bed, and walk." Yet, until he was afterwards accosted by Jesus in the temple, he had not known that it was Jesus who had made him whole; because Jesus had, at the time, suddenly "conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place." When however he thus became acquainted with the person of his benefactor, "he departed, and told the Jews, that it was Jesus, which had made him whole."

The Evangelist then adds, that "the Jews did, therefore, persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath-day." It is very obvious, that this is not to be understood of the attempts of isolated individuals, much less of any ebullition of popular indignation; but of a legal procedure commenced against Jesus, by persons in authority; with whom, of course, it rested, to enforce that provision of the Mosaic law, which assigned capital punishment to a breach of the sabbath. A prosecution was doubtless commenced against him by the Sanhedrim, upon the information of the man who had been cured; as the original word, used in this place by the Evangelist, distinctly informs us". And though it is observed, that "the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill him," yet the same phrase is used in many other passages of the

* Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ΕΔΙΩΚΟΝ τὸν Ἰησοῦν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, ν. 16.

Gospels, where we cannot properly understand it of any others, than of the men in authority among the Jews. Thus we are told, that "the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John, to ask him, who art thou?" It belonged to the Sanhedrim, officially, to make such an enquiry. We are told that "Jesus would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him;" and that though there was at that time "much murmuring among the people concerning him, no man spake openly of him, for fear of the Jews." And the reason of this sufficiently appears, when we read, that afterwards "the chief priests and Pharisees had given a commandment, that if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him;" and that, even at an earlier period, "the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue."-Again we are told, that Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people." Caiaphas was the high priest that same year; and we know that the advice specified was given at "a council gathered by the chief priests and Pharisees" after the raising of Lazarus, in order to consider what must be done to prevent the national danger, which they thought likely to result from the growing popularity of Jesus".

John i. 19. vii. 1, 13. ix. 22. xi. 47-57.

There can, therefore, be no reasonable doubt, that this discourse of our Lord was a defence of his conduct delivered before the ruling authorities at Jerusalem.

Behold, Jesus, then, having done a miracle, at which, as he afterwards observed, "they all marvelled," summoned before the rulers of the Jews to answer for his life, "because he had done these things on the sabbath-day." Afterwards, when "he was oppressed and afflicted," and brought before the same assembly, he avowed himself to be the Christ; and having referred to the prophecy of Daniel, respecting the future glory of the Son of man, he assented to their inference from thence, that he thereby claimed to be the Son of God. At this time he did not, in so many words, declare that he was the Christ; for "his hour was not yet come." But he declared, and that fully and openly, his claim to those attributes, which their Scriptures ascribed to the Lord's anointed; nay, he largely unfolded and reasoned upon them; for this was yet "the day, in which Jerusalem might have learnt the things which made for her peace, before they were hid from her eyes."-" My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," was all that he at first answered to those things, which they witnessed

a John vii. 21.

against him; and he left the mysterious and unhesitating assertion to work such effect as it might. They conceived that he had now, "not only broken the sabbath," but spoken blasphemy. And, assuredly, we can put no obvious and consistent sense upon the words, but that which they put upon them, viz. that "he called God his own proper Father, making himself equal with God"." For he thereby explicitly declared, that his own performance of miraculous works of mercy was to be placed in the same rank, and was defensible upon the same grounds, as the daily exercise of the bountiful Providence of the Father of the Universe, to whom every day is, in this respect, alike. If he were not "equal with the Father, as touching his Godhead," and, even as the Son of man, acting in perfect unison with him, then, according to the injunctions of their law, they now justly "sought the more to kill him," on account of the words which he had spoken. But if it were otherwise, then he who was the Son of the Father, in a sense in which no other being is, could justly appeal to the example of his Father; and he who was, equally with him, Lord of the sabbath, might, if need were, dispense with its observance. Then was he proved to be authorized

b

• “ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγε τὸν Θεὸν, ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ Θεῷ.”

v. 18.

to give such a command to the impotent man, in order to shew his power over the sabbath, though it appeared to them a violation of it. "If they did not believe him, they might have believed the works;" and both this miracle, and all that he had before wrought, proved that "the Father was in him, and he in the Father." To these works, and to the various other evidences of his authority, he appealed in his discourse on this occasion; and they could justify no other conclusion, than that the Father had sent him. The rulers, whom he addressed, were thereby so far silenced, and convinced, as not to venture to put him to death as a blasphemer; either because they had not yet fully steeled their hearts against all evidence; or because they feared the people, and shrunk, for a time, from the unhallowed attempt to put him to death, and thus fill up the measure of their fathers' crimes.

At the succeeding feast of tabernacles, when Jesus referred to this wish to compass his death, some of the people seem to have been aware that their rulers entertained such a design; though others professed, at least, to be ignorant of it, and answered, "Thou hast a devil; who goeth about to kill thee?" Jesus took occasion to remind them of this miracle, which he wrought at the preceding passover, and of his arraignment in consequence of it; and, then also, he defended his conduct with

1