general structure of the passage, appear to me to justify such an alteration; nor are we aware of any advantage occurring to the system we oppose by such a rendering. The socinians suppose that the purport of this member of the sentence is to assert, that though our Lord was possessed of miraculous power, by which he might have drawn to himself that homage which is only due to the Supreme Being, yet he declined making such a use of these powers. The first instance of his matchless humility and condescension, on their hypothesis, is in his not impiously turning the weapons with which he was armed, against their Author, thus employing himself to establish, in his own person, that which it was one great end of his mission to subvert. That humility with which the apostle was so much enraptured [consisted, then,] in not being guilty of the grossest ingratitude and impiety; in not betraying his trust by advancing his own honour and interest on the ruins of his from whom he derived his commission. That our Saviour could not have acted the part which he is supposed to have declined in this instance will surely be admitted; but what a preposterous illustration is that of matchless condescension, which is placed in a mere abstinence from impiety and rebellion!

From the preliminary remarks we have made, I trust it must be sufficiently evident, that this cannot be the illustration which St. Paul designed to furnish of unparalleled lowliness and conde

scension. It deserves to be remarked too, that in this sense, "the form of God" belongs equally to every person who has possessed miraculous powers to an extent not inferior to those exerted by our Saviour, which, as we learn both from the Acts of the Apostles, and from the express language of the Saviour himself, was the case with his apostles. In consequence of those powers, St. Paul was, on one occasion, made an object of idolatry, which he disclaimed with the utmost vehemence and abhorrence; so far was he from assuming any extraordinary merit on account of declining so impious a distinction. Besides, let me ask, would such a use of the supernatural succours afforded our Saviour, as to suffer them to be the occasion of his being worshipped, have produced their withdrawment? If they would not, there must be some legitimate ground for his being worshipped, inapplicable to every other case. If they would, what is there admirable in his declining to convert them to a purpose which he knew would issue in their extinction? Can the inspired writer be supposed for a moment to introduce, with so much pomp and solemnity, a branch of our Lord's conduct which the smallest portion of prudence sufficiently accounts for?

"He made himself of no reputation," or, more literally, "he emptied himself," "he divested himself," the writer most unquestionably means, of somewhat which he heretofore possessed. But of what, on the hypothesis of the simple humanity

of Christ, did he divest himself? As this clause commences the positive statement of the instances of his humility, preceded by, contrasted with the dignity involved in the attribute of "being in the form of God," it seems necessary to understand it in relation to that prior dignity. But this, on the socinian hypothesis, is impossible, since they place the form of God in his possession of miraculous energy, of those supernatural powers, of which, from the time of his entering on his ministry, he neither divested himself at any time, nor suspended the exercise. "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;" nor is there the slightest intimation throughout the whole evangelical history, that his humility was rendered conspicuous by his declining the exercise of miraculous powers. Here, then, the illustration, upon the supposition we are combating, completely fails at the very outset, from the total absence of that bold and striking contrast which the first member of the sentence leads us to expect. The form of God is attributed to him as the basis of a certain elevation, let its precise import be what it may. And, when the antithetic form of expression prepares us to expect something opposed to it, our expectation is frustrated, and the form of God is still retained. Did this divesture consist of his descending from a superior station in society? But this he never possessed. His worldly rank and estimation, humble as it was, was as great in the last, as in the first period of his ministry. To

decline a possible distinction, and to lay aside a distinction already possessed, are certainly things very distinct; nor is it easy to conjecture why, if the former was intended, the latter is expressed : besides that, admitting such a confusion of language to be possible, the conception conveyed bears no relation to the form of God.

The words of the apostle evidently suppose that our Saviour possessed, in the first instance, some great and extraordinary distinction; that, in the execution of his commission, from motives of pure benevolence, he submitted to a state of great comparative meanness and humiliation. The order of the words, as well as the very species of excellence they are designed to illustrate and enforce, necessitate the placing of the dignified attribute first. But on the hypothesis of the simple humanity of Christ, the real order of things, the actual course of events, is just the reverse. Our Saviour, on that hypothesis, was elevated immensely above his native condition by his delegation as the Messiah, and, from a state of extreme obscurity and poverty, he became, in consequence of it, possessed of the form of God. His poverty and meanness compose the first stage of his history; and whatever elevation above his equals he afterwards possessed, was purely the effect of his appointment to the office of the Messiah. So that in the office he sustains, he exhibits a marvellous instance of incredible elevation from meanness, instead of affording a striking example of voluntary humiliation.

On the socinian hypothesis the whole of what is truly admirable is, that a mean and obscure individual should have been raised from so much meanness, not that he voluntarily submitted to it. It must be obvious to the thoughtful and intelligent, that this hypothesis completely frustrates the design of the passage, and presents the whole matter in an inverted position.

His public undertaking, in the room of affording an unparalleled instance of condescending benevolence, is the greatest example of eminent virtue conducting to illustrious honour, the world ever witnessed.

In a complex train of action, involving considerable space of time, and a great variety of events, if there be any conspicuous feature insisted on in the character of the agent, it ought to be of such a nature as to pervade the whole mass. The benevolence and condescension of our Lord are uniformly represented by the inspired writer as actuating him in the whole course of his proceedings, as the chief spring of his conduct, so as to characterize his whole undertaking. "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," saith St. Paul, "how that though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich." His giving himself for the church is celebrated as a most interesting instance of condescension and love. But if, apart from his public engagements, as the great Teacher sent from God, he possessed no separate nor original dignity; if