suspend the laws of creation, must be One who ought to be thoroughly believed and implicitly obeyed. To reject One who confirmed His mission by such mighty works, is the height of madness and folly.

Hundreds of unbelieving men, no doubt, in every age, have tried to pour contempt on Christ's miracles, and to deny that they were ever worked at all. But they labour in vain. Proofs upon proofs exist that our Lord's ministry was accompanied by miracles; and that this was acknowledged by those who lived in our Lord's time. Objectors of this sort would do well to take up the one single miracle of our Lord's resurrection from the dead, and disprove it if they can. If they cannot disprove that, they ought, as honest men, to confess that miracles are possible. And then, if their hearts are truly humble, they ought to admit that He whose mission was confirmed by such evidence must have been the Son of God.

Let us thank God, as we turn from this passage, that Christianity has such abundant evidence that it is a religion from God. Whether we appeal to the internal evidence of the Bible, or to the lives of the first Christians, or to prophecy, or to miracles, or to history, we get one and the same answer. All say with one voice, "Jesus is the Son of God, and believers have life through His name."

NOTES. JOHN X. 31-42.

31.-[Then the Jews took up stones, etc.] The conduct of the Jews is just the same as it was when our Lord said, "Before Abraham was I am." (John viii. 59.) They regarded His words as blas

phemy, and proceeded to take the law in their own hands, as they did in Stephen's case, and to inflict the punishment due to blasphemy. (See Lev. xxiv. 14—16.) “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." (So Num. xv. 36; 1 Kings xxi. 13.) The Jews of course had no power to put any man to death, being under the dominion of the Romans, and if they did stone any one it would have been a sudden tumultuary proceeding, or act of Lynch-law.

Let it be noted that the Greek word for "took up" here, is not the same that is used at viii. 59. Here it rather means "they carried." Parkhurst thinks this implies the great size of the stones they brought. No doubt the stones used in stoning to death, were not pebbles, but large stones. Yet I rather incline to think that it shows that they had to carry stones from some little distance for their murderous purpose. We can hardly suppose there were suitable stones lying about within an old finished building like Solomon's porch, though there might be stones at a little distance on account of the repairs of the temple.

Augustine remarks, "Behold the Jews understood what Arians do not understand."

Maldonatus observes that "these stones cry out against the Arians."

32. [Jesus...many good works...shewed...Father, etc.] Our Lord here appeals to the many miracles He had publicly wrought before the Jews, in discharging His commission as sent by the Father to be the Messiah, all good and excellent works, in which none could find any fault, and He asks whether they proposed to stone Him for any of them. They had often asked for signs and proofs of His being the Messiah. Well, He had wrought many such signs. Did they really mean to kill Him for His works? He had gone about only doing good. Did they intend to stone him for this?

The expression "I have shewed" is curious, and we should have expected rather "I have worked." It probably means, "I have publicly exhibited before your eyes, and not in a corner, but in such a manner as to court the fullest public observation, many wonderful proofs of my Messiahship." (Compare John ii. 18: "What sign shewest Thou.") So St. Paul says that "God shall in His own time shew the appearing of Jesus Christ." (1 Tim. vi. 15.) The expression is probably a Hebraism. (Compare Psalm iv. 6; lx. 3; lxxi. 20. Exod. vii. 9.)

The expression "from my Father" points to the great truth continually brought forward by our Lord in this Gospel: viz., that all His works as well as words were given to Him by the Father, to be worked and spoken in the world, and ought therefore to be held in special reverence.

Hengstenberg observes, that the expression "many good works," evidently supposes that John knew of many other miracles, which he does not record, and that many had been done at Jerusalem beside the few that are recorded.

[For which...works...stone me.] This could be literally rendered "On account of which work of all these are you stoning Me." Some, as Gualter and Tholuck, have thought that there is a slight tinge of sarcasm about the question. "Is it so that you are actually going to stone Me for good actions? Are not men generally stoned for evil doings?" Yet this seems an unlikely idea, and is needless. Is not the meaning made clear by simply inverting the order of words? "For what work or action are you going to stone Me? Justice requires that criminals should be punished for doing evil works: but all the many wonderful works I have done among you have been good and not evil. You surely will not stone me for any of these reason and your laws teach that this would be wrong. It is not therefore for my works and life that you are going to stone Me. I challenge you to prove that I have done evil. Which of you convicteth Me of sin?"

Taken in this view, the verse is simply a strong assertion made by our Lord, of His own entire innocence of any crime for which He could be stoned.

Hutcheson thinks that "some stones were already cast at Christ, and therefore He says, Do you stone Me?" Yet this seems needless. The present tense here implies only, Are ye on the point of stoning Me? 33.-[The Jews answered, etc.] Our Lord's confident challenge, as in chap. viii. 46, seems to have been found unanswerable by the Jews. They could not prove any evil work against Him. They therefore reply that they do not propose to stone Him for His works, but for having spoken blasphemous words. The precise nature of the blasphemy they say is, that "being nothing but a mere man, He made Himself God, or spoke of Himself in such a way as showed that He claimed to be God."

This is a very remarkable verse. It is like chap. v. 18: "The Jews sought to kill Him, because He said that God was His Father,

making Himself equal with God." It shows clearly that the Jews in our Lord's time attached a much higher and deeper sense to our Lord's frequently used language about God being His Father than modern readers are apt to do. In fact they regarded it as nothing less than a claim to equality with God.-Modern Arians and Socinians, who profess to see nothing in our Lord's Sonship but a higher degree of that relationship which exists between all believers and God, would do well to mark this verse. What they say they cannot see, the Jews who hated Christ could see. "cotemporaneous exposition," to use a legal phrase, of our Lord's words, deserves great respect, and carries with it great weight and authority. As a man, our Lord was a Jew, educated and trained among Jews. Common sense points out that the Jews who lived in His times were more likely to put a correct sense on His words than modern Socinians.

This

Gualter observes, how frequently wicked men and persecutors of Christ's people have affected a zeal for God's glory, and pretended a horror of blasphemy. The accusers of Naboth and Stephen are examples: so also the Spanish Inquisition.

A. Clarke observes, "that had the Jews, as many called Christians do, understood our Lord only to mean, by being 'one with the Father,' that He had unity of sentiment with the Father, they would not have attempted to treat Him as a blasphemer. In this sense Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and all the prophets were one with God. But what irritated them was that they understood him to speak of unity of nature. Therefore they say, "Thou makest Thyself God."

34.-[Jesus answered them, etc.] Our Lord's defence of His own language against the charge of blasphemy is very remarkable. It is an argument from a lesser to a greater. If princes, who are merely men, are called gods, He who was the eternal Son of the Father could surely not be justly chargeable with blasphemy for calling Himself the "Son of God."

The expression "your law," means the Scriptures. Sometimes our Lord speaks of two great divisions into which the Jews divided the Old Testament: viz., the law and the prophets. (As Matt. xxii. 40.) The "law" then included not the books of Moses only, but everything down to the end of the Song of Solomon. Some times He distributes the Scriptures into three parts: the law, the psalms, and the prophets. (As in Luke xxii. 44.) Here He uses one word for all the Old Testament, and calls it "the law." By

saying "your law," our Lord reminds His hearers that He appeals to their own honoured sacred writings.

The expression, "I said ye are Gods," is drawn from the 82nd Psalm, in which Asaph is speaking of princes and rulers, and their position and duties. Their elevation above other men was so great, and their consequent responsibility for the state of nations so great, that compared to other men, it might be said, "You are as gods." A king is called "the Lord's anointed. (2 Sam. i. 14.) So "Ye judge not for man but for the Lord." (2 Chron. xix. 6.) Princes and magistrates are ordained of God, derive their power from God, act for God, and stand between the people and God. Hence, in a sense, they are called "gods." Those who wish to see this subject fully worked out, will see it in Hall and Swinnock's Exposition of the 82nd Psalm.

We should observe how our Lord appeals to Scripture as the judge of controversy: "Is it not written?" A plain text ought to settle every disputed point. He might have argued : He simply quotes a text. By so doing He puts peculiar honour on Scripture.

It is worth noticing that the Hebrew word rendered "judges in our version of Exodus xxii. 8, 9, might have been rendered "gods." (Compare Exodus xxii. 28; xxi. 6.)

35.-[If he called them gods.] Here our Lord proceeds to show what was the edge and point of His argument. All turned on the use of the single word "Gods" in one single verse of a Psalm.

It is not very clear what governs the word we render "called," in this sentence. Our translators evidently thought it meant "God." But why should it not refer direct to "your law" in the last verse: "If your own book of the law in a Psalm has called certain persons gods."

Chrysostom observes, "What He saith is of this kind: 'If those who have received this honour by grace, are not found fault with for calling themselves gods, how can He deserve to be rebuked who hath this by nature.'" Theophylact says the same.

[To whom the word of God came.] This is a rather difficult expression. Some, as Bullinger and Burgon, think that it refers to the commission from God, which rulers receive: "they are persons to whom God has spoken, and commanded them to rule for Him."-Some, as Alford, think it simply means, "if He called them gods, to whom God spake in these passages.' But it may justly be replied that it does not say "God spake;" but, "There