man, that the Lord Jesus became the effulgence of divine glory, and the visible expression of his essence, as we read in the first of Hebrews:--"who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person;" but because, being divine, he condescended so low as to die, and, as a divine Saviour, has manifested the divine attributes so as the whole of the universe besides could not manifest them. Therefore he is "the image of the invisible GoD, because by him were all things created." So he is here said to be "the first-born of every creature," because "by him were all things created." The terms the first born of every creature," not referring to his priority of existence, but his pre-eminence in dignity.

The term is so employed, again and again, in the Scriptures. If you look, for instance, at the fourth of Exodus and the twenty-second verse, we read, that Moses was directed to say to Pharaoh, when he was sent of GOD, "Thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first-born." Israel being the first-born of Jehovah, not by priority of existence, but by pre-eminence in honor; he having chosen that nation to himself to be to him as the firstborn in Jewish families, pre-eminent in dignity. When our Saviour's coming is predicted again, in the eighty-ninth Psalm, it is still further explained. We have the same use of the term in the twenty-seventh verse; it is said, "Also I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth." The first clause is very usual in the Psalms, but it is amplified and illustrated by the second; "My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth." He being brought low was soon to become the first-born of the Almighty, higher than the kings of the earth. In the same sense, I ap

prehend, it is used in that beautiful passage in the eighth to the Romans, where it is said that believers are predestined "to be confirmed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren❞— preeminent among numbers made like to him by the power of divine grace.

to

In this sense the passage before us is to be taken. Our Saviour is the first-born among creatures, because he was the creator of all things, he having, who was God, condescended to become man, and to suffer, labour, and atone, is worthy that his human nature should be exalted to that just pre-eminence. In this sense the passage seems to me precisely parallel that beautiful passage in the second of Phillipians, and the sixth verse.-"Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." Both of these passages contain the statement that our blessed Saviour is exalted to a pre-eminence above all things, both founded on the same truth, that he was originally divine, and because divine, and thus condescending, therefore now pre-eminent.

These two passages contain, so explicitly, the statement, not merely in terms which might be tortured to mean something else, but in argument which can scarcely be perverted, that upon them alone the Christian might rest, this great truth, that Jesus Christ is incarnate God; and therefore has the enemy done his utmost to pervert their sense; and therefore has he strove to show that they will not bear the sense that Christians have every where ascribed to them.

But let us see how he is obliged to "The form of God," construe it? they tell us, was the exercising a divine commission, as Moses did,

when he taught by divine authority, and wrought miracles to confirm his mission. But is not this a manifest violation of the plain meaning of the words? What authority have we thus to limit the words, “the form of God," to something so exceedingly beneath their natural signification? And besides, if he was not thus in "the form of God," how did he afterwards, as it is said here, make "himself of no reputation; or, as is properly, "divest himself," and empty himself?" They then say, that he divested himself by refusing to assume those splendours that belonged to his divine commission. The terms are changed by them; in the former place it is said, that "the form of God" meant that he executed a divine commission. But if that was the signification of "the form of God," he never divested himself of it, for he executed that divine commission to the last, and he never" emptied" himself of that glory to the end, he taught throughout, to the end he wrought miracles and sustained his form. Then they tell us he took on him the form of a servant,” because he condescended to serve low offices. But is not that a manifest weakening of the terms? He never took on him among men the form of a servant, except as any other meek and humble man might have condescended sometimes to the lowest offices of kindness. But who can say, in his ministry on earth, Jesus ever bore the form-remember, not of a servant in a state like ours, which is free, but the form of a slave, which the word expresses? Besides, they then tell us, that "he was made in the likeness of men," giving to that term, "men," a sense which it has not when it is properly placed. Beyond that, it signifies an ordinary man; whereas, when the word is thus placed, it means generally, and includes all sorts of men, both those in rank and in

common life. Then they say, "being found in the fashion of men, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death." Where was the merit of our Saviour, in humbling himself? How could he humble himself to that from which he could not escape? If he were a man, as man he would die, and there was no merit in his now withdrawing himself from that which it was out of his power to escape from.

But if we might permit the terms to be thus violated, what is the result, and what is the genuine force of the passage, according to their exposition of it? That exposition is this, executing a divine commission, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, that is to assume those splendors which became his divine commission, and to employ them for his own glory. A mode of conduct you observe which our Saviour could not have consented to without the most daring presumption, if he were a mere man, and such a presumption as neither Moses nor Elijah, nor any other of those taught and commissioned of God, thought of assuming. That thus he made himself of no reputation, that is, he took on him the form of a servant; that is he consented to assume offices of lowly kindness, and assume that lowly station from which he could not have departed, having been placed in it by Divine Providence without manifest sin; and then he humbled himself still, and became obedient unto death, from which he could not escape, and voluntarily submitted to the death of the cross with cheerfulness and resignation, enduring the tortures of martyrdom, as hundreds and thousands of our fellow creatures have since, and at other times done. What was the reward of this ordinary service? The reward was, God hath exalted him, and given him a name above heaven (To be continued.)

to show that he is not man, and, consequently, is sufficient to overthrow that hypothesis on which this invention is made, (because no difficulties are removed by supposing he is the nature of some superior creature, the union of the two natures being a far more difficult supposition than the union between our Maker and the things he formed,) still it is not morally asserted that he was created before other things, but the language of scripture generally is as to the supposition of his eternal existence. You will find for instance, in that passage in the Epistle to the Philippians, in which it is said, “who being in the form of GOD," not being made or becoming in the form of GOD, but being so; and in the first chapter of John you read, “In the beginning was the word," not that that word was created. Again you find it said here," He is before all things," and "before Abraham was I am," by which he expresses an eternal existence. So that we are led by the general language of scripture respecting the pre-existence of our Saviour, to look on him as eternal. And does he not in his glory employ the same language by which Jehovah is designated? "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." Is he not then, and must it not be said of him, of whom the apostle says, "That Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," eternal and immutable, that he, and he alone is GOD.

In the Fifth and last place, our text asserts his deity, because it declares that "BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST." To avoid the force of that expression they would give to the term "consist," a sense which they cannot show in a single instance in any author. It is never employed to mean, that is the sense-that in him all things are morally united of the Christian converts. It is true, as we

have shown, that the "all things" cannot be restricted to mean Christian converts alone; it is not true, of the universe at large, that they are morally united in Christ, and consequently it cannot be, even if the words would bear the signification which they ascribe to them; but it is to be taken in that ordinary sense which our translators assign to it. It is, that all things consist,-are sustained in existence by him. In the language of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, He upholdeth all things by the word of his power." But this involves at once the exercise of the attributes of Deity; he who upholds all things has almighty power, is omnipotent, for he must have that which he upholds ; he is omnipresent, for he must be every where present in his own operations.

So that our Lord Jesus is by five distinct assertions in this one passage said to be Jehovah.

I would beg you to add to this consideration, before we dismiss it, this further thought—if the natural sense of this passage, and of the other which I have examined, is, that Jesus Christ is GOD. Nay, if it be its necessary sense-if there be multitudes of other passages which I might easily bring before your notice, by which as naturally are to be understood the deity of Christ, which all point to this truth, that he is indeed divine,—if scripture be a book of inspiration, which they who oppose this great truth also profess to hold, then it must be true that he is GOD. Not true alone because these passages expressly assert it, but true because there is that tone given to this Book of GOD which has led multitudes of the wisest and the most honest men in every age to believe it. Now, if you look at the forty-second of Isaiah, and the eighth verse, you find the Lord has expressly declared

"he will not give his glory to