He is the

his blood; he is therefore the crucified Saviour. image of the invisible God: consequently himself visible. He is the First-born, the most eminent, of every creature ; therefore himself a creature. He is the beginning (of the resurrection), the first-born from the dead; consequently the man who expired upon the cross. And the fulness that dwells in him is one that results from the good pleasure of God. All this is predicated of the Son, and proves that the Son is the man Jesus Christ. At the same time he is described as the Being by whom all things were created, and by whom they consist. Does this prove that the Son, as such, is God? If as the Son he is God, he is not in the same respect man; if as the Son he is man, he cannot in the same respect be God. This title is here a personal designation of him who is both God and man; but still with reference to that nature to which it originally and properly belongs, that is, the human nature. Can any one prove the contrary ?*

*Feeling some doubt of the entire correctness of our author's conclusions as to the general application of the title "Son of God," in the New Testament, we took the liberty to correspond with him and to make the following suggestions. 'Is it not the incarnate Logos, the God-man, the Mediatorial person, that is so named? I have no difficulty in admitting that the name, Son of God, was given in reference to his incarnation. Son he became by his incarnation. But this name once given, no matter on what ground, becomes descriptive of his whole person, of both natures and of either nature. So it appears to me to be employed; and so "Son of man" is employed, although this title was originally given in reference to the human origin of Messiah. The Messiah, (not the Logos,) is the Son of God in respect to his miraculous origin, and Son of man in respect to his human origin. But being once given these names appear to be used indiscriminately to designate the person of the Messiah, whether considered in respect to his divine or his human nature, or in respect to both.'

To these suggestions the learned author's reply is as follows, which he requests us to insert in further explanation of his views.

"Those who do not make the title, Son of God, a title of divinity, and consequently do not consider the Sonship of Christ a divine Sonship, generally, perhaps universally, understand this title as a designation of the compound person, the

Heb. 7: 3. The inspired author, speaking of Melchizedek, the king and priest of Salem, says of him, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God, he abideth a priest continually."

God-man, the incarnate Word. I admit that the title "Son of God" is sometimes a designation of the compound person, the God-man; but I connot be persuaded that it is always, or that it is generally so used: and when it is employed in this manner, it is always done with a reference to the human nature, the man Jesus Christ. If this title were always a designation of the compound person, the God-man, as such, and not used with reference to his human nature, it would follow that the God-man, as such, is inferior to the Father, could do nothing of himself, put up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to deliver him from death, learned obedience by the things which he suffered, knew not the day nor the hour of the judgment, etc. etc. But if these consequences must be admitted, they will prove that the divinity of Christ is not true divinity. Nothing is gained by distinguishing between the Logos incarnate and the Logos not incarnate. If the Logos be co-equal with the Father, he is always co-equal, whether incarnate or not. His union with the human nature could not change the nature of divinity, and the dignity of the compound person is therefore not less than the dignity of the Logos, which is the dignity of the Godhead. As the God-man, our Redeemer could not be subordinate to God, could not be exalted, could not in any sense be dependent. But as the Son of God, he is all this. Consequently the title Son of God is not properly a designation of the God-man, but of the man Jesus."

The discriminating reader will bear in mind that we do not maintain, in our suggestions above, that the title in question is "always a designation of the compound person, the God-man," but only that it appears to be used in the New Testament as a common name of the Messiah, whether spoken of in reference to his divine or his human nature, or in reference to both. We can not therefore agree with our author that when it is employed to designate the compound person, "it is always done with a reference to the human nature." This would lead to consequences, on the other hand, quite as absurd as our author has shewn to result from the exclusive use of the title to designate the compound person. EDITOR.

Here it seems, at first view, that the Son of God, as the Son, is without either beginning of days, or end of life, and consequently, as the Son, divine. But by this rule of interpretation he must also be without a father as well as without a mother; which would prove more than the theory we are opposing will admit. To find the sense of the place, let it be observed, that the subject of discussion here is not the person of Jesus Christ, but his priesthood; and the comparison with Melchizedek is therefore confined to this one point. Jesus Christ was constituted a high-priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after that of Aaron. His priesthood is therefore superior to the priesthood under the law, on two grounds: first, because Melchizedek was a greater man than Aaron; for even Abraham, the common father of the whole Israelitish nation, paid tithes to him, and received his blessing; secondly, because the priesthood of Melchizedek, so far as it appears at all, was an unchanging one. The Aaronitic priests were continually changed. Every one was the son of a father who had been the high-priest before him, and the father of a son who took the office after him; and none, therefore, continued long. But Melchizedek appears in the history without either parents or posterity; without a beginning of days, or end of life, to admit of succession in his priesthood; the first we learn of him is, that he is a priest of the Most High God; and the last we learn is that he is still the same priest. He is thus a type of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who, in his glorified state, abides a priest for ever.

I have now considered all the texts which appear to me most worthy of notice in this controversy, and have shewn, I think, not only that Jesus himself gave no such explanation of the appellation Son of God as to make it a title of divinity, but that the New Testament contains none. Consequently the resurrection of Jesus, while it is admitted to be a public acknowledgment of God of the validity of all the claims which he had made, and of all the explanations which he had given, is no proof at all of his divinity; and consequently, no proof that the term Son of God is a designation of that divinity. We shall now be prepared for that interpretation of the text, at the head of this article, which we believe to be the true one.

I have already remarked, (page 139) that the primary error of interpreters, from which all the rest necessarily fol

low, consists in taking the terms flesh and Spirit of holiness to designate something in Christ himself, not something distinct from, and external to him. This error, as far as I know, is universal. The most usual and most approved interpretation makes the flesh the human nature of Christ. This obliges the interpreter to make the Spirit of holiness his divine nature. In so doing he violates the usus loquendi, and involves himself in the consequence, that Jesus is the Son of God according to his divinity, which is again contrary to the usus loquendi; and that he was proved to be divine by his resurrection, which is contrary to truth. In defending these positions, which he is thus compelled to take, the interpreter becomes embarrassed with new difficulties from which there is no escape.

The terms flesh and Spirit of holiness do not designate two constituents of the person of Christ, but two external agents that co-operated in making him what he is. The apostle's main thought in the text is not what Jesus Christ is, but how he was constituted and proved to be such as he is, namely, the Son of David and the Son of God. There were, in his conception, two distinct births, and two distinct agents that brought him to those births. The one birth was natural; it was from the mother's womb; by this he became the Son of David; and the agent that operated in it, and made him David's son, was the flesh, i. e. human nature or man; for after the miraculous conception, all the rest was natural. The other birth was supernatural; it was from the grave, in his resurrection from the dead; by this he was declared to be, the Son of God, i. e. God's chief-beloved; and the agent that wrought in it was not the flesh, not man, but the Holy Spirit of God.

This interpretation appears to me natural, easy, and clear. It gives a good sense; it violates no rule of exegesis, and creates no new difficulties that require to be solved; it is agreeable to the usus loquendi, harmonizes with the connec. tion of the place, and accords with what is elsewhere taught concerning Christ. I have already shewn that the phrase Spirit of holiness means the Holy Spirit. There can be no question that the term flesh has the meaning of human nature or man: and if the Spirit of holiness be the Holy Spirit, or God, the flesh must, by the rule of antithesis, be human nature, or man. Neither can there be any doubt that the

SECOND SERIES, VOL. III. NO. I.

22

terms according to the flesh-according to the Spirit, adapt themselves perfectly to our interpretation. The apostle's meaning is, Jesus Christ was constituted the Son of David, so far as the flesh operated; and he was declared to be the Son of God, so far as the Holy Spirit was operative; with this latter operation the flesh, or man, had nothing to do. According to the one he was born from the womb of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David: according to the other he was brought forth from the grave, where he had lain among the dead. That St. Paul conceived the resurrection of Jesus in the similitude of a birth, appears from the place where he calls him "the first-born from the dead." Col. 1: 18. So likewise did the author of the Book of Revelation, ch. 1: 5. Enough has been said to shew the meaning of the term Son of God. That meaning is the only one that suits the connection of this place. The resurrection could not, in any way, prove Jesus to be God; but it was a very satisfactory proof that he was the beloved of God. St. Paul has, however, a farther reference to the high dignity of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the Prince and Saviour of the people of God; and his meaning is, he was proved by his resurrection to be that beloved one of God who sustains this exalted office; and, perhaps, after all, the term av duvάue, in, or with power, may have reference to this dignity and dominion.

A similar antithesis of the flesh and the Spirit occurs in 1 Pet. 3: 18, where it is, however, obscured by a wrong translation. In the common English version the text reads thus ; "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." In the Greek the clause which is here put in italics is, bavarweeg μεν σαρκι, ζωοποιήθεις δε πνευματι. The nouns σαρκι and πνευματι are in the dative case of the agent after the passive participles θανατώθεις and ζωοποιηθείς. Both ought to have been rendered in the same way with the preposition by; and the clause should read thus: being put to death by the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. The translators were perfectly well acquainted with this rule of grammar, and were also sufficiently familiar with the rule of interpretation which requires that an antithesis in the original should be preserved in the translation; but they were misled by what appeared to them the exigentia