Kaтà σáρкa, made of the seed of David according to the flesh, which they could not fail to interpret of our Lord's designation to the Messiahship. Hence Mr. Stuart judiciously observes, "It is not merely a son of David which is designated by the phrase before us, but the long expected and hoped for Son of David; that is, the promised Messiah."

Now, apart from Jewish opinions, it will surely be conceded that the titles, son of David and Son of God, could not be employed in two successive clauses, except to convey some great and striking distinction. Overlooking this obvious fact, several respectable expositors, among whom is Mr. Stuart, have explained these appellations as substantially identical. Such an interpretation, however, it is certain must be incorrect. It may possibly be alleged that the phrases in question describe the person or character of our Lord as the Messiah in remote and dissimilar aspects; that son of David refers to his least honourable functions, and Son of God to his highest and most illustrious. Let us inquire, therefore, whether such an opinion is sanctioned by the passage before us. Or rather, resuming our original position, would the Jewish readers of this epistle find in this text any contradiction to their established opinions? anything which would lead them to identify the sense of its two clauses? Would the former suggest to them a low idea of the Messianic dignity? or does the spirit or structure of the latter prohibit their affixing to the title, "Son of God," that loftiest acceptation with which their minds were already prepared? The attentive examination of the passage in detail, it is apprehended, will lead to other conclusions.

The Messiah is described as the son of David, or of the seed of David, in reference to a series of promises granted to David, and subsequently renewed to others, which had their fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth. The specific aspect of the great Deliverer's character to which they direct our attention, is his royalty. They do not respect the sacerdotal work of Christ; for David himself was not of priestly rank, and seed of David would be altogether an inappropriate designation of the great High Priest of the new dispensation. Nor do they refer to the prophetical functions of our Lord, since these had no connexion with lineal descent. It was therefore exclusively

the kingly glory of Christ which was contemplated in these promises; and it is as the King Messiah, the mediatorial Prince "by the right hand of God exalted," the possessor of unbounded opulence of dominion and of perpetual sovereignty, that he is described as "the seed of David." See Acts ii. 29-36. But this, far from being an aspect of humiliation, is one of the loftiest, if not the very loftiest, of which the subject is capable. The first step of the Apostle's argument, therefore, the lowest point of his climax, the less striking predicate of his antithesis, places our Lord in a position of exaltation infinitely transcending all distinction ever attained by mere human nature.

Nor, on the other hand, is there anything in this passage to deduct from the supremacy of the title "Son of God." As we have already shown, (CHAP. II., sect. iii., note (C),) the anarthous phrase viòç Otov, as it here occurs, is exclusively Jewish, and was employed, not as descriptive of our Lord's complex person, but with respect to his pre-existent state and his eternal relation to the Father. This is the more worthy of remark, because the present is the only example of the kind throughout the New Testament epistles, and is apparently susceptible of but one explanation.

Still more to deepen the impression upon the minds of his readers, the Apostle describes our Lord as viòç Oɛoũ ẻ v vvape, the Son of God IN POWER. I have great satisfaction in citing the authority of Mr. Stuart against the adverbial use of the latter expression. His remarks appear very decisively to show that it is not connected with the participle declared, but with the title Son. He, however, limits it to the authority with which Christ was invested upon his exaltation, and accordingly paraphrases it, "endowed with power.”

But with great deference it is submitted that, had this been the design of the Apostle, he would rather have employed the word ovoia. Such at least is the more usual mode of describing the delegated authority of the mediatorial kingdom. (e. g., Matt. xxviii. 18; John x. 18; xvii. 2; Rev. xii. 10.) In this last passage, there is an instructive contrast between the duvaus of God, the eternal and incommunicable attribute, and the mediatorial govoía of Christ. Be this as it may, the exposition of Mr.S. is inadmissible, since the sense which

he would affix to the phrase is anticipated in the former clause.

66

Δύναμις Θεοῦ and δύναμις alone,” says Schleusner, on the word, 66 are sometimes used to designate God himself. See Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62; comp. Luke xxii. 69; Tobit i. 5. So also the Jews were accustomed to call God кar' oxýv 71), as Buxtorf shows in his Talmudical Lexicon, p. 385.” See note (D), above. The employment of such a word, in connexion with a title to which the idea of true divinity was already affixed, would undoubtedly tend to confirm the opinions of the Jewish readers. And giving the Apostle credit for his wonted sagacity, the only conclusion germane to the case is, that it was his purpose to display our Lord in the proper attributes of Deity, the Son of God in power, sustaining the title in the highest conceivable sense, the infinite and omnipotent Son of God. "Qui ita Filius est, ut NOMEN et GLORIAM PATRIS A PATRE HABEAT, id est ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ [ἐν] δυνάμει : Filius Dei in potentia et efficacia summa significationis hujus vocis.” (V1TRINGA, De generat. Fil., p. 15.)

If these remarks are correct, it will probably be allowed that the passage before us presents a proper antithesis. Of themselves its two principal terms would be thus expounded, and by the other circumstances now suggested, this view is materially confirmed. But, as if to leave no room for doubt, the Apostle, to the predicate of each clause, annexes a phrase of a yet more determinate character. He describes our Lord as of the seed of David, (karà σápka,) with respect to the flesh, and as The Son of God, (кaтà πvɛõμa åɣɩwovvns,) with respect to the spirit of holiness.

The antithesis commonly supposed to be expressed in these phrases Mr. Stuart disallows; though it is not easy to perceive the appropriateness of his reasoning upon the subject. But it may be questioned whether, throughout the New Testament, one text where the words "flesh" and "spirit" occur can be adduced to countenance his opinion. At all events, the contrary usage is by far the more common. Numerous examples to this effect will at once strike every reader; and we need not go beyond the eighth chapter of the epistle before us to find out the usus loquendi of our Apostle. In the absence of very weighty reasons, therefore, the present example cannot be

admitted as an exception to a rule so obvious and so general. Indeed it seems impossible that a Jewish reader could arrive at any other conclusion than that the usage which elsewhere obtains in the writings of St. Paul was in a peculiar degree illustrated in this case.

Nor is it any objection to the eminent sense here assigned to the expression, of the seed of David, that it is said to be with respect to the flesh, or the proper human nature. The mediatorial glory of the Messiah is the REWARD of his infinitely meritorious sufferings. (Phil. ii. 6—11; Heb. xii. 2.) But as the human nature only was properly passible, it alone could be the subject of reward. Indeed in the strict sense of the term, the superior nature was incapable of exaltation; and all therefore that, on the one hand, was overwhelming and mysterious in sorrow, and all that, on the other, is now glorious in triumph and dominion, accurately defined, is (к. σ.) with respect to the real manhood. This is the sublime argument of the second chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews. MAN is exalted, "crowned with glory and honour," and invested with universal supremacy. The "partaker of flesh and blood" vanquishes death and the devil, and finally presents the innumerable hosts of the redeemed before the throne of God, saying, “Behold, I, and the children which God hath given me.'

But the antithesis of the passage being ascertained from independent sources, it seems clear that the phrase . σ. in the former clause, will supply the key to the meaning of к. π. a. in the latter. As then the expression, with respect to the flesh, directs our attention to the manhood of Christ, the phrase, with respect to the Spirit, suggests to us "his higher and more perfect nature, (rò Jɛĩov,) the Divinity; and in this he is Son of God, and solemnly declared to be such by God in his resurrection from the dead." (Knapp's Theol., Wood's Translation.)

"This superior principle," Dr. J. P. Smith remarks, "is called the spirit, in contrast to the flesh, the human nature, and the spirit of holiness, adducing the moral excellency of the divine nature, its crowning perfection, as the most suitable compendium for that nature itself. This idea seems to furnish the most satisfactory interpretation of the declaration that Christ through the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God." In a note, the same writer, having cited the concurrent

opinion of Seiler, and that of Knapp as given above, adds, “In like manner, I think we have good reason to follow Cameron, James Cappel, the younger Vitringa, Schoettgen, Stapfer, and others, who apply this remark to 1 Tim. iii. 16, and 1 Peter iii. 18." (Scrip. Test., vol. iii., pp. 317, 318. See also Bp. Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic., sect. i., c. ii., §5; Bp. Horsley's Sermon on 1 Peter iii. 18; and Sherlock on the Divinity of Christ, chap. i., p. 22.) The general rule laid down by one of the above-named critics, is, "When the term spirit refers to Christ, and is put in opposition to the flesh, it denotes his divine nature." (Schoettgen, Hor. Heb., in loc., Tom. i., p. 487.)

Those ecclesiastical writers, who, from their contiguity to the apostolical period, may rationally be supposed most fully acquainted with the theological phraseology of that age, frequently employ the words veuμa, and spiritus, to designate the divine nature of our Lord. The reader who wishes to know how extensively this usage obtained, may consult Grotius on Mark ii. 8; and in addition to the mass of citations which he supplies, a few useful examples will be found in the Defens. Fid. Nic., as quoted above. Of these, one is worthy of peculiar remark. It is from the epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans, where he employs the expression, ἐν ἀμώμῳ Πνεύματι, Λόγῳ Oεov, in the spotless Spirit, the WORD of God::-a designation not dissimilar from that in the text before us,-the spotless Spirit, the Spirit of holiness. The note of Cameron on Luke i. 35, (see above, CHAP. II., sect. iv., p. 134, note,) may also be advantageously referred to in this place.

With these views, the other parts of the passage aptly harmonize. To the expression of the former clause, we elsewhere find two instructive parallels. Of the incarnation of the Logos, St. John says, "The WORD was made flesh.” (σàpë ¿yéveto. i. 14.) Our Apostle, in his epistle to the Galatians, thus describes the same event: "God sent forth his Son made of a woman." (yɛvóμevov έk yvvaikòg. iv. 4.) So in this place the Son is said to be "made of the seed of David, with respect to the flesh.” (γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα.) The word made is perhaps not the most appropriate translation, though it is not easy to find one which would more happily express the striking uniformity of idea in these three remarkable passages.