at least, to Christ (with the exception of Luke iii. 36, where the reason of its being applied to Adam is perfectly obvious), and that it is used by Christ and his apostles in many instances, in direct reference to his relation as God, to the Father, we prefer considering this relation as the primary and most important, if not the sole ground of its application to him by inspired men, wherever they intend using it in any other than a mere historical manner. Luke i. 35, may be an exception to this remark. In the great majority of instances, the phrase occurs merely as a designation of the Messiah. In the Old Testament, it was predicted that the Messiah was to be the Son of God. It was very natural, therefore, that this name or title should be very common among those who were waiting for his appearance. Hence, when Nathaniel exclaimed, "Thou art the Son of God," he doubtless intended to say, Thou art the Messiah, and so in a multitude of cases. These passages, however, only prove that the Messiah was called the Son of God; not why he was so called. Our Saviour styling himself so frequently the Son of man, informs us that this was a proper appellation for the great Deliverer, but gives us no information of the grounds of its application. This is a very distinct question.

The arguments which are commonly adduced to show that Son of God, as applied to Christ, is a title of office, and equivalent with Messiah, are principally the following. It is said, that in the Old Testament, kings and magistrates are called Sons of God. This is exceedingly rare. The passage in Ps. lxxxii. 6, is peculiar; Princes are here called as being objects of reverence, and

Sons of the Highest, in the corresponding clause, may, in this instance, receive the same meaning. But it is very far from being the common usage of the scriptures, to call kings the Sons of God. And even if it were, this would prove very little as to the proper meaning of the phrase, Son of God, in the singular: as there is such a marked difference in the use of these expressions, throughout the word of God. We are not prepared to say, that the term Son of God is never applied in the Old Testament, to any royal personage. But in the cases in which it is so applied, it does not express their royal dignity, but merely their being the objects of God's peculiar care and love. Thus, if 2 Sam. vii. 14, be referred to Solomon (in any sense), "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son," the meaning obviously is, I will regard and treat him with peculiar favour. He shall be my child, and I will treat him accordingly. We should be at a loss to fix on any one instance, in which this phrase is expressive of the kingly office. Ps. lxxxix. 27," I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth," can hardly be considered as a case in point. For the expression, "I will make him my first-born," means nothing more, than that I will treat him as "my first-born," that is, with peculiar favour. We think, therefore, that the argument from the Old Testament is very far from being conclusive on this point. It seems

hardly to afford a presumption in favour of the opinion, that Christ is called Son of God, on account of his dignity as Messiah.

Another argument is derived from the second Psalm, v. 7, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." The first remark which we should make on this passage, is, that the second clause probably expresses no more than the first. Thou art my Son, this day, now, art thou my Son; now more clearly than ever. This is agreeable to a common characteristic of the Hebrew. So in Jeremiah ii. 27, "Saying to a stock, thou art my father, and to a stone, thou hast begotten me."-And 2 Sam. vii. 14, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." See also Deut. xxxii. 6. In all these passages, the second clause is synonymous with the first. Secondly, we would admit, that the word i this day, refers to the time contemplated in the preceding verse; i. e., the time in which Christ, the subject of the Psalm, was anointed, or inaugurated as king, on the holy hill of Zion; that is, to the time in which he was clearly set forth as King of Israel. The whole question is, does the passage declare that he was then constituted the Son of God, or was then clearly proved to be such? We prefer the latter mode of interpretation. First, because from the connection, these words do not appear to contain the inaugurating formula, so to speak, addressed to Christ; but rather, the ground of the universal dominion which is committed to him. They form no part of the decree giving him universal dominion ; they are merely the solemn introductory address. The sense is, Thou art my Son; therefore, ask of me and I will give thee universal dominion, &c. That is, these introductory words of the address express the dignity of Christ's person, and assign the reason, why he has the right and power to rule over all nations, and why all people should put their trust in him. In solemn discourse, such introductions are very frequent; and they often contain the reason or ground of what follows: as, "I am the Lord, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt; thou shalt have no other gods before me;" that is, because I am the Lord, &c. So here, because Son. This is agreeable also to the constant manner of the sacred writers, presenting the personal dignity of Christ as the ground of his universal power and authority. Since he is possessed of divine perfections, is the Son of God, of the same nature, therefore he is made universal King.

thou art my

But again, if peculiar stress be laid upon the second clause, “I have begotten thee," it must be admitted, that it can with equal propriety be rendered, I have made thee my Son, or I have declared thee to be such. In other words, may here be taken declaratively, according to the canonso fully illustrated by Glassius, Phil. Sacra, lib. iii., tr. iii., can 15, and which is of such frequent application in Hebrew. The meaning then would be, Thou art my Son, this day have I declared, or exhibited thee, as such. This view of the passage is given by Venema, by Morus in

his Com. Exegeticus, p. 260, by Anton as quoted by Rosenmüller, p. 30 of vol. i., Part iii., of his Scholia, by Kuinoel on Acts xiii. 32, and many others. We think the proper method of deciding which view of the passage is most correct, is to inquire which is favoured by the analogy of scripture. Is Christ said to be constituted the Son of God, by his exaltation or resurrection; or, is his resurrection and exaltation given as evidence that he is the Son of God? Agreeably to the remark made in our last Number, the resurrection of Christ is almost uniformly presented as the great decisive evidence of his Sonship, as well as of his Messiahship. See Rom. i. 3, 4, Acts xiii., &c. He was neither made Son nor Messiah by his resurrection, but was thereby proved to be both the one and the other.

We think it clear, therefore, that no argument can be derived from this passage to show why Christ is called Son. It simply declares, that he is the Son of God; but what this imports, must we learn from other passages.

The words in 2 Sam. vii. 14, "I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son," are adduced as an argument on this subject. It is said, that it is not easy to conceive how a thing can be predicted as future, which has existed from all eternity. This is very true. But the point of the prediction is simply this; the king that shall arise, shall be my Son. So it is predicted that the Messiah should be the "Mighty God;" not that he was to become such, but was to be such. Whether 2 Sam. vii. 14, be referred to Christ, or Solomon, it is of no weight in this discussion. It simply declares, that the king that was to arise, should stand in a very near and tender relation to God. What that relation is, must be learned elsewhere.

Acts xiii. 32, 33, "We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again;" as it is written in the second Psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," is considered as proving that Christ is called Son of God, in virtue of his resurrection, as the commencement of his elevation to supreme dignity. We question very much, even adopting the common translation of this passage, whether this be its proper meaning. According to our version, the point to be proved by the passage from the second Psalm, is indeed, that Christ has been raised from the dead. But this point is fully proved by this Psalm, according to our interpretation of it. It contains a prediction that God would clearly set forth the Messiah, as his Son. How was this done? In various ways, and among others with peculiar clearness, by his resurrection; as Paul elsewhere says, Rom. i. 3, 4. This passage, therefore, according to our view of it, is as applicable to the apostle's purpose, as on the opposite one. But it is far from being certain that there is any reference in this passage (Acts xiii. 32, 33), to the resurrection at all. The words àvaarheas 'Incov, rendered, "having raised up Jesus

66

again," properly mean, "having raised up Jesus," which may express his being called into existence, or sent forth as the Messiah. The grounds for preferring this view of the passage are strong, if not conclusive. In the first place, the verb dvorní, when it refers to the resurrection, has commonly x vexpwv, or some equivalent expression after it. 2. It is often used to express the idea of calling into existence: as Matt. xxii. 24, "raise up seed." Acts iii. 22, "A prophet like unto me will God raise up." See also, Acts vii. 27. The verb lysipw is used in the same sense, see Acts xiii. 22 (and according to the common text). 3. The context favours this interpretation. Paul is here endeavouring to prove that Jesus is the Christ. In verse 23, he asserts that of the seed of David, God, according to his promise, hath raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus. That Jesus is the Saviour, he proves first by the testimony of John the Baptist, and secondly by the resurrection of Christ. The fact of his resurrection, he says, 31st verse, may be proved by those who saw him many days. Having thus established the point that Jesus is the Christ, he says, "we declare unto you glad tidings, how the promise made unto the fathers (what promise? why, the promise referred to in the 23d v. that God would raise up a Saviour), God hath fulfilled unto us, in that he hath raised up Jesus." There is no allusion here to the resurrection, for the promise to which the apostle had reference, was not that Christ should rise from the dead, but that a Saviour should appear; and of this the second Psalm is a clear prediction. The 34th verse makes this still plainer; for Paul, having announced to the Jews the glad tidings that the Saviour had come, turns to another subject, and says, "But that he raised him from the dead (as he had asserted, v. 30), he said on this wise," &c.; and then goes on to prove that his resurrection was predicted in Ps. xvi. It seems clear, therefore, that verse 33 has no reference to Christ's rising from the dead, and consequently that Ps. ii. 7, is not quoted to prove that point. If this be the correct interpretation of this passage, it of course affords no argument in favour of the opinion that Christ is called the Son of God, on account of his being raised from the dead, and exalted as Messiah.

Such passages as Matt. xvi. 15, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," John i. 49, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel," do not prove that Son of God and Christ are synonymous, any more than the expression "Christ, the Saviour of the world," proves that the word Christ means Saviour. They prove simply, what no one denies, that Son of God was a very common appellation for the Messiah among the Jews; but they throw no light on its import or the ground of its application. In the great majority of cases, it is used very much as a proper name, and therefore, such cases prove nothing, one way or the other, as to its meaning.

ESSAY III.

THE DECREES OF GOD.*

We are so much accustomed to receive our literature from Great Britain, that we are prone to overlook valuable compositions produced in our own country; especially, if they proceed from a section of the United States not famous for book making; or from the pen of an author but little known. Notwithstanding the national pride, in relation to American literature, so disgustingly displayed in some of our popular journals, it is a fact, that our booksellers are in the habit of reprinting British works on particular subjects, much inferior to writings of home-production which lie in utter neglect. Perhaps the eastern States ought to be considered as an exception from this remark; where, from the first settlement of the country, authorship has not been uncommon; and where almost every preacher, at some time in his life, has the pleasure of seeing something of his own composition, in print. Still it may be observed, that the literature of New England circulates freely only within her own limits. Of the thousands of printed sermons which run the round through her homogeneous population, very few copies find their way into the other States, except where her sons form the mass of the population. This restriction, however, is becoming less and less every year; and as the population of other parts of the country acquire a taste for reading, the literary wares of our eastern brethren get into wider circulation, and find a readier sale. But leaving out of the account large towns and cities, there is but a small share of literature in the greater part of our country. There are scattered everywhere through the land well informed and well educated men ; but very few of them ever think of writing anything more than a paragraph for the newspapers; or, at most, a Fourth of July speech. Even in the oldest of the United States, celebrated for men of talents and extraordinary political and legal attainments, all the writings of a theological kind which have ever issued from the press, might, I presume, be easily compressed within the narrow limits of a common portmanteau. When, therefore, anything in the shape of a religious book proceeds from that quarter, it should receive particular attention. It has on this account, as well as on

Originally published in 1831, in review of the following work:

The Divine Purpose displayed in the works of Providence and Grace. By Rev. John Matthews, D.D., (late of) Shepherdstown, Virginia.