is wrongly translated; they say, that "being in the form of God," refers to his bearing the resemblance of God, by his performance of miracles and delivery of a law in the name of God; but this description would apply to Moses, who is never said to have been "in the form of God." And they further say, that the words," he thought it not robbery to be equal with God," should be rendered, " he did not catch at, or vehemently desire to be equal with God," or, "he did not think that he ought to make an ostentatious display of his resemblance to God (i)." Even if it be allowed that the words themselves would bear these significations, which I very much doubt, it would be found that the context will not admit of any such interpretation; for, in the first place, the verse thus understood would be made to refer to our Saviour when he was upon earth, whereas, whoever reads the whole passage attentively, will perceive that this verse refers to Christ before he appeared in the likeness of men, since he could not make himself of no reputation, unless he had pre-existed in a state of superior dignity and glory. In the next place, according to this interpretation,

(i) Cyprian quotes this passage in exact agreement with our translation, Non rapinam arbitratus est esse se æqualem Deo.

pretation, the Apostle exhorts to humility from the example of Christ, who while he performed miracles, and preached a religion in the name of God, did not aim at or affect equality with God, or make a display of his resemblance to him; that is, St. Paul calls upon the Philippians to have the same mind which was in Christ Jesus, who, being a mere man, did not make himself equal with God, or boast of his resemblance to him; the bare mention of such a sense of the text is sufficient to expose and refute it. But the reasoning, according to the common interpretation, is clear and strong; for the Apostle exhorts the Philippians to imitate the example of Christ's humility, who though a divine person, voluntarily condescended to assume the lowest condition of human nature, and to submit to a cruel and ignominious death. The latter part of the passage states, that in consequence, and as a reward, of his humiliation, "God highly exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." This exaltation of Christ, after his ascension into heaven, seems to indicate the

glorified

glorified state of his human nature, just as his appearance and sufferings upon earth were the humiliation of his divine nature.

In the Old Testament the prophets constantly declared, that they had received from God the prophecies which they delivered; and it is acknowledged that none but God can enable men to predict future events. St. Peter, in his First Epistle, represents Christ as enabling the prophets to foretel his own coming, with his sufferings, and the glory which was to succeed them: "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 beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow (k):" this passage, therefore, proves both the preexistence and divinity of Christ. The same Apostle, in his other Epistle, attributes these prophecies to the influence of the Holy Ghost: "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (1)." And thus the power of prophesying is ascribed indifferently to

the

(k) 1 Pet. c. 1. v. 10 and 11. (1) 2 Pet. e. 1. v. 21.

the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which denotes the incomprehensible union of the three persons of the Godhead, asserted in the former article.

The beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews will furnish another strong argument in favour of the divinity of Christ. We shall there find that Christ is not only preferred to the angels, but is described as a Being of a totally different order: "Who being the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; or, Sit on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son; and again when he bringeth in the first-born into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire; but unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. And, thou, Lord in the beginning,

hast

hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands." It may be observed that St. Paul, in thus contrasting the nature of Christ with the nature of angels, calls Christ the Son of God, which, as we have already seen, was making him equal with God, according to the interpretation of the Jews, to whom this Epistle was addressed. He also attributes to him the creation and preservation of the world, which is a clear assertion of his divinity; and indeed he represents God the Father addressing Christ as the creator of the universe, and moreover as expressly calling him God. This opposition is carried on through the whole second chapter, one passage of which plainly declares Christ's existence previous to his incarnation, and that he was not of the order of angels: "He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Lest, however, this assertion of Christ's being of the seed of Abraham should lead the Hebrews to think him a mere man, the Apostle immediately proceeds to point out, in the third chapter, the marked difference between him and Moses the legislator of the Jews, who was always considered by them as the greatest of their prophets; he says, that Moses was faithful as a servant, Christ as a Son; and that Christ was counted worthy of more glory than

I 3