language of the passage in Exodus, and that of Luke concerning it *, lead us to consider the eternal Son, the great Angel of the covenant, as speaker on this occasion; and whoever attentively compares the appearances of Jehovah to Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, and many others; with the words of the Evangelist," No man hath seen God "at any time, the only begotten Son-hath declared him ;" will be apt to conclude that all these were discoveries of that very person in the form of God, who afterwards appeared in the form of a servant.-Again, Isaiah introduces Jehovah, saying, "I am the first and I am the last; and besides "me there is no God." This Christ, appearing in vision to John, expressly and repeatedly claimed to himself. "Fear not, I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth "and was dead, and am alive for evermore †." How can any reasonable man suppose, that Jesus, had he been no more than a mere creature, would have used such language of himself, and appropriated the very words by which Jehovah declared his own eternal power and God"head?" Finally, Jehovah claims it as his prerogative "to search the hearts, and try the reins:" and Christ most emphatically says, "and all the churches shall know that I am He, which searcheth the reins and hearts §." Did any holy Being ever use such language? Or would the holy Jesus, if he had not been One with, and Equal to, the eternal Father?

III. We may next consider some things, which Christ spoke of himself, or his disciples concerning him, as manifest proofs of his Deity. "Destroy," says he, "this "temple, and in three days I will raise it up again: but he 66 spake of the temple of his body ." Not to insist on the appropriate sense in which he called his body a temple, as the immediate residence of his Deity; I would inquire whether it be not an act of divine power to raise the dead? whether

* Acts, vii. 30-37.

Is. xliv. 6. Rev. i. 8. 11. 17, 18. ii. 8. xxii. 13.
Isaiah xli. 4. xliii. 10–12. xlviii. 11, 12.
Jer. xvii. 10. Rev. ii. 23.

f John ii. 19-21.

any mere man ever raised his own body, after he had been violently put to death? and whether God did not actually raise, again the man Christ Jesus? The obvious answer to these questions will evince, that Christ had a nature distinct from his manhood; that He was truly God, as one with the Father; that He had "power to lay down his life, "and power to take it again," and that by so doing he proved himself to be the Son of God, in that sense which the Jews deemed blasphemy: for that was the crime alleged against him, and which they supposed to be blasphemy by their law *.-Again, "I will," saith Christ to his disciples, "give you a mouth and wisdom; which none "of your enemies shall be able to gainsay, or resist :" Now who can give a mouth and wisdom but God only †. Did any mere man or holy creature ever advance such a claim, or induce others to form such expectations from him? Yet according to this promise, the evangelist says, " Then open"ed he their understandings to understand the Scrip"tures To Nicodemus, who was astonished at his discourse on regeneration, he said, "If I have told you earth"ly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I "tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended "into heaven, but that came down from heaven, even the Son "of Man who is in heaven §?" But in what sense could the Son of man be said "to come down from heaven, and at "the same time to be in heaven," even when he was speaking on earth, if there had not been such an intimate union between the man Christ Jesus, and the Word, which "in the beginning was with God, and was God," that what belonged to the one nature, might properly be said of the other? Thus it is said that “God purchased the church "with his own blood;" because He, who shed his blood, was God as well as man. In like manner, "the Son of "Man was in heaven," because that Person, whose omnipresence filled the heavens, was also the Son of Man; and

* John xix. 7.

† Exod. iv. 11. Prov. ii. 6. Luke xvi. 15.
§ Jolin iii. 12, 13.

Luke xxiv. 45.

this was doubtless a specimen of those heavenly things, which are far more mysterious than regeneration.-The same conclusions may undeniably be drawn from our Lord's words, when he says, " Where two or three are gathered "together in my Name, there am I in the midst of you;" and, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the "world*." These are certainly equivalent to the promises of Jehovah in the Old Testament, that he would be with his people in all their trials; and can by no ingenuity be separated from the attribute of omnipresence; for Christ, as man, is in heaven, and not personally present with his ministers and congregations," No one," says he, "knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; neither know"eth any one who the Father is, save the Son, and he to "whom the Son will reveal him †." Can any man deny this to be an assertion, that the Son is equally incomprehensible with the Father; and a declaration that all knowledge of God is erroneous, which is not learned by faith in him?

When he was called to account, (probably before the sanhedrim,) for healing on the Sabbath day ; he answered. "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;" and the Jews considered this as a declaration, that, "God was his own "Father," and as "making himself equal with God." His subsequent discourse, in which he stated his union of counsel and operation with the Father, and often referred to his human nature and mediatorial undertaking, has been frequently misunderstood: but surely He who spoke of "quickening whom he would," of "having life in himself," and of being "honoured by all men, even as they "honoured the Father that sent him," cannot be thought to have objected to the inference, which had been drawn from his first assertion.-In like manner, when he had said, "I and my Father are One," one Being or Deity, (boy, numen,) and the Jews charged him with blasphemy, "because being a man he made himself God;" his answer,

which concludes thus, "that ye may know, and believe, "that I am in the Father, and the Father in me," could not be intended as a denial of their allegation; though we should allow that he waved the further discussion of the subject, by referring to the language of Scripture concerning magistrates as types of the Messiah. The Jews at

least did not so understand him; for they renewed their attempts to seize and stone him as a blasphemer *. It would not consist with brevity to consider particularly our Lord's words to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the "Life," &c.; his reply to Philip," He that hath seen me, "hath seen the Father.-I am in the Father, and the Fa"ther in me," with other expressions of his last discourse with his disciples. "They have both seen and hated both me, and my Father '—" All things that the Father hath are mine -"Glorify thou me with thine ownself, with "the glory, which I had with thee before the world was. "All mine," (in the neuter gender, implying all things, as well as all persons,)" are thine, and thine are mine," and others of similar import †. If Christ be no more than a man, or a created being, such language can only serve to perplex a plain subject, and mislead a simple reader : and it is evident that much learning, ingenuity, and labour are required to put any plausible sense upon it, when his Deity is denied.

But our Lord's repeated promises of sending the "Ho"ly Spirit, to convince the world of sin, righteousness, anti "judgment," "to glorify him," and to teach and comfort his disciples, require a more particular consideration. Without anticipating the subject of a future Essay, on the Deity and Personality of the Holy Spirit, we may assert without hesitation, that such promises could not properly have been given by any mere servant of God. The Holy Spirit must denote either a divine person, or the one living and true God operating in a peculiar manner on the minds of men : and is it not palpably absurd to suppose, that any mere * John x. 27-39.

John xi. 25. xiv. 7—10. xvi. 15–24. xvii. 5-10.

creature should direct, or send, the Spirit of God, in either of these senses? The Believer's union with Christ, and with the Father through him, has sometimes been considered as coincident with our Lord's union with the Father; but can it be thought, that any Christian is one with God in such a sense, that the Holy Spirit may as properly be called his Spirit, as the Spirit of God? Yet He is frequently called the Spirit of Christ, as sent by and -proceeding from him*. Indeed the words of Christ, by which the promise of the Spirit is introduced, are very remarkable; "Whatsoever ye ask in my name, I will do it † !"

The language of his disciples should also be noticed. They repeatedly observe, "that he knew the thoughts of "men:" and John expressly says, that "he knew all "men; and needed not that any should testify of man, "for he knew what was in man." If this were not an undeniable ascription of omniscience; yet Peter certainly appealed to that divine attribute without any reserve, when he said, "Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that "I love thee §." The attentive reader of the Evangelists will observe for himself many expressions of a similar nature, which are never used of Prophets, of Apostles, or Angels: these serve to show us what the disciples thought of their Lord. Thus John remarks, that by his miracles "he manifested forth his glory:" whereas all other Prophets and Saints referred all their works to the glory of God alone ||.

The testimony of John Baptist is peculiarly important in this inquiry. "He was filled with the Holy "Ghost from his mother's womb;" being, more than a "prophet," and "great in the sight of the Lord above all "that had been born of a woman ¶." Yet he deemed himself "unworthy to loose the Redeemer's shoe latch

* John xv. 26. xvi. 7. 10. 13. 15. xvii. 21. Rom. viii. 9-11.
† John xiv 13-18.

#John ii. 25. 2 Chron. vi. 30. Jer. xvii. 9. 10.

S John xxi. 17.

Luke i. 15. vii, 26......28.

| John ii. 11.

I