From these passages it is evident, that, although Christ acknowledged himself to be sent of God, yet

I. It is agreed on all hands, that, when our Lord concluded his first speech, the Jews at least imagined him to claim divinity or to make himself God; that their supposition to this effect originated from his expression, I and my Father are one; and that, believing him thus to claim divinity, they charged him with blasphemy and were proceeding to punish him in the manner provided by the Law for such an offence.

Thus far it is perfectly clear: the question then is, whether Christ admits or denies the truth of their allegation; that is to say, whether Christ acknowledges that he really did claim divinity, or whether he declares that being a mere man he utterly abhorred such impious presumption.

II. According to the Socinians, our Lord expressly denics, that he lays any claim to divinity: and this opinion they maintain, on the ground of his whole argument requiring us to suppose, that he acknowledges himself to be nothing more than

a mere man.

If those might officially be styled gods, who were employed as the messengers of Jehovah, while yet they pretended not to claint any higher nature than the human: surely the Messiah, the last and greatest of Jehovah's messengers, may well call himself a god, without being in any wise guilty of blasphemy; for, by thus doing, he seeks not to claim to himself any higher nature than Moses possessed.

Such is the Socinian mode of stating our Lord's argument: by which he is exhibited as denying the charge of blasphemy, not on the ground of his being really God; but on the ground, that he pretended not to be more than man, and that he merely asserted his right to be denominated a god by virtue of his official character as a prophet sent by Jehovah.

To this statement however two very serious objections may be made, which the Socinians must remove if they wish it to be received as expressing the mind of Christ.

1. The first objection is, that the statement is palpably in

accurate.

he claimed the dignity of the Supreme Being: for we find him using language respecting his own

Our Lord is represented as saying: If God's messengers in general might be officially styled gods; surely Christ, the greatest of his messengers, may well similarly style himself a god without justly incurring the charge of blasphemy.

Thus our Lord is made to argue; but, in reality, he says no such thing. His argument is doubtless the argument from the less to the greater; but it is not put, as the Socinians wish to put it. Christ says not a syllable respecting his being an official god, as Moses and others were styled gods; a point essentially necessary to the Socinian statement of his argument: but his reasoning is altogether to the following effect.

If those, who were decidedly inferior to the Messiah, might be called gods, because the word of God came to them: why am I to be charged with blasphemy, because I said (not that I am a god, the expression which the Socinians would put into the mouth of Christ, but) I AM THE SON OF GOD?

Hence it is plain, that our Lord does not place HIS being a god in contrast with THEIR being gods, but HIS being the Son of God in contrast with THEIR being mere gods by office. Now between these two statements there is a most essential difference: and, accordingly, we find, that it was immediately perceived by the Jews. Had they understood our Lord to intimate, that he merely claimed the official title of a god as that title was conferred upon Moses, without at all meaning to arrogate to himself any participation of the divine nature; they would have fully acquitted him of blasphemy, and would forthwith have desisted from violence: for why should they stone him as a blasphemer, if they were now satisfied that he acknowledged himself to be a mere man? But, so far from this being the case, they were just as much exasperated at him after his defence as before it. They sought again to take him: nay more, they THEREFORE sought again to take him, BECAUSE they were utterly dissatisfied with a defence, in which (if we receive the Socinian gloss) he declared himself to be a mere

man.

person exactly similar to that used of old respecting the Angel or Messenger of Jehovah, who is de

2. Here then we have a second objection to the Socinian statement of our Lord's argument.

If Christ evidently meant to say what the Socinians pretend; the Jews would have been perfectly satisfied with his explanation, and would have desisted from seeking to punish him as a blasphemer. But the Jews were not satisfied with his expla nation, nor did they desist from seeking to punish him as a blasphemer. Therefore the Jews did not understand him to say, what the Socinians pretend: in other words, the Jews understood him still to claim proper divinity: and Christ, instead of undeceiving them (if indeed they laboured under error), actually made his escape, leaving them under the false impression that he wished to make himself God; while yet, being a holy man though a mere man, he utterly abhorred such daring impiety.

If then the Socinians would persuade us to receive their interpretation of our Lord's argument, they must first rationally account for the couduct both of Christ and of the Jews: of Christ, for leaving the Jews under an error which a single word might have corrected; of the Jews, for still wishing to punish him as a blasphemer when he so plainly (if we may credit the Socinians) declared himself to be no more very God than Moses was.

III. In fact, our Lord, so far from saying what the Socinians would put into his mouth, said, as the Jews were still aware, the very opposite.

He still claimed to be the Supreme Being, though in a varied phraseology, which however the Jews perfectly understood. In his defence he asks, Say ye of me, Thou blasphemest; BECAUSE I said, I AM THE SON OF GOD? Here it is plainly intimated to us, that for any mere man to profess himself the Son of God was reckoned blasphemy: and the reason was, because that title was known to be equivalent to the Angel or Messenger of Jehovah; the name, by which under the Law the God of Israel was perpetually distinguished. Yet, in reality, if we

clared by Jacob and Hosea to be the God of Israel, and who yet (as his very name of office implies) is sent by the Divinity.

look back to his previous discourse, our Lord had not in so many words applied to himself that appellation; though he now confesses himself to have virtually said, I am the Son of God. What then is the phrase, which Christ thus pronounces to be equivalent to this last phrase? If we look back, we shall find none, save the expression I and my Father are one. By comparing then together our Lord's previous discourse which first caused the Jews to charge him with blasphemy, and his subsequent defence which still left upon their minds the original impression that he was a blasphemer because he made himself God by comparing these two together, we learn, that, both in the judgment of Christ and in the apprehension of the Jews, the two phrases I and my Father are one and I am the Son of God are perfectly equipollent; each denoting so essential an union of the Father and the Son, that these two persons, alike and equal in nature, constitute only one God. What our Lord then claimed, though to outward appearance but a man, was to be the Son of God OR (what is equivalent to it) to be essentially one with the Father.

Now in this claim, which the Jews clearly enough perceived to involve direct blasphemy supposing the speaker to be a mere man, because it was in effect a claim to be that covenant-Messenger of Jehovah whom Jacob declares to be the God of Abraham and of Isaac: in this claim our Lord persisted, arguing from the less to the greater, that, if mortal delegates of heaven might be officially styled gods, much more might the Messiah, who was foretold as the divine Messenger of the coveuant, denominate himself the Son of God or pronounce himself to be one with the Father. Nor was he content with repeating his original claim in varied phraseology: at the close of his defence, he explains the language, which had so much scandalized the Jews, to mean, that the Father is in me, and I in him. They were now fully convinced, as well indeed

VOL. II.

2 B

2. Zechariah foretells also with much exactness the manner of Christ's entrance into Jerusalem; the destruction of that city; and the conversion of the Gentiles.

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the Heathen; and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.'

3. With equal particularity he specifies the sum of money, for which Christ was betrayed, and with which the potter's field was bought.

So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And Jehovah said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price, that I was priced at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord."

The price of the Prophet being set forth as a

they might be, that our Lord, being as they imagined but a man, was guilty of making himself God: and under this impression, which, instead of removing, he had sedulously increased, they a second time attempted to put in force against him the Mosaical law respecting blasphemers.

When the passage is thus explained, the whole is perfectly consistent: but, if we adopt the Socinian interpretation, we shall both exhibit Christ as saying what he never did say, and shall make it impossible on any rational principles to account for the conduct of the Jews.