plishment of their purpose. But they did no such thing they found their way plain before them. If, however, we were to concede to Dr. Campbell," that the Sanhedrim imputed this crime to Jesus dishonestly upon their own principles, it would only follow that they gave a wrong name to their charge. The allegation was, that he had, by claiming to be the Son of God, arrogated to himself divine honours; and this, as a fact, remains the same, whether it was designated rightly or not by the term blasphemy.

It is not unworthy of remark, that Josephus mentions various instances of impostors, who rose up about the time of the siege of Jerusalem, calling themselves prophets, announcing to their adherents a speedy deliverance by divine interposition from their calamities, and "promising to show signs and præternatural appearances" for that purpose.12 From comparing our Lord's predictions with the facts which he relates, it appears probable that several of those persons gave out themselves to be the Messiah. But, though the historian paints in strong colours their falsehood and their other atrocities, he never, so far as I can discover, charges them with blasphemy.

It seems, therefore, impossible for us to escape the conclusion, that the avowal of Jesus that he was THE SON OF GOD was understood, by the highest legal and ecclesiastical authorities of his country, to be more than declaring himself to be the Messiah, and to involve the assertion of something belonging to his person that was superhuman and DIVINE; or to be a

11 On the Four Gospels, Dissert. ix. part ii.

12 De Bello Jud. lib. vi. cap. v. sect. 3; lib. vii. cap. xi. sect. 1. 13 Mark xiii. 6.

constructive assumption of such dignity as belongs only to God.

That such ideas of dignity and powers, above what belong to the rank of man, were attached to this epithet by the Jewish people at large, is at least a probable inference from the taunting language which they held to our Lord in his last sufferings: "If thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross."

ye

9914

This conclusion is corroborated by another of the passages cited at the beginning of this Section. "Who, do men say, that I, the Son of Man, am?-Who say that I am?-Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."15 The position of the terms plainly intimates, that the appellation, Son of the living God, was conceived by Peter to be of higher dignity than the other, Son of Man, which was the designation most commonly assumed by our Lord himself, evidently as the least offensive profession of being the Messiah. Neither is it probable that the two terms, the Christ and the Son of God, would have been used, if they were tautological. Our Lord further declares that the fact affirmed by Peter was not properly apprehended but by divine instruction; "Happy

66

art thou, Simon son of Jonas, for flesh and blood' (a well known Jewish idiom, denoting the unassisted principles and powers of human nature) "hath not "revealed [it] unto thee; but my Father who is in the "heavens." But surely it required no such divine influence to enable a man, who had so copiously witnessed the evidences of the claims advanced by Jesus, to perceive the rational conclusion from those evidences. Peter needed but the common understanding

14 Matt. xxvii. 40.

15 Matt. xvi. 13-19.

of men, to receive the proof of the Messiahship of Jesus. The fact thus asserted by the Saviour, of a special divine influence enabling Peter to make this good confession, suggests to us also the strong probability that the apostle did not at present comprehend the full import of the declaration which he made. The subsequent teachings of the Holy Spirit would bring it to his remembrance, with a much higher measure of knowledge and understanding. It is further worthy of being observed, that Christ immediately connects his being the Son of God with the exercise of sovereign authority and power, in relation to the salvation of men and to matters of moral obligation: yet this is the sole province of Deity. "I will build 66 my church the gates of hell shall not prevail against "it: I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of "heaven." Let a man seriously reflect on the magnitude of this work, the power requisite to accomplish it, and the nature of the ground of certainty here assumed that it should be accomplished; and can he refuse to exclaim, "From Jehovah is this: It is marvellous in our eyes!" 16

:

16 Ps. cxviii. 23.

SECTION IV.

HIS PERSON, EQUALLY WITH THAT OF THE FATHER, SURPASSING HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.

Intimate and accurate knowledge expressed in the terms.-Such knowledge communicated by divine influence. This communication the province of Christ.— The inherent knowledge of the Father, and of Christ, reciprocal.-Both expressed in convertible terms.

66

66

"All things have been committed to me by my Father; and no one knoweth perfectly the Son, except the Father; neither doth any one know perfectly the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son may be pleased to unveil [this knowledge]." Matt. xi. 27. "As the Father knoweth me, even so I know the "Father."-John x. 15.

66

THE passage in the Gospel of Luke parallel to the preceding one in that of Matthew, has this difference: "No one knoweth who the Son is, except the Father: and who the Father is, except the Son." In such cases it appears a reasonable maxim to consider the actual phraseology of the speaker, as it was uttered in the vernacular language of Judæa, to have been susceptible of both the modes of the Greek expression; so that the one may be taken as an assistance of the highest authority, for the explication of the other. On this principle, the seeming discrepancy in the present instance vanishes; for eπiyivάσkeiv, used by Matthew, signifying such knowledge as is peculiarly intimate and accurate, full and perfect,' will well

The force of ì, in composition, appears to be closeness, in situation or in succession. See Dunbar on the Greek Prepositions. If the reader will examine the diversities of meaning laid down by

comport with Luke's phrase γινώσκειν τίς ἐστιν. If this observation be just, it nullifies Mr. Belsham's interpretation of the words, and shows that the knowledge refers primarily to the nature and person of the Father and of the Son; "WHO he is." This writer triumphs in what he regards to be a key to the passage; that what a man may learn of God, by the revelation of the Son, is nothing but his revealed will. But it is not the will of God, strictly speaking, either decretive or preceptive, that is the sole object of revelation. A manifestation of the peculiar excellencies and glorious perfections of God, as the Supreme and Infinite Possessor of all natural and moral good, is no small part of the design of revealed truth: and this is a species of knowledge in the highest degree necessary to piety and happiness. It is such knowledge as is not merely intellectual, but is associated with a sense of beauty, sweetness, and worth, exciting the affections of love and delight, and every grateful sensation of the mind. This mental sense of moral loveliness, in our conceptions of the Divine Being,

66

Schleusner, and study all his and many more examples, he will find them in general, if not universally, reducible to this as their circumstance of distinction from yvwσKELV. Among other renderings he has, sensu cognosco, satis cognitum habeo, idonea scientiâ imbuor ; passivè accipio pleniorem et perfectiorem cognitionem." 'Eriyvwoiç he says, " speciatim, major, perfectior, et exactior cognitio et scientia; nam èì in compositis haud rarò auget significationem." 2" It is plain that he to whom the Son reveals the Father knows the Father. But what can a man thus learn of God? Nothing surely but his revealed will. In the same sense, precisely, the Son knows the Father, i. e. he knows his will, his thoughts, and purposes of mercy to mankind. And the Father alone knows the Son, knows the nature, the object, and the extent of his mission."Calm Inq. p. 187.