that he was not to arrive at glory, and the full poffeffion of his kingdom, but through fufferings and humiliation; and that if it be equivalent to Meffiah, it is not used to denote his dignity, but rather to fignify the humble form and low condition in which he then lived, and is expreffive of the fcorn and contempt which was caft upon him. He thinks, alfo, that it denotes his real humanity. He farther confiders it as a modest way in which our Lord chose to speak of himself in the third perfon.

But why should Jefus fo very frequently ftyle himfelf the fon of man, if by this he only intended to allude either to his depreffed, or to his exalted, ftate? For of both these conditions, as pertaining to the fon of man, he often fpake in the plainest and most explicit terms; inftances of which we shall refer to in this fection.

In the explanations which have been given of the title fon of man, as applied by Jefus to himself, the addition, or the omiffion, of the article to each word appears to have been unnoticed. Yet I apprehend this circumstance will be found to be of principal importance in determining the fenfe of this appellation.

In the Septuagint the phrafe Son of man is without any article to either of the words. Te avga is applied to Daniel, viii. 17; and to Ezekiel about eighty times. In Dan. x. 16, qpowers vie ομοίωσις υιε

avgwax is used of the fame vifionary appearance as oparis avgwe in ver. 18. In other paffages in which the phrafe Son of man occurs in the Septuagint,

it is used as fynonymous with man, in the fame fentence. See Numb. xxiii. 9; Job xxv. 6; xxxv. 8; Pfa. viii. 4; 1xxx. 17; cxliv. 3; Prov. viii. 4; Ifai. li. 12; Jerem. xlix. 18, 33; 1.40; li. 43. In Pfa. cxlvi. 3, 185 avgwπwv is fynonymous with agxovras confidered as frail human beings. In the Septuagint, then, son of man, without any article, fignifies a proper human being.

In the New Testament, the phrafe oμolov vi avgwe, without any article, occurs, Rev. i. 13; xiv. 14, in descriptions of vifionary forms. This expreffion is evidently taken from the account of the vifionary appearances in Dan. x. 16; vii. 13; Sept. In Acts vii. 56, Stephen applies the phrafe Tov v T8 avowπ8 to Jefus Chrift. In no other than these three paffages, I believe, does the phrase the son of man occur in any part of the New Teftament, excepting the four Gofpels. In all thefe together it occurs. about seventy times, and is never used by any one but by Jefus Chrift, unless when his words are repeated by others, as John xii. 34. In every inftance, alfo, he applies it to himfelf, and always with the article to both words, except in John v. 27.

nine

Now fince vios avgwe is without any article in the Septuagint, why did Jefus add the article to both words, and uniformly apply the phrafe & vos T8 aqw to himfelf, with only one exception? And why did he vary his expreffion in this particular inftance?

In many cafes indeed much ftrefs is not to be laid upon the ufe, or omiffion, of the article. But fince it is entirely omitted, in the phrafe which we are confidering, in the Septuagint, and is always added to both words by Jefus, (except in the fingle inftance which we fhall hereafter attend to,) it is natural to infer, that the article was added with fome particular view. Each of the evangelifts has preserved this addition in every instance in which the phrase occurs. in their narratives of the difcourfes of Jefus, which manifefts that they thought fome appropriate mean IX ing was intended to be conveyed by it. It fhould be noticed also, that as in the Septuagint the phrafe Son of man, without any article, uniformly denotes the fpecies; fo with the article to both words, as ufed by Jefus, it never has this general fenfe, but is always appropriated to himself. If Mark ii. 28, we fo that the Son of man is Lord even of the fabbath, be urged as an inftance to the contrary, it may be replied, that in the parallel place, Matt. xii. 2 to 8, Jefus fays, in the fixth verfe, one greater than the temple is here. Now as vos TE AVJOWTTE, υιος τε άνθρωπε,

A

in the eighth verfe, is applied to this fame perfon, the phrafe is neceffarily limited to Jefus Chrift, which is the acknowledged appropriate meaning of it in all the other texts in which it occurs. Agreeably to this interpretation, we find Jefus correcting falfe and fuperftitious notions of the manner in which the fabbath was to be observed, by performing miraculous cures on the fabbath, and vindicating his conduct in

.

fo doing, against the objections of the Pharifees and Jewish rulers. See Luke xiii. 10 to 17; xiv. 1 to 6; John vii. 22 to 25; v. 8 to 17; Matt. xii, 10 to 14; Mark iii. 1 to 5 ; &c.

As to the particular

As v105 avgwax fignifies a man in general, fo the literal translation of o vigs Te aveway is the fon of the man. From the frequent and uniform use of this latter phrase by Jefus, except in John v. 27, and its variation from the Septuagint by the two articles which are added, it feems evidently to point at a particular fon of a particular man. Who the fon is, appears manifeftly from the phrafe being always appropriated by Jesus to himself, and its never being applied to any other perfon. man to whom Chrift alludes, we may obferve, that the Jews in general, before his appearance, and during his ministry, had a perfuafion that the Meffiah would be a defcendant of David. This is evident from the answer which the Pharifees gave to the queftion of Jefus, whofe fon is Chrift? to which they replied, the fon of David, Matt. xxii, 41, 42; and from various perfons addreffing Jefus by this ap pellation. See fec. iii. That conftant ufe of the article to both words, therefore, which Jefus obferved, would naturally lead the confiderate part of his auditors to deliberate what particular man was referred 10. And as Chrift by his various miracles, and the manifeftations of fupernatural knowledge, convinced great numbers of his divine authority, they would naturally fuppofe that he alluded to that man

from whom they believed the Meffiah would de fcend. See Matt. viii. John iii. 2; ix. 30 to 33; iv. 28, 29, 42; vi. 14; xii. 12, 13. Thus the phrase the fon of the man, by being fo frequently applied by Jefus to himself only, while it clearly expressed his proper humanity, (Matt. xvi. 13,) would also give a strong intimation that he sprang from the very perfon from whom the Jews expected their Meffiah would defcend; without dictinctly afferting that this was the cafe. Such an indirect mode of leading his followers to confider him as the Messiah, correfponded with his ufual way of unfolding this, and fome other, truths refpecting himself and his religion, in a very gradual manner to the Jews, whofe minds were not prepared to receive them plainly and openly. See Internal Evid. of Christianity, part iv. ch. 3, fec. 2, fubd. 2, p. 368, &c. In various ways Jefus ftrongly intimated that he was the Meffiah, without directly faying that he was. See Matt. xi. 2, &c. xxi. 6 to 16; xxiv. 5; John xii. 32 to 35; Luke iv. 21. That the people in general understood the phrase the son of the man, as well as other intimations which Jefus gave, to fignify that he was the Meffiah, appears from their fo frequently ftyling him the fon of David. The exclamation of the multitude, and of the children, when Christ was entering Jerufalem, is a remarkable inftance of this; Matt. xxi. 9, 10, II. For Jefus had never publicly declared that he was the Meffiah, till his laft trial, left the Jews might attempt to make him king, and