The design of the Gospel in relation to the doctrines held at the time of its manifestation was twofold; the correction, to wit, of what was erroneous, and the amplification of what was incomplete. In testing a doctrine of Jewish theology, therefore, we have first to inquire, Is it in any way qualified or corrected by the evangelical communications of the New Testament? On the subject before us we have already remarked an obvious but most important deviation from the current opinions of the period; namely, that the Son of God and the Messiah are not, as was commonly supposed, titles indicating two distinct persons; but that each, with equal propriety, belongs to the one Jesus of Nazareth. This, however, does not affect the substantial distinction; and the question therefore recurs, Does the Gospel identify the two? and, admitting that they apply to the same individual, have we, from the teaching of Christ and his Apostles, any reason to believe that they are used of him in one and the same respect; or that in any sense they are synonymous?

If such be the case, we may rest satisfied that we shall not be left without distinct intimation to that effect. But if the New Testament is silent upon the subject; if, beyond the correction of fact to which we have just referred, it leaves its Jewish readers in undisturbed possession of this part of their national theology; we may safely conclude the distinction in question to be sound and scriptural. It probably will not be deemed an unwarrantable assumption, that this negative evidence is not wanting. Beyond controversy, there is nothing in the Gospel-record which specifically affirms the identity in our Lord of the characters of the Christ, and the Son of God. Were our object, therefore, the bare substantiation of the doctrine of the divine and eternal Sonship, we might be satisfied with the evidence already accumulated; since, unless the foregoing reasoning

I

contains some capital fallacy, it affords sufficient assurance to this effect.

But, admitting that the Gospel leaves untouched the distinction already ascertained, there is yet another question of great moment which awaits our decision. It is this:-Does the New Testament, in its more complete revelations, confirm and amplify the doctrine of the filiation of our Lord's divine nature? We combine the views of corroboration and enlargement, because the amplification of truth is usually employed by the apostolic writers as the most certain and appropriate means for its confirmation. So fully indeed is this the fact, that the absence, either directly or by inference, of all more complete evangelical developement may reasonably be regarded as a considerable presumption against the soundness of a Jewish opinion.

But if it can be shown that the distinction under consideration is specifically recognised by the first teachers of our faith; that, in his pre-existent state, our Lord is more frequently described by the title "Son of God" than by any other appellation; that, upon the Jewish exposition of the phrase, trains of the most momentous argument, and even entire books, are framed; that the eternal filiation of our Redeemer stands connected with the most important evangelical verities; and, lastly, that in all ages it has been confessed by the church of Christ, our process of proof will be adequate to the conviction of every independent and guileless mind. In this case it will be evident that Jesus the Messiah is properly God; that in his divine nature he sustains to the Father the relation of a Son; or, in other words, is the Eternal Son of God; and, finally, that this view of his character is one of those momentous and pre-eminent evangelical truths which are essential to sound and scriptural theology.

NOTE (F), p. 166.

On the Sense of the Appellation, "Son of man."

OMITTING, for the sake of brevity, several subordinate considerations, the following cursory remarks may assist in the illustration of the position laid down in the text.

The Hebrew Scriptures, in parallelisms where man is undeniably the correspondent synonyme, supply us with numerous examples of the title "Son of man." (See Num. xxiii. 19; Job xxv. 6; xxxv. 8; Psalm viii. 4; &c.) By the aid of a concordance, the reader will perceive that, with the exception of the prophecy of Ezekiel, this, in the Old Testament, is by far its most frequent use. Nor is the New Testament without similar examples in point of sense. (Comp. Mark iii. 28 with Matt. xii. 31. See also Rev. xiv. 14.) In other Greek writers may be found analogous phrases. Thus Scultetus cites such expressions as, "The sons of Greeks, of musicians, of physicians, of grammarians;" meaning severally, Greeks, musicians, physicians, and grammarians. (Exercit. Evang., c. xlviii.) In the like acceptation, the first of these phrases is often employed by Homer. (vies 'Axaιov. Il. A.162, 237, 392, &c. Od. г. 104, 139, &c.)

" is appropriated

Among Christians, the title "Son of man to our Lord, and that by his own authority; but there is no evidence in favour of its equally exclusive Jewish use. In the languages which peculiarly belong to this period, the Chaldee and the Syriac, the phrase, in the ordinary acceptation of the Hebrew Scriptures, is of very common occurrence. (See Lightfoot. Erubhin, c. iv. Works, vol. iv., p. 13.) Thus in the book of Leviticus, instead of the formulas, "when a man," or "if a man," with which the sections of the law usually commence, the Targum which goes under the name of Jonathan, always reads, a son of man."

66

Yet more in point is the phraseology of the Syriac version of the New Testament, which, as having been made by a Christian, in or about the apostolic age, (had not the appellation in question fallen in exactly with the genius of the language,)

would have avoided its indiscriminate use. Yet here, on the contrary, we find so many examples of its ordinary sense, as to leave no doubt that even among Christian Hebrews there was no exclusive application of the title to Christ. (See, for example, Matt. xii. 12, 43; xv. 11, 20; John iii. 27; xiv. 21; Acts x. 26; Rom. iii. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 26; ix. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 4; Gal. ii. 16; Jam. ii. 24; v. 17; and, as especially illustrative of our subject, John x. 33.) And considering that in this language, or in one of its dialects, our Redeemer taught, as well as the Apostles at the commencement of their ministerial career, this evidence falls little short of demonstration as to the Jewish acceptation of the title in question.

If then the appellation "Son of man," in the vernacular idiom, was strictly and emphatically the synonyme for man, supplying at once the indication and the evidence of humanity, it must have been by some extraordinary perversion of language or of reasoning that the phrase "Son of God" could lead to any other impression than that of proper Deity. Indeed, to an unsophisticated mind, no stronger argument could be advanced for identity of nature in God the Father and our Lord, than that the latter is the Son of God. Hence, it is remarked by the illustrious Selden, "As the expression Son of man occurs a thousand times in the Jewish commentaries synonymously with man, so is the title Son of God to be understood as importing true divinity." (De Jure Nat. et Gent., lib. ii., c. xii., p. 265.)

The most probable conclusion therefore is, not only that this latter term involved the idea of sovereign Deity, but that this is the only acceptation which the Jewish idiom would allow. Let this be granted, and it will go far to show what must be its signification throughout the New Testament. For it can scarcely be questioned that the later sacred writers would not employ it in any other than its true idiomatic sense; nor deviate from that use of it which their vernacular tongue not only permitted, but peremptorily required.

CHAPTER III.

GENERAL EVANGELICAL ILLUSTRATIONS.

SECTION I.

THE NEW TESTAMENT MODE OF EMPLOYING OUR LORD'S TITLES, ESPECIALLY THE TITLE SON OF GOD."

66

In the present chapter, two lines of illustration are to be pursued. The one is derived from the position in which the title under consideration occurs throughout the New Testament; the other from the proximate design of the resurrection of Christ, regarded as the fundamental miracle of the Christian system. Each will occupy a distinct section.

It seems to be a not uncommon opinion, that the names and titles of our Lord are indiscriminately employed; and hence it may be considered a fruitless labour to attempt a classification of the passages in which they occur, or to adduce any system of rules, by the force of which their position is supposed to be determined. But did the limits of the present dissertation admit, the incorrectness of this opinion might be shown by the most copious induction. Whoever has the patience to investigate the subject, will be able to satisfy himself that no such promiscuous application of the terms in question is justly chargeable upon the sacred writers.*

*For example's sake, take the first verse in the New Testament, and let any one attempt to improve upon its arrangement in this