4. It is confirmed by a comparison with ch. 9: 5, where the two natures in Christ are also brought into view and contrasted; as to the flesh, he was an Israelite, but as to his higher nature, he is God over all and blessed for ever.

I cannot perceive any weight or force in the first of these proofs. The phrase Spirit of holiness is a Hebraistic mode of expression, very common in the original text of the holy Scriptures, especially of the Old Testament, instead of Holy Spirit. In the original text we have Son of his love, for his beloved Son, Col. 1: 13. Body of this death, for this dead body, Rom. 7:24. In the likeness of the flesh of sin, for in the likeness of the sinful flesh, Rom. 8: 3. The hill of my holiness, for my holy hill, Ps. 2: 6; and other innumerable examples. If the Spirit of holiness be the Holy Spirit, he is not the divine nature of Jesus, unless that nature and the Holy Spirit be one and the same, which the learned author will not admit.

The reference to Heb. 9: 14, is not relevant to the subject. The sacred writer says in that place, "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God." The Commentator substitutes for the common translation, through the eternal Spirit, the words, with an eternal Spirit, which he thinks gives a better sense, and is more suitable to the context. He refers to Rom. 2: 27, and to Wahl's Clavis, for his authority to render the Greek preposition dia, with a genitive case, by the English preposition with, in the sense. of having, i. e. having an eternal spirit, and tells us, the sense of the text is, Christ offered himself a sacrifice to God with an eternal spirit; that is, having a divine nature. The phrase which is translated the eternal Spirit, he renders indefinitely, an eternal Spirit, on no other ground that I can perceive, than because the article is wanting in the Greek text. But the term eternal Spirit is sufficiently definite in itself, and may therefore, like Osòs, and other terms of the same kind, either take the article or omit it. He might on the same ground, translate 6ɛos ¿qaveqwoŋ, a god was manifested, 1 Tim. 3: 16; eos v o Aoyos, The Word was a god; John 1: 1. The criticism on the Greek preposition is of

little value. The proper and ordinary signification of dia with a genitive case is through or by, denoting the cause, instrument, means, or manner of a thing. It occurs in the first five chapters of Romans thirty-seven times. Of these it is translated in twenty-four instances by the English preposition by, and twelve times by through. In one place, ch. 4: 11, the English version has not expressed it. It may be there rendered by in. Abraham, it is there said, received the sign of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of faith, v zn axqoßvoria, in circumcision, that he might be the father of all believers, dia axpoßvorias, in uncircumcision. Here, as also in ch. 5: 10, 17, it is interchanged with iv, in, and a dative case. Aa, however, still preserves its radical meaning through, denoting a being in something, with continuance throughout. In ch. 2: 27, the apostle says, "And the natural uncircumcision which keeps the law, shall judge thee, who διὰ γράμματος και περιτομης, in the literal circumcision, being in the state of circumcision, throughout the continuance of that state, art a transgressor, etc. The obvious meaning of δια πνεύματος αιωνιου, through the eternal Spirit, is through the suggestion, the influence, the motion of the Holy Spirit, who influenced and moved Jesus Christ to offer himself a sacrifice to God.

The text in 1 Pet. 3: 18, is admitted to be parallel in the use of the terms flesh and spirit. I shall pay attention to it in the proper place.

The third proof, founded upon the rule of antithesis, would be valid, if it were first shown that the term flesh must mean the human nature of Christ.

πνευμα.

The text in Rom. 9: 5, is not parallel, inasmuch as the antithesis of flesh and spirit does not occur in it: it has indeed the former term κατα σαρκα, but not the latter κατα Neither is it at all necessary to interpret xava oɑona, according to the human nature of Christ; for it may doubtless mean, according to his human descent or natural birth. That the term Spirit of holiness does not designate the divine nature of Christ, and that his Sonship is not in his divinity, is evident from the fact that he was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection. I admit with the learned Commentator that the Greek word which is rendered was declared, is rightly translated, and does not mean made or constituted; because Christ was the Son of God before

he arose from the dead; and was not made such by his resurrection, but was declared, exhibited, and proved to be such by that event. The words er dvvaus, in or with power, ἐν δυνάμει, may be connected either, as they are in our translation, with the term Son of God, or with the participle declared. Connected in the former of these ways, the sense will be, that the resurrection proved Jesus to be the Son of God invested with power in the latter connection the meaning is that the resurrection was a powerful declaration or proof that Jesus was the Son of God. This seems to be the true sense, because it is not so clear that the resurrection proved that Jesus was invested with power, as that it proved powerfully that he was the Son of God, in the sense which I shall hereafter show to be the true one.

Jesus Christ was declared, shown, or proved, to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. But this event was no proof at all that Jesus Christ was God. All the saints shall be raised after the similitude of Christ. He preceded them, and is pre-eminent among them, as theFirst-born from the dead," and the "First fruits of them that slept;" but they all shall be conformed to his image; they shall follow him, every man in his order: first Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. See Rom. 8: 17, 29, Col. 1: 18, 1 Cor. 15: 20-23, 1 Cor. 15: 47-49. The resurrection of the saints, the redemption of their bodies, the waking up of the people of God, soul and body, to a new life after death, is their adoption as sons of God; the declaring, showing, or proving them to be the children of God. Rom. 8: 22, 23. But no one will imagine that the resurrection of the saints proves that they are divine.

The learned author of the Commentary was sensible of this difficulty, and endeavored to solve it by the following comment on this part of the text, "That is, the resurrection of Christ was the great decisive evidence that he was the Son of God; it was the public acknowledgment of God, of the validity of all the claims, which Christ had made. Hence the apostles were appointed witnesses of that fact. Acts 1:22. This, of course, does not at all imply that the resurrection of Christ in itself was any proof that he was the Son of God, any farther than it was a proof that he was all that he had claimed to be, and as, in its attending circumstances, it was

a display of his divine power. He had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it again.'

But how was the resurrection of Jesus a display of his own divine power? The text in John, ch. 10: 17, 18, shows, indeed, that he possessed authority over his own life, to lay it down in order that he might take it again; but two things must be borne in mind here: 1. Jesus describes this authority as one which he had received from the Father, and which he, as the Son, did not, therefore, originally possess. 2. What is here said by our Lord must be understood in a sense that will be in harmony with the doctrine of the apostles, who uniformly ascribe his resurrection to God the Father, or to his Spirit. See Acts 2: 24, 32, ch. 3: 15, 26, ch. 4: 10, ch. 10: 40, ch. 13: 30-37, ch. 17: 31, Rom. 4:24, ch. 6: 4, ch. 8: 11, ch. 10: 9, 1 Cor. 6: 14, 2 Cor. 4: 14, Gal. 1: 1, Eph. 1: 19, 20, 1 Thes. 1: 10, Heb. 13: 20, 1 Pet. 1: 3, 21. The resurrection of Jesus was therefore, indeed, a display of divine power; but it was of the power of God, not of the Son of God. I grant that it was, in the circumstances of the case, a public acknowledgment of God of all the claims which Jesus had made, and, I will add, of all the explanations which he had given and if he had so explained the appellation Son of God as to show that he used it as a title of divinity, his resurrection would, in this way, be a proof that he was divine with respect to his Sonship. But such an explanation he has nowhere given, and his resurrection, therefore, cannot prove it.

It is alleged, however, that the New Testament does contain explanations of the term Son of God which show that it belongs to the divine nature of Jesus, and designates the relation which that nature sustains to God the Father. The respected Commentator before referred to, says:

"If there is nothing in the usage of the term son, or of the phrase sons of God, which can fix definitely the meaning of the phrase now in question, we must advert to those cases in which either the ground of the appellation is distinctly stated, or its true import explained. These cases are, of course, comparatively few. Christ is called Jesus in a multitude of instances, but the reason of his being so called is stated in but one or two. In like manner he is very frequently called the Son of God, but why he is so called, we can learn only from the few cases just referred to. In this passage, for example (Rom. 1, 3, 4), it seems to be definitely asserted that Christ is the Son of God, as to his divine nature; and, of course, the ground of his being so called must be the

relation between that nature and the eternal Father. In John 5: 17, Christ calls God his Father in such a way as to imply that he is equal with God. This is the interpretation which his hearers put upon his words, and one which Christ himself confirmed. The same is the case in John 10:30-39, where Christ declares himself to be the Son of God in such a sense that he and the Father are one. In John 1: 14, the glory of Christ, which proved him to be God, is said to be his glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father. Compare v. 18. In Heb. 1: 4 -7, it is argued, in effect, that because Christ is called Son, he is God; higher than the angels, and worthy of their worship. These and other passages prove that Christ is called the Son of God because he is of the same nature with the Father, and sustains to him a mysterious relation, as God, which lays the foundation of the appellation."

I am unable to discover in these texts the proof of the divinity of the Sonship of Christ which this esteemed brother alleges to be contained in them. The text in Romans, ch. 1: 3, 4, shall be considered presently. The sense which the Commentator puts upon it cannot be assumed as the true one, when the question is what it means.

The place in John, ch. 5: 17, must be taken in connection with the passage in which it stands. Jesus having healed the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath day, the Jews charged him with a criminal violation of the sanctity of the day, and sought for that reason to put him to death. The design of Jesus was to prove his innocence of the crime of violating any law of God; and for this purpose he says to them, " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Upon this the Jews sought the more to kill him, because, as the apostle tells us, he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said that God was his Father, " making himself equal with God." Did John believe that Jesus had broken the Sabbath? Certainly not. Neither, therefore, did he believe that Jesus made himself equal with God, in the sense in which the Jews understood him, or affected to understand him. In his judgment the allegation that Jesus had made himself equal with God, in their sense, by saying that God was his Father, was about as true as the charge that he had broken the Sabbath by healing the impotent man. The answer of Jesus shows what sort of equality he meant: it was an equality quoad hoc: an equality consisting in this, that both the Father and he wrought on the Sabbath day. "Then answered Jesus, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for