He first asks,

followed by a plain and direct answer. 'Art thou the Christ?'. i. e. dost thou publicly own thyself to be that Messiah, whom God promised by his servant Moses and the Prophets, and whose coming has hitherto been expected by the Jewish church? His second question is, 'Art thou the Son of the Blessed?' i. e. dost thou pretend to be a person of the same essence with the blessed God, and standing in such near relation to him as that of a son to a father? These Jewish doctors knew, that God, in the writings of the Old Testament, had made mention of his Son. They were well acquainted with that passage in the Psalms, viz. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.' (Psalm ii. 7.) They knew, that it is farther said in the same divine writings, 'He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father: Also I will make him my first-born.' (Psalm lxxxix. 26, 27.) All this, I say, they very well knew, being persons who were well acquainted with the Old Testament. (Matt. ii. 5, 6.) They likewise very well remembered, that Jesus had given himself out to be the Son of God. For, on restoring sight to the blind man, he asked him this question: Dost thou believe on the Son of God? And when the man demanded, Who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? Jesus replied, 'It is he that talketh with thee.' (John ix. 35, 36, 37.) They were also sensible, that he had publicly said, 'I and my Father are one.' (John x. 30.) Accordingly, they had endeavoured to apprehend him when he spoke those words; but he escaped from them, because his hour was not then come. As the rulers had Jesus now in their power, the High Priest again brings on the carpet this critical point, which had given them so much offence; and he is for making the experiment, whether our blessed Lord will acknowledge himself to be the Messiah meant in the above-mentioned passages of the Oid Testament, and the Son of God, as he had often pretended that he was. Happy would it have been for

him, if this question had proceeded from a well-disposed heart, a sincere love of truth, and a desire of believing in Jesus if he should appear to be that divine person! But this was an ensnaring question, and designed only to draw a confession from our blessed Saviour, in order to accuse him of blasphemy. The chief Priests, &c. had long since pasta decree, that if any man should confess that he was Christ, or the Messiah, he should be put out of the synagogue; (John ix. 22.} and had more than once threatened to stone him, for pretending to be the Son of God. (John viii. 54, 59. x. 30, 31.) Thus it was from an hypocritical, bloodthirsty heart, that this question proceeded; it was designed to pave the way for accusing our blessed Saviour of blasphemy, that they might pronounce the sentence of death, on which they long before resolved, on the Prince of Life.

But this ensnaring question is likewise followed by an hypocritical adjuration; for the High Priest, according to St. Matthew's account, subjoins, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God?' The High Priest, probably, apprehended, that the prisoner would on this occasion likewise observe the same cautious silence as before, that no handle might be made of his words. He therefore tried, by a feigned emotion, to touch his conscience, and to bring as it were to the touchstone of a solemn adjuration, and force him to a confession. The High Priest's meaning was this: "If thou hast any regard for the favour of God, I solemnly require of thee, that, without any equivocation, thou will return a direct answer to the question proposed to thee; and plainly declare, whether thou wouldest be accounted the Messiah, and the Son of God? For whatever thou shalt answer to this question will be admitted in this high court, as if it was delivered upon oath." By adjuring our blessed Saviour by the Living God, the design of the High Priest was to shew that he meant the God of Israel, lest the prisoner

should, by a mental evasion, swear by any idol or strange god, and therefore think himself at liberty to deny the truth without incurring the guilt of perjury. This unjust judge had spread his net so artfully, that he was sure of ensnaring the blessed Jesus, whether he answered him in the affirmative, or in the negative. II. Our blessed Saviour's good confession before the High Priest, is contained in these words:Thou hast said; I am. Nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.'

The Lord Jesus being adjured by the sacred name of his Heavenly Father; the reverence which he bore to it, would not permit him to be any longer silent t; so that he now opened his mouth, and gave a satisfactory answer to the High Priest's question. This answer of our blessed Lord includes,

First, A plain and unreserved confession.

Secondly, A farther illustration and confirmation of it.

First, The confession is made in these words, 'Thou hast said.' We read that our blessed Saviour made the same answer to his enemies on two different occasions, during the course of his sufferings. The first was before the Sanhedrim, in the instance before us, when he was asked, Whether he was the Messiah, the Son of God; which answer he repeated (Luke xxii. 70.) the next morning, when this question was again put to him. The second time was before the civil tribunal; for when Pilate asked him, whether he was the King of the Jews, he likewise made this answer, Thou sayest.' (Matt. xxvii. 11.) The import of these words Thou sayest,' is as if our blessed Lord had said, Yes, it is as thou sayest. Hence St. Mark (chap. xiv. 62.) expresses it thus, 'I am;' i. e. I am the Messiah, foretold and described by the prophets, and whom they have described

as a King, a High Priest, and a Prophet: I am the essential Son of the blessed God.

But this manner of expression is still more emphatical; for it is the same as if our blessed Saviour had said, I am the Christ, or Messiah, and the Son of God, in the very sense you make use of these words in your question. Now, the idea which the High Priest and the Jewish church at that time ánnexed to this high title The Son of God, was perfectly just; for it included an equality with God; so that he who declared himself to be the Son of God made himself equal with God in honour, majesty, and essential perfections. This is evident from the following passages in St. John's Gospel: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, not only because he had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his father, making himself equal with God.' (John v. 18.). And again, the Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God: (chap. x. 33.) Namely, because Jesus had said, I am the Son of God.' (chap. x. 36.) The High Priest, therefore, by asking Jesus whether he was the Son of God, was desirous to know, whether he gave himself out to be a son of God that was equal to the God of Israel in all essential perfections, and, in common with him, every divine attribute, and consequently was to be adored and worshipped in the same manner as the God of Israel.

Upon this, our blessed Saviour answered, Thou hast said,' i. e. I do acknowledge myself to be the Son of God; and this not in that low sense in which all believers are termed sons of God, but in that exalted sense in which is signified by this title in your question. Now, this is an invariable maxim in truth and probity, That a judicial question must be answered in the very sense in which the magistrate takes it; otherwise the party interrogated deceives the judge by ambiguous words; a pitiful evasion which

any man of honesty and integrity would scorn to make use of. Therefore it were unjust and sinful to imagine, that our blessed Saviour, who was the true and faithful witness, deviated from this straight path, and had recourse to mean subterfuges on so solemn an occasion. Besides, it evidently appears that the High Priest actually took Christ's answer in this sense, viz. that he was not merely a nominal Son of God as faithful Israelites were, but essentially the Son of God and equal with his Father, from his "behaviour as soon as he heard our Saviour's answer.For he rent his clothes, and cried out, as it were, in phrenzy, "He hath spoken blasphemy: what farther need have we of witnesses?' With this we may compare another passage, (John x. 36.) were our blessed Saviour was before accused of blasphemy on the same grounds, namely, for having declared himself the son of God. Hence it incontestably appears, that the High Priest from this confession concluded, that Jesus, whom he looked on as a mere man, arrogated to himself, under the title of the Son of God, the Divine Essence, and exalted himself in idea to the throne of God. Therefore this confession of the Lord Jesus is particularly remarkable, as, on one side, it darts a thunderbolt which roots up Socinianism from its very foundation; and, on the other hand, corroborates our faith, which acknowledges Jesus of Nazareth, who by the sentence of the Jewish Sanhedrim was crucified, to be the essential Son of God, whom all created beings are bound to honour as they do the Father.

Secondly, To this good confession, the Lord Jesus further adds an illustration and confirmation of it, in order, not only to place his words in a clear light, and set their true and genuine sense out of all question, but likewise to confirm his divine Sonship by irrefragable proofs. For undoubtedly it must have appeared to the High Priest as the height of extravagance, for a poor criminal, who stood before him,