purpose no portion of evangelical Scripture is evidence so appropriate as the Epistle to the Hebrews. Participating in the opinions of their countrymen at large, the persons here addressed had, many of them, been the contemporaries of our Lord, and had witnessed that unrighteous controversy upon the doctrine of his divine Sonship, which issued in his crucifixion.

Peculiarly prepared then, as were these individuals, with an established meaning for the title in question, it is certain that, had that meaning been false, the term could never have been employed without the utmost risk of error. Whatever efforts might have been made in the interval to divert them from its erroneous sense, still associations so fixed could not invariably have been avoided. The most prudent plan would have been for such an appellation to be declined; especially as the Apostle could not have been at a loss for another which, in the case supposed, would have been far more appropriate. Giving him credit, therefore, for ordinary foresight only, had we found the term employed without qualification, though but rarely, the natural inference would be, that he had no wish to merge its ordinary Jewish sense, and that, substantially, that sense was correct. Otherwise we might fairly conclude, that, to avoid the liability to misconception so serious, it would at least have been so restricted or explained as to remove all ambiguity from its design.

Let us then look at the facts. It is frequently employed, and everywhere in the most unqualified manner. The Apostle never annexes the slightest explanation; or hints at a purpose at all differing from what his readers would naturally anticipate. The title occurs just in those positions of his argument to which the Jewish sense is the most appropriate; and where, in fact, any other interpretation would render the reasoning feeble and inconclusive. He admits the glory and excellence of

the objects of Jewish reverence; but Christ is THE SON. This is his reply to the sophistications of the obdurate Jew; this is his persuasive to reassure the fainting faith of the irresolute Christian; with this he renders apostasy the most terrific of crimes, and its punishment the sorest of inflictions. Here he feels that he cannot be answered; that attempts at evasion are vain: this is his one, sovereign, irresistible argument.

Can any doubt be entertained as to the meaning of the title? Can any sanction of the Jewish exposition be more unambiguous and convincing? Let the denier of our Lord's Deity, and the rejecter of his divine filiation, look calmly and candidly on the subject in all its parts; the predisposition of the Hebrews, the accuteness of the Apostolic reasoner, the prominence given to the title, and the conclusion at which the first readers of the epistle would inevitably arrive. Whatever judgment such individuals may form on any of the details of the preceding sections, however they may dissent from subordinate deductions, let them fairly consider and manfully encounter these main facts. The entire question of the Deity and the divine Sonship of Jesus, may safely be committed to the common sense decision on the general structure and tone of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

356

CHAPTER VI.

THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF OUR LORD CONSIDERED IN ITS CONNEXION WITH FUNDAMENTAL EVANGELICAL TRUTH.

SECTION I.

PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY.

SEVERAL of the views to be adduced in this chapter have been cursorily glanced at in the progress of our inquiry; nor would their more particular consideration have been deferred to so late a period, had it not been requisite, in the first place, to supply ourselves with materials for judgment which could be derived only from some such investigation as that through which we have now passed. At this stage of our remarks, therefore, when the Scripture testimony has been gone into with some minuteness, it becomes necessary that we should inquire how far the doctrine under consideration harmonizes with those truths which, as Trinitarians, we deem fundamental.

The reader is now qualified to judge on the manner in which the parties severally affirming and denying our Lord's divine filiation usually support their respective views. On the one hand, the subject is determined exclusively by Scripture testimony. On the other, the main argument is independent of revelation, and is rather metaphysical than theological. We are not here about to inquire

whether the expositions of those who maintain the doctrine are correct, nor whether the reasonings of those who reject it are sound and conclusive. Our present business is to examine the principles involved in this distinction. These are too important to be overlooked, and will therefore be cursorily illustrated before we proceed to the more minute investigation of the doctrines with which our subject is connected.

As a general rule, it may be assumed, that a theological opinion derived from the testimony of Scripture alone, is preferable to one inferred from independent reasoning. It is so on several accounts. The exposition of evidence, for example, is a much more simple operation, and one far less liable to error, than a process of pure and abstract argumentation. Of the latter, men generally are incapable; while, in ordinary instances of the former, few find any considerable difficulty. Thus, in our courts of law, on questions determinable by testimony there is no hesitation in admitting the judgment of unlettered jurors; but no one would think of committing a subject purely intellectual to the decision of persons thus indiscriminately collected. In fact, upon many topics of this class men of the most eminent abilities and culture are not agreed; while upon those of the other the judgment of the most unsophisticated and simple minds is commonly the most harmonious. It follows, that where upon a disputed question we can command credible testimony, it is indiscreet to decline a medium of proof so generally available and satisfactory, or to prefer one so doubtful and so liable to error as is mere argumentation. And when the results of the two processes are put into contrast, no one can hesitate to decide in favour of the view supported by evidence, rather than of that maintained solely or principally by independent reasoning.

These remarks apply to the examination of truth in

general; but in reference to theological inquiries they possess peculiar force. For, as a judgment on evidence is so much easier and so much more certain than the conduct of a process of argumentation; so, of course, the truth thus evolved is more generally accessible. Considering, then, that theology is a science of universal interest, and one with which it is intended that all men should be acquainted, there is a manifest inappropriateness in any medium of proof of which but few can avail themselves. How wretched would be the condition of mankind were they left to elaborate, by purely mental effort, the truths which respect their eternal welfare! To withdraw a doctrine, therefore, from the circle of Scripture evidence is a serious injustice; nor can any thing be more alien from the spirit of Christianity, and the benignant purposes of its author. The results of such an act may be regarded with reasonable and salutary suspicion.

Could the unaided human mind arrive at satisfactory theological conclusions, revelation had been unnecessary, and would therefore have been withheld. The reception of the Bible as a divine revelation, is a virtual confession of ignorance and incapacity. But if, after such an acknowledgment, we undertake to decide upon Christian doctrines apart from the evidence of the word of God, and thus assume a position suited only to those who need no revelation, we not only act with extreme inconsistency, but expose ourselves to error on every topic which in this way we disengage from its legitimate and divinely appointed proof.

When, therefore, as in the present case, an opinion is affirmed on the warrant of Scripture testimony alone, and denied on grounds partially or wholly independent of revelation, there is a strong presumption in favour of the affirmative, and proportionally against the negative side of the question.