"thought it not robbery to be equal with God" which they interpret, whether justly or not I shall not now inquire, did not eagerly catch at, or was not eager to maintain, the idea of any likeness to God, or equality with God," but made himself of no reputation;" that is, say they, made himself poor, or reduced himself to a state of poverty and meanness ;" and took upon him the form of a servant," which word they interpret slave, because, if the term servant stood, it is plain there could be no instance of condescension; they therefore consider him as subjecting himself to the abject state of a slave ;" and was made in the likeness of man," which, say they, is like common men, not distinguishing himself by outward distinctions, but placing himself on a level with the meanest part of mankind;—" and, being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Now this is the interpretation of those who would set aside the pre-existence of Christ in a state of majesty previously to his entrance into our world, and the obvious argument that hence results in favour of condescension from the pre-eminent dignity and glory of the Saviour. But let us consider whether this interpretation can possibly stand, consistently with the pre-requisites we have before mentioned; whether the instances here adduced can possibly exhibit any striking example of condescension on the part of the Saviour. 66 Being in the form of God," on the supposition of its meaning his being possessed of miraculous powers, must be the only elevation he possessed above common men. This was his great distinction; but this he never laid aside. Here, therefore, instead of his conduct exhibiting a great example of condescension, the station he occupied he never came down from; he never lost it for a moment; for the exercise of miraculous powers continued through the whole of his ministry with increasing splendour and advantage. With respect to the translation I have adverted to, and which I shall not now combat, because the requisite criticisms appear to me very unfit for a popular assembly; let us take it that he did not eagerly catch it, or was not eager to maintain, his equality and likeness to God, still I affirm that this is not an instance of condescension, because there is upon creatures a forcible obligation not to contend for equality with God and although it would be extremely criminal not to comply with it, yet there can be no high degree of virtue in abstaining from so atrocious a degree of guilt. For a subject to refrain from assuming the dignity of sovereign would excite no admiration; no one would think of highly praising his virtue because he did not raise a standard of rebellion against his sovereign. In proportion to the force of the obligation to abstain from such pretensions, in the same degree is such conduct considered only in a negative way; that is, as exempted from censure, but not entitled highly to praise; in some cases, indeed, not at all. But the apostle brings it as a proof of condescension and humility, that Christ Jesus did not eagerly affect, as they say, an equality with God, or did not catch at it. How can that be an instance of condescension? The example must surpass, I apprehend, all human comprehension. "But made himself of no reputation," or, as

the expression literally is, emptied himself. Emptied himself of what? And, it is added, "took upon him the form of a servant." We might suppose that his emptying himself must mean his divesting himself, as the expression signifies, of something before possessed, of some distinction and glory before mentioned; and the only one, even in the esteem of our adversaries, is the form of God; but, upon their supposition, he did not empty himself of it at all; he retained it; for, during his whole ministry he exercised miraculous powers, and never more so than in the resurrection of Lazarus, which immediately preceded and accelerated his death. But, the text says, "he made himself of no reputation:" you may suppose that the writer is going to tell us for what reason he took upon himself the form of a servant. Here, the "form of God" being mentioned before, it is manifest that the "form of a servant" is the intended antithesis. But, upon the supposition of Jesus Christ having no existence before he came into our world, there can be no interpretation given to it, unless we interpret servant, slave, and suppose that he degraded himself to the service of a common slave. But if Jesus Christ acted the part of a slave, or sustained the character of a slave, it must be either in relation to God or to man. With respect to men, it is manifest he did not act the part of a slave, he never sustained that capacity at all, much less took upon him that character permanently; he never was in captivity: it was not then his relation to society. With respect to his Heavenly Father, it cannot be supposed that it can be applied to his service to God; nothing can be so absurd: no service which the Divine Being can be supposed to prescribe to an accountable creature, can be viewed in a degrading light. And where is there any example of the term slave signifying a very mean servant of God? Are not the angels themselves styled the servants of God? Does not Paul call himself the servant of God? Does not the angel in the Apocalypse style himself the fellow-servant of John? Would our very adversaries themselves so exceedingly disfigure the language of Scripture as to style these the slaves of God? What can it then be for, but to answer a purpose perfectly palpable, without being at the same time able to assign any just and proper meaning to the term? "And was made in the likeness of men :" here it is represented as an act of great condescension in our Saviour that he was made in the likeness of men; but how could he assume any other appearance than that of a man? how could he fail to appear in that character, with no other attribute belonging to him than that of a human being? "Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Now, these expressions evidently are intended to introduce a proof of our Saviour's great condescension and humility; but none of them answer this purpose in the least degree, but on the supposition of there being some previous dignity or rank from which he descended. There is no contrast on the supposition of mere humanity, between this and the previous state; there is no forcible or palpable opposition between what he became and what he was: he always was a servant, he always was

in the likeness of man, could be nothing but man; and yet his being so is represented as a marvellous instance of condescension and humility in the Redeemer! On the supposition that Jesus Christ did not exist before he came into our world, the order of things is inverted; for the dignity of our Saviour, his elevation, came afterward, upon this supposition, and his depression came first: he had no elevation of an earthly kind at all from which he could condescend, and he is the greatest example, if he were no more than man, of a person raising himself to great dignity and authority from the meanest and most abject beginning. No "form of God" was perceived in him in the commencement of his ministry. He possessed miraculous powers, it is true; but he possessed them to the end, and these he never lost. "My Father worketh, and I work." Upon the supposition of his mere humanity, the contrast is of a different kind: he is the most wonderful example of a person rising from the most obscure beginning, commencing in lowly circumstances, and ascending to grandeur.

But if we take the expressions according to their obvious and popular import, they afford the most striking illustration of the purpose of the apostle in exhibiting the condescension and humility of the Saviour. "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.". Here the form of God and the form of a servant are contrasted with each other; and as the form of a servant is universally understood as acknowledging that he was a servant, what can we suppose the being in the form of God to mean, but that he was God; though that may not be its only meaning? He is said to have taken upon himself the form of a servant here try the meaning of those who oppose the divinity of Christ, that he was not eager to catch at, or to retain the likeness of God; and then, upon the supposition of his being the Son of God, possessing the Divine nature, and uniting himself to mortal flesh, you will find that the latter perfectly corresponds with the intention of the apostle. And his emptying himself, and taking upon him the form of a servant, is, indeed, a great instance of condescension, on the supposition of his being a Son; for there is a visible contrast between the being a son and a servant, which the apostle observes when he remarks, that "though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." There is also, upon this supposition, a plain meaning assigned to the whole, the words of existence differing from the words of assumption. "Who BEING in the form of God, MADE himself of no reputation, TOOK upon himself the form of a servant, was MADE in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself." For here we have the state he formerly possessed expressed by the word BEING; and the word MADE, signifying that he became so by being made so; agreeably to what the apostle John says, "The Word was with God, and the Word was God;" and further, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The same apostle, Paul, expresses the reason of his assuming a nature that did not belong to him, an inferior nature:-" Forasmuch

as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." But what possible contrast of this nature can be found upon the supposition of Christ's mere humanity? Where was there any descent from the form of God? And why should that which could not be avoided, which was not voluntary, be expressed in the way it is,-"Took upon himself the form of a servant,"- -"humbled himself," and so on, when the very nature of things, the universal law of nature, rendered it impossible for him to be other than a mere man, and consequently a servant of the Most High God?

The doctrine of Christ's humiliation and incarnation is expressed in the most forcible manner, and worthy of our most attentive admiration and adoration. "Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself;" he still humbled himself. He was not satisfied with being found in fashion as a man, which was a wonderful act of condescension; he was not satisfied with taking upon him the form of a servant; he not merely assumed a very low station in society; but he still humbled himself: he descended lower than the mere level of human nature required; he descended deeper and deeper, and was not contented till he had reached the very bottom of humiliation, till he "became obedient unto death." Nay, even that was not sufficient; there was one death more ignominious, more painful, more replete with agony and shame, than any other; and for the purpose, the glorious purpose, of his coming into our world, he selected that death, he determined to die that death, that very death; and made that his peculiar province in which he should appear, to the destruction of our spiritual enemies, and the conquest of the powers of darkness. "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." It was from this cross, which was the lowest step to which he could possibly descend, that he arose to his crown; it was from thence that he ascended up on high," that he was elevated to the right-hand of God; that there might be exhibited in his person the most wonderful contrast of the original dignity which he laid aside, then of the scene of shame and suffering which he endured, and afterward of the majesty and glory with which he invested the nature in which he suffered. He first descended from the throne to the cross; and then, in order that he might take up our nature with him, and make us partakers of his glory, he carried a portion of that nature from the cross to the throne, ascended into heaven, and from thence gives a portion of the benefit of it by the outpouring of his Spirit, by the preaching of the gospel, and the saving of innumerable multitudes of them that believe; and all this in consonance with the purposes of God, whom it became, as the Great Legislator, "in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."

There is only one expression more on which I shall make a remark; and that is, that it is not said he became a servant, or became a man: all this is implied; the form of expression is different. Nor is it here asserted that he was God, though this is strongly implied. But it is

thus expressed: "Who, being in the form of God, took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." Though this plainly implies that Jesus Christ was God, yet the form of expression, no doubt, includes something more; it is intended to express a distinct idea from his being called God; and it appears to me to correspond exactly with the design of the apostle, for his design was to contrast our Lord's state at different times. He had assumed a form under the old dispensation wherein he appeared in various ways, or in different manifestations. When Joshua was about to enter on his war with the Canaanites, he observed a majestic and glorious personage standing over-against him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, "Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay, but as Captain of the hosts of the Lord am I come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant? And the Captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy." The same command God gave from the burning bush. And in Ezekiel you find, "one in the form of the Son of Man seated on a throne," with a sapphire firmament; and Jesus Christ is represented as distinct from the Father, presenting himself to the Father; so that he is said by the apostle Paul to have been tempted of the Israelites in the wilderness. He manifested himself, but he manifested himself in the form of God, with a majesty and glory suited to his work. But he laid aside that form; he divested himself of it, and took upon him the form of a servant, a human form; and not merely a human form, but he humbled himself still more, and became obedient unto death. He was found in fashion as a man; it was a wonderful discovery, an astonishing spectacle in the view of angels, that he who was in the form of God, and adored from eternity, should be made in fashion as a man. But why is it not said that he was a man? For the same reason that the apostle wishes to dwell upon the appearance of our Saviour, not as excluding the reality, but as exemplifying his condescension. His being in the form of God did not prove that he was not God, but rather that he was God, and entitled to supreme honour. So, his assuming the form of a servant, and being in the likeness of man, does not prove that he was not man, but, on the contrary, includes it; at the same time including a manifestation of himself, agreeably to his design of purchasing the salvation of his people, and dying for the sins of the world by his sacrificing himself upon the cross. Besides, there is a peculiar propriety in these terms fashion and likeness of man, though not intended to exclude his proper humanity; for there is a high and glorious distinction in the humanity of Christ as contrasted with every other: every other man is tainted with sin, and partakes of original corruption. But when the angel addressed the Virgin Mary, he said, "That holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." From that contagion which belongs to the human race he was exempted by a miraculous conception. Every other man possesses two parts, body and spirit; but this divine man, this "God