exhortations to humility. But, if Jefus be a mere man, or only an exalted creature, it is no wonder that he did not obftinately infift,' that he did not fo much as think, 'on an equality with God:' for, in fo doing, he would have been guilty of Luciferian pride, and of the most impious robbery.

By confidering thefe two claufes, in their proper connection, "being in the form of God-he thought it "not robbery to be equal with God," we have a further proof of the truth for which we contend. For it is evident, that our Lord's claim of "equality with God," is here founded, by the apostle, on his "existing in the "form of God;" and not on his performing of any works whatever.-Nor ought the two terms vnapr and xabar, which ftand oppofed in the paffage, to be overlooked. It is very obfervable, that the apoftle ufes the former, when he speaks of the "form of God;" afferting, that Jefus exifted in that Divine form: plainly fignifying, that it was not an accidental and tranfient thing, but a property belonging to his glorious Perfon, and therefore permanent. But when he speaks of the oppofite form, he employs the latter of thofe expreflions, and fays, he received it; evidently denoting, that it was not effential, but foreign and accidental to him. For he who receives a form, is not fupposed to have had it always; nor is it considered as effential to him.-Besides, if Jefus be a mere creature, he never was, nor ever can be, ftrictly speaking, in any form but that of a fervant, in refpect of the eternal Sovereign.

But as the Holy Spirit, fpeaking in the Scripture, is his own best interpreter, it is proper to compare this paffage with others, in order to fee its genuine meaning. When the apostle fpeaks of Jefus Chrift, as "being in "the form of God," as being " equal with God;" and yet informs us, that he "took upon him the form of a

fervant, and made himself of no reputation;" we cannot but confider the Lord Redeemer, as exifting in

two very different flates: a state of the fublimeft glory preceding, and a flate of the deepest humiliation followking. So, when we advert to that faying, "He was "made of the feed of David according to the flesh;" we have the idea of two natures in our Divine Saviour. One, in respect of which, he is David's offspring; the other, fuch as conftitutes him David's Lord. One, the exiftence of which commenced at his conception; the other, without beginning and unchangeable.-Thefe two paffages, it is evident, are perfectly correfpondent. For if Jefus exifted before he was made of the feed of David, according to the flesh; it must have been either in the form of man, or in the form of God. Not the former, for then he must have existed in flesh, prior to his being made of the feed of David, according to the flesh; which is abfurd and contrary to the teftimony of the Holy Ghoft. It muft, confequently, be the latter; that is, before his incarnation he exifted in the form of God, and in that only.

This will appear in a ftronger light, if we confider the following paffage; "God was manifeft in the flefh." Chrift existed before he was in the flesh. For though he was made of the feed of David, yet not abfolutely, but "according to the flesh." Chrift was God; for GOD was manifeft in that flesh which was made of the feed of David. By comparing this and the two preceding paffages together, it appears, That Jefus Chrift exifted in the form of God, that he was God; and might, confequently, be confidered as equal with the Father before that flesh which was made of the feed of David, and in which God was manifefted, had a being.

Once more: He who is the true and faithful Witness afferts, concerning himfelf; "I came forth from the "Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave "the world and go to the Father." Before our Lord came into the world, he was not made of the feed of David; was not flefh, nor manifefted in the flesh; nor was he in the form of a fervant. No; confidered in his

firft ftate, he was the Son, the only Son of the Father; that Divine Person who, exifting in the form of God, and being God, was to be manifested in the flesh; was to be the wonderful IMMANUEL.

CHAPTER VIII.

The fame truth confirmed and illuftrated, from John i. 1-14. The Socinian interpretation of this paffage confidered and expofed.

THE beginning of the Gospel according to

the evangelift John, would be quite unintelligible, were we to deny the pre-existence and eternal Divinity of Jefus Chrift. The following expreffions, for inftance;

In the beginning was the Word-The Word was "with God--The Word was God-All things were "made by him-The Word was made flesh-The "world was made by him"-Thefe expreffions, I fay, taken in any other view, are no better, are no other, than incomprehenfible nonfenfe: and men, who are not obliged to understand that which is in itself unintelligible, cannot be culpable for not discovering a fenfe in them, which is contrary to the natural fignification of the terms.

"In the beginning was the Word." Our expofition has nothing obfcure, nothing perplexed in it; but that of our opponents is far-fetched and jejune, is forced and sunnatural. They infift upon it, that by " the beginning," the commencement of the gospel-difpenfation is intended. But fo to interpret the phrafe, is to restrain a general expreffion to a particular and uncommon fenfe, without the leaft warrant from the circumftances and scope of the place, and is nothing fhort of offering violence to the text. It cannot be fuppofed, with the least shadow

of reason, that a particular beginning is meant, becaufe nothing precedes it, nothing follows it, fo to determine the fenfe; or which gives the leaft intimation that the expreffion ought to be understood in a fignification different from that which it ufually has. For thefe words begin the gospel, and are repeated by the evangelift afterwards, without giving any notice of their being ufed in a particular fenfe. To imagine that a mental refervation may determine general expreffions to a particular meaning, is a great mistake. Any one, writing the history of Auguftus, would be very impertinent if he fhould fay; In the beginning was Auguftus;' meaning, that he lived from the time of Julius Cefar. Or, if a man were to write the hiftory of Mofes, and the furprising things which the God of Ifrael wrought by his miniftry, and hould introduce the wonderful narrative thus; In the beginning was Mofes;' meaning, he was from the time that God began to deliver the feed of Jacob from Egyptian bondage. For thefe mental explanations would not prevent the language from being contrary to goed fenfe, because it would be unintelligible.

6

If the evangelift's meaning had been what they fuppofe, he might have explained himself by faying, Jefus Chrift lived from the beginning of the gofpel.' Yet even then his expreffions would not have been free from obfcurity: because we fhould have been at a lofs to know, from what period, or from what event, this beginning of the gofpel was to be dated. For if you understand the fivlt glad tidings of the great falvation, which was to be accomplished by Jefus Chrift, it is evident, on the principles of our opponents, that He did not then exist ; the prophets having published the falvation of God long before the Meffiah's conception. If, by this beginning, you understand the time when the prophetic oracles began to be fulfilled; then, I demand, why it is not dated from the time of Gabriel's appearance to Zacharias, or to Mary? Or from the time that the father of John the Baptift, being filled with the Holy Spirit, described

the honourable and important work of his new-born fon, and foretold the immediate appearance of Chrift? Oc from the day that Simeon uttered his comprehenfive prophecy, with the infant Saviour in his arms?

To that remarkable character, THE WORLD, Our adverfaries give several fignifications; which appear to be invented only out of neceffity to defend their caufe. It includes, fay they, a metaphor, or a metonymy.'But if they dealt ingenuously, they would fix either upon the one, or the other; for one figure would be fufficient to answer the purpofe. But what would fuffice, in itself, does not fatisfy our opponents; and the miftrust they have of the one, makes them have recourse to the other. For, we may venture to fay, it is not the fense of Scripture they give us, but their own mistakes, which they feem determined to defend.

This appears from their comment on the following claufe: "The Word was with God." For if it were ławful to take thefe expreffions in a fignification which is not natural to them, feveral fenfes might be found equally proper with that which they have palmed upon them. Would thefe terms, "The Word was with "God," bear to be interpreted thus, The Word

was known of God only;' why might we not infift upon it, that their more natural fignification is, The Word was hid in heaven;' or, The Word was ⚫ beloved of God;' or, The Word only knew the counfel of God? Thefe are more probable fignifications of the text, and yet they fix upon this, The • Word was known of God only;' or, according to others, He was appointed of God to his office.'

In much the fame aukward and unwarrantable manner they interpret the following remarkable and emphatical affertion; "The Word was Gon." That is, according to them, Every thing in Jefus was Divine; fo that the miniftry of the prophets, compared with his, was human.'-Had they been fatisfied with this interpretation; had they not been confcious of its futility, they