scarcely I think be denied, that our Lord's frequent employment of the appellation the Son or Son of God, when speaking of himself, and the employment of it by others in reference to him, have a sufficient cause in the divine words at his baptism; and if that mode of expression had not been thus employed by Him who sent him, there would have been sufficient foundation, in the customary Hebrew phraseology, for the use of the appellation. Now there appears to me no reasonable

ground for doubt, that those important words, • Thou art my beloved Son,' are to be interpreted by that customary phraseology; and no one who has given accurate attention to the subject can doubt, that, in the Jewish idiom, Son of God means no more than a person favoured by God and peculiarly eminent as to character or privileges or office. Out of the many passages which prove that the title has no respect to nature, I think it cannot be necessary to bring forwards more than the following. In Hos. i. 10, the Supreme Being is represented as saying of the Israelites, It shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them "Ye are not my people," there it shall be said unto them" Ye are the Sons of the Living God." In ch. xi. 1, we have another similar expression, When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my SON out of Egypt.' In 2 Sam. vii. 14, we find Nathan directed to say respecting Solomon, in the name of God, 'I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever: I will be his Father, and he shall be MY SON.' The same honourable appellation is in various places in the New Testament given to Christians, sometimes, as it appears, with respect to their privileges, but, in general, principally with respect to their character. One striking passage will suffice as an instance, and will serve to show the amount of this Jewish idiom; For as many as are led by the spirit of God,' i.e. as the connexion shows, by a godly disposition, these are the SONS OF GOD.' Rom. viii. 14.

I think it evident from these and similar passages, that there is nothing in the exalted appellation Son of God, in any way implying that there was a peculiarity of nature in Jesus. Christians are said expressly to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ,'* who, again, is said to be the first-born among many BRETHREN ;'† and if any, neglecting a widely prevalent Jewish idiom, and interpreting the expression by their own religious system, maintain that the expression does refer to nature, it is incumbent upon them to show the scriptural grounds of this position. I think they will find none.‡

Rom. viii. 17.

+ Ib. v. 29.

Luke i. 35, is the only passage which is supposed to represent the miraculous conception of Jesus as the reasou of his having this dignified title so peculiarly given to him. I think it most probable that the Gospel of Luke does not teach the miraculous conception of Jesus (see App. I.); and if it do not, the above supposition is totally unfounded. But even admitting that it were otherwise, the appellation would not in any way refer to superiority in nature, because the foundation of it would have no such reference, (see p. 21. note).-Schleusner (whom no one can suspect of being an Unitarian), after having pointed out several peculiarities in the scriptural use of the word son, says, "In the N.T. every one is called son of God, who is like God, beloved by him, and favoured by him with peculiar blessings, who truly and piously serves God, and obeys his will." He then states what he regards as the peculiar grounds of the application of the term to Christians, and to our Lord. In the last case he refers it in part (but without evidence) to peculiarity of nature; and he assigns as the reasons for the employment of the term in reference to Christ, the use of it in the O.T. in reference to the Messiah, and the phraseology of the O.T. which designated kings, magistrates, and in short all who were considered as holding the place of God among men, by the title Sons of God." It was obviously in this last sense that Nathaniel employed the term, (see John i. 49. comp. v. 45); but I consider the words of our Lord (John x. 36) as assigning the ground and justification of his own employment of it; viz. that the Father set him apart for a most important purpose, and sent him forth into the world to execute it. -Respecting this appellation of our Lord, I beg to refer the Reader to a valuable Sermon by Mr. Kenrick on the subject of it.