DISCOURSE I.

PART II.

T

茶菜

HE three diftinct States be

longing to Chrift Jefus, and

mentioned in the Words of the

Text, being fuppofed: The

firft, his State of Dignity,

which he was in Poffeffion of before the Worlds began: The fecond, his State of Humiliation, when he took upon himself the Form of a Servant, being made in the Likeness of Men, which ended in his Death upon the Crofs: The third, his State of Exaltation, to which he was raised by the Father, as the Reward of his Humility and Sufferings, and which fhall continue till the Confummation of all Things: Let us now proceed,

Thirdly, To compare the feveral Parts of St. Paul's Argument together, and to examine, what the Apoftle teaches us concerning each of these States.

As to the two last of these States, that of Humiliation, and that of Exaltation, the Difficulties are not great. It will be readily allowed, that, in the firft of the two, he was very Man, subject to the Infirmities of human Nature, and did really undergo the fhameful and bitter Death of the Crofs: that, in the last, he is Lord and Head over the Church, under God; that he now governs and directs it, and fhall, at the laft Day, appear in the Majefty of his Father, to judge the whole World. Thus far the Generality of Chriftians are agreed, how widely foever they differ in their Opinions concerning his firft State, and the proper Glories and Dignities belonging to him before his coming into the World.

This State is defcribed in the firft Verfe of the Text; Who being in the Form of God. In order to set forth the great Humility of Chrift in becoming Man, the Apostle first tells us from how great and glorious a State *he defcended: He was in the Form of God. The following Words, as they stand in our Translation,

Tranflation, go on to defcribe the Excellency of his Glory, which was fo real and tranfcendent a Glory, that he thought it no Robbery to be, i, e. he thought himself entitled to be, equal with God. But I shall not infift upon this Tranflation; for it is more agreeable to the Apostle's Argument, and to the Language made use of, to suppose him to intend, in these Words, to express the first Degree or Inftance of his Humility; and that the Verse should be rendered by Words to this Effect: Who, being in the Form of God, was not fond, or tenacious of appearing as God; but made himself of no Reputation. I fhall not trouble you with the particular Reasons of this Rendering, which would lead us too far into critical Inquiries: But which Way foever of these two the Text be understood, the To tival îoa Ot will be found to belong to Jefus Christ. If he thought it no Robbery to affume this Equality with God, (whatever is meant by it) undoubtedly he was equal : Or, if it was the Effect of his Humility, that he did not hold or infift upon his Equality with God, then certainly he had fuch an Equality; for where is the Humility of not inC 4 fifting

fifting on, or not retaining an Equality, which never did, or could belong to him?

I find fome, in tranflating these Words, make use of Expreffions purposely chofen to exclude Chrift from the Dignity here mentioned; for thus they make the Apostle fpeak: Who, being in the Form of God, did not arrogate, affume, or lay claim to any Equality or Likeness with God: But I think this Language bears no Analogy to the Words in the Original, nor can be made to agree with the Aim and Design of the Apostle. The Expreffion in the Original is metaphorical, and alludes to the Eagernefs and Tenacioufness with which Men catch, and retain the Prey, which they are afraid should slip out of their Hands: But I believe no Language knows what it is to arrogate, affume, or lay claim to a Prey: A Prey is to be caught, to be held faft; but not to be affumed, or arrogated, or laid claim to. Besides, it is evidently St. Paul's Defign to fet forth the great Humility of Chrift Jefus: In order to this, he says, he did not greedily retain his Equality with God; which, fuppofing the Equality to belong to him, is a very great, the greatest

Instance

Inftance of Humility: But for any Perfon who has no Right or Title to fuch Equality, to arrogate or lay claim to it, is the utmost Pitch of Pride and Madness: And if you so expound these Words, you must affirm, that the Apostle, to prove the great Humility of Christ, endeavours to clear him of that, which imports the greatest Pride and Infolence imaginable. Whatever therefore is meant by the τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, St. Paul evidently fuppofes in his Argument, that it did belong to Chrift before his Humiliation, when he was in the Form of God.

Secondly, By comparing the several Parts of St. Paul's Argument together, it will, I think, appear, that the pogone, and the To tival Toa Ota, here spoken of, are Expreffions that relate to the fame Thing; fo that he who is poffeffed of the first, has a Right to the laft. The Foundation of the Apostle's Argument is this; That Chrift, enjoying a most exalted State of Glory, was not fond, or tenacious of that Glory; but made himfelf of no Reputation: For this Argument being wholly spent in setting forth the Humility of Chrift, there is no Occafion of mentioning any other Glory, than that which, out of his great Humility, he laid