Revelations even tolerably well-read in the New Testament. occasion of But there is one that is peculiarly worthy of figuration. attention, on account of the care which divine

made on the

the Trans

Providence then displayed in guarding the disciples against the mistake of supposing Jesus to be merely one-though the most eminent oneof the prophets. In the transfiguration "on the Mount," three favoured Apostles beheld their Master surrounded with that dazzling supernatural light which had always been to the Israelites the sign of a divine manifestation, and which we find so often mentioned in the Old Testament as the Glory of the Lord-the Shechinah ;- which appeared on Mount Sinai,— on the Tabernacle in the Wilderness,-in Solomon's Temple, &c.: and they beheld at the same time, in company with Him, two persons, each of whom had been seen in their lifetime accompanied by this outward mark of supernatural light; Moses, their great lawgiver, whose "face shone when he came down from Mount Sinai," so that the Israelites could not fix their eyes on it, and Elias (Elijah), their most illustrious Prophet, who was seen borne away from the earth in that Shechinah appearing as a "chariot and horses of fire" and now, these same two persons were seen along with Jesus. It might naturally have occurred to the three disciples (perhaps some such idea was indicated by the incoherent words

which dropped from them)-the thought might have occurred to them,-were Moses and Elias also Emmanuels?-were all three, manifestations of "God dwelling with his People?" and was Jesus merely the greatest of the three? To correct, as it should seem, any such notion, it was solemnly announced to them that their Master was a Being of a different character from the others: "there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved SON: hear Him." And on two other occasions we read of the same signs being given.

Jesus was

God in a

sense au

thorizing adoration.

§ 4. No one can doubt then, that those who Whether believed in Jesus at all, must have believed Him the Son of to be the Son of God in a far different and superior sense from that in which any other could be so called. But what was the sense, it may be asked, in which they did understand the title? Did the people of that time and country understand that God was with Him, not only in some such way as He never was with any other man, but so as to permit and require divine worship to be addressed to God in Christ? Many passages by which this tenet is supported are commonly cited from the Evangelists and Apostles; but I wish at present to confine myself to the expression "the Son of God," and to inquire in what sense that was understood at the time.

Metaphysi

cal disqui

Waiving then all abstruse disquisition on the

sitions on notions conveyed by such terms as “consubstan

abstruse

scholastic tiality," "personality,"

terms, unnecessary.

"eternal filiation," and the like, (oftener I conceive debated about with eagerness than clearly understood,) let us confine ourselves to such views as we may presume the Apostles to have laid before the converts they were instructing; who were most of them plain unlearned persons, to whom such abstruse disquisitions as I have been alluding to, must have been utterly unintelligible; but who, nevertheless, were called on,all of them, of whatever age, sex, station, and degree of intellectual education,-to receive the Gospel, and to believe, and feel, and act, as that Gospel enjoined.

There is one great practical point clearly intelligible to all, thus far, at least, that they can understand what the question is that is under discussion, and which it is, and ever must have been, needful to bring before all Christians without exception: viz. whether there is that divine character in the Lord Jesus which entitles Him to our adoration:-whether He is the Son of God in such a sense as to authorize those who will worship none but the one God, to worship Jesus Christ; so that "all men should

honour the Son even as they honour the Father."

words to be

so taken in the

sense un

it derstood at

the time.

Now there is a maxim relative to the right Christ's interpretation of any passage of Scripture, obvious when stated, that it seems strange should be so often overlooked; viz. to consider in what sense the words were understood by the generality of the persons they were addressed to; and to keep in mind that the presumption is in favour of that, as the true sense, unless reasons to the contrary shall appear.

Some are accustomed to consider, what sense such and such words can be brought to bear; or how we should be most naturally inclined to understand them: but it is evident that the point we have to consider-if we would understand aright what it is that God did design to reveal,is, the sense (as far as we can ascertain it) which the very hearers of Christ and his Apostles did actually attach to their words.

For we may be sure that if this was, in any case, a mistaken sense, a correction of the mistake (if it relate to any important practical point) will be found in some part of the Sacred Writings.

However strange therefore it may seem to any one that the phrase "Son of God" should have been so understood as it was at the time, and however capable of another sense it may appear to us, still, the sense which Jesus and his

Apostles meant to convey, must have been that, whatever it was,-in which they knew that their hearers understood them.

And what this meaning was, may I think be settled even by the testimony of his adversaries alone, as to the sense in which they understood Him. They charged Him, not only on his trial, but on many other occasions also, with "blasphemy," as "making Himself God,"-" making Himself equal with God;" and threatened to "stone Him," according to the law of Moses against blasphemers; understanding blasphemy to comprehend the crime of enticing the People to worship any besides the one true God, Jehovah." Now if they had misunderstood his words, warned his and had supposed his language to imply a claim hearers to such divine honour as He did not really mean mistake as to claim, we may be sure that any one-I do

Christ

would have

against a

to his

meaning.

not say merely, any inspired messenger from heaven, but any man of common integrity, would at once have disavowed the imputation, and explained his real meaning. If any Christian ministers, in these days, or at any time, were to have used some expression which they found was understood,—either by friends or foes,-as implying a claim to divine worship, what would they not deserve, if they did not hasten to disclaim such a meaning?

f See Deut. xiii.