Mr. Wordsworth, a few years since, instituted a most làborious investigation of the Greek Fathers, to see whether the idiom which respects the article here was prevalent in their writings; and whether they ever understood more than one person to be designated by such expressions. The result I will give in his own words. (P. 132.) "I have observed more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form, Xporos xaι Otos (Eph. v. 5;) some hundreds of instances of eyas deos xaι cwtup, (Tit. ii. 13;) and not fewer than several thousands, of the form os xa cwrup, (2 Pet. i. 1. ;) while in no single case, have I seen, where the sense could be determined, any one of them used, but only of one person."

After all, if there were no other evidence of the Divinity of Christ in the New Testament, than what depended solely on these texts, one might perhaps hesitate concerning the subject. But when I consider, that the method of translating here proposed, is perfectly conformable to the Greek idiom, and must be adopted in various other passages,(e. g. Rom. xv. 6. Eph. v. 20. James i. 27,) and if adopted in these, will give them a sense conformable to that of other parts of the sacred volume; I confess the evidence, which these passages afford, if not decisive, at least confirms in no small degree, the testimony of other texts. Specially in this case, in regard to the text in Titus: for where is the appearing of God the Father ever spoken of by the New Testament writers? It is Christ who appeared to execute vengeance upon the Jewish nation; who will appear at the judgment. Yet here, the appearance of the great God is mentioned; of the great God and Saviour; for so I cannot but believe, the text is fairly to be construed. Can this great God be any other than Christ himself?

Thus much for the texts, which bestow on Christ, the appellation of God, with adjuncts that show in what sense the word God must be understood, according to the common rules of interpreting language. I must now

II. Examine another class, which attribute to Christ equality with God, or that power, and dignity or honor, which belong to God.

I use the phrase equality with God, after the example of the apostle, in the text to be immediately examined. I

know, at the same time, it is a phrase that leads, if any are se disposed, to logomachy. What I mean by it, is explained by the words which immediately follow it.

Phil. ii. 5-8. "Let the same mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus; who being in the condition of God did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire, but humbled himself, (assumed an inferior or humble station,) taking the condition of a servant, being made af ter the similitude of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he exhibited his humility by obedience, even to the death of the cross.

I

Such is the rendering, which, after laborious examina tion, I am persuaded the Greek of this passage not only admits, but demands. I will state my reasons, for dissenting from the common method, in which either Trinitarians or Unitarians have translated it.

Our common Version runs thus, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but humbled himself, &c. This Version seems to render nugatory, or at least irrelevant, a part of the Apostle's reasoning in the passage. He is enforcing the principle of Christian humility, upon the Philippians. In order to urge this in the most effectual manner, he proposes to them the example of Christ; "Let the same mind be in you which was in Christ." What was this? It was manifested by the fact, that though essentially divine, (v og Jov,) he did not eagerly retain his divine condition, but assumed the station or condition of a servant, (mogony dovλov.) Here the relevancy of his reasoning is sufficiently plain. But how was it any proof or example of humility, that he did not think it robbery to be equal with God?

Besides, the Greek will not fairly bear this construction. Agays, translated robbery, does not seem here to signify an act of robbery, but res rapta, or rather, figuratively res avide diripienda et vindicanda; i, e. something which is eagerly to be seized and appropriated. (See Schleusner and Storr, in locum.) Moreover agaμs, which our translators have placed next to the verb nyngaro, does not by the rules of Syntax belong there. The Greek Syntax would place the words thus, as to their sense; ovx nyTATO TO SIVAL T50 Dew [nara] ¿?way; literally, "he regarded not the be

ing equal to God (as) gynov, as a thing to be greedily sought or appropriated.

For these reasons, I cannot believe that our common Version gives the sense of the passage. And for similar reasons, I feel compelled to reject the Version, so common among some Unitarians; 66 He did not think of the robbery of being equal with God." The objections to it are, that it translates ¤yμov here as designating the action of robbery : and that aux ηγήσατο το είναι ισα θεῳ άρπαγμον can neyer be proved to mean, "He thought not of the robbery or being equal with God." The verb wynaro is not susceptible of such a meaning as thought not of; i. e. did not aspire to, imagine, form expectations of, &c. In its primary sense it signifies to lead, to be preeminent, &c. ; in its secondary sense to esteeem, judge, regard, repute, &c. To render aux nyntaro graynov, he did not think of the robbery, would therefore be violating the obvious principles of the Greek language. To justify in any measure such a version, the passage must run thus, οὐ ΤΟΝ άρπαγμον ηγησατο ΤΟΥ είναι ισα Θεῳ. Ενen then yars could not be rendered, thought not of. The word does not permit this sense. And as no ancient Manuscript or Version has given a hint of such a form of the text, it seems to be placed beyoud fair debate, that the translation now in question cannot be admitted.

Both our translators and Unitarians appear, generally, to have mistaken the import of the word mopon in this pas sage. On the hand, upon does not seem to me at all parallel with the brightness, (anavyoua,) and express image (xαpaxтnp,) which are applied to the Son, in Heb. i. 3. These words designate the glory of the incarnate Messiah, avho had appeared" in these last days," and spoken to men. They express the same view of Christ which John gives, (i. 14.) when he says, "We beheld his (Christ's) glory, verily the glory of the only begotten of the Father: and this glory was seen after the Word became flesh and dwelt among us:' Comparison then of upon cou with these passages, will not ascertain its meaning; for to Christ belonged the pogon Orav, before he humbled himself and took upon him the form of a servant. In occupying, indeed, the condition of a servant, (if I may so express the Greek e *Wσe σeautov,) consisted his humiliation.

A fair examination of egon, either generally or in spe cial relation to the passage before us, will end, as I must believe, in the conviction, that the word is not unfrequently synonymous with Ours (nature) and ova (being.) The proofs which Schleusner has offered of this are sufficient. (Lex. in voc. μogon.) But the proof of what it means in the passage before us, is too plain to be easily mistaken. If you say, μogon ou means only a similitude or resemblance of God in moral qualities, as we speak of Christians resembling God; then I ask, whether his humiliation consisted in depressing, or subjecting to a lower station, the moral qualities which Christ possessed?

Does μogon Otov mean then, a resemblance to God in respect to office; as magistrates are called gods? But, on the supposition that Christ was only a finite being, what office did he lay aside, in order to become incarnate? If Christ be only a created being; who were his subjects, and what was his dominion, before his mediatorial kingdom commenced by the event of his incarnation ?

But this is not all. If μogon mean only similitude; then what is the sense of the next clause, where Christ is said to have taken upon him the pop❤nv dovλov? That he bore merely a resemblance to a servant, i. e. to one who obeys, or is in a humble station; or that he did actually take the condition of one who was in a humble, and depressed state, and persevere in it to the very death of the cross? The latter must be admitted, unless we hearken to the doctrine of the Docetæ, who taught, Christ was a man in appearance only, and not in reality. If mopon doudou then means the condition or state of one who is humbled or depressed, and subjected to the command of others; does not μopon Dev mean the condition or state of one, who is truly divine?

After al; it should be sacredly remembered, that on such a subject as this, human language, (made up of terms, formed to express the ideas of finite and mutable beings about finite and mutable objects,) is of course incompetent, fully to designate the mode of union between the divine and buman natures. I must regard the language here, and in all other passages, on this awful subject, as only an approximation toward describing what exists in the Divinity, or is done by him. He who was in the condition of God, and equal

with God, i. e. divine, xevare lavrov, which means, as we translate it, exinanivit seipsum, "made himself of no reputa tion." Yet, how incompetent must these translations be! So far as Christ is the immutable God, he cannot change; i.e. he cannot divest himself of his essential perfections. He cannot cease to be omnipotent, omniscient, &c. But he may veil the brightness of his glories for a time, by assuming to himself a union with the human nature, and making this the organ through which he displays his perfections, during the time of the incarnation. Does the Sun cease to shine-are his beams extinguished, when an intervening cloud obscures, for a while, his lustre ? Or is the sun in any measure changed?

In reply to a multitude of questions, with which you and others can press Trinitarians on this subject, we may ask ; Because God is omnipotent, does it follow, that the whole of that omnipotence must be every moment exerted? If not, (and who will refuse assent to this,) then why may he not have veiled his glories for a time in the incarnate Saviour, and still retain all his essential perfections, unchanged? Is it too much to say, that he may have done so ? I believe the text in question decides that he did.

I approach such a subject however, with solemn awe; and never feel my own weakness and ignorance more intensely, than while endeavouring to think upon it. The familiar, I had almost said irreverential manner in which some speak and write respecting this mystery, is calculated, I freely acknowledge, to excite painful emotions. On the one hand, it would seem, if we are to credit one mode of representation, that the greatest portion of Christ's humiliation consisted in his having renounced and absolutely laid aside his divinity, during the time of the incarnation; and that as God, in this diminished condition, he did actually expire upon the cross. All the powers of language are exhausted, in order to show how great must be the sufferings and condescension of Christ, in undergoing such a degradation as this. On the other hand; some who revolt from these mistaken representations, verge to the other extreme. Lest they should degrade the divine nature of Christ, they are so careful to separate the human nature from it, that one is compelled to suppose, that the man Jesus had