same reason. When in one case he expelled the buyers and sellers, it was with the words, "Make not my FATHER'S house an house of merchandise."* In the other example of similar conduct, the reason assigned was, the desecration of the building from its proper and sacred purposes. But here, though the same argument is implied, our attention is particularly directed to the right of Christ, as the Son, to unlimited control in the house of his Father. The Jews naturally demanded some evidence of his claim. They said, “ What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" By what miracle is thy authority authenticated? The precise object of this question, supposing the previous address understood, was a miraculous proof that God was the Father of our Lord. It is perhaps too much to conclude, that these querists had this accurate reference; but it was to this sense that Christ replied, in that well known prediction of his resurrection, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The rejoinder of the Jews shows that they were at a loss as to the meaning of this declaration ; ‡

* John ii. 16, &c.

† Matt. xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15—17; Luke xix. 45, 46.

Yet, accustomed as were these people to parabolic language, and acute as they often proved themselves in apprehending its hidden meaning, I cannot avoid the conclusion, that either at this or at some subsequent period they had a glimpse of our Lord's design. This indeed seems obvious from the allegation of this very passage upon his trial; (Matt. xxvi. 61; Mark xiv. 57, 58;) especially as it is the only piece of evidence on record. Had it been literally understood, it would have seemed rather the raving of a maniac, than the proper subject of a criminal charge. suppose the Jews to have had an idea that under this prediction there was a covert but not less real claim to the title in controversy, "the Son of God," it will be easy to perceive why it was adduced by their suborned witnesses. Nor is it unlikely that it was to this prediction, among others, that allusion was made after the

But if we

and it is more than intimated by the Evangelist, that the disciples themselves did not fully apprehend its force. But to us it is evident that Jesus here referred to the resurrection, in proof of his possessing that authority in his Father's house to which the entire conversation tended. In other words, he claimed to be the Son of God according to the Jewish exposition of the title; and, as the conclusive evidence of this fact, he declared that he himself would animate his own body, and resume the life previously taken by the violence of his enemies.

The prediction in this case, however, was intentionally obscure. But when the resurrection had actually taken place, that which was before matter of prophecy, became the subject of history and doctrine, and consequently required to be distinctly enunciated. Hence the

Apostle Paul thus plainly declares the same truth: "The Gospel of God,-concerning his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, which was made the seed of David according to the flesh, [and] declared [to be] THE SON OF God WITH POWER, according to the spirit of holiness, BY

THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD.

It cannot be denied, without manifest violence to the terms, that this passage represents our Lord under two distinct characters. In one respect, he is made of the seed of David; in another, he is declared to be the Son of God. The former is, according to the flesh; the latter, according to the spirit of holiness. Now it is well known that the term "flesh" is currently employed by the sacred writers to signify man, the human race, human

crucifixion. (Matt. xxvii. 63.) If, however, as some suppose, (Kuinoël among the number,) Christ, in uttering the words, "this temple," pointed to his own body, and if the reply of the Jews were a wilful perversion of his meaning, the subject is sufficiently clear; but this I conceive is a supposition which the narrative will not warrant.

Rom. i. 1, 3, 4.

K

nature. Thus, to cite from a multitude of passages, Christ is said to have abolished "the enmity" in "his flesh," that is, by his sacrifice of himself in a human and passible nature.* Yet more remarkable is the expression of the Apostle in the Epistle before us. could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH: (Karà σápka :) who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, &c.; whose are the fathers, and of whom as CONCERNING THE FLESH, (karà σáρka,) Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." Here it is clear that Christ is represented as being of (E) the Israelites, in the same respect in which they were the kindred of the Apostle. We may, therefore, safely understand the expression as relating to the manhood of our Lord, his complete human nature, consisting of a reasonable soul and a mortal body.

In this respect then he is said to be "of the seed (EK OTEρuarоç) of David;" which the Jews and proselytes here addressed would readily apprehend as implying not his simple humanity alone, but equally his official designation; as, in fact, equivalent to the well known Jewish title of the Messiah, "Son of David." Except to direct the attention of the reader to the eminent sense of his Messiahship, there is no apparent reason for this reference to our Lord's descent from David. Independently of such a design, the seed of the woman, of Abraham, or of Israel, had been equally, if not more appropriate.

If then, with respect to the manhood, Jesus was the true Messiah, and was thus possessed of the loftiest distinction to which human nature ever attained, his being the Son of God must be something yet higher; something as much more excellent than the most glorious form of

humanity, as is the spirit more excellent than the flesh. The rest of the text is in harmony with this view. He was made or born "of the seed of David" with respect to his human condition, "the flesh :"-he was declared, definitely marked out, "the Son of God in power," with respect to the loftier nature, "the spirit of holiness ;" and that, by the most stupendous of all miracles, even "the resurrection from the dead."

Upon the whole, therefore, the doctrine of the New Testament, first as stated by Christ himself, and afterwards by the Apostle Paul, is, that the resurrection was the evidence of the divine filiation of our Redeemer. His claim to be Son of God, which the Jewish council adjudged to be blasphemy, was by this glorious miracle effectually vindicated. And, unless the foregoing reasoning is essentially fallacious, it will appear, that the Jewish distinction between the Messiah and the Son of God, though erroneous so far as it supposed two persons, was correct so far as it contemplated two aspects of character. The same person sustained both; but he sustained them in respects as perfectly distinct as the Jewish theology supposed. According to the flesh, and with respect to human generation, the Lord Jesus was the Son of David; according to the spirit of holiness, the nature of ineffable and infinite sanctity, he was the omnipotent Son of God.

*See note (H).

NOTE (H), p. 195.

On Rom. i. 3, 4.

THIS passage in itself is of so great interest, it is so intímately connected with our subject, and in its details has been so variously expounded, that we should not do it justice without a more minute examination than would consist with the continuity of the text. Its fuller discussion has therefore been reserved to the present note.

Two or three preliminary remarks may aid us in coming to a correct conclusion. Of these, one of the most important respects the constitution of the church to which this epistle was addressed. That it partly consisted of Gentile converts needs not be questioned; but, on the other hand, the structure of the argument proves that a large proportion of those for whose use it was designed were strongly attached to the Mosaic law; in other words, that they were either Jews or proselytes to the Jewish faith: a conclusion this, than which, as Stuart remarks, "nothing can be clearer." In determining the sense of any peculiarities in theological diction, it is plain that regard must be had to the existing opinions on the subject; and in the absence of serious objection to the popular acceptation of such phrases, any remote exposition, and especially any exposition essentially hostile, cannot but be

incorrect.

That this part of the epistle was designed peculiarly for the Jewish reader is evident from the occurrence of the expression, "of the seed of David;" a style of designating our Lord but little adapted to the Gentile portion of the Roman church. The interpretation of its phraseology, therefore, we must seek in Jewish opinions and modes of speech. Be it borne in mind, then, that the Jewish acceptation of the title, "Son of God," has been already ascertained; and unless in the scope of the passage before us there is something which forbids it, this sense, and this alone, can accord with the reason and fitness of things. Nor would the Jewish readers be at a loss for a general exposition of the phrase, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ