unity, and are totally inapplicable to that whole unity which fubfifts between the Father and the Son: for, the Father and the Son & ; but the unity of Chriftians is 5 v, in accord, in the agreement of their minds; which were to be as clofely, as perfectly united, and in their mutual concurrence as void of all diftinction as the fubftance of the Father is võid of all diftinction from the fubftance of the Son. In the verfe immediately preceding the paffage under confideration, it is faid, "That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in "thee, that they also may be one in us;" Iva nat AUTOI EV μiv EV Won; which words fhew clearly, that the unity of the Father and the Son is more than the unity which was to prevail among Chriftians, and confequently, that it could not be determined by it, and the words, without any force put upon them, may be thus paraphrased: "That they may partici

66

και

pate in that portion of our unity (evv) of "which they are capable, in the continued concur"rence of their hearts and minds;" which was verified, as we read, among the firft Chriftians, Acts

.

iv. 32. "And the multitude of them that believed, "were of one heart and of one foul;" nadia nai ἡ ψυχή μια.

But, if the words "I and the Father are one," fignify in consent only, the Jews who heard them must have been guilty of a ftrange misapprehenfion;' for, is not, ought not, every good man to be united

in

66

in his confent to the Divine will. How, then, could the Jews poffibly think that there was any thing criminal in the words? or, that they were a blafphemy to be punished with death? and yet the Evangelift tells us, thus they did conceive of them; for, he fays, "Then took they up ftones again to stone "him." Nay, they themselves, in answer to our LORD'S queftion, for which of his good works they ftoned him? plainly thew,- that they did not interpret them of unity of confent only; for, their words are, "For a good work we ftone thee not, but for blafphemy, and because, that thou, being a man, "makeft thyfelf GOD." After fo plain a manifeftation of the interpretation they put upon his words, why does not our LORD, if he meant unity of confent only, explain his meaning to them? Why does he not tell them that he did not mean thereby to call himself God? Why does he not reduce them from the error in which they were, and whereby his own life was threatened? But he does nothing of this kind on the contrary, by his anfwer, he fully ac-" knowledges the truth of their interpretation, and more ftrongly affirms the truth of his own Divine nature. In their law, he tells them, it is written, I have faid ye are Gods; and, "if he called them Gods, to "whom the Word of God came," and properly called them fo, "for the Scripture cannot be broken,

say ye of him whom the Father hath fanctified and "fent into the world;" that is, by the union of the divine and human nature, "Thou blafphemeft,

"" be

because I faid, I am the Son of GOD." In other words; If, in your law, the men are without blafphemy, called Gods, to whom the Word of GOD only came; and, if you allow that there was nothing" of blafphemy in their being fo called, why should you think it blafphemy for the man to whom the Word of God is united to fay, I am the Son of GOD? But you fay, that I am only a man, that the Word of God is not united to me, and that I am not the Son of GOD. "If (faith our LORD) I do "not the works of my Father, believe me not;" for then it will be plain, that I am not the Son of GOD, and that the Word of God is not united to me; "but, if I do, though ye believe not me, yet be"lieve the works, that ye may know, with affurance, and believe that the Father is in me and I "in him. Therefore, faith the Evangelift, they "fought again to take him," not only because he had not retracted what he had faid before to them, but had affirmed it the more ftrongly.-One word more before we quit this chapter; and it is to recommend it to the very particular notice and attention of the reader, that the words, "Tios TOU Osov que, are Υιός του Θεού in this chapter plainly fynonymous with Eyw na 8 Πατηρ εν εσμεν ; for the Jews had charged our LoRD with blafphemy, because he had faid, "I and the "Father are one; but, in his anfwer to them, the supposed blafphemy is afcribed to his having faid that he was the Son of GOD. Hence are we moft affuredly taught, by our LORD himself, that the

σε

E 2

و

και

term,

term, "Son of God," always implies in it, that he is a partaker in the Divine nature.

Lazarus, whom JESUS loved, was fick when he heard of it he said, (John xi. 4.) “This fickness is "not unto death, but for the glory of GoD, that "the Son of Gop might be glorified thereby." If the Son of GOD was not in unity with GoD, how was the Son's glory the glory of GoD? But here it is expreffly faid, that the glory of the Son, was the glory of Gov, ύπερ της δόξης του Θεου ἵνα δοξασθη δ Υιος του Θεου δι' αυτής. Had the conjunction και intervened, and the text had been raiva doğarty, &c.. the cafe might have been otherwise; but, as it is, we are most plainly taught hereby, that the glory of the Son of God is the glory of God; and therefore, that the Son of God is GOD. This paffage, compared with John xiii. 31, marks the difference between the terms, "Son of GOD," and "Son of "Man;" for, there it is written, Now is the Son

of Man glorified, and GoD is glorified in him. If "God be glorified in him, GOD fhall alfo glorify "him in himself, and fhall ftraightway glorify "him." Here we are taught, that the glory of the Son of Man is a communicated glory, the glory of GOD in him; but the glory of the Son of GoD is the proper glory of GoD, the proper glory of himself as being GOD; whereas the glory of the Son of Man is not a glory proper effential to himself, but is the glory of GoD in him; and, therefore, GOD was glo

7

rified

rified by the Son of Man's being glorified; Nuv doξασθη ὁ υιος του ανθρωπου και ὁ Θεος εδοξάσθη εν αυτων It is hence almoft impoffible not to obferve, how the errors of thofe minds, which are not perfuaded of the truth of our LORD's Divinity, proceed, in all probability, from inattention to the two characters which he fuftained, as the Son of GOD, and the Son of Man. In the present inftance, where the words are spoken in confequence of Judas having withdrawn for the purpose of betraying him, it all belonged to him as the Son of Man. In the former inftance they all belonged to his Divine character; in this, he exerted his Divine power, in recalling a man to life, who had been dead, and four days buried; and therefore that exertion of power is faid to be for the glory of GoD, without any regard had, or notice taken, of his being the Son of Man. In that, where sufferings were to be the confequence of the treachery of Judas, it is therefore faid, Now is the Son of Man glorified, who alone was to endure thofe fufferings, without any regard had, or notice taken, of his being the Son of GOD only, as GOD was in him; therefore, through his fortitude and patient perfeverance under them, GOD would alfo confequentially be glorified,

Let us now proceed to the next chapter, John xiv. a chapter much to be observed, and which, if we do not admit, our LORD's Divinity, is abfolutely unintelligible. Our LORD, comforting his difci