the places cited, they read, power on earth to forgive fins, and justly according to the proper conftruction of the original *. For the words denote a real power, even in his state of humiliation, to forgive fins, because he is really God. Nor do we find that the word rendered forgive, ever occurs in the fenfe of "remitting the temporal penalties of fin." Our author, indeed, quotes two other paffages at the foot of the page, in fupport of his doctrine, Matth xviii. 18. 1 Thef. i. 10. The first of these, "Whatsoever ye loofe on earth fhall be loofed in heaven," refers not to temporal penalties, but to the fpiritual difcipline of the church; which, when agreeable to the will of God, is confirmed by him. But does our author wish us to conclude, from his quoting this text, that he grants no more power to Chrift, than to minifters of the gospel, or church-officers; that Chrift does not really relax men from the guilt of fin, but only from the scandal of it, which excludes them from the fellowship of the church? The other," Jefus, who delivered us from the wrath to come," is rather against him than otherwife. For the apofle speaks of this deliverance as a past event: whereas, according to our author's doctrine, it could only be a future one, because "men are delivered from the wrath to come by a refurrection." Paul could not be in this fenfe delivered when he wrote that epiftle. Therefore, the deliverance here meant must be fomething previous to this, even by the merit of the blood, and by the power of the Spirit of Chrift. But though we fhould grant this new explanation to the Doctor, what will he make of it? Indeed, it will by no means prove what he wishes to demonstrate,--that Jefus had not this power till he came to heaven. For, as he has changed the order in which we find these words in the gospels, to fuit his purpofe,..." Jefus had power to forgive fins on earth," he would alfo need to arrange his own words anew, and to make them run, agreeable to the true and natural order of the former, Jefus in heaven had power to forgive fins." For, as they prefently ftand, they imply fomething very different from what he means,---that there are not only fins on earth to be forgiven, but fins in heaven alfo:" He had power to "forgive fins in heaven." This, indeed, is a new discovery, but a very neceffary one * Επι της γης αφιέναι αμαρτίας. according according to our author's doctrine; for if ever the Doctor's penitent faints, who depend fo very little on the merit of Christ, get to heaven, you may be affured they will carry a very confiderable portion of their fins along with them; unlefs he confent to confign them over to purgatory, for at leaft a thousand years, by the way. P. 303-306. Our author, like all the Socinians, in order to avoid the force of the argument for the Deity of Christ, derived from the ascription of the work of creation to him in fcripture, understands all these paffages of the new creation. To this he applies, Eph. iii. 9. He gives a detached view of the words, which would lead to an unjust apprehenfion of their scope. The meaning of the apoftle is not, that God created all things by Jefus Chrift, for the purpofe of making known the manifold wifdom of God to principalities and povers: but this is reprefented as his defign in making all men fee what is the fellowship of the mystery. It is moft natural to understand these words of the first creation, becaule he is immediately fpeaking of the beginning of the world, when God created all things; and this Paul contrafts with the time when he wrote by the particle now. How all things in heaven*, which he understands of angels, were created by Chrift in this fenfe, the author will find very hard to prove. For they did not need to be created in righteousrefs and holiness, or to be reconciled to God or to one another; and if their reconciliation to fallen man be called a creation, it is a moft uncommon ufe of language. He makes the fubjection of angels the confequence of Christ's entrance into heaven, "Since he is gone into heaven, angels, &c. are "made fubject to him. By his exaltation he is become the "headofall principalities and powers."If he mean that the angels were not fubject to Chrift before his exaltation, he undoubtedly denies his divinity.But even this plan of avoiding the force of the argument from creation will not serve the purpose. For if the new creation be really fuch as the author defcribes it, none but a divine Perfon can accomplish it. If it be to "caufe light to fhine out of darkness, to "bring order out of confufion," it is a divine work: for it is God who "commanded the light to fhine out of darkness." If it be to "restore harmony and peace where there had "been Col. i. 16. + Pet. iii. 22. been inveterate enmity." This is his work alfo: "I create, faith the Lord, the fruit of the lips, peace." re P. 412. l. 413. Another of the texts which prove the divinity of Chrifts he endeavours to fet afide by a fophiftical glofs. This is 2 Cor. viii. 9. "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift, that though he was rich, yet for our "fakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich." Here it is afferted, that he was rich. In what fenfe?" He renounced all thofe private advantages "which are counted moft dear and most valuable among "men." Again, "In the midft of divine riches, when he "had every thing in his power, he chose to fuftain all the "inconveniencies of worldly poverty.' 27 It is evident from the words, that the riches which are attributed to Chrift, belonged to him in the fame fenfe with the poverty to which he fubmitted; that is, even in regard to the good things of this world: but as man, he could never nounce thofe private advantages" in a proper fenfe, becaufe he never poffeffed them. He did not, in this refpect become poor any time after his birth; for he was born in a ftate of the moft abject poverty, and " had not where to lay his head," fave in a manger. This expreffion, became poor, will not, according to any rules of language, apply to a contentment with poverty, as oppofed to feeking riches never poffeffed. It can only mean fuch a renunciation as implied a former poffeffion.But perhaps, it may refer to the "divine riches" mentioned by our auther. By this, I fuppofe, he means his divine powers and endowments. But the expreffion respects his miracles, which feems to be the highest fenfe which he admits. It could as little be faid, that in this refpect he became poor; for he never divested himself of them either in reality, or altogether in appearance, whether during life, or at his death. In the garden he ftruck his enemies to the ground by a word. On the cross, he faved one of his fellow-fufferers from eternal death, and beftowed on him a title to life everlasting; he covered the fun with darknefs, rent the rocks in pieces; and, in the very article of death, contrary to the ordinary courfe of nature, cried out with a loud voice. Though thefe powers were never employed to procure accommodation to himself, or to ward off calamity, but were al"ways facredly appropriated to the glory of his Father, " and Р "and the benefit of man*:" this will not prove that he became poor. For a perfon can with no propriety be faid to become poor, because he does not apply that to his own ufe, which is entrusted to him for the glory or interest of others, because he does not " arrogantly feize and retain to himfelf," or "regard as his prey or booty, as an acquisition "of his own, and for his own ufe," what must be confider ed as "the gift of God, to be employed only for his glo46 ry +." But this is the fenfe in which the Doctor views Chrift's divine riches. The moft that could be faid of a perfon in this fituation, for example, a steward to some great man, is, that he continued poor, though he had an opportunity of enriching himself by embezzlement or depredation. But it could never be faid, that he became poor for this would imply that he was once in fact rich.-Thus the expreffion before us cannot be viewed in any of these fenfes which our author endeavours to put upon it: for he is fatisfied that you should take it in any fenfe you please, provided you do not afcribe too much to the Son of God. There is only another that it can bear,--that he was really rich before he became poor; that he, by virtue of his divine nature, effentially poffeffed all the riches of God; or, in other words, was "the heir of all things." Nor did he properly lay afide these riches; for the expreffion is very remarkable §, being rich, he became poor; he drew a veil over his riches by a voluntary poverty. The words properly fignify, that he might ftill be faid to be rich, with refpect to his divine, notwithstanding the real poverty of his human nature. P. 414. &c. He makes a vain effort to extract all the fpirit from that glorious declaration of the Deity of our Lord, contained in Phil. ii. 6. &c. His being in the form of God, he applies to his ftate on earth;---" as he certainly was here below, being Immanuel, God manifeft in the fleft. But it is undeniable, that the word form here denotes, not a mere resemblance, as the author infinuates, by using the expreffion---"Godlike power," but the real ftate of God; for it muft certainly be taken in the fame fenfe in which it is ufed in the next verfe. If the form of God fignify only a refemblance of the divine nature, then the form of a fervant * P. 412. l. 10. πλούσιος ων, + P. 4x4. 1. 3. can Heb. i. 2. § Επτοχευσί ar can fignify nothing more; and thus our author falls into the error of thofe ancient heretics, the Apollinarians, who afferted that Chrift had only the appearance of human nature. According to this reafoning, he will deprive us of a Saviour altogether. He takes away his divine nature, and his doctrine confequentially bereaves us of his human nature. He thought it no robbery to be equal with God. This he tranflates, did not hold it for a prey to be as God. "The "meaning is, he did not arrogantly feize and retain to "himself those Godlike powers and honours which he poffeffed, or was entitled to," &c. Here the difpute is, concerning the meaning of the Greek phrafe, rendered in our version," thought it no robbery." What is tranflated thought he renders held, and explains of "rogantly feizing;" ufing the word in the fenfe of grafping any thing as a prey. But this word, though it occurs frequently in the New Teftament, is never used in this fenfe, but always fignifies to think, to fuppofe, to reckon, or account. So it is used in this very chapter, ver. 27. " I fuppofed it neceffary."--The expreffiont, rendered equal with God, is by him tranflated, to be as God. By this view he evidently restricts it to the manifeftation of the glory of God in Chrift as man. Thus he grinds it down to the fignification of mere resemblance. But we find not one inftance of this ufe of the word by profane authors t. Nor does it ever occur in this fenfe in the New Teftament. It, indeed, fignifies an equality in different refpects, fuch as quantity, nature, truth; but it ftill fignifies a real equality, and not a mere refemblance. It denotes the equality of the reward given to all the labourers, Thou haft made them equal unto us," Matth. xx. 12. It fignifies a perfect agreement. So it is used to denote the want of this in the teftimony of the falfe witneffes against Christ, Mark xiv. 56, 59. Their witneffes agreed not together." This is the word ufed to exprefs the estimation which the Jews formed of Christ's language, when he called God his Father, John v. 18. Making himfelf equal with God." Thus, our tranflators have certainly hit upon the true meaning of the word," He did not efteem it robbery to be really e"equal * Ηγεομαι. P 2 |