account of his higher pretensions. In the former case, an answer would have been useless; in the latter, it would have been beneath the character in which he now appeared. Yet the impression upon the mind of the Governor was such, that he "SOUGHT to release him;" nor was it till the continued refusal of the demand of the Jews seemed likely to peril his own reputation, that, with obvious reluctance, he consented to their wishes.*

The execution of our Lord, attended as it was with infamy and execration, would naturally tend to deter others from similar pretensions; and had his crucifixion been the result of his claiming to be the Messiah, every one who assumed the like character would have been liable to the same punishment. Subsequently to this period, however, there were many pretenders to the Messiahship, yet we never read that one was considered as an offender, under the statute against blasphemy. By the pious they were execrated as false prophets, and by the civil power they were punished as disturbers of the public peace; but in no case was their crime regarded as assuming any higher degree of malignity.†

*Comp. John xix. 12 and Matt. xxvii. 24. It is agreeable here to be able to avail ourselves of the judgment of the late Dr. A. Clarke. The following remark of this eminent commentator upon the accusation of our Lord (John xix. 7) may be advantageously borne in mind, throughout the succeeding parts of our inquiry. "It is certain that the Jews understood this in a very peculiar sense. When Christ called himself the Son of God, they understood it to imply positive equality to the Supreme Being; and if they were wrong, our Lord never attempted to correct them." It is conceivable that, in a subordinate sense, the title might have been tolerated; but when employed in solemn discourse, and without qualification, the exposition of Dr. C. is the only one of which the case will allow.

JOSEPHUS. Bell., lib. vi., c. v., sect. 2, 3; lib. vii., c. xi., sect. 1.

Were it consistent with the limits of our present inquiry, this body of evidence might be greatly enlarged. But the amount already before the reader, it is presumed, will prove sufficient to warrant the following conclusions :—

1. That in the Messiah the Jews of this period expected a human Prophet and a human sovereign only.

2. That even by one whose claims to the Messiahship were well authenticated and extensively admitted, the assumption of a divine Sonship was regarded as inexpiable blasphemy.

3. That in their judgment, therefore, the Son of God was a title wholly distinct from that of the Messiah, and properly indicated sovereign and eternal Divinity.

SECTION III.

PERSONAL CONFESSIONS OF JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD.

IN the foregoing section, the opinions of those who denied our Lord to be the Son of God have been investigated. We now proceed to the higher evidence derived from such as were better informed respecting his character, or more suitably disposed towards his claims. Still it is to be borne in mind, that the parties whose acknowledgments we have here to consider, in general were Jews, and Jews as yet unendowed with that spiritual understanding which belonged to the period following the effusion of the Holy Ghost. Whatever reasoning therefore applies to the Jewish nation in general, is not inapplicable to the confessions of these more advanced individuals; and, unless prohibited by some peculiarity in the passages themselves, the signification already ascertained of the title "Son of God" must also be affixed to them.

Of the confessions now to be examined there are

two classes. The former expressly respect the divine Sonship alone, and occur in connexion with events affording decisive intimation of our Lord's higher nature. Of these, the last in order of time, on account of its relation to the subject of the preceding section, will appropriately be first considered. I allude to the confession of the guards at the execution of Jesus.* The

* Matt. xxvii. 54; Mark xv. 39; Luke xxiii. 47. The relation of the two former Evangelists is substantially the same, and is thus given by St. Matthew. "Now when the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." The account by St. Luke is somewhat

Jewish sense of the title in question was no cabalistick secret; and since in a degree it was appreciated by Pilate, it is improbable that the centurion and his companions, admitting them to have been heathens, which was most likely the fact,-could have been in ignorance upon the subject. We need not suppose that they were fully aware of the eminence of the appellation; but their employment of it is not easily accounted for, except on the supposition of specific reference to our Redeemer's condemnation, of the reason for which they were no doubt apprized.

Some of them, it is likely, had been among the mockers of our Lord's pretensions to royalty, and, both in the Prætorium and at the cross, in bitter irony had hailed him as "the King of the Jews."* And since in the latter instance they required a miraculous proof of the validity of his regal claims, it would seem that they were fully aware of the sense of the title as an equivalent of the Messiah. But they had subsequently witnessed a series of the most amazing prodigies, and their feelings had undergone a proportionately remarkable change. They looked upon the divine attestations of the illustrious sufferer's innocence as complete. They no longer sported therefore with the appellation of his Messiahship, but in solemn conviction pronounced him " a righteous man.” But if so, the accusation on which he had been condemned was false. He was no

different: "Now when the Centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.” The actual confession probably combined the two: "Certainly this was a righteous man; This was truly the Son of God." The phrase (oi τηρouvτεs) employed by St. Matthew appears to limit the narrative to the soldiers employed upon the occasion. In verse 36, of the same chapter, the word is used with this reference, "Sitting down, they WATCHED (¿rýpovv) him there." Compare John xix. 23.

* Matt. xxvii. 27-29; Luke xxiii. 36, 37.

blasphemer, but truly what he professed, a really divine person, even THE SON OF GOD." The admission of his innocence was a virtual acknowledgment of his divine Sonship.

In the ninth chapter of St. John's Gospel, we have the history of probably the first Christian confessor,—a blind beggar, upon whom sight had been miraculously bestowed by the power of our Lord. Before this event the claims of Jesus to the Messiahship had been extensively known and allowed. * To check the progress of this evil, as by the unbelieving Jews it was deemed, they had combined to excommunicate all who made such an acknowledgment. Accordingly, the parents of this individual were afraid to express their conviction of the divine mission of Jesus, lest they should be subjected to this infliction. The man himself was superior to all apprehension, and reasoned with the utmost frankness and force upon the character of his benefactor, acknowledging him as a Prophet," and "of God." This, in the judgment of the Jews, was sufficient to render him obnoxious to the recent enactment, and they therefore excluded him from the synagogue.

66

Upon his excommunication Jesus met with him, and with a view to the more perfect exercise of his faith, asked him, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" The propounding of this question, without qualification or explanation in the absence of other evidence to the same effect, would supply a satisfactory presumption that at this time the title was received in a sense precise and currently understood. But the reply equally shows that it was not apprehended as descriptive of the Messiah. He said, "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?" an inquiry indicating total ignorance upon the

* John vii. Vide sup. pp. 86, 87.

Comp. verses 17 and 30-33.

+ John ix. 22.