e

with the opinions of their countrymen, to denote that our Saviour was the descendant of a god. We think it also likely that the Roman centurion was actuated by the same sentiment, when, on witnessing the extraordinary scene of Christ's death, he exclaimed, “Truly this was the (a) Son of (a) God;" though, indeed, from one of the Gospels, it appears that he only meant to acknowledge Jesus as a very eminent man.ƒ

In whatever manner the phrase Son of God was used by the Jews and others, we are justified, by the language of Jesus himself, in considering it as peculiarly applicable to him as the Messiah, the Representative or the great Messenger of the Father; and there can be little doubt, that in this sense it was frequently used by the apostles. After his resurrection, however, Christ perhaps received this title principally on account of his having been the first-born from the dead—the first of his brethren who "obtained possession of the promised inheritance." St. Paul, in particular, delights in this view of the Sonship of Christ.

These we conceive to be the chief significations implied in the Bible by the phrase under examination; and there is not one of them which can possibly refer to an eternal Being. If, however, we admit, as genuine, the introduction to St. Matthew's Gospel, which contains a statement of the miraculous conception of Jesus, another reason will be afforded for applying to him the name Son of God; being so called, because created by the Almighty without the instrumentality of an earthly father. We are not unaware that some Trinitarians lay considerable stress on this fact, as implying in Christ the possession of a divine nature. We cannot thus regard it. Isaac, Sampson, Samuel, and John the Baptist, were conceived out of the ordinary course of nature; but no one would infer that they were more than human beings. Adam, the first of our progenitors, was without father and mother; but he undoubtedly possessed the affections and properties of humanity, equally with his descendants.

k

4. The phrase his own Son does not imply that God had no sons except Christ; for, as we have already shown, both Jews and Gentiles are in Scripture styled the Children of the Most High. Nor does it prove, that our Saviour possessed a nature superior to any of the other sons of God; for the Jews were God's own, elect, holy, peculiar people,' not to the exclusion of other nations, who were also the creatures and the property of God; not that they belonged to a higher order of intelligencesfor "God made of one blood all the nations of men;"" but because they were selected from the rest of mankind to enjoy privileges denied to others. In like manner, Jesus Christ was God's "own Son." He was peculiarly favoured by having been appointed to perform a glorious work, and he was rewarded with the highest honours for having faithfully executed the important commission which had been intrusted to him."

0

OBSERVATIONS.

5, 6. The expression God's dear or well-beloved Son is, in all probability, synonymous with God's own Son; implying that Christ was very highly favoured by the Father of all, and selected to possess greater privileges than other prophets and good men; that, whereas they were termed Sons of God, because they were allied to the Deity by the likeness which their character and conduct bore to his moral attributes and beneficent designs, or from the divine power and authority with which they were invested, he was pre-eminently The Son of GodGod's own Son-the Son of his love-his beloved Son, because he was "the express image of his person," the great pattern of human perfection, and the most distinguished of all those who had been selected" by the Almighty as the agents of revelation to mankind. We cannot avoid expressing our astonishment that men of learning-who, as such, must be supposed to have considerable knowledge of Scriptural phraseology-should ever have dreamed of exhibiting the language referred to as evidence for the divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth.

7, 8. If the epithet only-begotten, when applied to Christ, were to be understood literally, it would not prove that he is God, equal to the Father; as, besides the grossness and absurdity involved in this interpretation, it would evidently imply that he derived his being from God: consequently, that he did not exist from all eternity. But it cannot bear a literal signification; for, according to the phraseology of the Bible, both Jews and Christians were begotten or born of God. What, then, does the expression signify, when employed in relation to the Sonship of Jesus? Plainly this, that he was eminently distinguished, by the infinite superiority of his mission, above all the "begotten of God"-above all his "brethren," whether prophets or apostles. In illustration of these remarks, it may be observed, that the term only or only-begotten is sometimes in the Scriptures so used as obviously to limit its signification to that of well-beloved, or much distinguished, as an only child. Thus Isaac and Solomons are said to be only or only-begotten sons, although Abraham” and Davids had other children. Thus also, in the Jewish Scriptures, the Hebrew word denoting an only child is rendered in the Septuagint version sometimes by the term MONOGENES, only-begotten, and sometimes by the term AGAPETOS, beloved, or by some other word of a similar import. It is worthy of particular observation, that St. John is the only writer of the New Testament who applies the phrase in question to Jesus Christ; and that the other evangelists, in reporting the most remarkable circumstances in the life of their Master, never employ a higher title, in reference to him, than that of well-beloved. Hence the great probability, that the terms well-beloved and only-begotten have precisely the same signification.

U

OBSERVATIONS.

9, 10. If, as we have fully shown, the title ONLY-begotten Son does not imply the Supreme Divinity of our Lord, or his mysterious and eternal generation, far less can the simpler word begotten have any such meaning. In point of fact, the passages adduced are unequivocally favourable to the doctrine of his inferiority to the Father; the clause "This day have I begotten thee" implying a time when he began to be the Son of God. The subordination of our Saviour is also strongly countenanced by other considerations. These texts (Acts xiii. 33, &c.) represent Jehovah as making a declaration to his Son. Now, this person must have been Jehovah, or an inferior being. But he could not have been Jehovah; else it would follow-either that there were two Jehovahs, or that the one God, the Father of all, conferred on himself the honour of Sonship. These conclusions, however, being too absurd to be admitted, we are constrained to believe that the Son of God is distinct from, and subordinate to that being whose Son he is.

It is supposed, both by Jewish and Christian commentators, that the words, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," which occur in the seventh verse of the second Psalm, were originally addressed to David, on his being raised to the throne; in conformity with the usage of the Greek and Roman writers, who call the day of the accession of princes to their empire, the day of their birth. In Acts xiii. 33, the expressions we are considering are employed by St. Paul in reference to the Saviour's resurrection and exalted glory, both of which were effected by the power of his almighty Father." In Heb. i. 5, the Sonship of Jesus is treated of as a privilege that was not conferred, in the same degree, on any former messenger"-he being the great pattern and pledge of immortality; and, in chap. v. 5, it is expressly asserted, that "Christ glorified not himself," but was glorified by that Being who had appointed him." So far, then, from the word begotten implying eternal generation, that believers themselves are not unfrequently, in the Christian Scriptures, said to be begotten of God.*

11. This passage is considered by some Christians to contain a reference to the necessary and eternal Sonship of Christ. But if the reader take the trouble of perusing the chapter throughout, he will readily perceive, that the prophet treats of the Messiah as a created being; that he makes no allusion whatever to the common doctrine of Christ's mysterious generation; and that the words quoted in its proof are probably an exclamation, relating to the difficulty of describing the wickedness of the age in which Jesus lived-of those cruel and designing men that murdered him who had been sent by God to be their Friend, their Instructor, and their Saviour. The word generation is often used in the Sacred Volume in reference to the Jewish people."