form," and of every authority,

tation of the word " form," and of

insist upon its implying real essence in the phrase, "being in the form of God," he must receive it in " took upon

the same sense in the following verse, himself the form of a servant;" and he must then admit and believe 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?

Nor can the phrase, "Was made in, the likeness of man," in verse 7, be admitted to identify 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.

The Editor says, (p. 590,) "Relative to Christ's being the first-born of every creature, we reply with Dr. Owen, whose work on Socinianism has never been answered,' It is not said Christ is πρωτοκτιςος, first-created, but rpwrоToxos, the first-born; and Christ is so the 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.'" Although both "firstcreated," and "first-born," from the common aceeptation of these words, equally imply a created

66

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, first-born signifies 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. Exod. iv. 22, we find in the mouth of Jehovah himself, Israel designated by the terms, my son, even my first-born." Again, Jer. xxxi. 9: "I am a 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 persons, and to shew that they were respectively chosen of God above the rest of his creation? Rom. viii. 29: "For whom God did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the FIRSTBORN among many BRETHREN." 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 children, 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.

As to his assertion, "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." Matt. xxv. 40: " Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch 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. Ch. 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 Father 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." Ver. 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 440 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 Eph. i. 21, 22, which represent Jesus as head over 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 pages 518, 538.

I have shewn, in pages 512, 513, 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; therefore 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 [the] 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 him. Does not he avow here, that his coming to this world was not owing to his own will, but to the will of another being? Was he not entirely at the disposal of God, the Most High, even before his coming into this world? In Heb. x. 5-7, the apostle declares, that Jesus, at the time of his coming to the world, saith, that God had prepared him a body, and that he comes to the world to do the will of God. Had he been God before he had come to this world, how could he, in common with all other creatures, attribute his own actions to the will of the Supreme Disposer of all the events of the universe?

The Editor next quotes a part of Heb. i. 12, "Thou art the same." This I have fully noticed in page 452.

The Editor disapproves highly of my assertion, in the Second Appeal, "Christ was vested with glory from the beginning of the world." I therefore beg to quote one or two scriptural passages, which, I hope, will justify that assertion. 1 John ii. 13: "I write Lunto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning." Rev. iii. 14: "These things