vindicates himself, in this instance, not on the ground of the merciful nature of the work he had performed, and the consistency of such works with the spirit of the laws relative to the Sabbath, but directly from the example of the Father.-But this ground of vindication could hardly, I should think, be good and valid, except on the supposition of the equality of the parties. It would be rather a singular defence for any mere man to set up in his own behalf for his having performed some work on the Sabbath day, that God himself was engaged on that day, as well as on other days, in managing the affairs of the universe.

However good and consistent the sense may be which is thus yielded, I am disposed to think that our Lord refers, not to the divine superintendence of creation, but to his own miraculous works. The spirit of his vindication appears to me to be this:" In all the miraculous works which I have "hitherto' performed, my Father worketh as well as I. "His power has been in exercise as well as mine. ⠀ What"ever, therefore, will condemn me, will equally condemn "God my Father also."

Whatsoever view we adopt, it is plain, in the first place, that the Jews could never, on this, or on other occasions, have accused him of blasphemy, for simply calling God his Father. They themselves said, "We have one Father, even "God;" John viii. 41. They must have understood him as claiming this relation in a sense peculiar to himself. And so verse 18th informs us they did: "They sought the more "to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, "but said also that God was his Father," (Tarega IAION #λɛyɛ σε τον Θεόν) making himself equal with God.”(ἴσον ἑαυτον ποιων TOW.) They understood him then to call God his Father, in a sense implying equality with God. The mere phrase

"MY Father," in verse 17th, might, perhaps, from the use of the possessive pronoun in the singular number, convey to their minds an appropriation of God's paternal relation, in a sense peculiar to himself; yet it seems much more probable that they deduced this inference from what he said respecting the Father and himself:-which they seem to have understood as implying the possession and exercise of common power, and of common independence and authority.

This they condemned as blasphemy. Upon which Jesus "answered them, saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the "Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Fa"ther do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth "the Son likewise." Ver. 19.-Much depends here on the meaning of the phrase " of himself." The following passages will sufficiently show its meaning to be, that he said nothing and did nothing without commission, without authority; that all that he said and did had the sanction and concurrence of the Father; chap. vii. 17. viii. 28. xii. 49, 50. xiv. 10, &c.-What follows confirms this: "The Son can do nothing of himself, "but what he seeth the Father do." These words cannot surely mean, that he repeats what the Father does before him. They are explained by verse 20th; " For the Father loveth the Son, "and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will "show him GREATER WORKS THAN THESE, that ye may mar"vel." His MIRACLES, then, were 66 things which he saw "the Father do;"—which the Father "did;"—which the Father "showed him."-(Compare as to what he taught, chap. iii. 11. viii. 38.)—The meaning, therefore, of the 19th verse must be, (seeing these miracles were not first performed by the Father, and then repeated by the Son) that the Father and he exerted, in these miraculous works, a common and concurrent power;-that he was fully acquainted with the

mind and will of the Father, knew whatever he was to do before it was done, and exercised his own power along with the Father's, in performing the same works.-The principle of this interpretation extends to all acts of divine power in creation and providence;-but it is of his miracles that he more immediately speaks.

By the "greater works" of which Jesus speaks in verse 20th, he seems to have meant especially the raising of the dead to life:-"For," adds he, "as the Father raiseth up the "dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth "whom he will."-The expression is remarkable" quick"eneth whom he will." There must be the will and the power of God, in order to the quickening of any. Yet Jesus speaks of himself as possessing a power sufficient for raising the dead, under the control of his own will. I am unable to understand this, unless upon the general principle just now stated, of the will and power of the Father, and the will and power of the Son, concurring in the production of the same effects. But this can be true of no one but a Divine person. A creature, in the performance of works which require divine power, can be nothing more than an instrument, utterly destitute of such power in himself.

Let the reader peruse the whole passage, from verse 16th to verse 30th. He will find, that while there is throughout, as was to be expected, constant reference to the mediatorial office and work of the speaker, there is language too, (such as that which has been noticed) which is incapable of any simple and consistent explanation, except on the supposition of his possessing, in this capacity, a nature higher than the human.-Let our great general principle, of this twofold nature and character of the speaker, be then applied, as the key of interpretation; and what was felt to be inexplicable

in relation to his human nature alone, or to his divine nature alone, or even to the divine and human natures together, when considered abstractedly from his official character, becomes harmonious and consistent, when his complex person and mediatorial office are taken into account.

66

“The third period of our Lord's existence," says Mr. Yates," in which I proposed to consider the exercise of his power, is that subsequent to his ascension into heaven. "The state to which he has been exalted, is described in "the New Testament in the most elevated language, but "is uniformly, represented as the gift and the appoint"ment of a superior Being, namely God the Father."(Page 95.)

Take out the word "Being," and Trinitarians will not object to this statement. "There is no incongruity in the "idea of delegated authority and dominion, when Jesus "is viewed as a Divine Mediator... Those who maintain this "view of his person and character, acknowledge such dele"gation as an essential article of their scheme. Believing "him to be represented in the Scriptures, as voluntarily "assuming the form, and acting in the capacity, of a servant, "they are not startled at finding this representation con"sistently maintained throughout. In perfect harmony, there"fore, with this view of his relation to the Father, in the "work of redemption, they consider all that he did as done "by appointment, and all that he received, in his exaltation "to glory, as received in the form of reward; and the re "ward they account singularly appropriate, consisting, as it "does, in his investiture, as Mediator, with the administra❝tion of that branch of the Divine government which has "for its immediate object the completion of the glorious "effects resulting from the work of salvation which he finish

"ed when on earth.-Admit the principle of his acting, "in the scheme of redeeming mercy, in the voluntarily as"sumed capacity of a servant, and all is plain:-instead of "disorder, embarrassment, and difficulty, we have a perfect "plan, not only interesting in its design, and glorious in "its consequences, but consistent and harmonious in all its arrangements; well ordered in all things and sure.""-Dis

66

courses, pages 116, 117.

On this branch of the subject, I reckon it quite unneces sary to do more than transcribe these few sentences; referring my readers at the same time, to the subsequent reasonings in the same Discourse, and to various passages in this work. It may be very convenient for a Unitarian to accumulate proofs of the inferiority of Jesus when upon earth, and of the delegation to him of the power which he exercises in heaven. Chapter can thus be added to chapter;—and, all being stated with imposing confidence, and no notice being taken of any other view of the passages, any more than if no other had ever been proposed;-both voluminous bulk, and an air of plausibility, may, in this way, be easily given to the whole. But there is, throughout, what Lord Bacon calls, I think, an error of the den. Only one side of the question is presented. The principle of Trinitarian interpretation is left unnoticed; and the reader, who is ignorant of the controversy, wonders, in this ignorance, how so much can be said. Yet, till the Trinitarian principle of interpretation is fairly met, and successfully combated, nothing whatever is done. If Trinitarians denied that the Lord Jesus possesses delegated power and authority, the passages adduced by Mr. Yates would come against them with irresistible force. But, since this is not the case;-since Trinitarians assert his delegated authority, instead of denying it,-the simple question comes

Z z