John i. 18. "The ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON." & povoyevns vios.

On the import of this expression, which St. Johr alone uses in reference to our Lord, see p. 77, and p. 66, notes. This Apostle never uses beloved in reference to Christ, and apparently employs only in the place of it. He thus styles our Lord in ch. i. 18. iii. 16, 18. of his Gospel; and in ch. iv. 9. of his first Epistle. Perhaps also we may add John i. 14: but it appears more probable that here the Apostle uses the expression indefinitely and by comparison-glory as of an Only Son from his Father.'

Some Trinitarians have considered μovoyens, only or only-begotten, when applied to Christ, as in no way referring to his divine nature, but to his miraculous birth :* but even supposing that this was in the strict sense miraculous, it appears most accordant with the style of a Jewish writer, to consider μovoyεvns as nearly synonymous with ayannros beloved, though somewhat more forcible than that word,-beloved as an only Son.-Recollecting that this Apostle was one of the favoured witnesses of our Lord's transfiguration, we may consider μovoyens as corresponding with the divine declaration, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.'t We shall not, I am fully convinced, by this means lower the force of the Apostle's appellation; and we may, therefore, justly interpret μovoyevns WELLBELOVED SON.‡

• See Parkhurst's Gr. Lex.

† Matt. xvii. 5. The Hebrew word only, to which μovoyevns corresponds,

Rom. viii. 32. He that spared not nïs OWN SON (rov idiov viov) but delivered him up for us all,' &c.

At the baptism of Christ, and at his transfigu. ration, the Divine Being, by a voice from heaven, declared him to be his beloved Son,' and the expression own Son' well accords with it. There is no scriptural ground for referring the appellation to any peculiarity of nature; it obviously denotes peculiar love and approbation. The force of it certainly is not greater than that of only or only-begotten, which has just been considered.

Rom. viii, 29. The FIRST BORN (TρOTOTOкóv) among many brethren.'

The passage shows that, as to nature, there is nothing peculiar in the sonship of Jesus: all who are conformed to his likeness are his brethren. He is the First-born, inasmuch as he is pre-eminently excellent, the Head of the new family formed by his dispensation out of all nations, the

is translated in the Septuagint ayanηroç beloved in Gen. xxii. 2. 12. 16. Jer. vi. 26. Amos viii. 10. Zech. xii. 10: ayɑñwμEVOL beloved in Prov. iv. 3: povóyɛvng only in Ps. xxit. 20. xxv. 16. XXXV. 17: and μovorрwños solitary in Ps. lxvii. 7. In the first tliree instances it refers to Isaac, and is rendered only in the English version. In the N.T. povoyevns is used in reference to Isaac, Heb. xi. 17.

That the Apostle might use μονογενης only, in the sense of αγαAnтоç beloved, is obvious therefore from the Hebrew idiom: that he did not use it in the sense commonly affixed to the word onlybegotten is abundantly clear from his own words in cb. i. 13, where he speaks of the believers in Christ as begotten (or born) of God, εk Øεov éyevvηIñoɑv, and in the first Epistle ch. iii. 9. where he says, 'Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten (or born) of God, εκ του Θεου γεγέννηται, and every one that loveth him that begat, rov yevvnoavra (í.e. God himself), loveth him also that is begotten of him, τον γεγεννημενον εξ αυτου i.e. every believer in Jesus.) See also 1 John iii. 9. iv. 7. v. 18.

6

First who partook of its blessings, and the Agent in dispensing them to his brethren. He is called the First-born in the following passages: Col. i. 15: (see p. 178,) also in p. 18: the First-born from the dead,' as being the first who was raised from the dead to die no more: Heb. i. 6, probably for the same reason; and Rev. i. 5, certainly so,-The expression shows the amount of only or only-begotten Son: if he were the Firstborn Son, he could not, in any strict sense, be the Only Son.

Matt. xxvi. 64. 'Hereafter shall ye see the SON OF MAN sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.'

There can scarcely be a doubt that in this declaration before the Jewish Sanhedrim, our Lord refers to the sublime representation of the dignity and dominion given to the Son of Man, contained in Dan. vii. 9—14: and his use of the appellation here explains the reason of his frequent employment of it in other cases. It was designed to lead the attention of the people to his claims as the Messiah, before he himself expressly avowed them.* That the term was em

In the 2d Ed. I felt much disposed to fall in with Mr. Simpson's ingenious hypothesis, (see Essays on Scripture, Vol. II. p. 244254.) that o vios тоv avρwπov (the Son of the Man) was designed by our Lord to intimate his being the expected descendant of David. This Mr. S. mainly rests on the fact, that whenever the expression occurs in the Septuagint, it is without the article before either word. -As, however, the use of the article before the governed noun av pwov is accordant with the general usage of the Greek language when the governing vios has it, nothing can be inferred from the fact. The true distinction is, between ò vos тоν aνGρwπOU THE Son of Man, (referring I think to the prophetic description of

ployed by the Prophet, and by our Lord himself, in connexion with this exalted office, proves that this in no way implied a nature or a sovereignty beyond what might be possessed by a proper human being: and it deserves observation that the original word in Daniel, ws, "is the name win, appropriated to imply the frailty, sorrows, and mortality of human nature." It thus corresponds to ra flesh; and it indicates that the exalted personage to whom the universal and everlasting dominion was GIVEN by the ANCIENT of DAYS, was a MAN of sorrows' we know he was the MAN Christ Jesus.'

Dr. Middleton considers this single appellation, (the manner in which it is employed being taken into account,) as an irrefragable proof of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ.-I suppose that most will agree with me in regarding this fact, as a singular and striking proof of the effect of preformed opinions, in warping the judgment of men of great learning and abilities. When persons can derive proofs of their own opinions from expressions which, in their plain and obvious meaning, are inconsistent with them, there is no common ground for argument. I was once told, that the doctrine of "Satisfaction by the atoning blood of Jesus" is to be found in five

Daniel, but still implying the proper humanity of the exalted person there described;) and vios aviρwжоν A Son of Man, denoting expressly his being a human being. See p. 108.

N.B. In the quotation of John v. 27, in p. 108, the mark of citation has been accidentally omitted after MAN: it should have been thus-because he is a SON OF MAN,' that is, a proper human being. The Reader will oblige me by inserting it.

sixths of the New Testament. I proposed opening the New Testament in any part whatsoever, and counting the verses which have any apparent reference to it: my opponent replied, that if it be not expressed it is implied." The learned Postellus," says Gregory Blunt, p. 103, "inferred, that there were 11,000 proofs of the Trinity in the Old Testament alone:" upon the above calculation, there are upwards of 6000 verses in the New Testament which contain the doctrine of Satisfaction; and upon Dr. Middleton's principles, the expression Son of Man, which occurs about 80 times, affords so many proofs of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ. Mark xvi. 19. 'So then after the LORD had spoken to them.'

The word Kupios Lord being constantly used in the Septuagint as the translation of Jehovah, and being frequently employed in the New Testament in reference to the Supreme Being, many have supposed that the application of it to Jesus is founded upon, and supports, the doctrine of his proper deity. The fact is, the word implies no more than that the person to whom it is applied has authority or power; and very frequently it is only a term of respect, given to a person without any reference to his superiority. It may be translated, Master, Sir, or Lord, according to the circumstances of the case.* Whence

"It is obvious," says the Eclectic Reviewer, (April 1809) "that where this word is used only as a compellation of respect, it should be translated by Sir, or Master; and that the solemn title Lord should be employed only when the reference is to the Deity,