commonly annexed to the words, viz. of a transition from a state of affluence to a state of indigence, may justly be questioned. Hence it follows, that whatever the apostle meant by the word rich, it expresses a state which Jesus possessed not before he was born into the world, but while he was leading a life of poverty in it. It is inquired in what sense Jesus was rich, if not in his divine nature and pre-existent glory? To this question some have answered, that he was rich in good works, in virtue, piety, benevolence, and the divine favour. q. d. Though eminently virtuous, he was very poor 73. But this interpretation destroys the opposition between the two conditions which are ascribed to Jesus; nor would it so well suit the apostle's purpose in urging the example of Christ as a motive to charity and generosity. The interpretation of Grotius and others, adopted by Mr. Lindsey, is more to the apostle's purpose. Jesus Christ was rich in miraculous powers, which it was at his option to employ for his own benefit. He fed the multitude; he brought miraculous draughts of fishes into the net; he paid tribute by miracle; and by miracle he supplied a wedding feast with wine. With equal ease he could have supplied himself and his friends with all the comforts, the conveniences, and the elegancies of life. He was rich—but he lived in poverty. He made no use of his miraculous powers for his own advantage. He subsisted upon the liberality of his followers, and had not where to lay his head". 73 See the Theol. Repos. vol. iii. p. 438. Note by the late venerable William Turner, of Wakefield. See also Wakefield's Inquiry, ubi supra. 74 Christ's riches were his wisdom and great powers from God, by which he had all nature at his command, and could supply every want. And his meritorious poverty consisted in his never entertaining a single desire to employ his miraculous powers for his private ease or benefit, but choosing to lead a poor dependent life, because such an example was of most lasting benefit to us." Lindsey's Seq. p. 268. G From ( From kindness, and for the sake of his followers, he submitted to these privations, to set them a memorable example of fortitude, of resignation, of self-denial, for the benefit of others. That they through his poverty might be rich.' Here the connexion requires that the word should be taken in a figurative sense: rich in faith, in holiness, in benevolence, and in the promises and blessings of the Gospel. How admirably calculated such an argument was to excite a spirit of compassion for the poor, of gratitude, of kindness and generosity, and of active persevering benevolence, it is unnecessary to remark. It speaks for itself. XIV. Ephes. iv. 9. "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth ?" "That is," says archbishop Newcome," he descended into the grave." Psalm lxiii. 9, "They that seek my soul to destroy it shall go into the lower parts of the earth.” This text, though some are disposed to understand it as a proof of the pre-existence and incarnation of Christ, is generally allowed even by learned Trinitarians and Arians themselves to be of little weight in the controversy. XV. Philipp. ii. 5-9. "Let this mind be in you, also in Christ Jesus: which was "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 him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. "Wherefore "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,"&c. This is a passage of considerable difficulty, upon which the greatest possible stress is laid by the advocates for the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus Christ, which therefore merits the closest and the most impartial attention. Each clause must be considered in detail; after which it will be more easy to sum up the evidence of the whole. 1. "Who being in the form of God"." The word translated form properly signifies the shape, the human figure. Mark xvi. 12, " He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked into the country." See Joseph. Ant. 1. 2. ix. 7; l. 6. xiv. 2. All expositors agree that the word, in its present connexion, is to be understood figuratively. They differ widely in their interpretation of the figure. 1.) Calvin, Beza, and most of the trinitarian exposi 75 Being in the form of God] εν μορφή Θες ὑπαρχων. Μορφη, i. e. idos, idea. Hesychius, Suidas." Forma generaliter de quavis re." Constantin. Lex.-" Forma, omne quod in oculos occurrit, imago."Schleusner." Mopoŋ speciem sonat, aut figuram." Erasmus; who, in his long and learned note upon this celebrated text, remarks, " Non video quid hic locus proprie faciat adversus Arianos, qui non negabant Dei Filium esse Deum. Proinde totus hic locus mihi videtur violentius detorqueri ad Christi naturam, cum Paulus agat de specie exhibitâ nobis." By this liberal and fair concession, this elegant critic has incurred the high displeasure of those stern champions of the orthodox faith, Calvin and Beza; the former of whom loudly accuses Erasmus as a traitor to the cause, who, while he every where professes to believe the divinity of Christ, abandons in the detail what he maintains in the gross, and explains away every text by which that sublime doctrine is proved. "Mihi certe," adds the zealous reformer, ne omnes quidem diaboli hunc locum extorqueant, quia in Deo firmissimum est argumentum, a gloriâ ad essentiam.” This argument from the form to the essence of divinity is much insisted upon by Trinitarian expositors. See Hammond, Vatablus, Castalio, Guyse, &c. Sir Richard Ellys, in his Fortuita Sacra, in a learned note upon this text, lays great stress (after Beza) upon the word nagXw, as appropriated to the divine nature of Christ, while γινομαι and λαμβανω are used in reference to his human nature. But, to support this criticism, it must be first proved that Christ had a divine nature. The word inapXw will not itself prove it. See Schleusner. tors explain it of the manifestation of the attributes of God in his works, from which may be inferred the divinity of his essence. By parity of reason, from the divine form and majesty of Christ they infer his divine nature. But as Christ is said, ver. 7, to have assumed the form of a slave when he was not really a slave, so he might appear in the form of God, without being really and essentially God. 2.) Dr. Clarke (Scrip. Doct. No. 934,) represents the Logos as the person "by whom God created all things, by whom he governs all things, by whom he appeared to Adam, to the patriarchs, and to Moses, the angel that appeared in the bush. This," says he, "was being in the form of God." Heb. i. 3. Col. i. 15. With this learned writer agree Dr. Whitby, Dr. Doddridge, and most of those who are called the high Arian expositors". Dr. Clarke thinks it necessary to caution his readers against "the very unnatural interpretation which not only the Socinian writers, but Grotius also and some others, put upon these words ;" and Dr. Doddridge, with bishop Burnet, (on the Art. p. 46,) thinks "the Socinian interpretation very cold and insipid." It must be so, if the Arian interpretation of this text is true. But it has not yet been proved that the soul which animated the body of Jesus was the maker and governor of the world, the Jehovah who appeared to Adam, to the patriarchs, to Moses in the bush, and to the Israelites upon mount Sinai. Nor can this stupendous and not very natural hypothesis be justly inferred from the figurative and indefinite expression, that Jesus was in the form of God”. 76 In the outward appearance of God before his incarnation, as, after it, he was in the outward appearance of a slave: ver. 7. Newcome. 77 Sir Richard Ellys, in the Note before referred to, asserts, that the Arian interpretation of the form of God,' as referring to the splendour of the appearance of the Logos to the patriarchs, is unsupported by the authority of the ancients. 3.) Grotius, 3.) Grotius, and with him the old Socinians and the modern Unitarians, understand the expression being in the form of God,' of the miraculous powers with which our Lord was invested, and by which he controuled the laws of nature, healed the sick, raised the dead, and performed other godlike works”. This interpretation best agrees with the antithesis, ver. 7, "He assumed the form," i. e. the appearance of a slave. Also the miracles of Christ might, with as much propriety, be figuratively described as the form of God, as an appearance to Moses in the bush. But we are sure that our Lord performed miracles, and we are not sure that he appeared to Moses and the patriarchs; but the contrary. "The form of God," says Dr. Lardner, (Log. p. 12,) seems to me to have been enjoyed by our Saviour in this world. It denotes his knowledge of the hearts of men, his power of working miracles at all times, whenever he pleased, and all the other evidences of his divine mission. This sense wonderfully accords with what our Lord saith, John x. 34. 86." Mr. Lindsey (Seq. p. 272,) says, "The form of God which Christ wore upon earth, evidently consisted in those extraordinary endowments of a divine wisdom and power, which shone forth in him." "Moppy non significat internum et occultum aliquid, sed id quod in oculos occurrit, qualis erat eximia in Christo potestas sanandi morbos omnes, &c. quæ vere divina sunt." Grotius." Forma Dei quid est nisi exemplum, quòd Deus apparet dum mortuos excitat, surdis reddit auditum, leprosos mundat ?" Ambrosius apud Erasmum." In formâ Dei erat cum divina opera et miracula solo jussu et nutu suo ederet," &c. Slichtingius. To the same purpose Črellius and Brennius. "Jesus Christ, en qualité d'homme, paroissoit, à certains égards, plus semblable à Dieu qu'aux hommes, comme en ce qu'il commandoit à toute la nature avec un empire absolu, et faisoit des miracles inouis. C'est ce que S. Paul appelle la forme, c'est à dire la ressemblance de Dieu." Le Clerc, 2. "Thought |