that the Father himself suffered on the cross; or of Gregory Nyssen, who said, that there was "a whole Father in a whole Son, and a whole Son in a whole Father." The titles which our Saviour gave himself were Kanyarns guide, director, or teacher.-Kuges Lord-Adaxaλes instructor or master—“a man that hath told you the truth."-John, viii. 40. The Son of God, and the Son of man. The last is the appellation by which he de signates himself when speaking of his coming in all his glory, with the celestial hierarchies, to judge the world. See Mat. xvi. 27, and xxvi. 64. None of these titles is ever given to the Father. It cannot be predicated of him that he is the Son, the Son of man, nor the Son of God, nor the receiver, nor the sent, nor the well-beloved, nor the only begotten, nor he that is in the bosom of the Father, nor the great Prophet, nor he which was dead and is alive, nor the sanctified and ordained, nor a highpriest in things pertaining to God, nor a mediator, nor an intercessor, nor the Messiah, the anointed, or the Christ. God does all things by his own sovereign will-his own undivided authority. Christ does nothing but in obedience to the will of him who sent him. With what consistency then, can it possibly be maintained that those two Beings are one and the same, whose attributes and offices are so exceedingly distinct, and whose grand characteristics are so far from being reciprocal, that the very idea of ascribing to the one, those which belong to the other, puts reason to the blush, and "shocks all common sense?"

SECTION SIXTH.

No proof of the Deity of Christ to be found in the Epistle to the Philippians.

Few texts are quoted more frequently in support of Christ's imagined equality to God, and consequently subjected to the ordeal of more rigorous criticism than Philip, ii. 6. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God;" a verse which rightly translated and properly understood, has a meaning totally different from that assigned to it by Trinitarians. The Apostle's object is to inculcate humility and benevolence by the example of Jesus.

"Let nothing, says he, be done through strife or vain glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 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." The tritheists contend that the phrase, being in God, means being really and essentially Jehovah!

the form of They might

with equal good sense and meaning contend, that when the Prophet describes the carpenter with his rule and line, his plane and compasses, shaping a piece of timber, "after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man," he makes a real human being or that when the Apostle declares of some hypocrites, that they have the "form of godliness," he means the substance of all piety and virtue, though he adds in the next clause, denying the power thereof." In no other connexion, would they betray such a total disregard to sense as to confound the sha→ dow with the substance, or the reflection with the object that reflects. But the word "being," vzagx, they affirm, implies that Christ was, by his original nature, in the form of God. Before they rest in this conclusion, let them answer Dr. Carpenter's question, "Did the Apostle mean to represent himself as, by his original nature, 'zealous towards God,' when he says, (Aets xxii. 3.) ζηλωτής υπαρχων του Θεου? To what hollow and miserable expedients are they obliged to have recourse? As to the word og form, Parkhurst renders it outward appearance; and he has the honesty to say that, in his apprehension, it does not in this place refer to Christ being real and essential Jehovah. To what then does it refer?. Not as the sturdy tritheist affirms, to essence; nor as the anthropomorphist might, with equal reason, affirm, to outward shape; but to his divinely delegated powers, in the exercise of which, for the benefit of others, he manifested a disposition truly godlike. Being in the form of God no more implies that he was really God, than being in the form of a slave implies that he was really a slave. The one phrase is opposed to the other, and each means that Christ was in a certain state of similitude. In the power and authority with which he was invested by his heavenly Father, and in the mode in which he employed them for the temporal and eternal good of mankind, he bore a striking resemblance to the Deity. In his simple and precarious mode of life, in his deprivations and sufferings, he resembled one in the condition of a slave. Had he been so disposed, he might have reigned as a king, and triumphed as a God. But such was his humility, that he did not assume even the name Elohim, though so much better entitled to that appellation than Moses and all the other Jewish legislators to whom it was given. He had none of that pride of heart which led the Babylonian potentate to boast, "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will be like the Most High." He thought his similitude to God, his to uva on Diw, a phrase evidently pa

* It was the belief of a heathen philosopher, that in no respect could men approach so near to the Gods, as in giving health to the sick. Neque enim ulla alia re homines proprius ad Deos accedunt, quam salutem hominibus dando. Cic.-How closely to God then did he approximate, who went about doing good, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people?

F

rallel to pogon, was no prey (aguayμe)* or spoil, like the booty taken in war, a prize won and seized by his own right hand, but a gift or trust committed to him by the giver of all. So far, therefore, from making an ostentatious display of his similitude to God, much less of claiming equality with Jehovah, he emptied or divested himself, on numerous occasions, of the use of the power which he possessed, and rejected the honours which were proposed to him, and which he might have justly claimed and enjoyed; declaring that he came not to seek his own glory, but the glory of him by whom he was deputed. Instead of accepting the kingdoms of the world, which were offered to him by the Tempter-or occupying the throne of David, when the people would have made him their king— or calling down twelve legions of angels to destroy his enemiesor retaining that bright resemblance to an inhabitant of heaven, in which he appeared at his transfiguration, he lived a life of poverty, "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief." He humbled himself from the similitude of a God to the similitude of a slave-and in this station ministered unto his disciples, even unto the washing of their feet-being among them as one that serveth. Nay, more-he was made—or, more simply, being, yousos, in the likeness of men, aveway of common men-and being found, i.e. being, in fashion, or in external guise and condition as an ordinary man, and "with all the contingencies of human nature," for he was, in all points, tempted like as we are, yet

Grotius

* The word αρπαγμον is of rare occurrence in classical authors. says it is a Syriac phrase, and he quotes a Syriac litany, in which John the 'Baptist objects to baptize Christ, saying in Syriac, as translated by Grotius, non assumam rapinam, I will not take the spoil, meaning, I will not be guilty of such a predatory, or robber-like act, as to assume the honour of baptizing one so much my superior. "Christ glorified not himself to be made an high-priest,' ‚”—Heb. v. 5, is an expression of similar import. He received the appointment to that office as an honour, not as a right or spoil, "quasi honori, non prædæ.”—SALLUST. Non habuit prædæ loco similitudinem cum Deo. h. e, non ea, qua poterat uti majestate divina, cupide utendum esse existimavit; seu, non semper eam fecit conspicuam, interdum abstinuit ab ea.- -Schleusner. How the words were understood by early writers may be learned from the 5th book and 2nd. chap. of the Church History of Eusebius. "The ancient fathers, both Latin and Greek," says Whiston, "never interpret Phil. ii. 6, to mean an equality of the Son to the Father-Novatian says, "he, therefore, though he was in the form of God, did not make himself equal to God, (non est rapinam arbitratus equalem se deo esse,) for though he remembered he was God of God the Father, he never compared himself to God the Father, being mindful that he was of his Father, and that he had this because his Father gave it him." Suppose the equality contended for, established, it would make two distinct independent beings, for equality is not identity. See Priestley's Corruptions of Christianity.

The candid Dr. Price objects to the application of the epithet ordinary. But surely he could not require to be told that agaros does mean a common or ordinary man, and that it is so used in the Septuagint and contrasted

without sin, he submitted to the most cruel and humiliating indignities, to be tried as a perverter of the people, to be mocked, buffetted, scourged, spat upon, and, finally, he became obedient to the servile and ignominious death of the cross.

What constitution of mind does it require to believe that all this is predicated, by an inspired Apostle, of the ever-living, ever-blessed, Omnipotent Jehovah? Wherefore do they who hold such a belief, speak with pity or contempt of those who believe in the incarnations of Bramah and Vishnu ?

"O judgment thou art fled to brutish beasts,

And men have lost their reason."

The Apostle having shewn the great humility and condescension of our Lord, next proceeds to shew how those virtues were rewarded. "Wherefore," says he, i. e. in consequence of his great humility and obedience, God also hath highly, or exceedingly, exalted him, and given him, or kindly bestowed upon him, a name which is above every name, that at (in) the name of Jesus every knee should bow *** and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This is a most beautiful and affecting lesson on humility, and an admirable illustration of the truth of our Lord's doctrine, that he who humbleth himself shall be exalted. The meaning is perspicuous throughout, and in perfect conformity with the Apostle's design. But if we understand the passage, in the Trinitarian sense, we shall find that it perverts his meaning, contradicts his design, and turns the whole passage into absolute nonsense. Let us see. "Who being in the form of God," i. e. as Trinitarians understand the expression, being the Supreme God, did not think it any act of rapine or robbery to be equal with the Supreme God! Christ, being Jehovah, deemed it his fair, legitimate, and unquestionable, right, to place himself on a perfect equality with Jehovah!-From this mode of interpretation, it would appear that the Apostle was exhorting the Philippians

with

"and the mean

See

ανης. In Isaiah, ii. 9. ardews,, denotes a mean man, and ame. wix, a man of elevated rank, man, (ανθρωπος) bowed down, and the great man humbled himself" stativwin ang. Schleusner, and Dr. Carpenter's "Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel." The very argument of the Apostle required that he should speak of Christ as avganos and not as ang. "It is natural," says Dr. Price, " to ask here, when did Christ divest himself of the power of working miracles. The gospel history tells us, he retained it to the last." But who affirms that he divested himself of the power? The humility of Christ appeared in refraining from the exercise of the power which he did possess. Had he not possessed, and had he not retained the power, it would be absurd to propose him as an example of humility. I can find nothing in the whole passage that either requires or indicates the truth of the Arian hypothesis.

not to be humble, but ambitious! BUT thinking such equality no robbery, he made himself of no reputation. Here the disjunctive particle but expresses no opposition, though both the meaning and expression are highly antithetical. Christ being the Supreme God, emptied himself of his glory, and was made in the likeness of men, and in consequence of his incarnation, abasement and crucifixion exalted him the Supreme God, viz : himself, and gave him a name, which is above every name ; that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ who is the Supreme God, is Lord, that is the Supreme God, to the glory of God the Father, that is of the same Supreme God!†

"

Assuredly no one who will lay aside human systems of theology, and suffer himself to be guided by a single spark of reason, can suppose the Apostle capable of expressing aught that leads to such incomparable absurdity. In vain do the Tritheists endeavour to give a consistent explanation of the passage on their principles, though they torture language and call to their aid the new unscriptural revelation of the two natures. What idea have they of the High and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is holy," that he can make himself of no reputation or divest himself of his glory? The thing is impossible. We might as well suppose he could cease to exist. "I, saith the Lord of hosts, am Jehovah-I change not."-Mal. iii. 6. whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal saith the holy ONE."-Is. xl. 25. "I am Jehovah, and there is none else; there is no God besides me."-Is. xlv. 5. Again, it is stated of Christ, that in consequence of his obedience, "God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name." How can this be predicated of the Omnipotent? To whom is he who rules in the

"To

"The argument of the Apostle," says Wakefield, "according to the usual translation of the passage, and the Trinitarian exposition of it, is inconsequent and completely absurd. But, is a conjunction employed to introduce a proposition, or assertion, which answers and explains another correlative to it, for example, "The healthy need not a physician"- By no means; it were useless to affirm it. Who then? The contrary to theseBut the sick, Matt. ix. 12. Jesus Christ thought it no robbery to be equal with God. By no means, it were untrue to affirm this. What then? The contrary to thinking it a robbery; BUT he emptied himself.

Who does not see that this is absurd, and that the power of but is not preserved? To give the conjunction its proper force, and to preserve the paragraph from nonsense, it should be thus stated:

Jesus Christ thought it no robbery to be equal with God; by no means; it were untrue to affirm this. What then? The contrary to thinking it a robbery; But he steadfastly maintained and insisted upon this equality. Let us now try the translation above proposed.

Jesus Christ did not think his resemblance to God, a thing greedily to be asserted; BUT the contrary to this, he emptied himself of it.

This, methinks, looks a little like sense and argument; and therefore the opposite interpretation is evidently absurd."

See Whitby's last Thoughts.