LETTER VI.

The preceding doctrines all implied in Philippians ii.

5-11.

REV. SIR,

NO portion of Scripture has, perhaps, been more abundantly quoted, nor more fully relied on, by Athanasian writers, than Philippians ii. 6. This text, therefore, with six other verses in connection, I shall attempt to examine. And I flatter myself that you will be convinced that the Athanasian theory can have no support from this passage; and that, in it, is fairly implied several of the propositions which I have aimed to establish.

The verses to be considered are the following:5. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus;

6. Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,

9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name :

10. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

In the preceding verses, the apostle had, in the most affectionate manner, exhorted Christians to humility, condescension, and benevolence. To enforce his exhortation, he urged the example of Jesus Christ, who was rich, and yet for our sakes became poor; and the glorious reward which God bestowed on him for what he had done and suffered. To exhibit the

example of Christ in a just and striking light, he distinctly brought into view his state of godlike splendor and majesty before his incarnation; who being in the FORM of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

The Son's being in the FORM OF GOD, most probably refers to the glory he had with the Father before the world was, the glory that he had in God's creating all things by him, aud the glory that he had as the Angel of God's presence.

But as this verse is so much relied on in support of the doctrine that the Son is personally the self-existent God, it behoves me to be the more particular in the examination. It is not, for me, easy to discern any thing in the sixth verse, nor in the whole connection, which has the least appearance of favoring that idea, unless it, be found in the import of the word equal" thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The argument is simply this, No Person but the selfexistent God can be equal with the self-existent God; therefore the Son is the self-existent God. And the utmost that can possibly be meant, in any case, by the word equal, is insisted on as the only possible meaning of the term; and that too in the face of the nat#ral import both of the text itself and the connection. For it is urged that the Son is absolutely, essentially, and independently EQUAL with God. And this con

struction of the term seems to be urged with as much confidence as though the word had never been, and never could be, used in a qualified sense.

But, sir, is it a truth that the word equal always implies absolute equality in the persons or things which are said to be equal? Does it always imply equality in every respect?-And do we not often use the term in regard to two persons who are supposed to be unequal in several respects? When we say of a son, that he is equal v th his father, do we ever mean that he has existed as long as his father? or that he and his father are but one being? May not a sen be as rich as his father, and yet have derived all his riches from his father? Might not Solomon be equal to David in authority, though he derived all his authority from David ?

It is, sir, no robbery for a king's son to think of himself according to the authority or dignity which his father has given him.-David said, as it is supposed, respecting Ahithophel his counsellor, "But it was thou, a man, mine equal, my guide, and my acquaintance." Do you, sir, suppose, that these words imply that Ahithophel was, in all respects, David's equal? If David had said, "a man my companion," would not this term have expressed about the same idea as the word equal? Why then should you be so very positive, that the term equal, as used by the apostle, must mean an absolute equality, even a coeternity of God and his Son ?

Let us notice another text which evidently respects Jesus Christ: "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow." May it not be reasonably supposed, that fellow in this text means the same as equal in the other?

But the very text in dispute, may perhaps be found to contain sufficient evidence that Christ is not the self-existent God; and that God and Christ are as distinetly two Beings as any other father and son.

"Who being in the form of God"-Is not Christ evidently spoken of in contradistinction to God? If he be a Person in contradistinction to the self-existent God, he is certainly not the self-existent God, unless there be more Gods than one. If the apostle had been speaking of the Father, and had said of him, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," would not such a representation of the Father have been a manifest impropriety? But if the Son be the self-existent God, such language with respect to the Father would be as proper as in respect to the Son.

By the form of God, we may understand the same as the similitude or image of God-Christ is declared to be "the image of the invisible God"-"the express image of his Person." But does not every body know that a Person and the image of his Person are distinet objects? and that it is impossible that any Person should be the image of himself? Seth was the image of Adam; but he was not Adam, nor was Adam and Seth the same being. It is, however, true, that an image often bears the name of the Person represented. So Christ, by the pleasure of God, often bears the Divine Names of his Father.

If, by the term God, be intended three Persons, as Mr. Jones suggests, then for Christ to be in the form of God, he must be in the form of three Persons.

Twe

The terms, also, equal with God, plainly import that Christ is a Person distinct from God. Persons are here compared together, one of them is

GOD, the other is the Son of God; and of the Son it is asserted, in some sense, that he is equal with God. If I were to say that Solomon thought it no robbery to be equal with David, would you suppose that I meant to assert that Solomon and David were but one and the same Being ?*

Besides, in the connection of the text, the Son is represented as a Being so distinet from God, that he could obey and die, and after that be exalted by God, and have a name given him, which is above evéry name. Now, sir, if there be no more Gods than one, as you readily admit, and if Christ be personally the selfexistent God, I wish to be informed by what God Christ was exalted? Or, on what ground it can be said that God exalted HIM ?

May I not safely conclude, that this text is so far from supporting the Athanasian doctrine, that it fairly implies that God is only one Person, and that Christ is truly God's Son ?

My next business will be to show how the passage of Scripture, which has been quoted, supports the doctrine that the Son of God became Man, by becoming the soul of a human body.

* Since writing these remarks, I examined Dr. Doddridge's Family Expositor. The phrase "equal with God," he does not admit as a correct translation. According to him, the text should be read, "thought it not robbery to be as God." The Greek phrase is a O, and the Doctor says, "the proper Greek phrase for equal with God, is TV TWO." And these are the words used by John, in stating the accusation of the Jews against Christ-John v. 18, 66 making himself equal with God." But a late learned Trinitarian writer has approved the following translation of the text, "Who being in the form of God, did not cagerly grasp at the resemblance to God." "This," says the writer, " conveys the true sense of the original." Eclectic Review of the " Improved Version."