the same person, the question could not have been put to Jesus as it was: and unless "the Son of God" signified in the language of their theology, a person existing in the unity of the Godhead, it would not have been blasphemy, punishable with death, to have assumed the title. So that the most solemn testimony that can possibly be imagined, is here given to the doctrine of the ancient Jewish Church. They did not condemn Jesus to death because he had attempted to corrupt the doctrine of the Divine Unity; but they formally and judicially condemned him, because, while putting forward the doctrine of plurality and unity, received by the Church from the Old Testament, he at the same time claimed for himself a title, which in their theological language was equivalent to an assumption of the nature and majesty of the Eternal God.

III. It only remains to this part of our subject to inquire, in what manner the doctrine of the Jewish Church was treated by our Saviour and his Apostles.

to the expression, "Son of God," certain it is, that our Saviour did all along allow them to believe, that, in the highest sense, as a title equivalent to Deity itself, he claimed it as the title of the Messiah. Never for a moment did he use a single argument to weaken their belief in the existence of a personal plurality in the Divine Nature. And this becomes the more remarkable, when we consider, how much of his teaching was directed to the exposure of the false notions entertained by the Jews on various points of religion, and to the restoration of their ancient and original theology. The tradition of the elders, by which the commandments of God had of late been made of none effect, he censured with the utmost severity: but not a single word did he utter calculated to weaken their belief in the divine nature of the Messiah. To the charge of blasphemy, he never replied by a denial of the doctrine which could alone give colour of any sort to the charge. For, if the Jewish doctrine had not been scriptural, it would have been easy for him to have put a pe

riod to all charge of blasphemy, by rejecting the notion of there being any person who could pretend to be "the Son of God" in any sense which implied natural relationship to the Divine Being, or equality with God. But, far from saying any thing which might diminish the force of the title, he asserted his own pre-existence 1; and, in a variety of expressions, laid undisguised claim to an equal right in the honour due to the Almighty, and to the possession of the attributes of God; his eternity, his omnipresence', his omniscience', his omnipotence, and his holiness'. So far from lowering the title to a sense in which it might be used in common with created beings, he called himself "the only begotten Son of God ":" thereby

' John iii. 17. vi. 33. 38. 51. 62. viii. 23. 42.

2 John v. 22, 23. x. 30. xii. 45.

John v. 26. viii. 58.

4 John iii. 13.

' John v. 42. vi. 64. xiii. 18.

John v. 17. 21. vi. 51. x. 17, 18. 28.

John viii. 46.

John iii. 16. 18.

plainly intimating, that the name belonged to him in a sense in which it was attributed to him alone.

In this connexion one cannot fail observing, that our Saviour never refused to be addressed in a posture which implied religious worship. It does not appear that before the coming of Christ it was unlawful to address a prophet in this manner1 But, from the period of the incarnation of the Son of God, this posture seems to have become simply unlawful when used in addressing any created being whatever. When the devil offered the kingdoms of the world to our Redeemer, if he would fall down and worship him; Jesus answered, not by any observations on the enormity of the crime, but simply by refusing to offer, as an act of homage, that reverence which is due to God alone. "Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve 2." A clearer instance perhaps is that of St. Peter. "As

1

2 Kings i. 13. iv. 37.

2 Matt. iv. 10.

Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man 1." In like manner we read in the Apocalypse, that the Angel refused to allow St. John to address him in this manner. "And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book; worship God"." Now, there is not a single instance in the whole course of his ministry, of our Saviour's refusing to be addressed in this manner. may be objected, that this posture did not necessarily imply religious worship. might signify, and in some cases most probably did signify nothing more than the reverence due to his prophetical character. Now, supposing that it never expressed more, yet still this does not explain the

1 Acts x. 25, 26.

2 Rev. xxii. 8, 9.

It

It