in essential and inherent attributes. He took the form of a servant, literally, a slave. If being in the form of God, necessarily meant being God, so taking the form of a slave, must mean that he became a slave, which was not a fact. "Being in the likeness of man, and formed in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient even unto death," so far as to die obedient to God, of course, 66 even the death of the cross." The cross was the lowest punishment, and the most vile and infamous; only inflicted on slaves, and the meanest and most degraded of mankind. "Therefore God hath highly exalted him." What language is this? The second Person of the Trinity die on the cross! The second Person of the Trinity exalted by God in consequence of his obedience! Here must be some mistake. "And given him a name that is above every name." Can God give God a name? "that at the name," literally, "in the name of Jesus. every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The homage done to Christ, cannot, of course, be supreme, because it is given by the command and authority of a higher power, and obedience to that command will redound to the honor of that higher power, namely, God the Father. If it were given to him as supreme, it would derogate from the glory of God.

The explanation, then, of this passage, which interprets it to mean an incarnation, is encompassed with many inextricable difficulties, any one of which is totally insurmountable. What then does it mean ?

Let the same humble disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who when he was here on earth, though clothed with the power, and endowed with the wisdom of God, did not assume an external dignity and state corresponding to his endowments, but assumed an appearance lowly and humble as a slave. He humbled himself still farther. He not only was subject to all the sufferings of humanity, but consented to die upon the cross, that most ignominious of deaths, in obedience to the will of God. But those sufferings have been the means of his exaltation. They made him the head of the new dispensation, and caused him to be regarded with reverence, not only by the whole Christian church, but by the inhabitants of the invisible world. "God raised him from the dead," as the same Apostle says in another place, "and set him at his own right hand, far above all principality and power, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come."

There is another passage nearly parallel to this in the eighth chapter of Second Corinthians: "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, that ye, by his poverty, might be made rich." This, like the other, has been carried back before the birth of Christ, and interpreted to mean that he was rich in a state of preexistent glory; that he renounced those riches, and came into this poor state of existence, that he might enrich his followers.

But the same objection lies against this, as against the other interpretation. We have no authority for

carrying back the phrase, "our Lord Jesus Christ,” before the birth of Jesus; and if so, such an interpretation falls immediately to the ground. As Jesus never was rich, in a literal sense, so he could not become poor, in a literal sense. It can refer therefore only to his choice of a life of poverty and privation, in preference to a life of affluence and splendor. He who could feed five thousand with a few loaves and fishes, could not want anything. He who could call up the hidden treasures of the deep to pay his tribute to the temple, must have voluntarily chosen to pass through life with not where to lay his head. The word rendered "became poor," has not any change of condition as its primitive and general meaning, but rather to live in a condition of poverty. The meaning therefore is, that Jesus Christ chose to live among men in a condition of poverty and destitution, when he had the means of assuming a more affluent condition. That riches, in this case, does not mean absolute wealth, is likewise gathered from what comes after: "That ye by his poverty might be made rich;" not rich in this world's goods, but in spiritual possessions.

There is another text, which would have a bearing on the subject of this lecture, were the reading in our common Bibles the true one. It is in First of Timothy, third chapter, sixteenth verse. "God was manifested in the flesh, justified of the spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up in glory." But as it happens, nothing is more uncertain than the reading of this verse. There are three different ways in which this appears in

ancient manuscripts of the Bible. The best authenticated, and that for which there is the greatest amount of evidence, is, "He, who was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit." The next reading, in amount of authority is, "Great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh." The whole Roman Catholic Church, all over the world, knows no other reading than this, as you may see any day you choose to examine a Catholic Bible. The least authority is in favor of our common reading, "God was manifested in the flesh." Griesbach, the best authority upon this subject, in his critical edition of the New Testament, has, "He who was manifested in the flesh." This reading agrees best with the general drift of the passage. say that God was justified in the spirit, or that he was seen of angels, any more when in a state of incarnation, than when in a purely spiritual state; nor does it agree with the attributes of God, to say that he, who cannot change place, was received up in glory. All these things were true of Christ, considered as the sent of God, which is the meaning, if we receive as the true reading, "He who."

It does not make good sense to

Many Christians imagine that the incarnation may be proved from one of the first sentences of Christ's prayer with his disciples. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the world was." But this prayer, instead of favoring the doctrine of the Trinity, is directly against it. According to the Trinitarian hypothesis, the only part of Christ which could have

existed before the world, was his divine nature, and his divine nature was God, or a Person of the Trinity, possessing all divine attributes. An equal person of the Trinity could not have received glory from GOD before the world was, could not have received glory at all. But what makes it still worse for Trinitarianism, he prays, as the Son, "Glorify thy Son;" he identifies himself with the Son, and as the Son he prays; "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." The Father, then, to whom he prays, is not a Person of a Trinity, but the whole Deity, the only true God; and the Son prays for a glory which he had with the only true God before the world was. Here, then, is the Son shut out of Deity by his own words. No Trinitarian, of course, will admit that the Son received glory from the only true God before the world was. We are driven out of the Trinitarian exposition, and but one explanation remains, that no incarnation is meant or implied in the case. Christ prays, is that which was Messiah, before the world was; that is, the glory of redeeming and saving the world. And this makes it consistent with what comes after, his saying that he imparts this glory to his disciples. "And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given them," that is, of saving mankind. By the same figure, we are said to have been" chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world." If we insist on interpreting figures literally, not only Christ existed before the foundation of the world, but we his followers. If such language

The glory, for which destined for him as the