prejudices, these confessions are certainly worthy of no small admiration. It is evident that, in general, they were regarded with the utmost complacency by our Redeemer himself; while the circumstances under which they were uttered render it equally plain that their sense in no respect varied from that of the current Jewish associations.

NOTE (C), p. 107.

On Matt. xiv. 33, and on the Use of the Greek Article in the Title "Son of God."

A DOUBT has been suggested by several eminent expositors and critics, Wetstein, Campbell, and Dr. A. Clarke among the number, whether the acknowledgment recorded in this passage was uttered by the disciples; and hence occasion has been taken to underrate its value. A second subject of discussion is supplied by the circumstance, that the title "Son of God" here occurs without the articles (coỡ viòç). The last named of these writers observes, "It is probable that these words were spoken either by the sailors or the passengers, and not by the disciples. Critics have remarked that, when this phrase is used to denominate the Messiah, both the articles are used, (ò viòç Toũ Đεoũ,) and that the words without the articles mean, in the common Jewish phrase, a divinę person. It would have been strange if the disciples were only now persuaded that Jesus was the promised Messiah." True; but what improbability was there that they should acknowledge him as a divine person? And, if this was likely, why suppose that they did not make such an admission? Where is the necessity to resort to the hypothesis that it was conceded only by the seamen or the passengers? Or, how could the disciples, who were Jews of no extraordinary attainments, have been prepared with any other sense of the title than that entertained by their countrymen in general?

More particularly; this exposition admits that there was here an acknowledgment of our Lord's Deity; that it was not and could not well have been a confession of his Messiahship; and, further, that, in the common Jewish phrase, “Son of God,” described a divine person. Mark then the conclusion. The seamen or passengers are so struck with the stupendous power of Christ, that they at once acknowledge his Divinity. But while all others in the ship are deeply affected, the hearts of the disciples remain untouched. They alone, the favoured twelve, stand aloof. They who had known our Saviour long, and

loved him sincerely; they who had witnessed examples of his power not inferior to that which he now displayed; they, and they only, refuse the confession of the lip, and the homage of the knee. Is this likely? Is it credible?

But, in fact, there is every indication that there were no seamen or passengers in the case. The former were not needed; for surely the fishermen of Galilee were capable of navigating a vessel upon their own sea; and it is not unlikely that the boat was the property of one or other of them; for Peter especially, both before and after this event, was the proprietor of a fishing vessel. (Comp. Luke v. 1-3, and John xxi. 1-3.) It appears also, that they had not been on the eastern side of the lake more than one day; (Matt. xiv. 15 ;) and this was the only boat there until after they had set out on their return towards Capernaum; (John vi. 22;) so that if it did not belong to one of them, there is every probability that it had been engaged for their exclusive use. Indeed, as the object of their crossing, in the first place, had been temporary retirement, and as it is expressly said that they went "apart,' or "privately," (kar' idiav, Mark vi. 31, 32,) the idea of their being accompanied by seamen or passengers is in the last degree improbable.

The whole history, as given by three Evangelists, uniformly discountenances such an opinion. It is scarcely possible that language can be more unambiguous than such statements as the following :-"Jesus constrained his DISCIPLES to get into the ship, (rò λoĩov,) and to go before him to the other side, WHILE HE SENT THE MULTITUDES AWAY.- There was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his DISCIPLES were entered. And he saw them toiling in rowing:-and when the DISCIPLES Saw him walking on the sea,-for they all saw him and were troubled,-straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer, it is I; be not afraid.-They were sore amazed, for they thought not on the loaves," &c. The perpetually recurring mention of the disciples; the absence of all allusions to any other persons; the facts, that they had set out on their return before the dispersion of the multitude, and that they were divested of their apprehensions upon receiving the assurance of the approach of their Master; the reason assigned by St. Mark for their subsequent extraordinary emotion, that

they did not advert to the miracle they had just witnessed; and especially the statement that his disciples went away ALONE, combine to limit the narrative to them. Nor is there any thing in the concluding part of the detail which militates against this view. “When they were come into the ship, they in the ship (oi v rų πλoíų) worshipped," where the only contrast which the relation intimates is between Jesus and Peter, and the other disciples who had remained in the ship. Indeed the attributing of worship and acknowledgment indefinitely to "those in the ship" would be seriously inaccurate, supposing the whole of the disciples to have been exceptions from the statement. Admitting, therefore, the principles of Dr. Clarke's exposition, the conclusion is, that this was a confession from the disciples of the Deity and divine Sonship of our Lord.

On the subject of the Greek article, in connexion with the title "Son of God," the opinion of Dr. Clarke has been cited above. To this may be annexed the following decisive statement, from his note on Matt. xxvii. 40. "There is not a single passage where Jesus is designed to be pointed out as the Messiah, the Son of God, where the article is omitted; nor, on the other hand, is this designation ever specified without the article." The substance of these remarks seems to be, that the title "Son of God," with the articles, invariably signifies the Messiah, and without them, describes a divine person. This subject is of considerable importance to our present inquiry, and will therefore repay an attentive examination. For the reader's convenience, we annex a classified list of all the passages in which the appellation in question occurs.

1. With both articles.-ò viòç TO Oεov. Matt. xvi. 16; xxvi. 63; Mark iii. 11; xiv. 61; Luke iv. 41; xxii. 70; John i. 34, 49, (Gr.) 50; iii. 18; v. 25; vi. 69; (?) ix. 35; xi. 4, 27; xx. 31; Acts viii. 37; (?) ix. 20; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. iv. 13; Heb. iv. 14; vi. 6; vii. 3; x. 29; 1 John iii. 8; iv. 15; v. 5, 10, 12, 13, 20; 2 John 3; Rev. ii. 18.

Matt. iv. 3,

2. With the latter article only.—viòç roỡ Đɛoũ. 6; xxvii. 40; Mark i. 1; Luke iv. 3; John x. 36. To these may be added Luke iv. 9, where the former article is obviously an error in the text, and Matt. viii. 29; Mark v. 7; Luke viii. 28, where it is omitted, on account of the vocative form of the title. (υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ).

Matt. xiv. 33; xxvii.

Rom. i. 4. There is

3. Without either article.-viòs Oɛou. 43, 54; Mark xv. 39; Luke i. 32, 35; little doubt also that the insertion of the latter article in John xix. 7, is incorrect, and this passage is therefore to be classed under this head.

Here then are eight examples in which the phrase occurs without either article; and in these, according to Dr. Clarke's rule, it signifies a divine person. But to three of them he expressly refuses this interpretation. One is the celebrated passage which he expounds as the most decisive evidence against the eternal Sonship of our Lord ::-"Therefore also that holy thing born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (viòs Oɛov. Luke i. 35.) So also in the preceding part of the annunciation, —“ He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High." (viòs víorov, verse 32.) In these cases it is obvious that either the canon or the exposition is at fault. For if the title thus expressed indicates proper Deity, these passages, instead of militating against the filiation of our Lord's divine nature, are most conclusive evidences in its favour. A still more remarkable contradiction to his rule is to be found in Dr. C.'s exposition of Rom. i. 4, "Declared to be the Son of God (viòc Oɛov) with power," which he explains as signifying "the very Messiah, promised before in holy Scripture."

66

It will therefore appear that this learned expositor placed no reliance upon his own canon. Indeed, were it of any value, it is still imperfect, for it makes no provision for passages of the second class, where the former article is omitted. One of these (Matt. xxvii. 40) Dr. Clarke renders, A Son of God, i. e., a peculiar favourite of the Most High." This would seem to intimate, that he regarded the absence of the former article as reducing the phrase to the lowest possible signification. Yet such a conclusion is wholly at variance with the principle of his rule, which clearly is, that the absence of the articles enhances the dignity of the title. By Campbell and Wakefield, who incline to the very opposite opinion, several of these passages are rendered with the English indefinite article. And supposing viòs without the article to signify a son, there is no apparent reason why viòç Oɛoỡ should not be rendered, with these critics and the editors of the improved version, a son of a god. If, therefore, in this instance,