IV. Lastly-his exaltation in his nature as man, and in his office as Mediator, to supreme authority and dominion—so that divine adoration is to be paid to him, to the glory of God the Father.

These are the truths which I propose now to shew are set forth in this passage of the Apostle.

I. The pre-existence of Jesus Christ-that is, his existence before he came into the world, is set forth in this passage.

The Apostle speaks of a particular time when Jesus Christ "made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man. It is too plain, then, to admit of a moment's doubt that he must have existed before the period when he assumed the human nature. But if he existed before he was made man, it is equally plain that in his state of pre-existence he could not have been man. And if he was not man in his pre-existent condition, he must have been of a superior order of created beings; or the Apostle's argument, from the condescension of Christ in making himself of no reputation by the assumption of our degraded nature, would entirely lose its force. Thus, then, this passage clearly and entirely demolishes the Socinian he

resy, that Christ never existed before he came into the world as man.

And it subverts, also, the Arian heresy, that though Christ existed before he came into the world, he was only the first of created beings. For the passage unequivocally declares

II. The pre-existence of Christ, not as a creature, but as God-in a state of equality with God.

His pre-existent nature is thus denoted"being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

66

The Socinian hypothesis maintains, that the phrase, being in the form of God," merely denotes Christ's being invested with the divine power of working miracles. The construction is evidently far-fetched and forced. Besides,

the Apostle is speaking of the condition of Christ before he was made man; and the power of working miracles appertains to the condition of Christ as a man; and it would be absurd, therefore, to affirm of Christ, before he was made man, that he had the power of working miracles. If this interpretation had not been repeatedly advanced and gravely defended by some who oppose our Lord's Divinity, the credibility of its ever entering into the mind, might reasonably be denied.

But without entering into any minute critical investigation, not so suitable in this place, of the meaning of the original word, translated "form," it must be evident that, in the same sense in which Christ is said to be " in the form of a servant," "or the likeness of men," and "in the fashion of a man," he must be "in the form of God." The Apostle affirms of Christ, that "being in the form of God, he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." All persons, even the impugners of Christ's Divinity, admit that by his taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men, is meant that Christ was actually a man. If then, being in the form of a servant, in the likeness of men, in fashion as a man, denote Christ's possession of the human nature; his " being in the form of God," must denote his possession of the Divine nature. If his being in the form of God, does not prove that he was God; his being in the form of a servant, and in the likeness of men, and in fashion as a man, does not prove that he was

man.

66

But admitting, according to another Socinian hypothesis, that the phrase, "the form of God," does not mean the nature, but only the condition of God; still let it be asked-How can Christ be in the condition of God, and not be God? Is it possible to be in the condition of man, and not

5

be man? A created being cannot be in the condition of God. The phrase cannot be applied but to one who possesses the Divine nature.

And admit still farther, according to a third Socinian hypothesis, that the expression, "form of God," denotes the display of the Divine attributes by Jesus Christ, or the visible manifestation of the Divine glory in him, such as was afforded to the patriarchs and prophets, to whom God appeared in the Schekinah or visible splendour. Again let it be asked-Can any created being display the Divine attributes-and thus possess, or he could not display them, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and all the infinite perfections of holiness and goodness? Or, would that Divine Being, who declares that he is so jealous of his glory, that he giveth it not to another, invest any created being with that lustre which made Moses exclaim-" I exceedingly fear and quake;" and which cast down before its ineffable effulgence the holy prophetand made him say "Woe is me, for I am an unclean man"."

There can be no meaning affixed to the phrase "being in the form of God," which does not necessarily attribute to Christ the Divine nature.

This interpretation is justified by the words which follow," who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

J

The obvious meaning of these words, which in our translation are literally rendered, is, that Christ being really God, did not think it a violent assumption of what did not belong to him, "a robbery," to claim an equality with God! Nor is this an irrelevant tautology. Since, the design of the Apostle being to prove Christ's humility in his taking our nature by the infinite superiority of his former condition, there is great propriety and force in his exhibiting this superiority in more than one expression.

On

If, with some, we alter the translation of the passage, and instead of considering the word translated "robbery," as the act of taking what does not belong to us, interpret it as the thing thus violently coveted; Christ is then represented as not so eagerly coveting an equality with God, as to prevent his taking upon him the form of a servant and the likeness of men. the orthodox opinion, that Christ is really equal with God the Father as to his nature, the interpretation of the passage then would be-that Christ, though equal with the Father in the possession of the same Divine nature, did not retain with such vehement ardour, did not so eagerly covet, the glory and honours to which his divinity entitled him, as to prevent him from taking upon him the degraded condition of humanity. And this interpretation does not militate with the object of the Apostle which was