Page images

beheld," says St. John in his Gospel (i. 14), "his glory, glory like that of an only son from a father"; that is, we beheld the glorious powers and offices conferred upon him, by which he was distinguished from all others, as an only son is distinguished by his father. It is in reference to this analogy, and probably, I think, to this very passage in his Gospel, that St. John elsewhere calls Christ "the only Son of God," a title applied to him by no other writer of the New Testament.†

But the title was also familiarly used to denote those qualities which recommend moral beings to the favor of God; those which bear such a likeness to his moral attributes as may be compared with the likeness which a son has to his father; those which constitute one, in the Oriental style, to be of the family of God. Thus our Saviour exhorts his disciples to do good to their enemies, that they may be "sons of their Father in heaven."‡ Nor is this use of the term confined to the Scriptures.

Philo urges him who is "not yet worthy to

* Εθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός. These words should not be rendered, as in the Common Version, "We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." To justify this rendering, both μovoyevous and arρós should have the article.

†There is a doubt whether the words, John iii. 16-21, in which this title occurs, are to be considered as the language of Christ or of the Evangelist. If St. John intended to ascribe them to Christ, he has probably clothed the ideas of his Master in his own language; and we may so account for the use of a title in this passage, which Christ never elsewhere applies to himself.

Yioì Tоû TαTρòs iμŵv, Matthew v. 45; compare Luke vi. 35.

be called a son of God," to aim at higher excellence.*

In reference to both these analogies, the term was pre-eminently applicable to Christ; and he was therefore called by others, and by himself, "THE Son of God," the article being used, as often, to denote pre-eminence.†

THERE are two subjects, that of Prayer to Christ, and that of the Pre-existence of Christ, each involving the consideration of several particular passages, which may properly be treated under the present head. I will first speak

Of Prayer to Christ.

IT has been maintained that Christ is God, for the supposed reason that prayers were addressed to him by the first Christians. But the fact, if admitted, would afford no support for this conclusion.

* De Confusione Linguarum. Opp. I. 427, ed. Mang. - Aià Thu ὁμοιότητα υἱοὶ ἐκείνου εἶναι λογισθέντες, “ through likeness to God accounted to be his sons," is an expression in the Clementine Homilies, X. § 6.

†The words ascribed (Luke i. 32) to the angel who foretold to Mary the birth of Christ, are sometimes quoted as explanatory of the title "Son of God," with reference to his miraculous conception. I believe, however, these words to mean: "He shall be great; and he shall be [not shall be called] a son of the Most High"; kaλeîodai being equivalent to elvat, as in other passages. We find the same expression in Psalm lxxxii. 6. In verse 35, dió, rendered in the Common Version "therefore," may be understood as meaning, "whence it may be inferred," "conformably to which," "so that."

[It may be remarked, that our Saviour himself has expressly stated the ground which justified him in calling himself "the Son of God." See John x. 36.]

but when I mention at the same time the sun, from which this ray proceeds, I do not then give that name to the latter.” *

But it is to be observed that some of the earlier Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers, expressly denied that Christ is "the God over all." This title was applied to him by the Sabellians, and was considered as a distinguishing mark of their

but is rather determined, in each particular conjuncture, by the connection, and by the mind of the speaker." (Comm. on Romans, p. 326, note, Engl. Transl. published in Clark's Foreign Theol. Libr.) It may be mentioned that some critics, placing the colon or period after #ávτwv instead of σápka, refer the words "who is over all" to Christ, and make the remainder of the verse a doxology. So Locke, Wetstein, Oertel, Justi, Stolz, Ammon, Baumgarten-Crusius, and De Wette in his German translation (3d ed., 1839), though in his Commentary (4th ed., 1847) he appears more inclined to the construction just remarked upon. But this latter mode of understanding the passage seems to make the doxology too abrupt, and is exposed to other objections.

It is not the purpose of this note to discuss the question of the comparative merits of Mr. Norton's interpretation, and that which regards the words ó ŵv éñì ñávτwv, etc., as forming a doxology. It is enough if it has been shown that neither is open to any valid philological objection, and that the pretence that the "laws of grammar" require us to understand the latter part of the verse as referring to Christ is groundless. The impartial reader will place a proper estimate on the language of such writers as Haldane, who speaks of "the awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their perversions of this passage" as "more fully manifesting the depravity of human nature, and the rooted enmity of the carnal mind against God, than the grossest works of the flesh." (Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, Amer. reprint of the 5th Edinb. ed., p. 454.)]

"Solum autem Christum potero deum dicere, sicut idem Apostolus, Ex quibus Christus; qui est, inquit, deus super omnia, benedictus in ævum omne. Nam et radium solis seorsum, solem vocabo; solem autem nominans cujus est radius, non statim et radium solem appellabo." Advers. Praxeam, c. 13.

heresy. There is no one of the Fathers more eminent than Origen. "Supposing," says Origen in his work against Celsus, "that some among the multitude of believers, likely as they are to have differences of opinion, rashly suppose that the Saviour is the God over all; yet we do not, for we believe him when he said, 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.'"* Even after the Nicene Council, Eusebius, in writing against Marcellus, says: "As Marcellus thinks, He who was born of the holy virgin, and clothed in flesh, who dwelt among men, and suffered what had been foretold, and died for our sins, was the very God over all; for daring to say which, the church of God numbered Sabellius among atheists and blasphemers." Now it is incredible that the text in question should have been overlooked. But the early Fathers, in making these, and a multitude of other similar declarations, concerning the inferiority of the Son to the Father, never advert to it. It evidently follows from this, that they had not the same conception as modern Trinitarians have of the meaning of the passage. They had read the words of the Apostle in which he speaks of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is

[ocr errors]

Opp. I. 752.

*Origen. cont. Cels., Lib. VIII. § 14. † Euseb. Eccles. Theol., Lib. II. c. 4. This, and the passage from Origen, are given by Wetstein in his critical remarks on the text, with other authorities to the same purpose. See also Whitby, Disquisitiones Modestæ, passim, but particularly pp. 26, 27, p. 122, and p. 197, ed. secund. — For placing a period after σάoka, Griesbach quotes the authority of "many Fathers who denied that Christ could be called 'the God over all.'"

blessed for evermore";* and the mystery of the Trinity being as yet but ill understood, they had not made such an advance in Orthodoxy as to believe that Jesus Christ was the same being as his God and Father.

WE pass to Hebrews i. 10-12. It is unneces sary to give the words at length. This passage belongs to the present class. The words were originally addressed by the Psalmist (Psalm cii. 25) not to Christ, but to God, and are so addressed by the author of the Epistle.†

[blocks in formation]

"Here we may

†The following are the remarks of Emlyn:observe, that the tenth verse, And thou Lord, &c., (though it is a new citation,) is not prefaced with, And to the Son he saith, as ver. 8, or with an again, as ver. 5, 6, and so chap. ii. 13, but barely, And thou Lord. Now the God last mentioned was Christ's God, who had anointed him; and the author thereupon, addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon, as what he principally cites the text for; in order, I conceive, to prove the stability of the Son's kingdom, before spoken of: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; God, thy God, has anointed thee; and thou, Lord, i. e. thou who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation. of the earth, and by thy hands made the heavens, which, though of long and permanent duration, yet will at length perish; but thou remainest, thou art the same, thy years shall not fail. So that it seems to be a declaration of God's immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ's kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102d Psalm, viz. to infer thence this conclusion, ver. ult.: The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before thee. In like manner it here proves the Son's throne should be established for ever and ever, by the same argument, viz. by God's immutability; and so was very pertinently alleged of God, without being applied to the Son; to show how able his God, who had anoint

« EelmineJätka »