could not but confider him, as ufurping a character peculiar to the eternal JEHOVAH; and, confequently, as guilty of blafphemy. Either, then, the Jews were to blame for oppofing impiety, blafphemy, and idolatry; or they could not avoid pafling fentence of condemnation upon Jefus Chrift, if he fpake as his difciples wrote, and if they have given a true reprefentation of his claims, his language, and his conduct: at leaft, they could not avoid rejecting the gofpel, the preachers of it being fo evidently convicted of blafphemy.

CHAPTER IV.

JESUS CHRIST declared to be Equal with God.

PAUL afferts, in the plainest manner, that Jefus "thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD." We shall fee in the profecution of our fubject, the vanity of those evasions to which our adverfaries have recourse, in explaining this paffage, fo as to agree with their hypothefis. But, however we understand the text, it must be allowed to attribute to Jesus Christ some kind of equality with his Father, who is confeffedly the true God.

Some, perhaps, may fay; No conclufion can be drawn from a fingle expreffion; fuch an one, efpecially, as ought not to be understood in the strictly literal fenfe: because there are examples of a fimilar expreffion, one of which is found in Homer, where it does not fignify a real and proper equality with God.'-To which I reply; It is very unbecoming to produce examples of this kind, from Homer, did he afford ever so many. For it is notorious, that the writings of the Heathens, and efpecially thofe of the poets, abound

with impiety and blafphemies. This confideration enhances the value of the Scriptures. For it is their infeparable characteristic, to maintain a wide, an immense diftinction, between God and the creature; by never attributing to the latter, what only belongs to the former while, in human writings, men are equalled with God, and God is confounded with men. It is worthy also of being remarked, that Paul is the facred penman, who ufes this way of fpeaking; and he, it is well known, is ever careful to exalt the grace of God, and to refer all to his glory. "We have," fays that ambassador of Chrift, "We have this treasure in earthen veffels, that "the excellency of the power may be of God, and not "of us."-Befides, thefe expreffions being of a very peculiar kind, and fuch as do not readily come into a perfon's thoughts, plainly intimate, that he had a particular defign in penning them. But here, perhaps, they may be hyperbolical.' If they be, they intrench on the glory of God. When, upon ftrict examination, we have nothing to object against an hyperbole, but its want of truth, the fault is comparatively fmall; but there should be no reafon to charge it with being impious and blafphemous. Thus, for inftance, the Scripture never fays; That a man is as good, as wife, or as powerful, as God; because fuch expreffions and fuch comparisons are impious, and pregnant with blafphemy. This evil, the writers of the Old Teftament have avoided with remarkable care; and they who penned the New, ought to have been ftill more on their guard against it; because it was foretold as a diftinguishing character of the gofpel difpenfation, that the pride of man "fhould "be abafed, and the LORD ALONE exalted."

Though I might here greatly enlarge, I fhall confine myfelf to the following confiderations.-God had repeatedly and folemnly declared, by the prophets, That there is." none like him." For thus it is written: "To whom, then, will ye liken God? or what likeness "will ye compare unto him?-To whom, then, will

ye liken me, or fhall I be equal, faith the Holy "One-To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like??? Thefe expreffions were intended, and well adapted, to confound idolatry; and the truth contained in them was made by JEHOVAH the grand principle of his religion; which Paul could not but know, being well verfed in the ancient oracles. But though he hears, understands, and reveres that voice from heaven which demands, "To whom will ye liken me? To whom "will ye make me equal?" yet he boldly afferts, Jefus "thought it not robbery to be EQUAL with God.". Again: The apoftle could not but know the ground, or, if you will, the pretence, on which Chrift was condemned by the Jews; that is, becaufe he afferted his likeness to God and equality with him. This was a prodigious offence to man who had heard God fay, by his prophets; "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal?" Paul does what he can to convert the Jews to the Chriftian faith; yet he never attempts to juftify the religion of Jefus, from the charge of equalling a creature with the Creator; though, on the principles of our opponents, it was highly neceffary for him so to have done, for the falvation of men and the glory of God. Nay, fo far was he from endeavouring to acquit the cause of his Master from fuch a charge, that he roundly afferts, Jefus "thought it not robbery to be EQUAL with God;" which is the very thing for which the Jews were fo offended with Chrift, and on account of which they confidered him as deferving judgment of death. But can it be fuppofed that he who rent his garments when he was taken for Mercury, who was a fubordinate god among the heathens; can it, I fay, be fuppofed, that this very man fhould equal a mere creature with the INFINITE GOD? If he does, his hyperboles, furely, must be very edifying, and peculiarly well-timed! And does it not highly become him to fet

66

G

up for an orator, at the expence of piety and the glory

of God?

The language of the apoftles, in other places, is an infallible comment on thefe expreffions. For they not only apply the name, GoD, to their crucified Saviour; but they annex the fame ideas to it, which were affixed to the character of JEHOVAH, by the ancient prophets. Seeing, then, the apoftles give fuch titles to Chrift as could not belong to him, if he were not a Divine Perfon and equal with the Father; we ought to question but Paul here ufes the term equal, in a proper and literal fenfe.--Further: Either thefe expreffions are adopted by Chriftians, or they are not. If the latter, it must be because they think the apoftle fpake unadtifedly; which fubverts the credit of his writings, and faps the foundation of Chriftianity itself. If the former, then we may fafely conclude, that the other apoftles fpake after the fame manner. And if fo, we appeal to our adverfaries, Whether the Jews, who heard them fpeak thus, are not to be juftified in calling them blafphemers? when, on the one part, they saw that Chrift was a mere creature; and, on the other, that his difciples afferted his equality with God.

When Jehovah fays, " To whom will ye liken me?" he does not mean to exclude a refemblance of analogy; for as he exifts, thinks, and acts, fo do rational creatures: but his defign is to exclude a refemblance of equality. Now the one, or the other of thefe, must be intended in the text before us. Not the former; for if you afcribe to Chrift a refemblance of analogy only, you attribute nothing to him, but what may be affirmed of angels, of faints, and of men in common: and yet / neither Gabriel, nor Paul, nor any man living, could fay, I think it not robbery to be equal with God,' without being guilty of blafphemy. It muft, therefore, be a resemblance of equality, which is here attributed to Jefus Chrift, according to the natural fenfe of the term. But though the meaning of the adjective equal,

be fometimes well expreffed by the word like; as when God fays, "Who is like to me?" Yet, when the term like, is taken for refembling, or conformable, it is never expreffed by the word equal.-Nor is that equality, which is here attributed to Chrift, metaphorical. For to confider the apostle as faying, 'He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, by a metaphor,' is abfurd and ridiculous. Befides, as before observed, thofe figures are impious, which convey an idea contrary to the glory of God.

As the Jews were not culpable for fpeaking like other men, especially like their own prophets, who instructed them; fo they are not to be blamed for concluding, that none can be faid to be "equal with "God," except he be God, or except he wrong God. Nor could they help thinking, that the apoftles cordially approved of fuch language concerning Jefus Chrift: for if not, why did they use it? But they explain ◄ themfelves, on other occafions. Suppofing they did, this propofition; Jefus, a mere creature, thinks it not robbery to be equal with God;' would ftill be impious. Befides, by fuch explanations they would pull down with one hand, what they build with the other.

To conclude; If Jefus be not equal with God, it must be a fin to think that he is; and if fo, why should any one affert it? To what end were thofe expreffions needful? To the glory of God? No; they dishonour the Deity. To exalt Jefus Chrift? But cannot he be exalted without fetting him on a level with God? Was it to fhew the accomplishment of the ancient oracles? But they frequently declare, that there is only one God, and that nothing is like him. Was it to edify men? But is it poflible for men to be edified, by hearing of a creature, of one that owes his being to Divine power, and his bleffedness to Divine favour, being exalted to an equality with his Maker? Peter and Paul were not only the difciples, but alfo the amboffalors of