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.f

Christ

would have

Now if they had misunderstood his warned his words, and had supposed his language to imply a claim to such divine honour

hearers

against a mistake as

to his

meaning. as He did not really mean to claim, we may be sure that any one-I do not say merely, any inspired messenger from Heaven, butany 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 under

f See Deut. xiii.

stood, 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?

And much more would this be re- Christ must

have fore

that

his follow

would

pay him divine honours.

quisite in the case of a person who fore-seen saw (as Jesus must have done) that his followers would regard Him as divine,—would worship Him—if He did not expressly warn them against it. Such a one would be doubly bound to make such explanations and such disavowals as should effectually guard his disciples against falling into the error-through any thing said or done by Himself-of paying adoration to a Being not divine: even as the Apostle Peter warns the Centurion Cornelius against the adoration which he suspected that Cornelius designed to offer him; saying, "Stand up, I myself also am a man." Jesus of course would have taken care to give a like warning, if He had been conscious of not having a claim to be considered as divine, and had at the same time been aware that the title of Son of God would be understood as implying that claim.

That the title was so understood, is the point to which I am now calling the reader's attention.

un

derstood to

§ 5. On one occasion when He had Jesus healed a cripple on the Sabbath-day, claim a diand had commanded him immediately racter.

vine cha

to "take up his bed" (which was a work prohibited by the Jewish law) He vindicates Himself against his opponents by saying "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;" or, as it might be rendered more clearly according to our modern usage, "My Father has been working up to this time;" (that is, ever since the creation, the operations of God have been going on throughout the Universe, on all days alike ;) "and I work;" I claim the right to perform, and to authorize others to perform, whatever and whenever I see fit. "Therefore the Jews" (says the Evangelist) "sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his [proper] Father; making Himself equal with God."h

On another occasion (John x. 32) when he had said "I and the Father are one," the Jews were about to stone Him for blasphemy," because (said they) thou being a man makest thyDefence of self God." He defends Himself by charged alleging a passage of their Scripture in phemy by which the title of "God" is applied to lace. those, "to whom the word of God

Jesus when

with blas

the popu

8 Εργάζεται ἔως ἄρτι.

h Our version, it is important to observe, does not give the full force of the passage as it stands in the Original. It should be rendered, “that God was his own proper (or peculiar) Father” (marépa idiov). This it seems was the sense in which (according to the Evangelist) He was understood by his hearers to call God his Father, and Himself "the Son of God."

(5.]

Of Sonship was understood.

52

came;" implying however at the same time a distinction between Himself and those persons, and his own superiority to them: "Say ye of Him" (He does not say "to whom the word of God came"-but) "whom the Father hath anointed and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God ?" This however did not necessarily imply any thing more than superiority and divine mission; and accordingly we find the Jews enduring it; but when he goes on to say " that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him," we find them immediately seeking again to lay hands on Him; and He withdraws from them.

before the

But the most important record by far His defence in respect of the point now before us Council. is that which I originally proposed to notice,— the account of our Lord's trial and condemnation before the Jewish Council. In order to have a clear view of this portion of the history, it is necessary to keep in mind, that when He was tried before the Roman Governor, it was (as I observed at the beginning) not for the same crime he was charged with before the Council of the Jews; but for seditious and treasonable designs against the Roman Emperor: "We found this fellow perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that He himself is Christ a King." "Whosover maketh Himself a King, speaketh

against Cæsar." Now I need hardly remark that this was no crime under the law of Moses; and would in fact have been a merit in the sight of most of the Jews. But what He was charged with before them, was blasphemy, according to the Law of Moses; and of this they pronounced Him guilty, and sentenced Him to death; but not having power to inflict capital punishment they prevailed on Pilate, who had acquitted Him of the charge of treason, to inflict their sentence: "We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God."

Accounts of

the trial, in

In order to understand clearly the the four trial and condemnation of our Lord Gospels, to

pared

to

be com- before the Jewish Council (which is in gether. many respects a most important part of Sacred History) we should study, as I have said, the accounts given of it by all four of the Evangelists. Each relates such circumstances as most struck his own mind; where one is abridged, another is more diffuse; each omits some things that are noticed by another; but no one can be supposed to have recorded any thing that did not occur. All the four, theretogether, in order to

fore, should be compared

obtain a clear view of the transaction.

Jesus con- It seems to have been divinely ap

victed on

his own tes- pointed that Jesus should be con

timony.

i See Deut. xiii. 7.