higher than the flesh, He had His Being elsewhere. Next, He is said to be éri Távтwv, over all;' as John the Baptist said of Him (John iii. 31). He that cometh from above is above all.' The very same epithet (éπi Távτwv) is applied, Eph. iv. 6, to God the Father; nor can we conceive it to be of less significance than that similar title of God, (by OTOS) 'the Most High.' Next comes the name, (cos) God, which is in every manuscript and every version. Lastly, the whole is concluded by the words Blessed for ever,' a phrase which is a translation, or paraphrase of a well known Jewish form used only in speaking of the Almighty: (wire)'.

Again, in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, ver. 9, St. Paul says of Christ, that in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.' The Gnostics made a fulness (pleroma) of numerous Æons, or emanations from God, and one of these emanations they believed to dwell in Jesus. The Apostle says, however, that it was no single on, no mere emanation from God: but the whole Pleroma, the fulness of God, dwelt in him bodily2.

The first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, besides ascribing Creation and Providence to the Son of God, besides saying that all the Angels should worship Him, distinctly applies to Him the name of God. It is thus the Apostle quotes the Psalms: To the Son He saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for

1 All MSS. all VSS. have the verse entire. All the fathers have it, except that in Cyprian, Hilary, and Leo it is referred to without còs. Such an exception will be very far from invalidating the reading; but Erasmus observes that without eeòs, the verse would still prove the Divinity. See the passage fully considered-Pearson, p. 132; Waterland, Vol. I. p. 133; Middleton, On the Article, in loc.; Magee, On Atonement, Vol. I. p. 91. The Arian interpretation, which would make the latter part of the verse a doxology to the Father, is considered and refuted very fully by Bp. Middleton.

2 See Whitby on this passage. His Notes on the Colossians are very good.

ever and ever.' And again, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth."

Let us next take the important passage in the Epistle to the Philippians (ii. 5-9). The Apostle exhorts the Philippians to humility by the example of the incarnate Son of God. 'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' There are two ways in which this passage, or at least one phrase of it (oυx ȧρπаyμòv nynσaro), may be translated; one, as in our version; the other (as Origen, Novatian, and many after them have interpreted it) 'did not pique Himself on this His dignity;' or, 'did not covet and earnestly desire to be so honoured'.' It does not appear that one of these renderings is more calculated to weaken the force of the passage than the

1ος ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ, ἀλλ ̓ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, μορφὴν δούλου λάβων, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν, γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι Oavárov, lavárov dè σravρoù. 'Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; (or, did not parade, covet, or pique Himself on the being equal with God) but emptied Himself (of His glory) by taking the form of a servant, (and that) by being made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' The participles express the manner in which the actions of the verbs were effected. He, being in the form of God, emptied Himself of His divine glory. How? Why, by taking the form of a servant. And how did He take the form of a servant? By being made in the likeness of men. And then, being no longer in the glory of God, but in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself. How? By becoming obedient unto death.

Hence it appears that, as He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to death, so He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, and He took the form of a servant by being made man. The taking the form of a servant then, was the becoming man, the assuming human nature: 'the

other. Both of them are intelligible, if we admit that St. Paul is speaking of Christ as God; both unintelligible on every other hypothesis.

The Arians indeed interpret the 'being in the form of God," not as though it meant being in the nature of God,' but as though it were intended to signify that Christ, before His incarnation, acting under the old Testament, as God's Angel, and Messenger, represented and personated God; and so might be said to be in the form of God. They would therefore explain it, that Christ having been sent as God's messenger, and permitted to personate and represent God, yet did not arrogate to Himself to be equal with God.' But it must be observed, that if this were the right sense of the passage, then also the phrase 'taking the form of a servant' should mean, not the becoming really man, but merely personating or appearing in the semblance of a man; which sense of the passage might be correct, if the writer had been a Gnostic; not, as it was St Paul. But as the taking on Him the form of a servant' must mean that He was truly man; so the 'being in the form of God' must mean that He was truly God. It must be observed again, that, as the Apostle distinctly tells us, that Christ took the form of a servant by being made in the likeness of men; it is therefore quite plain that, before He was made in the likeness of men, He was not in the form of a servant. all created beings is not in the form of a servant? the uncreated God, is not a servant of God?

But who of

Who, but

If then Christ

form of a servant' was the nature of man. It follows, that the 'form of God' was the nature of God.

It must be admitted that οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, is an unusual expres sion; but to the interpretation 'did not make a parade of, or pique Himself on the being equal with God,' the few parallel expressions which are to be found seem most favourable.

On the whole passage see Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, Macknight, Rosenmüller, Middleton, in loc., Suicer, s. v. áprаypòs; Pearson, On the Creed, p. 122, fol.; Waterland, Vol. II. Serm. v. p. 89.

was, before His incarnation, not a servant, nor in the form of a servant; then, before His incarnation, He must have been God.

6

The passage then requires us to interpret it as follows. Take, for your example of humility, Jesus Christ. He, being in the form and nature of God, thought it not robbery to be (or, piqued not Himself on being) equal with God; but emptied Himself of His Divine glory, inasmuch as He, being Lord of all, yet assumed the form of a servant, by being made in likeness of men; and when He was thus found in fashion no longer as God, but as man, He humbled Himself yet further, by becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.'

In the famous passage in 1 Tim. iii. 16, we read, ‘God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.' It is indeed true that there are three readings of the first word, which is in our version God. Yet of these three readings the authority of MSS. is immensely in favour of that commonly received; and even if either of the others were the true reading, which is not for a moment to be admitted as probable, the context implies the Deity of Him of whom they speak'.

1 Dr Berriman (Crit. Dis. on 1 Tim. iii. 16) specifies ninety-one MSS. which read còs. The reading of the Alexandrian is doubted, but it is almost proved that it was eeòs. See Nolan, On the Greek Vulgate, pp. 285, 512, (Lond. 1815). There is a similar doubt concerning the reading of the Codex Ephrem. (Griesbach's C.) whether the reading was originally ős Οι Θεὸς, If we except these, only F, G, 17, 73 of Griesbach's have the reading ős, and only one (D, the Codex Claromontanus) has the reading ő, (see Griesbach, in h. 1.). It is well known that the way in which the one reading may have been substituted for the other was this. In the uncial MSS. (or MSS. written with capital letters) Ocòs was written thus, OC. This has but two strokes of difference from OC, i. e. os, a transcriber might have omitted these strokes inadvertently. If the change was intentional, it is most probable that OC was altered to OC from fear of Sabellianism, and from supposed resemblance to Col. i. 26, 27, (See Nolan, p. 281).

There is another passage, in Acts xx. 28, which I couple with the last, because here too the reading is in doubt. St. Paul exhorts the elders of Ephesus 'to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood'.' So strongly does this speak, and so plainly assert the Deity of Christ, that the fathers, as early as Ignatius, who was a contemporary of the Apostles, considered themselves sanctioned by these words to use the remarkable expressions, the blood of God,' and, 'the passion of God."

St. Peter (2 Pet. i. 1) speaks of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ;' St. Jude, of our only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ,' Jude 4. Compare Eph. v. 5; 2 Thess. i. 12;

Tit. ii. 13.3

Lastly, St. John (1 John v. 20) distinctly calls Jesus Christ

'the true God.'

We are in Him that is true, even in His

Son Jesus Christ. This (ouros) is the true God, and eternal life.' The pronoun this' (ouros), in all propriety of speech, should refer to the last antecedent, Jesus Christ. Hence, literally and grammatically, the passage teaches, that Christ is the true God. But also the context shews that it is of Him, and not of the Father, that St. John makes this statement. Our Lord is called by Himself, and by His Apostle St. John, 'the

1 coù is the reading of Cod. Vat. and seventeen other MSS., two of the Peschito, Vulg. Æthiop. Athanasius, Tertullian, &c. Kupíov is the reading of Cod. Alex. Bezæ: and fourteen others. Copt. Sahid. Armen. Eusebius, &c. The fathers' authority is greatly for the first. The three readings Θεοῦ, Κυρίου, and Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ, are nearly equally supported by MSS. The VSS. in number are nearly equal for coû and Kupíov; those of greater authority favour coû.

The phrase 'Ekkλŋσía тоû Оeoù occurs eleven times in St Paul's writings, Εκκλησία τοῦ Κυρίου, never. See also Bp. Middleton in loc.; Burton's Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 15.

2 Ignat. ad Ephes. I. μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ, ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ. 3 This is, of course, assuming Mr Granville Sharp's Canon on the Article to be established. See Middleton, Pt. I. ch. III. Sect. IV. § 2; and upon the five passages quoted and referred to in the text; also Waterland, Vol. 11. p. 128.