ples, bids them, that they should not be troubled, "Ye believe in GoD, believe alfo in me." The Greek is, Πιςεύετε εις τον Θεον, και εις εμε πιςεύετε. Upon this it is obvious to remark, that the fame faith which is required of them towards GoD, he requires of them towards himself; it is a faith as cov and is μs. Now, where the faith is equal, they εις εμε. who require that faith must be equal likewife. Never yet was it heard, that the fame faith was due to a created being, or to what is not GoD, as to GoD the Creator himself; but here the Son exacts of his difciples the very fame faith, which furely he would not do, if his being were different from the being of GOD; and his exacting it of us, if he is not GoD himself, is leading us into an error; which it is impoffible for him to do.

After fome intervening difcourfe, he faith to his difciples, "If ye had known me, ye fhould have "known my Father alfo; and, from henceforth, ye "know him, and have seen him." Thefe words the difciples not at all comprehending, Philip faith to him, "LORD fhew us the Father, and it fufficeth

us." He is anfwered in these very remarkable words, "Have I been fo long time with you, and "yet haft thou not known me, Philip? He that "hath feen me hath feen the Father; and how fay

eft thou, Shew us the Father? Believeft thou not "that I am in the Father, and the Father in me. "The words that I fpeak unto you, I speak not of

my

st

* myself, but my Father that dwelleth in me, he "doeth the works. Believe me, (wigere poi,) that "I am in the Father and the Father in me, or elfe "believe me for the very work's fake." I have given this paffage at its full length, and now requeft the reader to try what sense he can make of it. If the Son is not GoD, in unity with the Father; I do not mean that he should try by what juggling and legerdemain tricks he may get rid of its force, but how, by any fair and honeft mode of interpretation, he can interpret these words into any fense if JESUS CHRIST is not GOD in unity with the Father.

The word swρanate may indeed be interpreted of the mind's eye of contemplation; but I do not know that it can be fo interpreted, except the action of the bodily organ hath first intervened, where a perfon is not in a trance, nor hath his vifual powers fufpended by fleep. But let us fuppofe it to be otherwise let us fuppofe, that the difciples, who were neither in a trance, nor afleep, are told, “that "he, who in his mind hath contemplated me, hath in "his mind alfo contemplated the Father," and that the contemplation of the Son neceffarily involves in it the contemplation of the Father, what will be gotten hereby? Nothing: for, if the Father and the Son have not the fame nature, the contemplation of the o e will not involve in it the contemplation of the other, any more than the contemplation of a circle will involve in it the inftrument by which it is defcribed;

E 4

scribed; for, affuredly, a man may contemplate a circle without having given the moft diftant notion of that by which it is defcribed. Who would not be laughed at who fhould fay, he that hath feen a circle hath feen a pair of compaffes? And it would be equally as abfurd, if the Son hath not the fame nature as the Father, to fay, he that hath feen the Son hath feen the Father alfo; for, if the Son hath not the fame nature as the Father, it is impoffible that in the Son the Father should be feen, whether by the eye of the body, or of the mind; for, most certain we may be, if we give credit to the whole. tenor of the Gospel, that the perfon of the Son is not the person of the Father; and, therefore, it fhould feem, that the words we have been confidering do not relate to a perfonal view of the Son, and by confequence, if they do not relate to a perfonal view of him, they must relate to him in fome other view, common equally to the Father as to the Son, that is, in the view of that Divine nature which is common to both. Hence, he that hath seen the Son hath feen the Father alfo. The contemplation of the Son's Divine nature is the contemplation of the Father's, because, the Divine nature is one only juft as by an imperfect illuftration we may fay, the contemplation of the human nature in one man is the contemplation of the human nature in the whole.. fpecies, because the human nature is one only, and not diverfified.

That

That we do not mifinterpret our LORD's words when we thus afcribe them to his participation in the unity of the Divine Nature, there is the greatest reason to believe, because he says, "Believe me "that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." Now what poffible meaning can be affixed to these words if they do not require us to believe the unity of the Son, in the divine nature with the Father. Personal identity, we are well affured, they cannot relate to; and, if they do not, there is no other identity to which they can relate, but identity of nature If, indeed, the words are fuppofed to have no literal meaning, then conjecture may boldly traverse its own regions without interruption, and the words may fignify any thing or nothing, according to the track in which the imagination wanders. But, if they have a literal meaning, no conjecture or reafoning upon the fubject is admiffible, which is not founded upon the bafis of that literal meaning: and a literal meaning they moft affuredly have, or they have no meaning at all. For Philip, not conceiving how he could be faid to have feen the Father, fays,

"LORD, fhew us the Father, and it fufficeth us." This requifition is a plain and literal one, and therefore required an answer that should be plain and literal likewife; for, if it did not literally apply to the queftion, it would be fo far from being fatif• factory to the enquirer, that it would rather be deemed an evafion than an anfwer. What then is the anfwer? It is an anfwer that truly and literally

applies

1

applies itself to the question: "Have I been fo long time with you, and yet haft thou not known me, Philip? He that hath feen me, hath feen the Fa

66

66

ther, and how fayeft thou, Shew us the Father? "Believeft thou not that I am in the Father, and "the Father in me?" Words that more directly apply in answer to the question, I know not where we fhall find; and, therefore, as applying fo directly to the queftion, they are to be interpreted according to their plain and obvious acceptation. Shew us the Father, fays Philip; and the answer is, In me you have seen the Father, for I am in the Father, and the Father is in me,

It is obfervable, that when our LORD afferts his divine unity with the Father, he doth not propofe it to the difciples for the investigation of their reafoning powers. He knew that, at prefent, it lay far beyond the reach of those powers, and therefore to Philip he says, Ou wi5eveis, &c. and again, wobζευετε μοι; and again, Ει δε μη, δια τα έργα πιςεύετε po; but, in the progress of his discourse, he tells them, that when the Spirit of Truth was come to them, "At that day ye fhall know that I am in my "Father, and you in me, and I in you." Thus it ftands in our tranflation; but I question whether the word or is rightly rendered or not; I should rather exprefs it by quatenus, and fo make it fignificant of the refpect, the degree, in which he was in his Father, and they in him, and he in them; for it can ƒ

not