roof that the glory and blessedness of the righteous will be immortal; and there appears to be equal want f proof that the punishment of the wicked will be ndless. By this hypothesis the encouragement and ope of the righteous are greatly abated; and the ears of the wicked are almost destroyed. Reward nd punishment lose almost all their effect.

A correct belief of the Son is intimately connected with a correct belief of the Father; and a denial, or lishonor of the former implies a denial or dishonor of the latter. The relative names, Father and Son, express an affinity subsisting between them. If these ames, which represent the distinctions of the divine Nature, are used figuratively, there is, undoubtedly, ground in the subject for this figurative language. When the names, father and son are used to express the relationship, subsisting between a parent and his male offspring, the first ideas, conveyed by these relative names, are their affinity and the sameness of their nature. If these names are correctly applied to the divine nature, they naturally convey the same ideas. If a parent be human, it follows, of course, that his son is human. If figurative language be drawn from this relationship, and applied to the divine Nature, it is expected that it will express some striking analogy between the relationship of the Father and the Son, and the relationship of a human parent and his child. If the Son be divine, this name expresses the analogy in the clearest manner; it expresses their intimate connexion, and the sameness of their nature. If the Son be not divine, the analogy is greatly weakened, and their relative names are much less expressive.

It is admitted that God is called the Father of the human family. In a more special sense he is called the Father of believers; and they are called his sons. It appears that Christ claimed a relationship with the Father much nearer than this. The Jews understood him to call God his Father in a peculiar sense, in a sense, which implied that he himself was divine.

After Christ had healed an impotent man on the Sab bath, the Jews accused him of profanation of holy time. He replied, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, (TRTEK Stov) making himself equal with God. ίδιον is expres sive and definite in its meaning; it signifies, peculiaris sui generis, suus. Hed. Lex.; (peculiar, of its own kind, his own.) Schleusner, under his first definition of the word gives the following significations; proprius, suus, et de omni, quod quis jure suum vocare potest, et ullo aliquo modo ad alequem pertinet. (Special, proper; his own, in respect to every thing, which one can justly call his own, and belongs, in any way, to him.)

At another time, when Christ called God his Father, the Jews accused him of blasphemy, because he being a man made himself God. It appears evident that the Jews believed that the Son of God was divine, and that he was the promised Messiah. But they believed that Jesus was not that personage; that he was merely a man, and that he made pretensions to divinity. In this view of the subject they imagined that he blasphemed by claiming a relationship with God, which implied equality. They believed, that by calling himself the Son of God, he blasphemed; and that, according to their law he ought to die as a blasphemer. If the Jews formed wrong ideas of the language of Christ, when he called God his Father, it seems not a little extraordinary that he did not correct their mistake; and shew them plainly that his relationship to God was to be understood in a reduced sense; that it was no more than the relationship of a creature to his Creator.

It is in vain to attempt to maintain that the Jews knowingly perverted the language of Christ; and made him say what he did not design to say. For the same word, which they connected with Father, to

xpress the near connexion of the Son with him and heir sameness of nature, the apostle Paul connects vith Son, to shew the special relationship of the Father o him, Rom. 8:32. The same meaning, which the unbelieving Jews attached to the word (iv) the postle undoubtedly attached to it. If their applicaion of it were preposterous, the apostle's application of it will stand with all its force.

If the connexion of the Father and Son imply the divinity of the latter, it follows that a denial of the Son implies a denial of the Father, as such; and the dishonor, which is cast upon the Son is cast also upon the Father. The scriptures represent the connexion of the Father and Son, to be so intimate that what is predicated of one is predicated of the other. "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father. 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. The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." These texts afford evidence that there is such a union of the Father and Son, that there is a joint operation in all their works. Neither of them doeth any thing of himself; i. e. separately and distinctly; but what one doth the other doth also.

If there be this intimate connexion of the Father and Son, it is evident that what honors one, honors the other; that the Father may be glorified in the Son; and that whosoever had seen the Son had also seen the Father. This sentiment is clearly expressed in scripture. "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. It appears that St. John considered a denial of the Son a denial of the Father.

This is evidently true in view of their relationship If there be no Šon, there is no Father; and if there be no Father, there is no Son. If relationship be denied on one side, it is, of course, denied on the other. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same doth not ac knowledge the Father. He does not acknowledge his relationship. He does not acknowledge the testi mony, which the Father bore concerning him at his baptism, at his transfiguration, and by raising him from the dead.

It will be better understood what St. John meant by a denial of the Son, if the occasion and object of writing his epistle be considered. At that time, there were some, who denied the divinity, and others, who denied the humanity, of Christ. One great object of this epistle was to correct these errors. In this epistle he calls Jesus Christ "that eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." He calls him the Son of God. He set it down as a test of true and inspired teachers that they confessed Jesus Christ was come in the flesh; and a denial of this truth, he considered a characteristic mark of antichrist. It is evident that by a denial of the Son, the apostle meant a rejection of his divinity or humanity; either of which would be refusal to acknowledge him to be the Christ of God. When St. John When St. John speaks of the denial of the Son in connexion with a denial of the Father, he undoubtedly means, by Son, the divinity, not the humanity of Christ. On this ground it is manifest that he, who denieth the Son, doth not believe in the Father. The apostle James appears to have the same opinion of the connexion of the Father and the Son, when he speaks of false teachers, who denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ..

a

If the Son be not divine, a denial of his divinity is not a denial of the Father. If the Son be merely human, the connexion between his humanity and the

Father is not so near that a denial of the former implies a denial of the latter.

So intimate is the connexion of the Father and the Son, that denial, knowledge, sight, hatred and honor of one imply denial, knowledge, sight, hatred and honor of the other. "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." Jesus said to the Jews, "Ye neither know me, nor my Father; if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." When Philip asked Christ to shew him the Father, he replied, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father. He that hateth me hateth my Father also.-Now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father, which hath sent him."

If Christ be not divine, a denial of him is not a denial of the Father. People might deny him divine perfections, divine authority, and divine works, and at the same time acknowledge the divine authority of the Father. If the Son be not divine, people might see and know him, and, at the same time, they might neither see nor know the Father. They might hate him for his pretensions to divinity, and at the same time, not hate Divinity itself. They might honor him excessively, and, by that mean, they might dishonor the Father. But if the Son be divine, consequences follow agreeably to the Scriptures. He is not alone, but the Father is with him. What belongs to one belongs also to the other. Christ said, “All things that the Father hath are mine. All mine are thine, and thine are mine." Such is their union of nature and of operations, that what honors or dishonors the Son, honors or dishonors the Father.

It may be argued with some degree of plausibility, that if God send a messenger into the world to treat with the human race, though he be a created being, they ought to receive him in his delegated capacity, that they ought to honor him; and that an acknowl