thinking of such an impious robbery as that of being equal with God; and we are referred for the proof of this to Phil. ii. 6. where we are assured that He thought it no robbery at all. Here we are informed that the translation is wrong, and that the words in the original mean quite the reverse of the sense given in our English bible. A little attention, however, to the scope of the passage will enable us to discern that the translation is very agreeable to the context, and design of the apostle. The apostle is here exhorting to unity and brotherly love, to abhor pride and vain glory, which are the sources of strife and contention; Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory, but in holiness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves and to have a tender concern for the welfare of others; Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. To engage our obedience he sets before us the example of Christ, and shows us how great He was, and yet how low. He descended for our sakes; let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 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, &c. And as a farther encouragement to us, he reminds us of the exaltation of our Redeemer, as the consequence and reward of His profound humiliation; wherefore God hath also highly exalted Him, and hath given Him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, &c. In this passage there are evidently three different states of Christ pointed out to us: the first, His state of dignity from which He descended; who being in the form of God: the

second, His state of humiliation which He voluntarily took upon Him; and took upon Him the form of a servant; and thirdly, His subsequent state of exaltation; wherefore God hath highly exalted Him. These three states or conditions of Christ are essential to the apostle's argument: take away any one of them, and the example which the apostle would propose is lost; the force of the argument is not only weakened, but the argument itself entirely destroyed.* If we set aside the first state, that of His natural dignity, the second will be no longer a state of voluntary humiliation. For if He was not more than a man, it was not owing to His humility, but the order of nature, that He was made in the likeness of men; and if He was but a creature, the form of a servant was as much dignity as belonged to Him, for the highest of God's creatures are His servants. But it is plain that He was in the form of God before He was made in the likeness of men, because this is mentioned as one instance of His humility. On the contrary, if it would have been an impious robbery in Christ to have claimed an equality with the Father in the Godhead, where was His singular humility in relinquishing this claim? To abstain from the highest insolence does not surely constitute any one a pattern of humility. Can a man be looked upon as very humble, so humble as to deserve being highly exalted, because he is not as proud as Satan himself? Common sense will not allow us to suppose the apostle would urge thus: Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus! who, having no pre-existence, humbled Himself to be 'made in the likeness of men; and, being but a

See Bishop Sherlock's Sermons, vol. iv, disc. 1.

'mere man, was so very condescending as not to 'pretend to be equal with God.'

This important passage of scripture is illustrated by 2 Cor. viii. 9. Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich. In this text is implied, 1. That Christ was rich previously to His becoming poor. 2. That His poverty was voluntary, the effect of His grace. And 3. That His riches and poverty refer to the same thing; to something which He had, and might have possessed, but which He willingly relinquished for our sakes, otherwise there was no humility, nothing worthy of imitation, in His example. But what were the riches which He possessed previously to His becoming poor? He had certainly none, unless we allow Him to have existed before His incarnation. Nor can His poverty have any reference to His low condition on earth, which yet the apostle's argument requires, if we deny either His pre-existence or His natural greatness and dignity. The plain meaning is, that He was rich in glory before His incarnation, of which He emptied Himself, when He took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

4. We are told that, although Christ says, He and his Father are one, "He sufficiently explains Him"self when He prays that all His disciples may be "one with Him and His Father, even as they two 66 are one." p. 14.

Our Lord's words are, that they may be one, even as we are one; not one with us, but one in us as the context explains it, (ver. 21,) or made perfect in one, (ver. 23,) which, I apprehend, refers chiefly to that union so often mentioned in scripture sub

sisting between the true disciples of Christ, whereby they are one body of which He is the head. I would observe here, that the expression even as does not always denote equality in the sacred writings, but sometimes similitude only: as, Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matt. v. 48.) The scriptures speak sufficiently of our sinful and imperfect condition, to show us in what sense we are to understand these words. They frequently speak of the union which subsist between Christ and His true disciples; but not in the same terms as of that which subsists between the Father and Christ; nor is the glory which Christ gave His disciples, all the glory which He had with the Father. What He gave them may be learnt from what they received, which is thus described by the Evangelist; Of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. (John i. 16.) But He had a glory with the Father before the world was; (John xvii. 5;) which certainly was not the glory which He received as man from the Father, and gave to His disciples. He had likewise such an union with the Father, that He could say with propriety, All things that the Father hath are mine. (John xvi. 15.) And he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. (Chap xiv. 9.) But can every true christian use, with propriety, the same language?

Again, the union which Christ had with the Father was such that He might justly be called the Almighty's fellow: Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the MAN that is My FELLOW, saith the Lord of hosts. Zech. xiii. 7. But who, except the man Christ Jesus, dares claim this title? And the nature of this union appears in the strongest light from hence, that the Holy Spirit is indifferently called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit

of Christ, in the New Testament. Holy men of God, says St. Peter, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter i. 21.) But this inspiration, as the same apostle informs us, was from the Spirit of Christ. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you; searching what, or what manner of time the SPIRIT OF CHRIST which was in them did signify, when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow. (1 Peter i. 10, &c.) So the Holy Ghost, who dwells in the saints, is, in one and the same passage, called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ; ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the SPIRIT OF GOD dwell in you. Now if any man have not the SPIRIT OF CHRIST he is none of his. (Rom. viii. 9.) Our Lord assured His disciples, when He was going to leave the world, that He would send the Holy Ghost to them, who should receive of HIS and show it unto them. (John xvi. 7, 14, 15.) But shall we ascribe unto a creature the power of sending the Holy Spirit, who is God Himself? A creature to send God! and to give 'Him something of a creature's to carry! A creature to call God His messenger, and to say, 'He shall receive of MINE, and show it unto you! A creature to say, that all things which are 'God's are HIS! This would be strange indeed! He is surely more than a creature who can use such language with propriety.

66

5. "The term God," it has been justly observed, "is sometimes used in an inferior sense in the scriptures." But always in such a manner that there can be no danger of our mistaking the sense of it in such passages; which, by the way, are very few. In these there is never any divine