similitude or resemblance of God in moral qualities, as we speak of Christians resembling God; then I ask, whether his humiliation consisted in depressing, or subjecting to a lower station, the moral qualities which Christ possessed?

Does get mean then, a resemblance to God in respect to office; as magistrates are called gods? But, on the supposition that Christ was only a finite being, what office did he lay aside, in order to become incarnate? If Christ be only a created being; who were his subjects, and what was his dominiou, before his mediatorial kingdom commenced by the event of his incarnation.

The

But this is not all. If mean only similitude; then what is the sense of the next clause, where Christ is said to have taken upon him the moggar dowλou? That he bore merely a resemblance to a servant, i. e. to one who obeys, or is in an humble station; or that he did actually take the condition of one who was in an humble and depressed state, and persevere in it to the very death of the cross? latter must be admitted, unless we hearken to the doctrine of the Docetæ, who taught, that Christ was a man in appearance only, and not in reality. If do then means the condition or state of one who is humbled or depressed, and subjected to the command of others; does not Do mean модфи the state or condition of one who is truly divine?

After all; it should be sacredly remembered, that on such a subject as this, human language, (made up of terms, formed to express the ideas of finite and mutable beings about finite and mutable objects,) is of course incompetent, fully to designate the mode of union between the divine and human natures. I must regard the language here, and in all other passages, on this awful subject, as only an approximation toward describing what exists in the Divinity, or is done by him. He who was in the condition of God, and equal with God, i. e. divine, sir, which means, as we translate it, exinanivit seipsum, "made himself of no reputation." Yet, how incompetent must these translations be! So far as Christ is the immutable God, he cannot change; i. e. he cannot divest himself of his essential perfections. He cannot cease to be omnipotent, omniscient, &c. But he may veil the brightness of his glories for a time, by assuming to himself a union with the human nature, and making this the organ through which he displays his perfections, during the

time of the incarnation. Does the Sun cease to shine-are his beams extinguished, when an intervening cloud obscures, for a while, his lustre? Or is the sun in any measure changed?

In reply to a multitude of questions, with which you and others can press Trinitarians on this subject, we may ask ; Because God is omnipotent, does it follow, that the whole of that omnipotence must be every moment exerted? If not, (and who will refuse assent to this,) then why may he not have veiled his glories for a time in the incarnate Saviour, and still retain all his essential perfections, unchanged? Is it too much to say, that he may have done so? I believe that the text in question decides that he did.

I approach such a subject however, with solemn awe; and never feel my own weakness and ignorance more intensely, than while endeavouring to think upon it. The familiar, I had almost said irreverential manner in which some speak and write respecting this mystery, is calculated, I freely acknowledge, to excite painful emotions. On the one hand, it would seem, if we are to credit one mode of representation, that the greatest portion of Christ's humiliation consisted in his having renounced and absolutely laid aside his divinity, during the time of the incarnation; and that as God, in this diminished condition, he did actually expire upon the cross. All the powers of language are exhausted, in order to show how great must be the sufferings and condescension of Christ, in undergoing such a degradation as this. On the other hand; some who revolt from these mistaken representations, verge to the other extreme. Lest they should degrade the divine nature of Christ, they are so careful to separate the human nature from it, that one is compelled to suppose, that the man Jesus had simply a higher degree of inspiration and communion with God than other prophets. The New Testament does not seem to me to justify either of these extremes.

A thousand questions may be raised here; a thousand difficulties suggested, which no reflecting man will undertake to answer. The history of past ages exhibits an ap palling picture of disputes about the person of Christ; all springing from the denial of facts revealed in the New Tes tament, or from the unhallowed curiosity of men who desired to know what God has not revealed. The very last

age witnessed a dispute in Germany between the theologians of Giessen and Tubingen, whether the humiliation' of Christ consisted "in abstinence from both the direct and reflex use of divine majesty;" or in the "occultation of divine majesty;" a dispute which agitated the Lutheran Church to the very centre.

The humble inquirer after truth, who once is brought clearly to see the boundaries of human knowledge, will shrink from disputations of such a nature; and pour forth his earnest supplications to God, that the simple verities which the Scriptures reveal, may be believed on the authority of God; while the manner in which the facts revealed for our credence exist, is left with him "whose ways, are unsearchable, and whose judgments are past finding out.

I have used the freedom of letter-writing, in this discussion; I can hardly call it digression, as it is so nearly connected with the explanation of the text which I am examining. Will you now permit me to repeat, that the version, which would correspond best with the real meaning of the passage in question, must express the following ideas; "Who being of divine nature, or condition, did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on himself an humble condition," &c. In this way, and in this only, does the passage apppear to be consistent with the apostle's argument and design, at least appropriate to them; and in this way only, can the Greek be fairly and grammatically rendered.

With the passage that has now been considered, seem to me to agree, in general import, several others; John v. 19. "Whatsoever things he (the Father) doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise; i. e. he has the same power as the Father. And when it said in the context, "The Son doeth nothing by (or of ano) himself, except he see the Father do it," I understand the meaning to be, that the Jews had no reason to believe that Christ had any disposition to blaspheme God, (of which they had so frequently accused him,) for he acted in entire concert with the divine purposes and commands, and had no separate interests of his own.

John v. 21-23. "For as the Father raiseth the dead and restoreth them to life, so also the Son restoreth to life

whom he pleases. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men might honour the Son, even as they honour the Father."

Is there not here an equality of power and honour, áscribed to the Father and Son? The Son is indeed introduced as "head over all things;" but could he be such a head, could "all judgment be committed to him," if at the same time he was not also divine, and consequently omniscient? It is perfectly plain, that in so far as the "committing of judgment to the Son" is concerned, it must be to the mediatorial person; to one who in respect to office is subordinate to God. But in so far as qualifications, requisite to perform the duties which that commitment requires, are concerned, the Saviour is divine; and the honour to be claimed by him, is the same with that which the Divinity himself claims. It matters not whether you interpret this of obedience to be rendered to the Son, or of homage to be paid to him. Multitudes of prophets, as commissioned by God, have borne his messages of mercy, and of judgment to his people; but to whom among them all, did he grant the privilege of being honoured as himself? Or to what created being shall the glory of the blessed God be rendered, without infringing upon the fundamental principles of both the Jewish and the Christian religion?

In fact, I cannot well conceive how our Saviour could have used the words above quoted, without having exposed himself to renewed and just accusations of the Jews for blaspheming, unless he were really divine. The Jews had accused him of violating the Sabbath, because he had on that day healed the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda. The reply of Christ to them was; "" My Father worketh hitherto and I work:" which, if I understand the argument, must mean; My Father has never ceased to work on the Sabbath, in carrying on all the operations of the natural and moral world; he supersedes the law of the Sabbath. I have the same right. "The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath." The Jews then sought to slay him, because, as they affirmed, "he had violated the Sabbath, and said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. In reply to their bitter accusations, Jesus made use of the language above cited; telling them that he did whatever the Father did, and was entitled to the same honour. Was this relinquishing

H

his claim to the equality with God, which the Jews had charged him with assuming? Or was it speaking out plainly, that he wrought on the Sabbath by the same right that the Father did, and was entitled to the same deference ? Can his words, interpreted without regard to any preconceived theory, be made to signify less than this?

You will expect me, perhaps, to adduce John x. 30. "1 and my Father are one. It is a clear case, that the Jews here seem to have understood Christ, as claiming equality with God, or rather claiming to be God, (See verse 33.) But I am not satisfied, that the manner in which they often expounded his words, is a sure guide for our interpretation of them at the present time. The malignant disposition which they frequently displayed, may well lead us to suspect, that they would, if possible, put such a construction on his words, as would subject him to the imputation of blasphemy, or rebellion against the Roman government. I would expound the words of Christ therefore, independent ly of any construction which his embittered enemies put upon them. And in the present case, it seems to me, that the meaning of "I and my Father are one," is simply, “ I and my Father are united in counsel, design, and power."

So in John xvii. 20, 21, Christ prays that "all who shall believe on him may be onc. As thou, Father," continued he, "art in me, and I in thee; so they also may be one in us;" i. e. that the disciples may have the " same mind which was in Christ Jesus;" may copy after his example, and be united in the temper of their souls to him, as he is to God; may be one with the Father and with him.

So also, in Gal. iii. 28, Christians of different ranks and nations are said to be one in Christ: and 1 Cor. iii. 3, he that planteth and he that watereth are one; i. e. they have the same affections, and designs; they are united to accomplish the same object. In the same manner, Cicero says, Unus fiat e pluribus," many constitute one, when persons are united in temper and pursuits. (De Offic. l. i. c. 17.) From the consideration of those texts, which ascribe, in eneral sense, equality with God, or divine power and honours, to Christ; let us now turn,

ag

III. To the examination of those, which assert or imply, that particular divine attributes, or works, belong to him. I. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ.