view; and tells the Jews, that although as a man, he was by many ages younger than that patriarch, yet that he existed before him. This was, in fact, declaring himself to be the Messiah; whose pre-existence, as I stated before, was a received notion amongst the Jews.

What do the Unitarians say to this? They insert a word in the text, "Before Abraham was born, I am he," and then explain it thus ; "My mission was settled and certain before the birth of Abraham." But what is the force of he? It is equivalent, they say, to "the Christ;" as in the 24th and 28th verses of the same chapter, where it is inserted in our received version. But it is evident, that the Jews did not conceive Jesus to assert that he was the Messiah, till he made the declaration in the text; and the text contains no such assertion, unless it be taken to imply a preexistence. In that sense the Jews understood it; and perceiving immediately that Jesus professed himself the Messiah, they no longer set any bounds to their anger, but took up stones to cast at him.

If it be asked, why should that profession of Messiahship, upon the part of our Saviour, have excited in the breasts of the Jews such a

transport of rage?we reply, because they expected their Messiah to be a divine person, the Son of God; and therefore considered it nothing short of blasphemy, for an obscure and mean individual, such as Jesus appeared to be, to lay claim to that character. So in the tenth chapter, ver. 30, when our Lord declared, in the plainest and most direct terms, his intimate union with God, I and my Father are one, the Jews understood him, as every common reader or hearer must, in the obvious sense of the words; and they took up stones again to stone him: and when he inquired for which of his good works they treated him so; they answered him, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Upon that occasion, our Saviour, not condescending to enter into an explanation of that sublime feature of the Gospel to prejudiced and obstinate men, shows them that, upon the authority of their own Scriptures, he might with propriety be called the Son of God, as having received an authority from God far superior to that which was entrusted to magistrates and kings under the old covenant, and yet even they were called gods: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken (i. e. cannot be called in question), say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God? Our Saviour's argument then is this: Scripture gives the appellation of gods to those, who are ordained of God to exercise earthly dominion: how much more am I entitled to the appellation of Son of God, who have received of the Spirit without measure, and am sent into the world to establish a spiritual kingdom? He argues upon the received principles of the Jews themselves, and shows that, even according to them, he is not guilty of blasphemy: the higher grounds of justification he leaves untouched.

*

The blasphemy, which the Jews imputed to our Lord, consisted in his assuming the title of the Son of God, which they considered to belong exclusively to their Messiah. It is to be remarked, that to his disciples, and to the woman of Samaria, he avowed himself the Christ; to the Scribes and Pharisees he spoke of himself under the appellation of the Son of God.. Now the assumption of the Messiahship was not blasphemy, unless it was considered to be the

assumption of a divine character: and that it was so considered by the Jews, appears from St. Mark's account; Again the High Priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ (or Messiah) the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the High Priest rent his clothes, and said, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the BLASPHEMY; what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.*

From a comparison of these passages, it is plain that the Jews applied to the Messiah the title of Son of God, in a sense which implied some sort of participation in the divine nature; that Jesus adopted the appellation, and applied it to himself, in a manner which asserted that participation; and that, in in consequence, the Jews accused him of blasphemy. They knew the birth, parentage, and condition of the man Jesus; whereas they expected that the Messiah would make his first appearance upon earth in Bethlehem; but that no man would know his origin. This appears from St. John's description of the hesitation expressed by the people, when

* Mark xiv. 61.

they heard Jesus speaking boldly in the temple; Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.*-While others said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?t

i

Upon the whole it is apparent, that the Jews entertained very high and magnificent, though perhaps somewhat indefinite notions, of the dignity of their expected Messiah; and our Saviour, far from insinuating that those notions were unfounded, spoke of himself to the learned Jews, under the most exalted of all the titles, which they applied to the Messiah; and in language, which implied an intimate and unparalleled union of himself with the Father in counsel, power, and will.

Nevertheless, during the period of his ministry, he was found in fashion as a man, and humbled

* John. vii. 26.

† Perhaps there were two parties, entertaining these two opinions; one, that the Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem; the other, that he was to appear suddenly amongst them, no man knowing whence.

↑ Phil. ii. 8.