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. 36."

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."

""Mopon 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 Crellius 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

2. "Thought it not robbery, to be equal with God"."

It is universally agreed that the word a often expresses similarity only, not equality, and that a Os may properly be rendered as God, or like God.

ισα

The word in the sense of similarity occurs frequently in the Old Testament. Job v. 17, "They grope in the noon-day as in the night." LXX. 10α VUHTI. Chap. x. 10, "Hast thou not curdled me (oa Tugw) like cheese?" Chap. xi. 12, "Man is born (15 ov) like a wild ass's colt." See also chap. xiii. 12; v. 20; xv. 16; xxiv. 20; xl. 15. No person therefore, who is not grossly ignorant, would from this text infer the perfect equality of Christ with God.

The words "he thought it not robbery," are attended with considerable difficulty.

The Greek word άgayuos, here translated robbery, scarcely occurs in any other Greek writer 81. It is a verbal noun. But it is not agreed among the learned, whether it is to be taken in an active or a passive sense; whether

10 σε Ουχ άρπαγμον ήγήσατο το είναι ίσα Θεώ, Non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se æqualem Deo." Vulgate.-a, neutrum plurale more Græcorum, adverbialiter capitur." Slichtingius.

"See Whitby in loc., who, while he establishes this sense of tea, contends, justly enough, that it gives no advantage to the Socinians. Classical authorities for this adverbial use of ira are to be found in Newcome and in Schleusner. When the Jews charge our Lord with arrogating to himself equality with God, the expression is 100 ÉQUTOY HOLY TW DEW. John v. 18. Indeed Mr. Cappe (Crit. Rem. vol. i. p. 233,) quotes this very text to prove that 100s signifies nothing more than general similarity. By the expression God was his Father,' he would at the utmost only assert that, in a manner, he was like God.

The word is found in Plutarch. de Liberor. Educ. but in a connexion which throws but little light on the subject. Harwood's Lib. Trans. Archbishop Newcome's Note, and Wetstein in loc. It seems, however, rather favourable to the supposition that the word is used in an active sense; in which sense it is understood by Calvin, Beza, Hanımond, Doddridge, and Guyse.

it

it signifies the act of seizure, or the prey, the booty, the thing seized upon.

Many critics, amongst whom are the translators of the public version, take the word in the active sense: they render it' robbery". And in this sense of the word this clause is to be understood in apposition with the preceding, and as expressing an additional circumstance of the dignity of Christ antecedent to his humiliation. q. d. He was in the form of God; and being so, he thought it no robbery, no unjust assumption, to be and to appear like God. The majority of expositors, for very probable reasons stated below 83, interpret the word in a passive sense,

παγμές

σε σε Αρπαγμος proprie ipsa rapiendi actio, quæ usitatius άρπαγη dicitur: aprayua verò id quod raptum est, sed confundi scias, Isa. iii. 14.” Drusius.—In the controversy concerning the person of Christ, it is of no consequence whether the word be taken in an active or a passive sense. Mr. Cappe seems to prefer the active signification:

For," he says, "I do not think the words much mistranslated in our version. He has not thought it robbery, either an injury, or an act of usurpation." But the learned writer does not express himself with his usual precision: for he had just before stated it as his opinion that the word αρπαγμος “ is of the very same import with άρπαγμα, the thing seized upon, the subject of unjust usurpation." Cappe's Crit. Rem. vol. i. p. 232.

"The reasons for taking the word in a passive sense are the following:

to

1. Aprayuos being derived from the perfect passive, retains a passive signification Mr. Wakefield shows from Eustathius, that, according to the genius of the Greek language, dprayuss is equivalent το άρπαγμα. Αρπάζειν vero est aliquid avide et violenter arripere, ut tibi vendices, et tuum facias." Sylva Crit. vol. iii. p. 112 —— Aprayμos proprie, direptio. Nomina in uos desinentia fere actionem, non rem significant. Sed interdum tamen passive usurpatur, ut significat vel rem raptam, vel rem avide diripiendam, et vindicandam.” Schleusner.-See Wetstein, and Wakefield's Inq. p. 186.

2. The construction of the sentence requires that this clause should express the humiliation of Christ, and consequently that ap. should be taken in a passive sense. It would be trifling to say, that, being in the form of God, he thought it no robbery to be in the form or likeness of God. Le Clerc, in his notes upon Hammond, remarks," that to justify the common translation, the Greek ought to have been nai οὐχ ἡγεμενος άρπαγμον είναι ίσα Θεῳ, όμως κ. τ. λ.” See also Dr. Clarke, Scrip. Doct. No. 934.

παγμός for άgayμa, a prey,' a booty,' tained by force, and retained with eagerness.'

a thing ob

In this sense the second clause of the sentence is in opposition to the first. It is the first step in his voluntary humiliation.

Who, being in the form of God, did not esteem as a prey' (and therefore did not eagerly grasp, did not claim as his inherent right, did not refuse to relinquish,) this likeness to God.'

The latter clause is plainly exegetical of the former; this likeness to God is the very same thing as being in the form of God. See Wakefield's Inquiry, p. 185.

This interpretation has the sanction of many eminent expositors.

3. The early writers, who used the Greek language, and to whom the phrase must have been familiar, understood the words in this sense. In the Letter from the Churches of Vienne and Lyons to those of Asia and Phrygia, they say of the martyrs, "They were such zealous followers of the example of Christ, who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly retain that likeness to God," (did not covet to be honoured as God,' Dr. Clarke,)" that though they had often been cast to wild beasts, and had endured all manner of torments, yet they would by no means suffer themselves to be honoured with the title of martyrs." Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 1. 5.

Origen, in his Commentary upon John, says, "The goodness of Christ appeared greater and more divine, and truly after the image of the Father, when he humbled himself, &c. (ŋ & àpanyŋoaro) than if he had eagerly grasped or tenaciously retained his likeness to God." Huet. p. 34.

Novatian says, Christ, though he knew that he was in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp (or tenaciously retain) equality with God. For though he knew that he was God, he never compared himself with God his Father;" &c. De Trin. c. 17. See Clarke, ibid.

84.66

Equalitatem quam cum Patre habebat ambitiose retinere noluit, velut facere solent prædones, qui quod semel rapuerunt summa cura et studio retinent." Vatablus." Pro rapina ducere, dicit pro rapaciter uti, et retinere, ut Latini dicunt, in hostium numero habere, pro occidere ut hostem. Sic enim poni solet verbum yada, ut non solum cogitationis sit, verum etiam rei." Conf. v. 25. Castalio.” If άρπαγμα be synonymous to άρπαγμος, 2s βαπτισμα το βαπτισμός, φωτισμα το φωτισμός, &c. the proper meaning seems to be a prey, or booty, and may be either just or unjust. They therefore hardly give the exact signification who explain it by a thing very desirable, or to

be

Dr. Clarke, No. 934, "He did not covet to be honoured as God was not greedy or fond of, or unwilling to let go the prize: so the words more strictly signify."

Mr. Lindsey: (Seq. p. 272, &c.) " Being in the form of God, he did not look upon it as a prize to be hastily catched at to be like God, did not eagerly covet to be honoured for his godlike powers, was not ambitious of displaying them."

The following appears to me to be the true interpretation of the text.

Christ was "in the form of God." He possessed miraculous powers, and exerted them at pleasure." But he did not account as a prey this likeness to God." 9. d. He did not conceive of these extraordinary powers as a possession in his own right, acquired by his own energies, for the enjoyment of which he was indebted to none, in the exercise of which he was controulable by none, and for the proper employment of which he was accountable to none: having the same paramount right to these powers which a man has to a prey which he has obtained in the field, or a booty which he has acquired in war. Far from it. Jesus knew that, great as his powers were, they were not his own, but given; that they were communicated not for his personal benefit, but for an important purpose; that they were to be employed in subservience to the will of him from whom they were derived; that when the proper season came, they were to be laid aside; and that, to accomplish the design of his mission, he was to submit to humiliation and suffering like an ordinary person, as though he were quite destitute of miraculous powers. He therefore exhausted or divested himself, assumed the form of a ser

be coveted. Nothing is properly a prey or booty till in possession. The apostle therefore may be supposed to say, who was not eager or tenacious in retaining this likeness,'" &c. Peirce." Omnium bona prædam tuam duceres." Cicero in Verrem, v. 15.