Prophets

and others

rally en

revealed to them, and his offers of especial favour set before them. Such were the Israelites of old (to whom the title of Son is accordingly assigned by the Lord Himself, Exod. iv. 22,) as being the chosen or "Elect" People of God, called from among all the nations of the world to receive direct communications, and especial blessings from their Heavenly Father. And the like privilege of peculiar "Sonship," (only in a far higher degree,) was extended afterwards to all nations who should embrace the Gospel; "who aforetime" (says the Apostle Peter) "were not a People, but now are the People of God." And Paul uses like expressions continually in addressing his converts, whether they walked worthy of their high calling or not.

Yet again, still more especially, those who do avail themselves of the privileges offered to them, and "walk as Children of the light," are spoken of as, in another and a superior way, the "Sons" of Him whom they love and submit to as a Father: "as many," says Paul," as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God."

Those Patriarchs, and Prophets again, to whom supernatu- of old God revealed Himself immediately, and made them the means of communication between Himself and other men,-his messengers to his People, and endowed with miraculous powers

dowed.

as the credentials of a heavenly embassy,-to such men, as having a peculiar kind of divine presence with them, we might conceive the title of Children of God to be applicable in a different sense, as distinguishing them from uninspired

men.

Now it is a most important practical question whether Jesus, the Author and finisher of our faith,-He to whom we are accustomed emphatically to apply the title of " the Son of God,"was so designated, in the Angel's first announcement, and on so many occasions afterwards, merely as being an inspired messenger from heaven, or in some different and higher sense; and what that higher sense is.

Son of God

sense.

§ 3. And first, that Jesus is spoken of in Jesus, the Scripture as the Son of God, in some different in a peculiar sense from any other person, is evident at once from the very circumstance of his being styled "the only-begotten Son;" which title is particularly dwelt on when He is speaking of Himself, (John iii.) This is a further stage in the revelation given; for the Angel had not told Mary that He should be "the Son of God," (though it is so rendered in our version) but only "a Son of God," viòs Оeoû.

I need not multiply the citations of passages of which so many must be familiar to every one

Metaphysical disquisitions on abstruse

terms, un

necessary.

Waiving then all abstruse disquisition on the notions conveyed by such terms as "consubstanscholastic tiality," "personality,"‚”—“ personality,”—" hypostatic-union,”eternal filiation," and the like, (oftener I conceive debated about with eagerness than clearly understood,) let us confine ourselves to such views as we may presume the Apostles to have laid before the converts they were instructing; who were most of them plain unlearned persons, to whom such abstruse disquisitions as I have been alluding to, must have been utterly unintelligible; but who, nevertheless, were called on,— all of them, of whatever age, sex, station, and degree of intellectual education,—to receive the Gospel, and to believe, and feel, and act, as that Gospel enjoined.

There is one great practical point clearly intelligible to all, thus far, at least, that they can understand what the question is that is under discussion, and which it is, and ever must have been, needful to bring before all Christians without exception: viz. whether there is that divine character in the Lord Jesus which entitles Him to our adoration:-whether He is the Son of God in such a sense as to authorize those who will worship none but the one God, to worship Jesus Christ. So that "all men should

e

e John v. 23.

honour the Son even as they honour the

Father."

words to be

sense un

the time.

Now there is a maxim relative to the right Christ's interpretation of any passage of Scripture, so taken in the obvious when stated, that it seems strange it derstood at should be so often overlooked; viz. to consider in what sense the words were understood by the generality of the persons they were addressed to; and to keep in mind that the presumption is in favour of that, as the true sense, unless reasons to the contrary shall appear.

Some are accustomed to consider, what sense such and such words can be brought to bear; or how we should be most naturally inclined to understand them: but it is evident that the point we have to consider-if we would understand aright what it is that God did design to reveal,is, the sense (as far as we can ascertain it) which the very hearers of Christ and his Apostles did actually attach to their words. For we may be sure that if this was, in any case, a mistaken sense, a correction of the mistake (if it relate to any important practical point) will be found in some part of the Sacred Writings.

However strange therefore it may seem to any one that the phrase "Son of God" should have been so understood as it was at the time, and however capable of another sense it may appear to us, still, the sense which Jesus and his

Christ

would have

Apostles meant to convey, must have been that, whatever it was-in which they knew that their hearers understood them.

And what this meaning was, may I think be settled even by the testimony of his adversaries alone, as to the sense in which they understood Him. They charged Him, not only on his trial, but on many other occasions also, with "blasphemy," as "making Himself God,"—" making Himself equal with God;" and threatened to "stone Him," according to the law of Moses against blasphemers; understanding blasphemy to comprehend the crime of enticing the People to worship any besides the one true God, Jehovah. Now if they had misunderstood his words, warned his and had supposed his language to imply a claim to such divine honour as He did not really mean to claim, we may be sure that any one-I do not say merely, any inspired messenger from Heaven, but any man of common integrity, would at once have disavowed the imputation, and explained his real meaning. If any Christian ministers, in these days, or at any time, were to have used some expression which they found was understood,—either by friends or foes,-as implying a claim to divine worship, what would they not deserve, if they did not hasten to disclaim such a meaning?

hearers

against a mistake as to his meaning.

See Deut. xiii.