God, or in the likeness of God, would be absurd, and blasphemy. The Philippians, whose mother-tongue was Greek, could not mistake these phrases, as some now do; they saw in this epistle a full and undoubted distinction between God, (the only true God,) and our master Jesus Christ, in these following most remarkable passages, Philip. i. 2, 'The God and Father of us, and of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Which God highly exalted Christ. Phil. ii. 8, 9, He freely gave him a name,' or superior character, that is, Christ That every tongue should own him,' as God's Christ; but, note, to the glory of God the Father." And chap. iv. ver. 20, To one God the Father be glory for ever.'

Note, 1. It was the man Christ Jesus, who was proposed as a pattern or example of humility.

2. It was the man Christ Jesus, who actually humbled himself: God could not humble himself.

3. It was the man Christ Jesus, who became obedient, took the form of a servant, appeared like an ordinary person, though he was indeed a person extraordinary for gifts, spiritual wisdom, &c.

4. It was the man Christ Jesus, that suffered on the cross, and whom God (his God) highly exalted, and' graciously and freely gave him a name above all others.'

5. It was for this end that God gave Jesus Christ his name, or honour, or dignity extraordinary, that all intelligent beings should own and acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ, i. e. the Messiah, or person appointed by God for reforming mankind.---But all this God did, not that we should make Christ, and own him, to be God equal to himself, as modern Christians do no, no, quite other was God's last end or design for his purpose was, that every tongue should confess and acknowledge, and refer all that God did for ani by Christ, ultimately and finally, to the praise and glory of God; who made Christ an instrument of good to mankind; and when Christ had delivered God's will and message to the world, 'God

:

raised him from the dead, and set him on his righthand that in all things God,' 1 Pet. iv. 11, God, I say, may be glorified through Jesus Christ.'

Christ is said to be in the form or outward appearance of a God, but not to be God by nature; for the word poppy, which is the word in the original, is never yet in any instance shewn to signify the essence, or the internal nature or substance of any being; but only some external form, scheme, figure, or appearance of beings or things. It is thus in all human writers; and thus in the holy scriptures; see Dan. v. 6, 9, 10. We should translate it, the form of his countenance was changed.' Isa. xliv. 13, 'He makes it after the figure of a man.'

All its compounds and derivatives in the Greek lexicons imply no more than outward appearance, figure, &c. but never internal nature, essence, or substance.

6

The transfiguration of Jesus Christ, Mat. xvii. 2, Mark ix. 2, is represented by uerauogowon, which is a compound, or derivative from poppy, which we translate, and he was transfigured,' &c. by the change or external appearance of his face and his raiment ; so Mark xvi. 12, He appeared in another form. And in this noted passage, Phil. ii. 6, 7, The form of a God,' and the form of a servant' are opposed, and not the form of God and the form of man: meaning by form, not the nature or essence, but the condition, or outward appearance of a godlike, or excellent person, and of a mean ordinary man. For he appeared like an extraordinary godlike person, by the signs, wonders, and miracles, which God, who dwelt in him, wrought by him:' and he appeared like a poor mean person, having no house nor home.

Another derivative, Zuuμoppos, implies conformity in circumstances, Rom. viii. 29, Phil. iii. 21; but not in nature or essence. Nor does the word opp, or any one of its many derivatives, in any author, húman or divine, ever signify or imply the internal nature or essence of any thing or being; but only the outward

form, appearance or likeness and conformity in habit, condition, or conduct. Nor did the Greeks ever understand this word to signify nature or essence. Nor could the Philippians be so strangely mistaken, as to understand it in that sense; for Geek was the mothertongue of the Philippians, to whom St. Paul wrote the epistle. Pasor, in his lexicon, is so candid as to interpret ἐκ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, non rapuit equalitatem cum Den; and calls the phrase an Hellenism.

To conclude; St. Paul, who wrote this epistle to the Philippians, who were native Grecks, could not in this passage be misunderstood by them to offer to them so absurd, so impious a notion, as our corrupt tritheists would obtrude upon the Christian world. Especially when the Philippians found in this very epistle the word ds, God, twenty times in the singular number; and twice expressly applied and limited to God the Father,' chap i. 2, ii. 11, who was the God St. Paul worshipped, i. 3, iii. 3. And he directed the Philippians that in every thing by prayer, and supplication with thanksgiving, their requests should be made known to God,' iv. 6.

Had it been possible for St. Paul to have entertained the papal tritheistic doctrine of the trinity, he, no doubt, would have directed his own prayers, and the Philippians too, to all the sacred three, as they are commonly styled in the shocking phrase of the present

age.

For

In short, to affirm that Christ is equal to God, must be necessarily to affirm that there are two Gods; for equal ever supposes two beings or things at least. Or to affirm that Christ is equal to God, is indeed to affirm that he is not God in the highest sense. the words must imply, that he is not that God, to whom he is said to be equal; and consequently not God at all in the highest sense: or that he is another God, and that is one too many in the Christian religion.

Besides, equality necessarily supposes, in this controversy, equality in all perfections; and two distinct beings cannot possibly be possessed of all perfections;

for affirming that, is denying both to be God in the highest sense and to affirm the Father and the Son to be of one singular and individual divine nature, or essence, is to destroy the notion of equality, and the whole history of the New Testament.

Maintaining an equality is denying and destroying the unity. And the Father of Jesus Christ being, in all ages, and by all Christians of all denominations, held, and firmly and incontestably acnowledged, to be God; whoever hath held and maintained, that another, who is not that Father, is equal to the Father, doth thereby deny, by a most certain consequence, the Father to be God. For God is a being possessed of all the highest and most absolute perfections; and the Father is not, and cannot be, possessed of all those perfections, if Jesus Christ hath equal perfections.

CHAP. XXXV.

The several characters of Jesus Christ, which St. Paul enlarg ges upon in a long paragraph, much misunderstood, in the epistle to the Colossians, are here considered and explained.

ANOTHER passage, expressed in lofty terms, and much insisted on by some of the ancients, and all the modern trinitarian writers, is Coloss. i. 15-19. To give the apostle's words, Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things; and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell. Yet it is evident to a careful reader, that this

whole paragraph contains not one character here applied to Christ, which can be properly applied to God; as will appear by examining particulars. The high characters, in this passage, of Jesus Christ, are these that follow, viz.

CHARACTER I.

6

He is ΕΙΚΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΑΟΡΑΤΟΥ, the visible image of the invisible God. Note, The same word, image, is applied four times to man in general, Gen. i. 26, 27, v. 1. ix. 6, 'God made man in the image of God.' And I Cor. xi. 7, Man is called the image and glory of God.' Now, every man is the image of God, as he is a spiritual and intellectual being: and Christ was an image of God in a higher sense, as he exhibited, as it were, in an image, the mind and will of God to mankind in the gospel. But then it must necessarily follow, that he (Christ) who is the image of God, is not, cannot, possibly be that very God of whom he is the image, and the visible image of that God, who is invisible. This character then (of Christ) cannot possibly belong to the Supreme God, who is incontestably described, and even distinguished from Christ, Colos. i. ver. 3, by that usual and most remarkable character, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

CHARACTER II.

Another character of Christ is, that he is ПPNTOΤΟΚΟΣ ΠΑΣΗΣ ΚΤΙΣΕΩΣ, the first-born, or eldest Son of the whole creation, or of every creature. Rom. viii. 29. Now that character, if literally understood, would only give Christ the priority of existence to all other creatures. But the true meaning is, he is the firstborn among his many brethren, who are conformed to his image; the eldest Son in the Christian brotherhood; who are also called the church of the firstborn,' Heb. xii. 23, that is, the assembly of the apostles, and first Christian converts. Some, I know, understand this character to signify Christ's pre

+