I find little or nothing to 'object to' in this exposition, from pp. 161-163 inclusively, of 'Phil'. ii. 8, 9. And yet I seem to feel, as if a something that should have been prefixed, and to which all these considerations would have been excellent seconds, were missing. To explain the Cross by the necessity of sacrificial blood, and the sacrificial blood as a type and 'ante'-delegate or pre-substitute of the Cross, is too like an 'argumentum in circulo'. Ib. p. 164. And though Christ be the eternal Son of God, and the natural Lord and heir of all things, yet 'God hath' in this 'highly exalted him' and given 'him a name which is above every name, that at' (or in [Greek: en]) 'the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven', &c.--Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11. Never was a sublime passage more debased than by this rendering of [Greek: en] by 'at', instead of 'in';--'at' the 'phenomenon', instead of 'in' the 'noumenon'. For such is the force of 'nomen', name, in this and similar passages, namely, 'in vera et substantiali potestate Jesu': that is, [Greek: en lógô kaì dià lógou], the true 'noumenon' or 'ens intelligibile' of Christ. To bow at hearing the 'cognomen' may become a universal, but it is still only a non-essential, consequence of the former. But the debasement of the idea is not the worst evil of this false rendering;--it has afforded the pretext and authority for un-Christian intolerance. Ib. p. 168. 'The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son'.--John v. 22. Should the Father judge the world he 'must' judge as the maker and sovereign of the world, by the strict rules of righteousness and justice, and then how could any sinner be saved? (Why? Is mercy incompatible with righteousness? How then can the Son be righteous?) But he has committed judgment to the Son, as a mediatory king, who judges by the equity and chancery of the Gospel.