and wonders in his incarnate state.' But how predestinating or constituting can be made to mean prefiguring, I am not aware.

Others construe thus: 'Ordained to be the powerful Son of God, in his pneumatic condition [or state of exaltation], by his resurrection from the dead.' But in this case we are compelled to ask: How could his resurrection decree or ordain his exalted state? It might be the consequence of a decree that he should be exalted; it was so; but in what manner the resurrection could ordain, or constitute, or decree his exaltation, it would be difficult indeed to explain.

There is yet one other sense, however, in which the passage before us may be taken, viz. 'Constituted the Son of God with power, in his pneumatic condition, after his resurrection from the dead.' For although he was the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was not the Son of God ¿v duvάuɛt, in the sense here meant, until after his ascension to the right hand of the Majesty on high.

I hesitate between this sense, and the one given by Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Theophylact, Ecumenius, the Syriac version, and the great majority of modern critics; viz. Ôgioðévros δειχθέντος, ἀποφθέντος, κριθέντος, ὁμολογηθέντος, shewn, demonstrated, exhibited, declared. Of this meaning of ooiw, it is true, no example can be found in the New Testament, nor in the classics, which seems to be exactly in point. Passow gives no sense of this kind to opio, in his lexicon. I find only one example (if indeed this be one) in the instances produced by Elsner, which will stand the test of scrutiny; this is: "A patron of what is just, dizaorv opisoμev yvýolov, we call a true judge, or we declare to be a judge worthy of the name." But even here, the sense of deciding, determining, defining, is altogether a good one for opisoμev; and this agrees with the usual meaning of the word. Still, as ooito (from öpos) means literally to prescribe the boundaries or limits of any thing, and thus, by defining it, to distinguish it from other things; so the secondary meaning given by Chrysostom, viz. δειχθέντος, ἀποφθέντος, declared, shown, is not an unnatural one, although destitute (so far as I can discover) of any definite usus loquendi to support it. The lexicon of Zonaras gives the same gloss to the word: ὁρισθέντος ἀποδειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος.

It is a safe rule, not to adopt the sense of a word, which is not supported by the usus loquendi, when another meaning which is supported by it, can be given, that will make good sense. And in the case before us, it is as good sense to say, that 'Christ was consti

tuted the Son of God with power, after his resurrection from the dead,' as to say, that 'Christ was shown to be the Son of God with power, after his resurrection from the dead.' For after the resurrection, he was advanced to an elevation which, as Messiah, he did not before possess; comp. Phil. 2: 9-11. Heb. 2: 9. 12: 2. Rev. 3: 21. Matt. 19: 28. Heb. 1: 3. Nay, I may say that the more energetic meaning of the word is to be found in constituted. As an instance of this nature exactly in point, see Acts 10: 42, where Christ is said so be ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρών, the constituted judge of the living and the dead; an example quite in point as to the sentiment, as well as the language. See also the same sense of the word in Acts 17: 31, wooε sc. xoırýv, i. e. he [God] hath constituted him [Christ] the judge, etc.; comp. 17: 26, ¿pioas... καιρούς.

If we should construe the phrase thus, as some do: 'Declared to be the Son of God with power, by the Holy Spirit, on account of (by) his resurrection from the dead;' one might then ask: How could the resurrection declare, in any special manner, that Christ was the Son of God? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead? Were not others raised from the dead, by Christ, by the apostles, by Elijah, and by the bones of Elisha? And yet was their resurrection proof, that they were the Sons of God? God did indeed prepare the way for universal dominion to be given to Christ, by raising him from the dead. To the like purpose is the apostle's assertion in Acts 17: 31. But how an event common to him, to Lazarus, and to many others, could of itself demonstrate him to be the Son of God Ev duvάue-remains yet to be shewn.

These questions appear to me so forcible, that I must go back to the more simple and unembarrassed meaning: 'Constituted the Son of God with power, in respect to his pneumatic state or condition, after his resurrection from the dead.' The sequel will exhibit additional considerations, in respect to this subject.

Tios

The phrase vio εou is still more difficult of interpretation. In order to be as brief as possible, I begin with the generic idea. o any rational being may be called, who is formed in the image of God, i. e. possesses by his gift a moral and intellectual nature like his own. The original idea of viós, is that of derivation. The secondary one (which is often employed), is that of resemblance. The third gradation of meaning is, that of being regarded or treated as a son, occupying the place of a son, viz. having distinguished

gifts, favours, or blessings bestowed on any one. To one or the other of these classes of meaning, may all the instances be traced, in which the phrase son or sons of God is applied, in the Old Testament or the New.

It is superfluous here to shew that viós, in its primary and literal sense, as applied to the relations of men, means a masculine descendant of any one; or that it means offspring, posterity, near or remote. In regard to the phrase vios ɛou, it is applied, (1) To Adam, as proceeding immediately from the hand of the Creator, Luke 3: 38. (2) To those who are regenerated, or born of the Spirit of God, John 1: 12, 13. Rom. 8: 15, 17. 1 John 3: 1, 2, et sæpe alibi. Connected with this, is the usage of calling all true worshippers of God his sons; e. g. Matt. 5: 9, 45. Luke 6: 35. 20: 36. Rom. 8: 14, 19. 2 Cor. 6: 18. Gal. 3: 26. Heb. 12: 6. Rev. 21: 7, et alibi. (3) The same appellation is sometimes given to such as are treated with special kindness; e. g. Rom. 9: 26. Hos 1: 10. 11: 1. Deut. 32: 5, 19. Is. 1: 2. 43: 6. Jer. 31: 9. 2 Cor. 6: 18. God, as the common father and benefactor of all men, good and bad, in reference to this relation, often calls himself a father, and styles them his children; "If I be a father, where is mine honour ?" "I have nourished and brought up children, but they have rebelled against me." Moreover, as all men are made in his image, i. e. have an intellectual, rational, and moral nature like his own; on this account also they may be styled his children; but more specially does this apply to those who are regenerated, and in whom the image of God that had been in part defaced, is restored. (4) As bearing some resemblance to the Supreme Ruler of the universe in respect to authority, or as having office by his special favour, kings are sometimes named sons of God; e. g. Ps. 82: 6 (7). 2 Sam. 7: 14. So in Homer, dioyern's διογενής Baoche's, Ili. I. 279. II. 196. (5) Angels are called sons of God, for the like reason that men are, viz. because God is their creator and benefactor; and specially, because they bear a high resemblance to God; see Job 1: 6. 2: 1. 38: 7. Dan. 3: 25.

It is evident from inspecting these examples, that men and angels may be called sons of God for more than one reason; nay, that in some cases all the reasons for giving this appellation are united. E. g. a pious Israelite might be called a son of God, because God was his creator; because of the special favours and blessings bestowed upon him, i. e. because of his being treated as a son; because he was born again by the power of the Holy Spirit; and because he bore a special

resemblance to his heavenly father. For each or for any one of these reasons, it is obvious we might, agreeably to Scripture usage, call any one a son of God, who is truly pious; and for all of them combined, or for any part of them, we might in like manner bestow on him the same appellation. I mention this here, because it is of no small importance in rightly estimating the force of o vios tou cou, as applied to Christ. We come now to consider this last phrase, as applied in this manner.

(a) It designates Jesus as produced in the womb of the virgin Mary, by the miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit, Luke 1: 32 (comp. Luke 3: 38). Perhaps the same sense belongs to it in Mark 1: 1 The words of the centurion, in Matt. 27: 54 and Mark 15: 39, seem, in the mouth of a Roman, to have the like sense, although perhaps it is not altogether the same. E. g.

(b) It means Jesus as the constituted King or Messiah. Matt. 16: 16. 26: 63. Mark 14: 61. Luke 22: 70. John 1: 49. 11: 27; and probably in Matt. 8: 29. 14: 33. Mark 3: 11. 5: 7. Luke 4: 41. 8:28. John 1: 34. 6: 69. 9:35. 10: 36. Acts 9: 20. 13: 33. Heb. 5: 5. In the like sense, the appellation Son is given to him, in the way of anticipation, by the ancient prophets who foretold his appearance; Ps. 2: 7. 89: 27. On the like ground, kings, as we have seen in No. 4, are called sons of God; Ps. 82: 6. 2 Sam. 7: 14.

(c) The most common use of the phrase Son of God as applied to the Messiah, is, to designate the high and mysterious relation which subsisted between him and God the Father, by virtue of which he was, in his complex person as θεάνθρωπος, the απαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴς τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ πατρός, Heb. 1: 3; the εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, Col. 1: 15; the εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor. 4: 4. In this respect, o vios rov vɛou is rather a name of nature than of office, for it is predicated upon the high and glorious εixov, resemblance, similitude, which the Son exhibits of the Father, he being the radiance (aлavyaoμa) of his glory; so that what Jesus said to Philip is true, viz. "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father," John 14: 9. "It hath pleased the Father, that in him all fulness should dwell," Col. 1: 19; even "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," Col. 2: 9; and that high, yea divine honour should be paid to him, Phil. 2: 9-11. Rom. 14: 11. (comp. v. 9). Rev. 5: 13, 14. John 5: 23. Heb. 1: 6. As Son, Christ is lord and heir of all things, Heb. 1:2, 3, 8. In particular, it would seem to be one design of the New Testament writers, in using the appellation Son of God, to convey the

idea of a most intimate connexion, love, and fellowship (so to speak), between him and the Father. Compare, in order to illustrate this idea, such texts as Matt. 11: 27. Luke 10: 22. John 1: 14, 18. Heb. 1: 5, seq. Matt. 3: 17. Luke 3: 22. 9: 35. Col. 1: 13. 2 Pet. 1: 17. Matt. 17: 5. Mark 1: 11. 9: 7. Compare, also, with these last texts, the parables in Matt. 21: 37, seq. 22: 2, seq. Mark 12: 6. Luke 20: 13; also John 8: 35, 36, and 10: 36. That God has given Christ the Spirit without measure, that he dwells in him owμatizos, that all counsels and secrets (so to speak) of the divine Nature are perfectly known to him, (John 1: 18. Matt. 11: 27. Luke 10: 22. John 6: 46. 7:29. 8: 19. 14: 9, 10, 11, 20. 10: 15), seems to be suggested by the appellation Son of God as frequently bestowed; for so the texts referred to, and other like texts, would imply. In a word, similitude, affection, confidence, and most intimate connection, seem to be designated by the appellation Son, as applied to Christ. In this sense it is most frequent in the New Testament; although with Paul, the idea of Messianic dignity or elevation is more commonly designated by Κύριος.

But while I am fully satisfied that the term Son of God is oftentimes applied to Christ as a name of nature, as well as of office; yet I am as fully satisfied, that it is not applied to him considered simply as divine, or simply as Logos. It designates the Orávdownos, the Θεάνθρωπος, God-man, i. e. the complex person of the Messiah, in distinction from his divine nature simply considered, or his Logos state or condition. The exceptions to this are only cases of such a nature, as shew that the appellation Son of God became, by usage, a kind of proper name, which might be applied either to his human nature, or to his divine one, as well as to his complex person. In just such a way proper names are commonly used; e. g. Abraham usually and properly means, the complex person of this individual consisting of soul and body. But when I say: 'Abraham is dead,' I mean the physical part only of Abraham is so; and when I say: 'Abraham is alive,' I mean that his immortal part only is so. So in regard to the name Son of God; when I say: 'The Son of God was crucified,' I mean that his mortal part was so; when I say: 'God sent his Son, the Son came out from the Father, he had glory with the Father before the world was,' etc., I mean, in such cases, that the divine nature of the Son became incarnate, that ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε .... ἑαυτὸν ἐταπείνωσε (Phil. 2: 7, 8), taking upon him the likeness of our nature. But when I say, with John, that "Jesus is the Son of God," and that "Jesus