the same thing, in which he calls God his Father, in a sense which implies participation of the same nature. This passage is the more interesting, as it contains our Saviour's own words, and gives us his own exposition of what is to be understood by his being the Son of God.

In the former part of the chapter, the Evangelist relates the circumstance of Christ's healing a man on the sabbath, whom he commanded to take up his bed and walk. The Jews persecuted him for this supposed violation of the sabbath. The word is idikov, and may mean, "they prosecuted" him, brought him before the Sanhedrim. Jesus defended himself against this charge, by saying, v. 17, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." That is," as my Father is constantly active, exercising on the sabbath, as on other days, his power for the good of his creatures, so I have authority to dispense blessings on this as on any other day." If this be the meaning of this passage, then it is plain that Christ calls God his Father, or himself the Son of God, in a sense which implies that he is equal with God. That this interpretation is correct, and consequently that the argument derived from it is valid, we think will appear from the following considerations.

First, the Jews so understood the declaration of Christ. They were therefore not content with what they had already done, but they moreover sought to kill him; not only because he had broken the sabbath, but because he had called God his Father, in a sense which made him equal with God. (icov lavrov Tolv Tập ε) If the meaning thus put upon his words was not correct, it would seem that Christ would not, and could not with any propriety, suffer so serious a perversion of them to pass without correction. Does Christ, then, tell the Jews that they had misunderstood him; that he did not intend to call God his father, in any sense which involved the claim of equality with him? By no means, but directly the reverse; and this is the second consideration in favour of the view given of the 17th verse.

66

Instead of correcting any misapprehension of his meaning, he goes on to declare, that the union between the Father and Son was such, that all the Father did, he did, and that all he did, the Father did; that he never acted nor could act otherwise than in union with the Father. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."* The meaning of this verse becomes perfectly plain from what follows; for Christ immediately proceeds to show, that he has the same power and authority with the Father, and consequently is entitled to the same homage. "For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the

*The of devarat may be taken here in its strictest sense. Such is the union between the Father and Son, that the Son can do nothing àp' lavroù of himself alone, out of connection with the Father.

Son; that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that hath sent him." Here is surely a claim to divine power, authority, and homage. So far, therefore, is our blessed Saviour from correcting the interpretation given to his words by the Jews, that it seems to be his very object to prove that he is, in a proper sense, the Son of God; that is, in such a sense, that he has the same nature with the Father. The plain meaning of this passage, therefore, is, "I have a right to labour on the sabbath, for My Father does it. He has not remained inactive from the creation, but works until now." The Jews reply," Then God is your Father in such a sense, that you are equal with God." "So I am. I act in union with him, what he does I do. As he raises the dead, so do I, and execute judgment, and am entitled to equal honour; so that he who denies me this honour, does thereby refuse to honour the Father. For (as he elsewhere says), I and the Father are one. He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." See c. xii., 45.

We think that it is clear, from this passage, that Christ calls God his Father, not because he had miraculously called his human nature into existence, nor because he had sent him into the world, nor because he had made him his Son (or a king), but because he was partaker of the same divine nature and attributes. If this be so, then is Christ the Son of God, in a far higher sense than merely as Mediatorial King.

It is not at all necessary to our argument, that we should prove that the term Son, throughout this interesting passage, is applied exclusively to Christ's divine nature. The whole argument is founded on the 17th v., as explained by those which follow it. God is the Father of Christ. În what sense? In a sense which includes equality. So the Jews understood our Saviour, and so he clearly explained his meaning. This is the argument. It is no objection that the word Son is used immediately after, for the whole person of the Redeemer; as in v. 20. The Father loveth the Son; i. e. that complex person, who is his Son, and who, being such, though at the same time a man, has the right and ability to do whatever the Father does. This person, thus constituted (Son of God and Son of man), acts in obedience to the Father. He does nothing without the Father's direction, co-operation, and consent. Hence the Father (πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ) exhibits and marks out all things for him. Hence, too, it is said, that the Father hath committed all judgment to the Son, i. e. to that individual who is his Son. Thus, v. 26, it is said, the Father hath given the Son to have life in himself. Here again, Son, is the name of the whole person. Life, is here divine power, a vital life-giving principle; and the meaning is, God has so constituted the Redeemer's person, that he possesses all the divine life-giving power of the Father. (Or, as the same idea is expressed in Colossians i. 19. It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness (rav ro λhpapa) dwell. What that fulness is, we learn from the next chapter, it is a To nowμa T

Ocraros, all the fulness of the Godhead). And having thus constituted his person, and given him this life, he has given him (this person, not the Son, as such) authority to execute judgment (to hold the general judgment), because he is the Son of man, i. e. the Messiah. It pleased God, that the Messiah should be what is here described, and being such, should exercise all the prerogatives of the Godhead.

Any one, therefore, who bears in mind how frequently names derived from one nature of Christ, or from his office, are applied to him as one individual person, will find no difficulty in explaining those passages in which the name, Son of God, is used for the Messiah, who, as such, is inferior to the Father and dependent upon him. Whenever, therefore, the Father is said to give life, authority, or power to the Son, it is to this mysteriously constituted person; not to his divine nature as such. When the Son of man is said to be in heaven, the divine person, who is called the Son of man, is declared to be omnipresent, not the human nature of the Saviour, in itself considered. When Christ is said to be God over all, it is asserted that the person who has assumed the office of the Messiah, is truly divine. Passages, therefore, in which the Son is said to be inferior to the Father, to be delivered unto death, &c., afford no objection to the opinion that the name is given in virtue of the eternal relation which he sustains to the first Person in the Trinity. This obvious remark is made in this connection, in order that it may be present to our readers' minds, when they turn to the passage under consideration (John v. 17, et seq.), as it is obvious, that in many parts of this chapter the word Son is used for the whole person of the Redeemer.

*

A passage very similar to the one just considered, occurs in John x. 30-39. In verse 30, Jesus had said, "I and the Father are one." The Jews understood this as a declaration that he was God, and accordingly again took up stones to stone him, as they had done before, c. viii. 59. Christ demanded why they did this. He had performed many of the works of his Father, for which of these did they stone him? The Jews reply, for no good work, but for his making himself God. How had he done this? Why, by saying iy kai o marip Ev toper V. 30. According to the interpretaἐσμεν tion given to these words by many commentators, Trinitarians as well as others, they contain no claim to equality with the Father. Erasmus, Calvin, Melancthon, and many others say, that they express nothing more than unity of purpose and counsel or will. It may be admitted that the phrase iv civat expresses any kind of union of purpose, affection, spirit, or nature. It depends entirely upon

ix ToÙ TаTρos μov, where x is probably a mere sign of the Gen., see v. 37, where ἔργα τοῦ πατρὸς μου stands in the same sense. See for similar examples xviii. 3, Rev. ii. 9, Luke ii. 35, Acts xix. 34, John iii. 25, and perhaps Rom. xi. 26, kê Σtwv å fróμcvos deliverer of Zion. Or if i expresses the efficient cause, " works which I do through the Father," then is this passage to be explained by a reference to cap. v. 17, 19, and to John xiv. 10, where Christ says of the Father, he doeth the works.

the connection in what sense it is to be taken in any particular passage. It is surely a presumption in favour of an unity of power and divinity being here intended, that the persons to whom these words were addressed so understood them. The whole drift of our Saviour's discourse impressed them with the idea that he meant to make himself God (Toucis reavrov Ocóv), an exposition which our Saviour does not refute but confirms. That the Jews understood him correctly, will appear from a view of the context. Jesus was walking in the porch of the Temple, when the Jews came and demanded that he should tell them plainly whether he were the Christ or not. This he would not do; but referred them to his previous declarations and to his miracles. They neither believed the one nor the other, because they were not of his sheep: his sheep did hear his voice, and he gave to them eternal life (is not this claiming to be God?) and they shall never perish. Why? because "none can pluck them out of my hand." But how is it that Christ can say of himself, that he gives eternal life and can protect his sheep against all their enemies? Because he and

the Father are one, and he can do all that the Father does, his Father is greater than all. There is surely something more than unity of will or purpose here intended, it is unity of power; and if he and the Father are one in power, the Jews were certainly right in concluding that they must be one in nature. Εἰ δὲ ἕν κατὰ δύναμιν, says the Greek commentator Euthymius, ἓν ἄρα καὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα και ovcíav kai piou. Now what reply does our Master make to this accusation of the Jews, that he "made himself God?" He in the first instance makes no direct reply at all. He neither says that he was or was not God, but does what was his frequent custom when questions were proposed to him, or objections started, and that is, turns the attention of his hearers to themselves, that they may notice the disposition whence their questions or objections arose, and then so turns his discourse, that all who had ears to hear, should find in what he said an answer to the question or solution of the difficulty proposed. Christ will convince the Jews of their stubborn unbelief, and perverse opposition to everything he said. They objected to the fact, that he had called himself God. Jesus does not explain in what sense he had done so, but says, in effect, you would not be so ready to accuse me of blasphemy for this, if you were not bent on opposition to me and my cause; for your own scriptures call kings and magistrates gods, and if the title can be given with propriety to divinely commissioned men (rpos óùs & λoyos Tou Ocoù tyivero either to those who received commands of God and acted in his stead; or pos bus Mark xii. 12, Luke xii. 41, for piv concerning whom this declaration of God is made), surely it may be given in the same, if in no other sense, to the great personage whom God has selected, and set apart (sanctified), and sent into the world. But that I am the Son of God in a far higher sense, a sense which authorizes me to say "that I and the Father are one," v. 30, is plain, from the fact that I do the works of my Father (the

same divine and almighty works, raise the dead, heal the sick, execute judgment, see v. 32, and 37, c. xiv. 10), if you will not believe me, believe these works and know that "I am in the Father and the Father in me." Were the Jews satisfied with this explanation? Did they imagine that he assumed the name Son of God as an official title, and that he meant no more by it than when applied to kings and magistrates? By no means; they saw that he used it in a sense, which involved equality with God, and they accordingly immediately endeavoured to seize him, but he escaped out of their ands.

There is another remark to be made on this passage, and that is, it is perfectly clear that Christ uses the terms God and Son of God, θεός, and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, in exactly the same sense. The Jews said zoccis ccavròv Ocòv, thou makest thyself God; Christ replies, is it blasphemy to make myself the Son of God? Where it is evident, that making himself God and making himself the Son of God, are considered as precisely the same. The remark of Storr, therefore, on this passage is well founded, that God and Son of God are, as to Christ's meaning here, synonymous.*

There are several other passages which might be adduced in support of the opinion which we are advocating, as Matt. ii. 27, and Heb. 1; but this our object does not demand, and our limits will not permit. We have already stated, that we purposed only to endeavour to show, that Christ is called Son of God, in reference to his divine nature, or in virtue of the eternal relation between himself and Father. If any one can prove that there are other reasons for his being so called, it militates nothing against the position which we have assumed. As the term, Son, is used in Scripture to express such a variety of relations, as dependence, derivation, similarity, community of nature, &c., there is no antecedent improbability in Christ's being called Son of God, not only because he is of the same nature with the Father, but also because he is the object of his peculiar love; because, as man, he is derived from him and dependent on him. And if kings are called sons of God in the Old Testament, as the representatives of God, why then Christ, as the great Mediatorial King, may pre-eminently be called the Son of God. We say there is no antecedent improbability that this is the case; and if any one is satisfied that such is actually the fact, we should not be disposed to dispute the point. Still we confess ourselves unable to see the conclusiveness of the argument to prove, that the Redeemer is called the Son of God, in virtue of his exaltation to the Mediatorial throne. This opinion, however, is a very general one, and is adopted by many who still believe in his being the Son of God in a far higher sense. For ourselves, however, seeing that this name is peculiar, in the New Testament

*Dass er der Sohn Gottes, order Gott sey-denn beides lief nach dem, von den Juden wohl gefassten Sinn Jesu auf Eines hinaus. See Zweck der evang. Geschichte, p. 467.