The admission of a figurative exposition to the expressions before us is therefore pregnant with the utmost injustice to the word of God. On the other hand, the only objection to be anticipated against their literal sense is, that the doctrine thus conveyed is incredible. But this involves a principle of the last importance. In substance, it is this:-When, by a process of reasoning independent of Scripture, we have concluded that a given doctrine cannot be true, it is lawful and proper to explain figuratively all those phrases of the Bible, by the literal exposition of which that doctrine is supported. This position is so monstrous, so absurd, I had almost said, so impious, that it is likely on all hands to be disavowed. Yet where is its incorrectness? In what respect does it misrepresent the theologians whose opinions it is our painful duty to controvert? He who repudiates the popular argument against the divine Sonship, of course is not liable to the accusation. But of those who maintain that Deity and filiation are irreconcilable, and that, of consequence, Christ in his higher nature is not the Son of God, we may venture to inquire, whether, were it not for this argument, they would not, in some cases at least, explain the title of our Lord's pre-existent Deity? It is certain that they would; many of them, as it is, approaching as nearly as possible to this admission. That is, were they uninfluenced by the metaphysical reasoning, they would give the title a literal, where they now assign to it a figurative, sense. And this is the principle which, nevertheless, they fain would disavow.

If we hesitate to describe this principle as impious, it is rather out of delicacy to the individuals by whom it is virtually adopted than from any doubt that it merits the epithet. Subversive of all fair and righteous interpretation it certainly is; and capable of being employed to the worst of purposes. Can the lowest neologian ask

more than permission to explain the language of revelation figuratively, when he finds that its literal exposition would interfere with his preconceptions? Let it only be allowed, on the one hand, that it is lawful to speculate on the divine nature independently of the word of God; and on the other, that the result of such speculations is to determine whether our interpretation of Scripture is to be literal or figurative; and there is no heresy which may not be maintained, nor any doctrine of Scripture, however momentous or however clearly revealed, which may not be successfully assailed.

NOTE (R), p. 367.

The figurative expositions of the title, "Son of God," and its equivalents, wanting in force and appropriateness.

ADMITTING, for the sake of the argument, the possibility of a figurative sense to these phrases, we submit a few observations on each of the principal expositions of which they are supposed susceptible.

1. "Son of God" is frequently represented as a synonyme of the Messiah. But Son expresses a natural relation; while Messiah, or anointed, describes the qualification for office, and, by a figure of speech, the person possessing that qualification. Whatever may be thought of the possibility of such a sense, it is obviously remote from any thing suggested by the original meaning of either term.

2. "Son," and "Only Begotten of God," are supposed to designate the miraculously produced offspring of the Virgin. But these terms involve identity of nature with the Producer; whereas, in the case here supposed, the production was of a nature altogether dissimilar; the producer being God, the produced, man. The human nature of Christ is thought, by Dr. Adam Clarke, to have been created in the immaculate womb; and, by the same authority, it is denied that the divine nature was hypostatically joined to it until after birth. Upon this theory, therefore, the emphatic title, "Only Begotten Son of God," signifies, a man created in his mother's womb. It may rationally be doubted, whether, in the absence of an hypothesis, any one would ever have dreamed of such a sense.

3. The controverted titles are supposed to result from the hypostatical union; and to describe the theanthropic state of our Lord. That is, "Son of God" signifies a divine person in human flesh. But the connecting of an inferior nature with the divine has no affinity, literal or figurative, to the notion of filiation. The subordinate use of the title suggests the ideas of peculiarity of privilege, and of personal resemblance. But the former is here out of the question; since the incarnation of our Lord was an extreme not of dignity, but of humiliation;

and no one can imagine that the second person of the Trinity acquired a personal resemblance to God the Father by the assumption of a frail, passible, dishonoured, and mortal nature.

4. It is said that our Lord became the "Son of God" by his resurrection from the dead; God, as we have before remarked, being made the Father, and the earth or grave the mother, of his resurrection body. But besides being harsh and unseemly, this figure is one which would never occur to an ordinary reader. It is objectionable also, we may observe by the way, as not comprehending the complex person of Christ; the human nature alone being capable of death or resurrection. And, lastly, it necessarily excludes his own agency, and that of the Holy Spirit; both which were nevertheless exerted in the resurrection.

5. Another application of the titles in question is to the mediatorial glory in the heavenly world. But this is open to the objection already named, that sonship is a relation of nature, and therefore an official exposition is not germane to its original and proper meaning. Nor is the appellation Son of GoD apt to convey the idea of mediation; since it does not embrace both the parties concerned, its express reference being wholly to a divine, and not at all to human relation. A phrase accurately indicative of the evangelical mediatorship, would necessarily take in the connexion of our Redeemer with the human race.

Such are the principal and most plausible figurative expositions of which the controverted titles will admit; and it is scarcely necessary to add, that not one of them has any claim to the character of vigour and impressiveness. Here, however, it may be alleged, that the phrase sons of God," as applied to angels and to men, has acceptations very similar. This is true; but the cases are not parallel. Let the following essential distinctions be noted:

66

1. In its subordinate use, the term is never supposed susceptible of a literal exposition; and where, from the nature of things, a literal sense is impossible, a figure may be employed much less appropriate than would otherwise be necessary. But where, as in the present instance, the literal application of a term is both probable and striking, no one is justified in its rejection because a different sense is barely possible. In such

a case, the figurative acceptation, to merit preference, must be in the highest degree appropriate, vivid, and affecting.

2. The foregoing is the legitimate conclusion, supposing the figurative sense in either case to stand on the same ground, and to possess no higher recommendation in its reference to the creature than in its reference to our Lord. But such is not the fact; for in the former application it is often exceedingly forceful. The principal title in question, for example, is in itself highly august. That exposition alone, therefore, can harmonize with its essential character which preserves the idea of honour and eminence. When angels or men are figuratively called "sons of God," they obviously are greatly dignified by the appellation. But to Christ it can be a title of distinction only as literally understood; every figurative exposition involving the idea of subordination and abasement.

3. Yet though, as applied to creatures, the figurative use of the term is thus comparatively expressive, its employment with this reference is rare and occasional. On the other hand, it is one of the common appellations of our Lord, and to him, therefore, it must be the more appropriate. But it cannot be so except as literally expounded; and this fact alone, it is apprehended, is fatal to the figurative theory.