well be excused, if, at first, they hesitated to believe, that the fiery persecutor of their religion could so suddenly have become its sincere and zealous advocate. Even to us, who thankfully acknowledge the great benefits which the Christian world has received from his wonderful conversion, the peculiar circumstances which marked his calling to the office of an Apostle may seem to justify a more than ordinary curiosity of inquiry into the character and contents of the first sermon which he preached. For we have been taught to regard him, not only as "a vessel chosen by the Lord to bear his name before the Gentiles," but as prepared for the due performance of his distinguished office by an education superior to that of all the other apostles; as summoned to it by a miracle so striking, as to have instantly convinced him of the truth as it is in Jesus; and fitted for it by a complete and simultaneous illumination of his understanding to a clear perception of all its saving doctrines. The words, in which the Apostle himself records the pur

e Acts ix. 15.

port of his calling, are remarkable: "It pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen" Under the influence of this conviction, thus miraculously produced upon his mind, he made the revelation which he had just received the subject of his first sermon, as a Christian teacher. "He preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God." His object was, fully to instruct his countrymen at Damascus in the true nature of him, who had appeared to him on his journey thither; and by his supernatural call, and the mysterious working of his Spirit upon his heart, had converted the youthful persecutor into a zealous preacher of his religion.

It has been maintained by some interpreters, that by the word Christ, as used

f Galat. i. 15, 16.

g Whitby, among others: who asserts, that it was above all things necessary to shew the Jews of that age that Christ, or the Messias, was the Son of God; as they were wont to think of him as a mere man. But Mill, on

by the Evangelist in the text, we are to understand the Messiah: and they seem to be of opinion, that the object of St. Paul in this sermon was to prove the divine nature of that Messiah, whom every faithful Jew expected. But it has been shewn h

the other hand, shews that some MSS. and some of the Fathers, read Jesus in this verse: and he inclines to adopt it, conceiving it to be more accommodated to the object of St. Paul's preaching; which was not to demonstrate that Christ, or the Messias, was the Son of God, since the wiser Jews acknowledged this, but to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, or the Messias. But surely it is not necessary to alter the reading before we can affix this meaning to the text; as nothing is more common with St. Paul, than to speak of Jesus by the title of Christ only. Vide Rom. vi. 4, 8, 9. vii. 4. viii. 9, 10, 17, 35. ix. 1, 3. x. 4, 6. xii. 5. xiv. 9, 10, 15, 18. xv. 3, 7, 18, 19, 20, 29. xvi. 5, 7, 9, 10, 16. and the other Epistles, passim.

h See Allix," Judgment of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians." Bp. Bull, who maintains that the Jews in our Saviour's time did not believe in the divine nature of their expected Messiah, and produces many cogent arguments in defence of his opinion, still admits that the more clearsighted and instructed Jews were not ignorant of this great truth. "Cæterum ad Judæorum de Messia sententiam quod attinet, priusquam hoc caput claudam, non abs re fortasse erit, wis ev mapodw notasse, ipsorum quidem Prophetas passim in scriptis suis non obscure significasse, Messiam sive Christum Deum simul et hominem

beyond the reach of reasonable objection, that this was a truth already known to the more learned and unprejudiced Jews. And it appears to be more consistent with the account which the Evangelist has preserved of the effect of his preaching, to suppose that the object of his discourse was to teach them, that the same Jesus whom the Jews had crucified, and whose disciples he himself had persecuted, is that Son of God, whom the better instructed part of their nation expected as their Messiah. For we are told, that those who heard him so

futurum, prout inter veteres ab Justino Martyre in Dial. cum Tryph. Judæo pluribus ostensum est: neque hoc prorsus ignorasse perspicaciores nonnullos ex Hebræorum magistris, abunde demonstravit nobilissimus et doctissimus Plessiaci Dominus in lib. de Ver. Rel. Christ. cap. 28." Bull. Jud. Eccles. Cathol. cap. i. sect. 13.

1

I would observe, that the text, Matth. xxii. 42. produced by Bull, though it shews that the Pharisees in our Saviour's time would not confess the divinity of their expected Messiah, does not so clearly prove their ignorance of the fact. And indeed the whole tenor of our Saviour's charges against them, rather seems to infer a designed suppression of known truths than a mere ignorance, though that ignorance would have been culpable. I mention this with the greatest deference to the deliberate judgment of this great and learned man.

understood this title; and that by his sermons the Apostle "confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus; proving that this," this Jesus of whom he was called to be an Apostle, "is very Christ'," the anointed Son of God, the Messiah. It may then be permitted me to assume, that the Apostle here, as in many other places, speaks of his blessed Master by the title of his office, instead of the name which he bore as a man. And it will be my object to shew, that by declaring him to be "the Son of God," he intended to teach that he is a full and equal partaker in the divine nature with God the Father.

If the Scriptures may be read without reference to the endless controversies which have been raised upon them, and the common rules of interpretation may be applied to their language, there will be no difficulty in comprehending the meaning of the inspired preacher, when he declares that "Christ is the Son of God." We know that the sons of men are partakers in the

i Acts ix. 21, 22.