ments of his glory, fince the afcenfion of Chrift. Or thus, I am the Firft and the Laft, in time" and in dignity; which is yet more glaringly falfe. - For if he be not the First and the Laft, in time; nor the First and the Laft, in dignity; it is doubly falfe to say that he is fo, in both the one and the other.-But our bufinefs here, is not so much with the truth of his words, as with the impreffion they were adapted to make on the minds of the Jews, who were taught by the prophets.. On hearing Jefus repeatedly and folemnly apply this title to himself, they 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 paffing 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 blasphemy.

CHA P. IV.

JESUS CHRIST declared to be Equal with God.

PAUL

AUL afferts, in the plaineft manner, that Jefus "thought it not robbery to be EQUAL. CC. WITH GOD." We fhall fee in the profecution of our subject, the vanity of those evasions to which our adverfaries have recourfe, in ex-. plaining this paffage, fo as to agree with their hypothefis. But, however we understand the text, it must be allowed to attribute to Jefus Chrift fome kind of equality with his Father, who. is confeffedly the true God.

Some,

Some, perhaps, may fay; No conclufion can be drawn from a fingle expreffion; fuch an one, especially, as ought not to be understood in the strictly literal sense: 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 fo many. For it is notorious, that the writings of the Heathens, and especially 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 immenfe diftinction, between God and the creature; by never attributing to the latter, what belongs only to the former: while, in human writings, men are equalled with God, and God is confounded with men.-It is worthy alfo of being remarked, that Paul is the facred penman who uses 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 ambaffador 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 small; 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; becaufe 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 still more on their guard against it; because it was foretold, as a diftinguishing character of the gospeldifpenfation, that the pride of man "fhould be "abafed, and the LORD ALONE exalted."

Though I might here greatly enlarge, I fhall confine myself 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 66 ye liken God? or what likeness will ye com"pare 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 versed 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, because he afferted his likeness to God and equality with him. This was a prodigious offence to men who had heard God

fay,

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 justify 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 fo to have done, for the salvation of men. and the glory of God. Nay, fo far was he from endeavouring to acquit the caufe of his Mafter 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 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 not to queftion 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

muft

must be because they think the apoftle fpake unadvisedly; which fubverts the credit of his writings, and faps the foundation of Christianity itfelf. 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 faw that Chrift was a mere creature; and, on the other, that his disciples 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 apoftle as faying, 'He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, by a metaphor,' is abfurd and ridiculous. Befides, as

before