the same manner, St Paul, in speaking of our Saviour as the Judge of the world, speaks of him expressly as Man: God hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that MAN whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. And our Lord himself uses the same expression also with reference to his humiliation for our redemption; "Even as THE SON OF MAN came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many3." But that the expression, the Son of Man, though it designates the perfect humanity of the Redeemer, does in no degree detract from his Divinity, is evident from many passages; and especially from that memorable declaration before the tribunal of the High-Priest: for upon the High-Priest asking him, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be THE CHRIST THE SON OF GOD,"-an expression importing in itself Divinity in the highest sense, our Lord answered, "Thou hath said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the SON OF MAN sitting on the right-hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The title of the SON OF MAN was not only suited to the circumstances in which our Saviour appeared; but is expressive of that mysterious union of the Divine and the Human nature in the Person of our Saviour, which enabled him to accomplish our redemption.

3 Matth. xx. 28.

Indeed, with respect to the title of "the Son of Man," Bishop Middleton has remarked, that "it has every where a reference to the Incarnation of Christ; and that in a majority of the places in which our Saviour calls himself the Son of Man (and he is never in the New Testament so called, by others, before his ascension), the allusion is either to his present humiliation, or to his future glory and if this remark be true, we have, though an indirect, yet a strong and perpetual declaration, that the human nature did not belong to Him, and was not properly his own. He who shall examine the passages throughout, with a view to this observation, will be able duly to estimate its value. For myself (observes the learned Prelate,) I scruple not to aver, that I consider this single phrase, so employed, an irrefragable proof of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ1."

Now let us compare these two titles of our Saviour with each other; let us consider the different circumstances under which our Lord applies them to himself; and the illustration, which they derive from the declarations relative to the Person and character of our Saviour which are contained in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles of our Lord; and we must admit, that they imply in the most convincing manner, the Divinity of Him who used them.

4. Again, he speaks, in many passages, of his existence in heaven, before he came down upon

1 Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 354.

earth.

For instance, his declaration to Nicodemus: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven":" and again: "I know whence I come, and whither I go. Ye are from beneath, I am from above. Ye are of this world, I am not of this world." Again, he describes himself as "the living bread which came down from heaven*;" and he alleges his descent from heaven as the reason why they ought to attend to the revelations which he had made; "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him." Lastly, in his affecting prayer, which is contained in the seventeenth chapter of St John's Gospel, he makes a direct appeal to the glory in which he existed with the Father before the beginning of the world: "I have glorified thee on earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify me with thyself with the glory which I had with thee before the world was 6." When we compare these passages together, what other conclusion can we draw from them, except that they contain direct assertions of the divinity and pre-existence of him who uttered them?

5. There is, again, another class of passages, in which our Lord speaks of himself as being “ONE WITH THE FATHER." For instance, John x. 30, where, upon our Lord saying, "I AND MY

2 John iii. 13. 5 Ib. i. 18.

3 Ib. viii. 14-23.
6 Ib. xvii. 4, 5.

4 Ib. vi. 51.

B

FATHER ARE ONE," the Jews took up stones to cast at him, alleging as the reason, because "he being man, made himself God:" and, again, in the prayer in the seventeenth chapter of St John's Gospel: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, AS WE ARE;" and again, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE1." Now even if we should admit, that this expression implies nothing more than an union of counsels and designs with the Father, though probably in the passage of St John x. 30. it means not merely an union of counsels, but an equality of authority and power, and therefore claims for its possessor Divinity, in the highest sense of the expression,—what stronger

1 John xvii. 20-22.

2 This is evident from the mode of reasoning adopted by our Saviour. He says in the first instance: (ver. 27.) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand: and he afterwards uses the same expressions with reference to his Father: My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand: and then he adds in conclusion, I and my Father are one; upon which the Jews took up stones to cast at him,— evidently, because he assumed to himself the power and authority of God alone. It is scarcely possible to conceive any stronger testimony to his Divinity.-See Tittman Meletemata, ad locum.

proof can we have of his Divinity? For, as St Paul has observed "Who (what man or finite being) hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellors" "I, for my part," (observes Dr Hey) "can put no limit to the wisdom of him who has a perfect union of counsels and designs with the Deity. I think no finite being could use such language as Christ uses, though it may not convey a definite idea to us, about being one with the Father, without the greatest arrogance and presumption: was Christ then arrogant? Consider the lowliness of his character, the humble simplicity of this affecting prayer. He who had a right to utter such things, and was humble while he uttered them, can have nothing too great conceived of him."

6. Again, on another occasion, when the persons who were collecting the tribute for the Temple, came to our Lord, he made use of an argument, which clearly implies his divinity, when he said to Peter, "What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children or of strangers? To which Peter replied, "Of strangers. Then," said he, "are the children free;" an expression, which, in however small a degree it may have been understood at the time by the disciples to whom it was addressed, can be understood to mean nothing less, than that, being the Son of God, to whom the tribute was paid, he might have justly excused himself.

3 Rom. xi. 34.

4 Hey's Lectures, Vol. II. p. 266.