2. The creation of the universe was effected by our Lord as the WORD and the SON OF GOD.

These are the two titles employed by the New Testament writers in this connexion. It follows that, in the respect in which he is the Logos, in the same respect he is the Son. If the former is admitted to describe his preexistent state, and to indicate his pure Deity, the same reference cannot consistently be refused to the latter. The identical application of these terms in the Jewish theology is therefore sanctioned by the evangelical writers.

3. When our Lord is spoken of as the Creator, any title clearly expressive of Deity is perfectly appropriate. It is not, however, as a divine subsistence abstractedly considered, but as the second person of the Trinity, that he was designated to the mediatorial work. The term therefore by which he is correctly described with this reference must be one exclusively appropriate to his relation in the Godhead. This appellation is the SON OF GOD. With respect to his mediatorial designation, either expressly or by implication, he is always thus denominated. In this title, therefore, is to be found his specific distinction in the Trinity. In his divine and eternal nature he sustains the relation of a Son, and is consequently the Eternal Son of God.

There are several other considerations suggested by the New Testament uses of our Lord's titles. But I prefer leaving the subject in this simple and easily appreciable form. The views here presented are such as every one is capable of examining and estimating; and in general it is perhaps not too much to say, that the decision can hardly be otherwise than in favour of the doctrine under consideration.

NOTE (G), p. 181.

On the apparent Exceptions to the foregoing Rules.

As far as I am aware, there are but three passages which can be ranged under this head. Of these, the first, as given in our version, is as follows:

1 Cor. viii. 5, 6, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) but to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, by whom [are] all things, and we by him."

It is by no means agreed whether the latter part of this passage refers to the mediatorial or the creative work of our Lord. But admitting, for the sake of the argument, that the allusion is to the latter, it is to be noted that the term "Lord" has here a peculiar eminence of signification. St. Paul represents Jesus Christ as the "one Lord," in opposition to the "lords many" of the Heathens; and, of course, in each instance the word will have the same signification. Among idolaters, it was employed to describe not the lower class of deities, but those of the very highest rank. Thus Basnage remarks, “The title Lord among the Pagans was consecrated to the most exalted divinities. On this account it was refused by Augustus, although he had accepted the homage of the altar, and other divine honours, which some Grecian states had paid him. Tiberius, under whom Jesus Christ lived, was equally scrupulous." (Sermons, T. i., p. 254.) This statement is borne out by the testimony of Tacitus, (Annal., lib. ii., c. lxxxvii.) Suetonius, (August. 53, Tiber. 27,) and Tertullian. (Apolog. c. xxiv., p. 31.)

In this case, therefore, the term "Lord" is to be understood, not as in its common use indicative of mediatorial authority, but as descriptive of sovereign divinity. Hence it is appropriate to our Redeemer in his pre-existent state, equally with the titles Word and Son. The names "Jesus Christ" are annexed to limit its signification; and the sense of the passage seems to be, that though among the heathen there were many

pretended divinities who were honoured by the appellations "God" and "Lord," yet to us Christians "there is but one God, [even] the Father, and one Lord, [even] Jesus Christ." Whatever therefore may be the precise reference of the text, it cannot be correctly regarded as an exception to the established modes of New Testament phraseology.

66

The second passage which we have to examine, is Eph. iii. 9, 10, “ And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things [by JESUS CHRIST], to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly [places,] might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God."

The creation of the universe is supposed to be here attributed to Jesus Christ. But the genuineness of the words "by Jesus Christ" is more than doubtful. They are wanting in the Alexandrian, the Vatican, the Ephrem MSS., and in five others. In the Codex Bezæ, they are added by a later hand. They are not found in the Syriac, the Arabic, the Coptic, the Ethiopic, the Armenian, the Old Italic, and the Vulgate versions. The text is cited without them by Tertullian, the author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, which goes under the name of Origen, by Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and several other fathers.

In addition to this external evidence against them, the interruption of the sense which, without any obvious purpose, they occasion, may be regarded as some presumption on the same side. The doctrine that God created the universe for the illustration of his manifold wisdom, in the constitution of the church, is at once apprehended. But it is not easy to perceive the connexion between the fulfilment of this design, and the agency of our Lord in creation. Upon the whole, therefore, it is presumed that Griesbach is perfectly justified in omitting the words in question; and in their absence the passage supplies no exception, either real or apparent, to the rules already ascertained.

There is yet a third text which may perhaps be deemed a deviation from the usual mode of expressing our Redeemer's mission. It occurs John xvii. 3: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and JESUS CHRIST,

whom thou hast sent." So it is given in the authorized version, and Jesus Christ is thus represented as the subject of the mediatorial designation. But on restoring the passage to the order of the original, from which our translators have needlessly deviated, the difficulty is removed. "That they may know thee, [who art] the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent, [who is] Jesus Christ.” (ὅν ἀπέστειλας, Ἰησοῦν Xploróv.) Such I apprehend is the true sense of our Lord.

Yet, were these passages admitted as real exceptions to the modes of expression which obtain among the New Testament writers, we need be under no apprehension for the security of the argument. The mass of evidence upon which that is founded, will remain unaffected by a deviation so comparatively trifling. In these instances a prolepsis might safely be supposed, especially as upon any other hypothesis the whole of the passage cited must be taken as proleptical. It is easily conceivable that such a figure might be employed in three examples, but the alternative is utterly incredible.

The title "Son of God" is of course liable to the same laws of interchange as the other appellations of our Lord. It is not unfrequently applied to his complex person; and, occasionally, where the reference is to the attributes of pure humanity; as, e. g. Mark xiii. 32; Rom. v. 10; Gal. ii. 20. Of these examples, the first is a passage of great difficulty; and among the most eminent commentators and critics there exists considerable difference of opinion as to its sense. After much hesitation, and though not yet fully satisfied that this is its correct place, I have ventured to class it under the present head. For the peculiarity of expression in the other two passages no thoughtful reader will find it difficult to account.

SECTION II.

CONSIDERATIONS ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

THE miracles of the New Testament supply a most important class of evidences to the truth and divine origin of Christianity. They may in general be regarded as possessing at once a personal and a doctrinal bearing; proving both the truth of the claims put forth by divinely commissioned teachers, and that of the instructions which they communicated. In the former respect, however, they possess certain limitations; and in a large number of instances the messengers employed by God were exposed to inconveniences, both in person and in reputation, for the removal or mitigation of which no miraculous interference was allowed. was sufficient that events of a supernatural character should occur with such frequency as to satisfy ingenuous minds of the truth of doctrines thus attested; but beyond this it did not consist with the divine plans to relieve the heralds of his will from persecution or reproach.

66

It

The resurrection of Christ is confessedly the leading miracle of the Christian system. In its purely doctrinal reference, it is of the last importance; supplying at once the most conclusive evidence of the acceptance of our Redeemer's sacrifice, and the pledge of his ultimate triumph over the last enemy" of his people and his kingdom. But in its personal bearing it is also peculiar; since it was a vindication of the claims of our Lord, transcending all which had ever before been vouchsafed. If we consider Jesus merely as the Messiah, the first and most illustrious of divinely commissioned teachers, we are at a loss to understand the propriety of