should all fulness dwell." And we cannot suppose the Apostle meant that all Christians should become Gods, when he prays that "they may be filled with all the fulness of God."

And here I desire it to be understood, that, by the scripture quotations under these heads, I do not mean to institute a comparison between the attributes of our Divine Master and those of any among his followers, or those of any inferior nature whatsoever. Because I am persuaded, by the plain representations of scripture, that our Lord Jesus Christ is invested with prerogatives and powers incomparably superior to those of men, and of angels. Who, among the children of men,-who, among the sons of the mighty, may be brought into comparison with him, who hath all all power in heaven and earth given him, and who is truly styled "the image of the invisible God."

The form of Christian baptism cannot properly be understood as bearing testimony to the doctrine of three persons in one God. The Son of God, and the Holy Ghost, are represented in the gospel as great and glorious spirits, to whom is committed the dispensation of the covenant of grace to fallen man. And is it strange that the rite of initiation to that covenant should be performed-first, in the name of God, the Father, the source of that covenant; secondly, in the name of the Son, the anointed Saviour un

der that covenant; and thirdly, in the name of the Holy Ghost, who, under that covenant, is the appointed sanctifier of the people of God?

The form of apostolical benediction is as little to be relied on, in the same view. For as that form does not always take in the three persons of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, so neither is it always confined to them. Rev. i. 4, "John, to the seven churches which are in Asia grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness." If the apostolical benediction taught any thing about the persons in the Godhead, on what principle is it that the number has been fixed at three?

Christ's high office as judge of the world is supposed to ascertain the fact of his supreme Deity. There is one sense in which God himself is judge, and there is another in which the Son of God is judge; and they are both comprehended and explained by the Apostle, when he says, Rom. ii. 16, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ." Remember what he himself said to the disciples, Matt. xix. 28, “Ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve

tribes of Israel." This, doubtless, is to be understood in a sense quite subordinate to the judgment of Christ. But remember also what he hath said of himself-that "all judgment is committed to him" of the Father; and what the Apostle has said of him, that he "is ordained of God to be judge of the quick and the dead." And we may rest assured, that He who hath appointed him to that high, interesting, and glorious office, has given him all powers, has communicated to him all capabilities, necessary to the full and perfect discharge of it. But there is nothing, even in this extraordinary office, which necessarily identifies him with the Father Almighty.

His own words, John xiv. 9," he that hath seen me hath seen the Father," may appear, to superficial readers, to prove the absolute identity of the Father and the Son. But if these words were to be so understood, such an interpretation would not only go to confound the persons, and annihilate that distinction which Trinitarians themselves wish to support, but they would flatly contradict the testimony of Christ himself, when he declares that "no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Besides, the form of expression is clearly analagous to the usual phrase of Christ, "he that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiv

eth me, receiveth him that sent me;" by which expressions we never think of establishing the personal identity of all the parties.

1

The only expression in scripture, which seems to claim for Christ an equality with God, is to be found in Philippians, ii. 6; "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Our Lord's previous and positive disavowal of any such claim might lead us to suspect some inaccuracy in the translation here. The Apostle is exhorting Christians to humility and lowliness of mind, by the example of Christ; and, according to the present rendering, the attitude in which our Lord is presented of claiming equality with God, would seem unfavourable to his argument. But the passage may, without violence, be rendered thus-"thought it not robbery to be like unto God." By this translation, you at once give force to the Apostle's reasoning, and reconcile the expression to the general teaching of scripture. And then the entire passage will run thus: "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 like unto God; nevertheless, made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Wherefore God also hath highly ex

alted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." If it were the doctrine of scripture, or of this passage, that Christ is the supreme God, what meaning would there be in the declarations, that he was " in the form of God?" or, "thought it not robbery to be equal with God?" In what sense could the most high and immutable God "make himself of no reputation," and "become obedient unto death?" Or who is the God that could "exalt him,"-or where was there room for his exaltation, to higher degrees of glory than he always possessed?

The only point, of any weight, that remains to be noticed, is the worship which is alleged to be given to Christ, and which it is thought represents him as the supreme God. I need not remind you that the term worship, as used in the scriptures, does not always mean that adoration which belongs exclusively to the God and Father of all and that its signification is limited and explained by the persons and the objects to whom it is applied. Thus, to give you one or two instances out of many; in Daniel, ii. 46, Nebuchadnezzar " worshipped Daniel;” and in Luke, xiv. 10, the words of Christ himself are, "then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee."