was I by him, as one brought up with him.' How near is this to the words of the apostle, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God!' Likewise, when he writ the first verse of his First Epistle, where he calls Christ 'the Word of life,' he seems to have copied it from the thirtyfifth of this chapter, Whoso findeth me, findeth life.' The ancient Rabbis and Philo Judæus, make frequent mention of him by his name of Logos or Word, calling him the Son of God, and ascribing the attributes of God to him. Nay, Philo says the Logos was that God who appeared to Adam after his fall, to Abraham, and to Moses in the bush. The author of the Book of Wisdom, written some ages before our Saviour's time, says, it was the Logos, that plagued the Egyptians, and calls him Almighty; 'Thine Almighty Word leapt down from heaven, out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction;' Wisdom xviii. 15. Zeno, Plato, Plotinus, Amelius, and Iamblichus, speak of him by the same name, and almost with equal propriety and honour. St. John, you see, was far from broaching a novelty, when he gave him the same appellation of Logos, or Word, and expressly called him God. So far he might have gone as a Rabbi, or philosopher; but when he affixes this title to our Saviour, he speaks in the character of an apostle, and must be believed in the plain sense of his words. It is observable, that this first verse of St. John's Gospel must be flatly contradictory, on the Arian hypothesis to what God himself says, Deut. xxxii. 39, 'I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me.' God says, 'There is no God,' that is, no other God, with him;' but St. John says, 'The Word was with God, and was God.' The Word, therefore, cannot possibly be another God, as the Arians blasphemously maintain. But it is not in this single passage only, together with its context, that our apostle calls Christ the Word, and points out his divinity to us; he does the same in the nineteenth of the Revelation, where, alluding to Isaiah lxiii. 2. and lix. 17, he saw one riding in heaven on a white horse, who was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood, whose name was called the Word of God, and who had on his vesture, and on his thigh, a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords,' which is the proper style of the

great and only God, as you may see in Deut. x. 17. and Psal. cxxxvi. 3.

In the third place, the divinity of our blessed Saviour may be clearly proved from his being called in Scripture the Son of God, by way of excellence, and the only-begotten Son of God. St. John tells us, in his First Epistle, chap. iv. 15. that 'whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.' Here you perceive the peculiar character, and the very sum total, of all happiness, is annexed to this article of our faith,' that Jesus is the Son of God.' This will seem altogether unaccountable to us, while we understand no more by the Son of God, than the Son of his love and favour. This, if we believe the Scriptures, may be said of angels, and all good Christians. As God is our Creator, we may be called his sons; and Adam, because he was the immediate work of God, is called the son of God, in our Saviour's genealogy. In this sense God is the Father of us all, whether our dispositions and actions render us pleasing to him, or not. But, if we shew ourselves grateful for his goodness, and dutiful and obedient to his will, if we do not commit sin, then we know we are born of God;' 1 John iii. 9. that is, we know we are, not only his children by creation, but his dearly and well-beloved children, by regeneration and adoption, through Christ Jesus. The angels, those superior creatures of God, who kept their first station, are, in the book of Job, and elsewhere, called also the sons of God. Is it no otherwise that Christ is styled the Son of God? Shall God dwell in us, and we in him, merely for believing, that Christ is in this sense the Son of God? Why may not the same happy privilege be annexed to our believing, on the authority of Scripture, that any particular angel, or man, is thus related to the infinite Being? You see, this cannot possibly be the meaning of St. John. But, if we consult the ninth verse of the same chapter, we shall clearly perceive what he intends by the Son of God; for therein he says, 'In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.' Here it appears, that he, whom, in the one place he calls only the Son of God, he calls, in the other, the

only-begotten Son of God; and that as, by the former, he represents this article of our faith as the great means of union with God; so, by the latter, he sets forth Christ as the source of eternal life. From the two passages laid together, and strengthened by a variety of other places, all speaking clearly to the same effect, we may easily gather the pre-eminent dignity of our Saviour's person, and the necessary importance of our faith in him as the Son of God.

Neither Scripture nor common sense give us any idea of more than two sorts of sonship; the one by nature, and the other by election or adoption. Christ must be the Son of God in one only of these senses. Now he cannot be concluded the Son of God by adoption, from the light this matter is set in by Scripture, because he is so often styled his only-begotten Son (though we are there called his sons, and said to be begotten of him); which he could not be, were he no more than an angel, or a man; for, in that sense, both are frequently called the sons of God in Scripture, which, whatsoever it may seem to do in terms, cannot contradict itself in meaning. The very Deists themselves, in their distress for scriptural contradictions, never thought of trumping up this for one; which shews, that even they regarded the sonship of Christ, and that of angels or men, as quite different things in the language of Scripture. How would it sound in the ears of Christians, or comport with the Scriptures, to say, Christ is not the only-begotten Son of God; or Christ is merely his adopted Son; which are tantamount as to the point in hand? If therefore Christ is not the Son of God by adoption, he must be his Son by nature; and, if by nature, he is of the same nature and substance with his Father, as properly, as truly, as any man is of the same nature and substance with him who begot him. If then, he is of the same nature with his Father, he is God. Accordingly, the inspired writers often call him God; and he himself says, 'I and my Father are one Being.' After all, shall they who receive the Scriptures as the sure word of God, and the only rule of their faith, say, Christ is but a creature, is but the adopted Son of God? How could he, who once was nothing, and, after having a being bestowed on him, was, out of mere favour, like other creatures,

adopted and taken into the family of God, by his sole merit, procure adoption for all men?

The prophets, to whom he was not fully revealed, spoke of him in quite a different strain from that of the Arians and Socinians. David, reporting the declarations of God concerning Christ, says, in the second Psalm, 'I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.' In the ninety-seventh, the psalmist gives him, over and over again, the name of Jehovah; and, in the midst of a most exalted description of his power and majesty, says, 'Worship him, all ye angels,' or gods. Nay, in the forty-fifth Psalm, he calls him the Mighty One,' and says to him, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.' Agur, in the thirtieth of the Proverbs, speaking by questions concerning the mysterious nature and name of the Creator, says, 'What is his name, and his Son's name, if thou canst tell?' You see, he asks not of sons, as of many; and therefore cannot be construed as inquiring about the names of angels. And, as Agur inquires after his name, and the psalmist gives it, calling him Lord or Jehovah, and God, so Micah, ch. v. 2. discovers the eternity of his generation, thereby distinguishing him from all other sons, from all the other titular sons of God: 'Thou, Bethlehem-Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.' Here the goings forth, or generation, of the Son, from the Father, are represented as co-eternal with the Father; and a just foundation is laid for that beautiful similitude, so often applied to the Son, of light, which, issuing from the luminous body, is coeval with its source. The Jews in our Saviour's time, being acquainted with the passages I have cited from the Old Testament, must certainly have taken this expression, the Son of God, as applied by Christ to himself, in an infinitely higher sense than the Arians do, or they could never have charged him with blasphemy, nor with making himself equal with God,' for that application, as we read they did, John v. 18. x. 33. where

we find they were going to stone him for taking this honour to himself. But he, instead of explaining away what he had said, argues, a fortiori, 'If they were called gods, to whom the word of God came, say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But, if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him;' John x. 35-38. This was all the apology he made for his having said, 'I and my Father are one Being;' ver. 30. This was all the answer he gave to their saying, 'He made himself God;' ver. 33. Yet, in this, he was so far from receding, or denying the charge, that 'the Jews were but the more offended, and sought again to take him ;' ver. 39.

In the fourth place, that our Saviour is God, may appear unquestionably from his having the incommunicable attributes of God ascribed to him by the Holy Ghost, without limitation. You have heard by the passage just now cited from Micah, that he is the eternal Son of God. In Coloss. i. 17, 18. he is said to have been before all things,' and is called 'the beginning;' and for these reasons it is there affirmed, that by him all things consist.' St. John, chap. i. 1. expresses himself to the same effect: In the beginning,' that is, from eternity, 'was the Word;' and frequently in his First Epistle, chap. i. 1. That which was from the beginning;' as also, chap. ii. 13. 'Ye have known him that is from the beginning.' That, by this expression, so often repeated, he must have meant the same as from eternity, you will be convinced, as soon as you reflect, that, in the Revelation, his Master often says to him, 'I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.'

God, you know, is peculiarly styled the searcher of hearts, because he is omniscient. He claims this as the prerogative of himself alone, and denies it to all others; Jerem. xvii. 9, 10. The heart is deceitful, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I the Lord search the heart.' Now we may see Christ in the exercise of this divine attribute, Matt. ix. 3, 4. The scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth; because he said to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee. But Jesus, knowing their