These passages, in the usual mode of appeal to the vulgar understanding, and conformably to preconceived hypothesis, are interpreted of the incarnation of Deity in the man Jesus. If their internal sense cannot be collected from the context, we have the assistance of another passage, the sense of which cannot be dubious." Ephes. iii. 3, 5, 6, "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel." How strange and incredible the admission of the Gentiles into the church of God appeared to the Apostles may be seen from the vision of Peter, Acts x. 15-45.

PHIL. ii. 5-9. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly EXALTED him, and GIVEN him a name, which is above every name.

How one in the form of God should be himself GOD, or how God should be exalted, it is impossible to explain. "Equal with God" may be rendered "like God;" though the being "equal with God" need not imply original equality of nature, but may refer to sameness of co-operation. "My Father worketh hitherto and I work," John v. 17; on which expression the "Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father; making himself equal with God," ver. 18. So in John x. 33, "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy: and because thou, being a man, makest thyself GOD;" that is, a common man: as in Judges xvi. 7, "Then shall I be weak, and be as another man [in the original, a man];" and this

reproach is in answer to the saying of Jesus, "I and my Father are one;" that is, in operation. In ver. 38, 39, when he asserts "the Father is in me and I in him," they "seek again to kill him." The Jews do not concern themselves with Christ's nature, but with his claims; and when he speaks of the intimate communion with his FATHER, they accuse him of placing himself on a footing with God. JESUS defends this filial relation, not by asserting an original affinity of nature with God his Father, but by vindicating to himself the title of "Son of God," from his having been consecrated and commissioned by him: ver. 35, 36, "If he called them Gods unto whom the word of GOD came; say ye of him whom the FATHER hath sanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the SON OF God?

The words "thought it not robbery" should be translated esteemed it not a prey, or a thing to be seized; did not exalt himself on his miraculous powers. The words "was made in the likeness of men,” which are supposed to describe "the taking of the manhood into God," will certainly convey that idea, if the preconceived hypothesis of Christ's divine and pre-existent nature be allowed; but it need imply no more than his appearance as an ordinary mortal, subject to human sufferings and humiliations, though the image, or representative, of God.

HEB. i. 10. And thou, LORD! in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall perish; but thou remainest. Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

This passage, on which, from the ambiguity of the title Lord, the strongest possible stress is laid of Christ being the creator of the visible heavens and the earth, and therefore God, is simply a quotation from Ps. x. 2, where it is applied to Jehovah. That the passage is accommodated to Christ is a supposition without proof as without

necessity. The Apostle is making a transition to God" who hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things; by whom also he made THE AGES, (the original term rendered worlds:) 1, 2; and is drawing an argument from the immutability of God the creator, for his stedfast and unchangeable purposes respecting the kingdom of his Son.

HEB. xiii. 8. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.

This is surely true of the predestinated Christ, of whom all the prophets spake, without confounding his person with that of the inmortal GOD.

JOHN xii. 41.

These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

This is an allusion to Isaiah vi. 10. The passage respecting the making blind the Jews as to the coming of Christ, follows a description of the vision of "the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up," v. 1; and one of the Seraphim cries "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory," ver. 3; and the prophet exclaims "Woe is me! for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts," ver. 5. It is therefore inferred that as Isaiah saw the Lord of Hosts whose "glory filled the earth," and as John speaks of the prophet seeing the glory of Christ, the one glory is identical with the other; therefore Christ is the Lord of Hosts. This is one instance, among many, of the deduction of Trinitarian inferences from the mere jingle of sounds. It must be evident from a close comparison of the passages, that both have seen and saw are used in different senses by Isaiah and John; and that "the glory which filled the earth" is one, and the glory which the prophet saw respecting the day of Christ is another: the one is the splendour of the divine majesty, announced in terms of adoration by the Seraphim; the other is the future majesty

of the Messiah in his kingdom, which the prophet saw after his eyes had looked upon "the Lord of Hosts sitting on his throne," on receiving the commission to "make the ears of this people heavy, and to shut their eyes:" that is, he foresaw it; as Abraham saw, or foresaw, the day of Christ, and was glad: John viii. 56.

Rev. xix. 16. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, and Lord of Lords. Christ himself says, "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and I will write upon him the name of MY GOD:" iii. 12. Nothing therefore can be inferred from this passage. Christ is KING OF KINGS in the name and in the power of the KING OF KINGS, "who put all things under his feet."

1 TIM. vi. 14, 16. Until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ; which in his times HE shall show, who is the blessed and ONLY POTENTATE; the King of kings and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no mar, can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. These titles and attributes of the most high God are appropriated by the Trinitarians to Jesus Christ. Either "HE" is referred to "Jesus Christ, "who is thus made to show his own appearing; or "Jesus Christ," and not "HE," is made the antecedent of "who." 66 The original words are, which in his own times the blessed and only potentate will show." But even if we follow the English version, it must be evident, according to every rule of writing, that he is the natural antecedent of who. If he, then, mean Christ, Christ is said to be ALONE immortal, and the ONLY Potentate, to the exclusion of GOD HIS FATHER; if HE refer to ver. 13, "GOD who quickeneth in all things," then GOD is the ONLY Potentate and ALONE immortal, to the exclusion of Christ, and Christ is not GOD; for we must protest against the Trinitarian device, which, in passages where GOD and Christ are

mentioned in contra-distinction, pretends that Christ is included in the term Gop.

1 JOHN iii. 16. Hereby perceive we (the) love (of God), because he laid down his life for us.

"He" might equally well refer to Christ; who is before alluded to in the same connexion with GOD; ver. 1, "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the Sons of God; therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not." This is separated, by the modern artificial and often perplexing division into chapters, from the preceding words, ii. 29, "every one that doeth righteousness is born of him: the Son, or the CHRIST, who is the subject of the Apostle's exhortation. That God "laid down his life" is therefore not proved by this text; and in fact, though the Trinitarians bring it forward, they themselves abandon their own principle of God dying, whenever they are closely pressed; as will be seen in the consideration of what is called, in most unscriptural language, the infinite sutisfaction. The authentic text, however, wants the words "of God;" which are inserted to supply an imagined ellipsis; and this should have been done by the words of Christ.

ACTS xx. 28. To feed the church of Gon, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

766

It is not surprising that this text should be insisted upon by those who, while addressing "God the FATHER of heaven," in the complex notion of Trinity, venture to adjure him by his agony and bloody sweat, his precious death and burial;" but if God purchased to himself a church, or peculiar people, by the blood of his own Son, the seal of the Gospel-covenant of immortality, he purchased it with blood that was his own. This passage, therefore, falls short of proving that the Son of God, who "washed us" from the penalty and practice of sin "in his own blood, was