divine power and wisdom in the miracles he wrought, the instructions he communicated, and in all the evidences he gave of the divinity of his mission.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God. It is agreed by almost all critics, trinitarian as well as unitarian, that the words, equal with God, may be translated with the strictest conformity to grammatical construction, as, or like God. The phrase is thus translated by archbishop Newcome, and Dr. Macknight. Allowing the common version to be admissible, this is thought preferable; because, if Christ be equal with God, there must be two Gods equal in power and majesty, which is contrary to scripture and reason.*

Thought it not robbery; that is, he did not consider this resemblance to God as plunder, or a thing which he had taken by force. He looked upon it as a free gift, conferred by the good pleasure of God. In this consisted his humility. He did not exalt himself, or boast of those possessions and high endowments, which raised him to a likeness with God, as if he had ob tained them by his own exertions, but was humble in his station, unassuming in his deportment, and submitted patiently to many indignities, without any ostentatious display of those powers, by which he might have secured the admiration, the respect and obedience of the world.†

* Wetsten renders a e, ut Deus, like God; and in this he is followed by Macknight, who observes, that Whitby "has proved in the clearest manner, that is used adverbially by the LXX, to express likeness, but not equality." See Macknight on this place. Instar Dei. Rosenmul. et Slicht.

† There is some difficulty in ascertaining the precise meaning of grayμos, because it is not used in any other place in the New Testament, and probably is not to be found in more than one or

With this meaning, which is strictly conformable to the original, the text fills up the place in which it stands, and preserves harmony in the whole passage. Collos. ii. 9. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

The word Godhead means the same as Deity, or God. What is meant by the fulness of God we can ascertain, by comparing this passage with others. In the preceding chapter the apostle says, "For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell." This fulness, then, was something, which he had received from the Father, and consequently was not anytwo instances any where else. It may mean the act of seizing upon any thing for plunder, or booty; or it may mean the thing seized, the plunder, or booty itself. That is, it may be used in an active or passive sense. The latter is generally thought preferable. It may signify, vel rem raptam, vel rem avide diripiendam, et vindicandam. Schleusn, in voc.-Wetsten takes it in this sense, and gives as one reason, Christus nunquam harpagare curavit, nunquam aliquid ab aliquo violenter rapuit. See also Wakefield's Silva Critica, Sect. cxlii. For a more full explanation of this text, see Belsham's Calm Inquiry, second edit. p. 82. Cappe's Critical Remarks, vol. i. p. 228.j

sence.

Professor Stuart translates this text as follows; "Who being in the condition of God, did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire." He gives as a reason why he renders μogon, condition, that this word is sometimes used by metonymy, according to Schleusner, for usis, or ovia, nature, or es But to be in the nature of God, is the same thing as to be God himself. That this cannot be the meaning of the word in the text, is evident, because it is immediately after said, "he made himself of no reputation," literally, "emptied himself," avroP EXEVE, or divested himself of whatever it was, that made him in the form of God, which he could not do, if he were God, or in the nature of God. The idea advanced by professor Stuart, that God might so "veil the brightness of his glories," or so yield up a part of his perfections, as to be said to "empty himself" of them, and

thing, which he possessed as an independent and selfexistent being. In writing to the Ephesians the apostle expressed a desire, "that they might be filled with all the fulness of God," Eph. iii. 19. If we consider it an evidence, that Christ was God, because the fulness of God dwelt in him, why should not the same inference be drawn in regard to the Ephesians?

.

The fulness of God means the abundance of the divine wisdom, gifts, and blessings, conferred by him. The apostle prayed, that these might be multiplied to the Ephesians. In Christ they dwelt bodily, that is, really, truly, substantially, inasmuch as he was endowed with them in a most eminent degree.*

ད ་ བ་

still retain his omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience unimpaired, is one, which few persons, probably, will find sufficiently intelligible to be understood. Nor does he inform us why he chooses, contrary to the opinion of the ablest critics, to render

Ow, by the phrase, equality with God; nor has he attempted to explain how one being could be said to have equality with ano ther, if one were in the same condition, or nature as the other; or, which is the same thing, if both beings constituted the same being.

But there is something further, connected with professor Stuart's explanation of this text, which will probably appear not a little strange to most unitarians. He speaks of a version as being common among them, which he cites in the following words, namely, "He did not think of the robbery of being equal with God." Letters, p. 95. Where he found this translation is not easy to say, but it is certain, if he had taken pains to consult many unitarian expositors, he would never have fallen into so great a mistake, as to think it common among them. After a tolerable acquaintance with most of the unitarian critical expositors, I have never seen this translation in any other place, than professor Stuart's Letters. There are very few unitarians, it is presumed, who will not agree in the results of his laboured criticism to show, that it does not accord with the original.

*Macknight thinks this text has some allusion to the philoso

Trinitarians argue, that certain texts of scripture assign to Christ the attributes of the Deity, and hence they infer, that he is God. It has been seen in the preceding letter, that he asserted, in as positive language as could be used, that he possessed these attributes in a limited degree. Did he speak contradictions? Shall we not rather say, that texts of less obvious import are to be interpreted by those, whose meaning it is impossible not to perceive? Shall we say his knowledge was infinite, when he expressly asserts, that he did "not know the day," in which his prophecy would come to pass? Shall we say his power was infinite, when he declares repeatedly, that "he could do nothing of himself," and that he received all power from the Father? Yet, notwithstanding these assertions, trinitarians insist, that he was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

To prove his omniscience they quote Matt. xi. 27. "All things are delivered unto me of my father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." It is unaccountable, that this text should be cited to prove that Christ has infinite knowledge in himself, when it is said in so

The phrase

the different

phical notions of the time in which it was written. λnę wμœ ©ɛov, fulness of God, was common among sects of philosophers. The Gnostics supposed this fulness to be made up of Æons; the Jews, of angels; and the heathens, of inferior deities. By saying that this fulness dwells in Christ bodily, the apostle would imply, "that the philosophy, which represents angels as greater in power and knowledge than Christ, is false." Macknight on the Epistles, vol. iii. p. 517.

Eaμarixas, bodily, really, truly. Schleus. in voc. Potest hac voce signari non corpus, sed essentia. Hammond. Adnot.

many words, that "all things are delivered unto him of the Father." Whoever attends to the context will find all things here to relate to the gospel dispensation; but to whatever this phrase may relate, it is used in reference to a knowledge, which Christ did not possess of himself, but which he had received from the Father.

John ii. 24. "He knew all men; and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man."

The same divine wisdom, by which he was aided in teaching so perfect a religion to mankind, enabled him also, as a necessary prerequisite, to have a most intimate knowledge of human nature. Whence he derived this knowledge, he tells us in another place; for he says, "My Father hath taught me," and also, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." He consequently received this knowledge of men from the Father. Let such, as do not believe this knowledge to have been derived, answer the question, how a being, who already possessed infinite knowledge, could be taught?

John xxi. 17. "Lord, thou knowest all things."So also it is said in another place of christians in general. 1 John ii. 20. "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." It is evident, therefore, if from this text you infer the omniscience of the Lord Jesus, you must from others infer the same of all christians...

The omnipotence of Christ is supposed to be proved from Phil. iii. 21. "Who shall change our vile body, that it shall be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." Does this