lieve that Christ was possessed of the real essence of God and the real essence of a servant. How can we reconcile real Godhead with real servitude, even for a moment?

66

Nor can the phrase " was made in the likeness of man" in verse 7th. be admitted to iden tify him with Jehovah. any more than we can allow that Samson is so identified by the use of the parallel expression in Judges XVI. 7. and 17. "I shall be weak and be as a man" "and be like any man." In the English version, the word other is found; that is, “be like another man;" which is not warranted by the original Hebrew, as Mr. Brown, an orthodox commentator, justly remarks in the margin.

66

The Editor says (page 590.) "relative to Christ's being the first-born of every creature, we reply with Dr. Owen, whose work on Soci nianism has never been answered:-It is not said Christ is πрWTOKтI50s, first created; but TрWтотокоS," the first born" and Christ is so the πρωτότοκος, first born, as to be the only begotten son of God, is so the first of every creature that is, he is before them all, above them all, heir to them all, and so no one of them." Altho, both "first-created" and "first-born" from the

I am a

common acceptation of these words,equally im ply a created nature, yet the reason for St. Paul's choice of the word "first born" is obvious; for when used in reference to a creation not produced in the natural course, firstborn siguifies superiority to other creatures of the same class, and not "an only begotten son," as Dr. Owen and the Editor seem to suppose. I will here point out the sense in which the word "first-born" is used in the scriptures, when obviously not relating to natural birth Exodus IV. 22. We find in the mouth of Jehovah himself Israel designat-. ed by the terms " my son, even my first born." Again Jeremiah XXXI. 9. father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first born." Psalm LXXXIX. 27. "I will make him (David) my first born higher than the kings of the earth." And now I will take upon myself to ask the Editor whether Israel, as well as David, was so "first born" as "to be the only begotten son of God" and was also" before all the creatures, above them all, heir to them all, and so no one of them;" or whether that designation was not rather applied both to the nation and to the individual because they were principal pe sous and to shew that they were respectively chosen of God above the rest of his creation. Romaus VIII. 29. For whom

66

God did fore-know he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the FIRST-BORN among many BRE THREN." St John defines what would be understood by the term "to be born of God." Vide 1 John IV.7. “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God and every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God." Hence Jesus is considered and declared to be the head of the children of God. So the term only begotten son" signifies most beloved among chil dren whether natural or spiritual, and not an only son of a father; as we find in Heb. XI. 17. this very term applied to Isaac though Abraham had another son by Hagar.

Christ is no one of

them" (that is of creatures) I only quote a few passages, in which Jesus himself and his apostles enumerated him as "one of them." Matthew XXV. 40. "verily I say unto you, in as 1 much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.' Here it is the king and Lord sitting upon the throne of his glory at the last day, who is represented as styling the poor and helpless his brethren. XXVIII. 10. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go and tell my brethren that they go into Galilee; and there shall they

see me" John XX. 17. "But go to my brethren; and say unto them I ascend to my fa ther and your father and to my God and your God" 1 Cor. IX. 5." As the brethren of the Lord and Cephas. Heb. II. 11. "For he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one (father) for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (12) "Saying I will declare thy name unto my brethren. In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto. thee.

As to the Editor's reliance on the subsequent verses to shew that the creation of all things was effected by Christ, I refer my readers to page 110 of this essay where I observe that the apostle Paul means in these passages only the creation of all the things in the Christian dispensation as is explained in Ephesians I. 21. and 22, which represent Jesus as all things belonging to the church. I need not renew the subject of revelations repeated by the Editor as I have already examined it in page 200 and 223.

I have shewn in pages 193 and 194 that whatever power Jesus possessed either as man, son of man, God, or son of God, he received the same from the father of the universe; there

fore the assertion of the Editor that (" certain powers were conferred on Jesus, not as a man -but as the Messiah, Christ, the anointed son of God") is I presume one of the mysteries of the doctrine of trinity. How can the Editor reconcile the passages quoted in my Second Appeal to this assertion? Let him answer what is there advanced in the course of the discussion of this very subject, of a few points of which I beg to remind him.

1st. "In John XVII. 5. and now O father glorify me with thine ownself with the glory which I had with thee before the world was' with the same breath with which he prays for glory, he identifies the nature, in which he does so, with that under which he lived with God before the creation of the world." Is not this petition to God for glory by the same person who says he was with God before the foundation of the world? Was he before the foundation of the world a man or of a two-fold nature human and divine? If he was God almighty before the foundation of the world, how could that God implore another being for the restoration of the glory, which he at one time had but lost subsequently?

2ndly. In John VIII. 42. Jesus declares that he came not of himself, but that God sent