strengthened perhaps by the consideration, that it is, not recognized in the Liturgy or Articles of our church, and that there is no trace of any such doctrine to be found throughout the writings of the evangelists and apostles. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, indeed, says (chap. i. 1, 2), “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." Now, as the "last days" meant that period which commenced with the advent of the Messiah, it is an intimation by the apostle, that he had not spoken to men before: otherwise, the nature of the subject required that he should have mentioned it. Abridged from JOHN HEWLETT : Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 286-8, 561–2.

A great number of authorities of a similar nature might be cited; but the passages in which divine or angelic appearances are spoken of in the Old Testament will be taken up in their order, and explained, in the next volume.

66

§ 2. CHRIST'S BEING SENT OR PROCEEDING FROM GOD," AND HIS "L COMING DOWN FROM HEAVEN," PHRASES SIGNIFYING THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE FULLEST INSTRUCTION AND AUTHORITY FROM THE FATHER.

Whatever we receive by the special gift of God is said "to descend from heaven." Thus, John vi. 58: "This is that bread which came down from heaven." James i. 17: "Every good gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights." Chap. iii. 15-17: "This wisdom descendeth not from above," &c. In accordance with this sense, our Lord asked the Pharisees, concerning the baptism of John, "Whence was it? From heaven, or of men?" Matt. xxi. 25; and the new Jerusalem is said to "come down out of heaven, from God," Rev. iii. 12. PHILIP LIMBORCH: Theologia Christiana,

lib. iii. cap. 15, § 4.

When the Scriptures speak of Jesus Christ being “sent” into the world; they always refer to his commission from God to minister to the world, that is, to men; and respect not the time either of his birth or conception. In like manner, John the Baptist is said to be "sent from God," when he came to preach the baptism of repentance.

66 seen

It is very common with our Lord to distinguish himself as the Messiah by such like expressions as these, of having God," "learned of God," "proceeded forth from God," come down from heaven," &c. &c. Which manner of speaking has given occasion

99.66

to divines to busy themselves about the metaphysical nature and existence of Christ. But it is very plain that these expressions can have no manner of reference thereto, and that from these two considerations, 1. Because, wherever they occur, the context is sure to determine that our Lord speaks in reference to his office on earth; 2. Because, to suppose these expressions to relate to his metaphysical nature and existence, we must be forced to interpret them literally ; which would make the greatest confusion among our ideas, and lay the foundation of the most absurd, impious, and contradictory opinions and tenets. Our Lord, therefore, must mean by them to assert, that he alone had a perfect knowledge of the will and counsels of God, which no man before him ever had; that God committed to him the full revelation of himself, and enabled him to declare and manifest the one true God to the world, as clearly as if the Son of man had actually ascended up into heaven, and there seen God and the things of the heavenly world, and then had come down from heaven with grace and truth, as Moses from the mount with the law. Jesus Christ, having such knowledge and revelation of the will of God as this, together with all power and judgment, doth with the utmost propriety use these expressions concerning himself, and that by way of appropriation and prerogative not belonging to Moses, John the Baptist, or any of the prophets; who, though true prophets, were still not from heaven, but of the earth, — brought not that heavenly light which was the life of men. In God only was this life, and with him was it hid from the foundation of the world; neither did it shine forth to the world till the coming of Christ, or the manifestation of God in the flesh. BENJAMIN DAWSON: Illustration of Texts of Scripture,

pp. 6, 7; 104-6.

The work from which we have just quoted forms the substance of eight sermons preached in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, in the years 1764 and 1765, by permission of the Lord Bishop of London, for the Lecture founded by Lady Moyer. Dr. DAWSON was a zealous but liberal adherent of the church of England, who in his own way defended this her dogma, that "in unity of the Godhead there be three persons of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." But, though throughout the work he strenuously opposes the opinions held by Arians and Socinians as to the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit, his interpretations of texts adduced in the controversy on this subject are, in general, Unitarian; and, with the exception sometimes of a peculiar phraseology, might well be followed by a believer in the simple humanity of our Lord.

SECT. III. CHRIST'S SONSHIP NOT IMPLYING AN ESSENTIALLY DIVINE NATURE, BUT HIS BEING THE MESSIAH, HIS MORAL RESEMBLANCE TO GOD, AND GOD'S LOVE TOWARDS HIM.

Behold the Prince of Peace!

The chosen of the Lord,

God's well-beloved Son, fulfils

The sure prophetic word.

NEEDHAM.

Is the appellation "Son of God," by itself, an evident and irrefragable argument that the Son is truly a partaker of the same divine nature with the Father? We answer: If this appellation alone be considered, and no regard had to other Scripture passages by which the Deity of the Son is established, it may be clearly shown to be insufficient to prove this doctrine; for it is certain, that, on account of the gracious communication of the divine majesty, the title "Son of God" is attributed to our Lord Jesus Christ in respect to his human nature. PHILIP LIMBORCH: Theol. Christ., lib. i. cap. 17, § 10.

That the title "Son of God," when applied to Jesus our Lord and Saviour, is the same as " Christ," the Ambassador of God, sent by him for our salvation, no one can doubt who consults those passages in which, in themselves, or with others compared together, either the word “Christ” is, by way of interpretation, connected with "Son of God," as Matt. xvi. 16; xxvi. 63. Luke iv. 41. John i. 49; or for this name, found in one text, is substituted in another the name "Christ," as Matt. xxvii. 40, 43, comp. Mark xv. 32. 1 John v. 1, comp. ver. 5 and chap. iv. 2; or the phrases "Son of God" and "Son of man are interchanged, as Mark xiv. 61, comp. ver. 62 and Matt. xxvi. 63, 64. John v. 25, comp. ver. 27; -or the Son of God is so described that to him are attributed what would be unsuitable unless applied to him as a man, an instance of which occurs in Luke i. 32, seq. . . . I know of no passage in Sacred Scripture in which this title can be understood of the divine nature of Christ. J. AUGUSTUS NöSSELT: Exerc. ad S. Scripturarum Interpretationem, pp. 130–1.

We hold it to be clear from the import of the terms employed, and from the context of innumerable passages, that this name, "the Son of God," is applied to Jesus as a man, and applied to him for this reason, among others, that he was "the image of the invisible God," and intimately united with him, as well as the object of his special

favor. Every child knows, that, in the Sacred Scriptures, men are often called the sons of God, on account of some remarkable connection with the Deity, or because they in some sense resembled God himself. Now, is it not evident that all these reasons join in one to render the name in question pre-eminently applicable to that man who sustained a relation to the Deity which no prophet ever had sustained (John i. 14; x. 38; xiv. 10); and who, as the Scriptures explicitly inform us, was the image of the Father (Col. i. 15), and beloved above all the other sons of God? Matt. xvii. 5. Col. i. 13. John iii. 35. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the title Son of God would have been perfectly appropriate to Jesus, considered merely as a man. And it is no less clear that this interpretation harmonizes fully with the context of many passages; such as Heb. i. 5. Rom. viii. 29, 32; but particularly John x. 31, a text often cited to oppugn our doctrine. — J. F. FLATT: Dissertation on the Deity of Christ; in Biblical Repertory for 1829, new series, vol. i. pp. 170-1.

The term "to beget" denotes, in many passages, not the communication of the divine nature to the Son of God, but his appointment to the kingly office, or the Messiahship. Thus the passage, Ps. ii. 7, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," though often cited in the New Testament, is never brought to prove the divine nature of the Son of God, but is always supposed to refer to the confirmation of his Messiahship by his resurrection from the dead. The same might be said of many other passages in which similar phraseology is used. — G. C. KNAPP: Christian Theology, sect. xliii. III. (c).

Dr. KNAPP adds that "the name Son of God is, in some passages, given to Christ in designation of his higher nature, his equality with the Father, and his internal relation to him;" but, by the aid of other orthodox commentators, we intend to show, in future volumes, the utter lack of proof for supposing that in any one passage it is used to indicate a divine essence in Christ.

According to Matt. i. 20, Luke i. 35, Jesus was born into the world in such a manner as no other ever was; and, if applied to this circumstance, I see nothing improper in retaining the common version ["only-begotten"]. The term [uovoyεvǹs], however, may admit the sense of "dearly beloved," or "well-beloved." John only uses the term in reference to our Lord. The Septuagint use it for Ps. xxii. 20; xxxv. 17; and often render the same word ayaπηtòs, "beloved," Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16. Jer. vi. 26. Amos viii. 10. Zech. xii. 10. DR. BENJAMIN BOOTHROYD on John i. 14.

Here I trust I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, antiscriptural and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons: 1. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it. 2. If Christ be the Son of God as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for "son" implies a father, and "father" implies, in reference "Father and son to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. imply the idea of generation; and "generation " implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation. 3. If Christ be Son of God as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior, to him. 4. Again, if this divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; that there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead. 5. To say that he was begotten from all eternity is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase "eternal Son" is a positive self-contradiction. "Eternity" is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time. "Son " supposes time, generation, and father, and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, "Son" and "eternity," is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas. DR. ADAM CLARKE on Luke i. 35.

is,

When Christ is called the image of the invisible God, the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person, i.e. of him; or the only-begotten of the Father, the Son of God; God's own Son; God's beloved Son; his dear Son, &c., — I understand all this phraseology as descriptive of his mediatorial nature and station. I know, indeed, that many of these texts have been appropriated by some Trinitarians to prove the divine nature of Christ in my apprehension, however, this has been done injudiciously, and without any solid reason. Texts of this class may be found: Matt. xvii. 5. John i. 14; x. 36; xiv. 10; iii. 35. Col. i. 13. Heb. i. 5. Rom. viii. As Mediator, as Messiah, Christ was sent into the world; as Son, he filled, and acted in, a subordinate capacity: how, then, can his being Son in such a sense prove him to be divine ? ... Commonly and appropriately, it [the term Son of God] designates the incarnate Messiah, as born in a manner supernatural, Luke i. 35, comp. iii. 38; as the special object of divine love, Matt. xvii. 5. Col. i. 13. John iii. 35; and as exhibiting the best and highest resemblance

29, 32.