are called upon to approach the throne of grace boldly, because that Chrift is the Son of man, having taken on him the feed of Abraham, and has called us brethren, and can have compaffion upon such infirmities as he was himself subject to in the flesh so that whenfoever we hear our gracious Lord and Saviour call himself the Son of man, we may look upon it as an instance of tenderness, and that he uses that name, in order to inspire a confidence in mankind, his brethren, to approach his throne without distrust in his mercy. Whensoever he speaks of coming to judgment, he qualifies the terrors of that dreadful day by saying, that it is before the Son of man that all nations are to be gathered; and in the passage before us, declares the reason wherefore all judgment is committed to the Son to be, because he is the Son of man. Our Saviour, after having faid that " the Father quickeneth the dead," John v. 21, proceeds to tell us, that on that day " the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live," John v. 25. And farther, that "the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his (the Son of man's) voice," John v. 28: so that here, they that are in their graves, live, being called upon by the Son of man, because they have heard the voice of the Son of God, the Father being he who quickeneth the dead. Can this be reconciled to any sense, if it be not granted that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and also the Son of man, is equal to, and one with the Father, God? And this once granted, is any position more reconcilable to reason ? Resist this who can, for my part I am unable to stand against it; but verily " believe, and am fure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God," John vi. 69; words, which I am bold to use, as expreffive of an equality be

tween the Son and the Father: nay farther, of an identity and unity of Godhead. As possessed of this Godhead " I believe on him, and I worship him," John ix. 38.

XX.

"He that believeth on him that fent me, hath everlafting life, and shall not come into condemnation," John v. 24. "He that believeth on him, (the Son) is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God," John iii. 18. If there be no condemnation for those who believe in the Father, how is it necessary to believe in the Son in order to indemnify? It can only be so, because that the Son is one with the Father, God; and the two paffages then convey the same instruction. In context with the last assertion, our Saviour, speaking of himself, uses the following very remarkable words, " the Son of man which is in heaven," John iii. 13. This is a

very express declaration of his Godhead, the ubiquity t

of which was by no means affected by its union with the Son of man; for whilft he was speaking to Nicodemus he could be on earth only as a man, and as God only filling immensity could he at that moment of time have been in heaven. He declares alfo, that " he came down from heaven," in the fame verse; and St. John Baptift, speaking of Jesus Christ, teftifies, that "he that cometh from above is above all," John iii. 31. The pre-existence of our Lord in heaven is expressly declared by himself in the following words also, "What and if ye shall see the Son of man afcend up where he was before?" John vi. 62. This must refer to his Godhead, as it is no where asserted that his fleshly body had ever been in heaven before his final afcent. But when he declares, "I came forth from the

I

+

the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father," " his disciples faid unto him, lo, now speakest thou plainly, and_speakest no proverb," John xvi. 28, 29.

ΧΧΙ.

"Jesus said unto them, verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am," John viii. 58. There is a very remarkable distinction in this passage between the words was and am. By the former, the exiftence of Abraham is marked to have had a commencement, and to have been finite; whereas, by the latter, the eternity of Jesus Chrift, as God, is strongly pointed out. The word am bears reference to a life in every moment extended to all eternity; which, as the presence of the Almighty fills infinite space, stretches itself at once through all duration, and is at all periods to be spoken of in the present tense, as all periods are prefent to it at once; a life "which is, and which was, and which is to come," Rev. i. 4. Jesus Christ here makes use of the same expreffion which God had declared to be his name to Moses, and given to him as a token whereby he should make himself known to the children of Ifrael, to have come from God, Exod. iii. 14; and it can hardly be conceived that he does fo without an intention of marking his divinity, and declaring himself to be that God, and that he it was who led the forefathers of those with whom he spoke, out of the land of Egypt by the hand of Mofes. In fome passages, ending in a declaration, "I am" in the original, the tranflation has supplied the word be; because a relative pronoun, the expreffion of which the Greek tongue can dispense with, is necessarily to be expressed in ours, in order to make good sense of the passage in English, which is good sense in Greek without it. For instance: the woman of Samaria tells our Saviour, that that "when Christ comes, he will tell us all things:" to which he answered, "I that speak unto thee, am," John iv. 26; so it stands in the original, and requires no more words to convey the idea that he was Chrift of whom she spake; whereas it is indispensibly requifite that the translator shall add a pronoun referring to what had been said before, and turn the passage, as our Bible has it, "I that speak unto thee am he." From this circumstance it is urged, that no inference, favouring our Saviour's divinity, is to be drawn from the passage before us, because (as is alledged) it is only of the same stamp of the others. Without going farther into grammatical disquisitions, let us try the experiment upon it, and write it accordingly, “Jesus + said unto them, verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am he." Who? Abraham? Will any man insist on this? The word am in this verse fignifies, I exist, in a neuter sense, and so cannot require a relative pronoun to follow it. The context also requires the interpretation which I have put upon these words; our Saviour declares to the Jews, “ I am," in answer to their objection to the poffibility of his having seen Abraham, not being yet fifty years old. Upon the whole, I look upon this to be a very explicit declaration of his Godhead and pre-existence to the time of his having come into the world, a teftimony borne to it by the author of our salvation himfelf, and therefore I must yield my affent to his word, that he is one with the Father, God.

XXII.

"I and my Father are one," John x. 30. When our Saviour made this very literal declaration, the Jews stoned him, and gave as a reason, " because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God," John *. 33. This shews how they understood him; and

I 2

the

1

.

1

the answer of our Saviour to their charge shews alfo that they were right, for, instead of retracting, he refers them to the testimony of his works; "that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him," John x. 38: words, which, however they might admit of a figurative interpretation in any other passage, being here spoke to confirm what he had before declared, must be interpreted by that declaration, and mark a mutual relation, resulting on+ ly from the poffeffion of one Godhead with the Father.

XXIII.

" Philip faith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it fufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long with you, and yet haft thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father: and how sayeft thou then, shew us the Father? Believest thou not, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of, myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works fake," John xiv. 8, 9, 10, 11. The interpretation of this pafsage may be drawn from the remark made upon the texts last cited, for our Saviour testifies, that he is in the Father, and the Father in him, in order to evince, that Philip, in having known him, had known the Father. As our Lord could not mean that Philip's acquaintance with the Father was the fame as his acquaintance with himself, in the flesh, he has pointed out, that the means whereby he had known the Father, in having known him, was by his know

+ ledge of those words which he had spoken, and thofe

works which he had done by the operation of his Godhead,