in the New Testament to denote mere existence, we may "properly insert the word honoured, and read to be honour"ed as God.' The meaning of the apostle may be thus ex"pressed; ver. 5,-8. Imitate the condescension and be"nevolence of Jesus Christ, who, although he resembled "God in the possession of extraordinary power and wisdom, "did not grasp at divine honours, but humbled himself to "the performance of servile offices, and, in obedience to the "will of his Father, submitted unto death, even the painful " and ignominious death of the cross." (Pages 242, 243.)

I embrace the present opportunity of stating my views of this passage a little more fully than it seemed proper to do in a public discourse.

1. Mr. Yates's interpretation of "being in the form of "God," is the same with that of Unitarians in general :— Jesus" resembled God in the possession of extraordinary

66

power and wisdom.”—“He did not grasp at divine honours," must mean, that he did not pervert the power with which he was endowed to the purpose of his own aggrandizement and glory; that he did not, that is, contravene, in the exertion of that power, the end of his mission. This, then, proceeds on the supposition of the possibility at least of his having done otherwise;-on the supposition of divine power having been placed so entirely at his discretion, that he might, had he been so inclined, have used it for his own honour, in opposition to the honour of him that sent him. Let this supposition, then, be fairly examined. We cannot allow it to be qualified by any condition; as of the Almighty withdrawing the communicated power, should any symptom have appeared of an impious inclination to pervert it. For, in that case, it was not at his discretion, any more than at the discretion

of other prophets. And, if the supposition be not thus qualified, how gross is the absurdity which it involves!-the power of God placed at the discretion of a creature, who has it in his option, whether it shall be employed for the Divine purposes, or against them. The possibility of the latter is clearly involved in the Unitarian hypothesis: and if this be hypothetically possible, we are warranted, for argument's sake, to suppose it realized;-in which case, we shall have a creature wielding Almighty power against the Almighty;-the infinite God absolutely outwitted by the agent to whose discretion he has transferred his power!

66

2. Though "resembling God" " he did not esteem it a prey to be as God.”—I have no particular objection to Mr. Yates's explanatory supplement,-"to be honoured as God.""He approves of my translation to be on an equality with "God,' and admires the remarks by which I have vindicated "it:"-now certainly to be "on an equality with God" means, to be on an equality with him as to the honour and the homage due to him from his creatures.-But it will not be very easy to reconcile the sentiment that Christ "did not esteem it a prey to be honoured as God," with his own explicit declaration, "for the Father judgeth no

66

man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; "that all men should honour the Son even as they honour "the Father: he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth "not the Father that sent him;" John v. 22, 23.-When Mr. Yates, indeed, quotes this passage, (page 222.) he accompanies it with this comment; "that all men should ho"nour the Son, as (that is, because) they honour the Father." But a Unitarian "that is" is not of sufficient authority to command immediate acquiescence, and to silence every suspicion that the original word (xaws) is to be understood in its

more dircet and proper meaning, which is, in the same—or, in like manner as :— "sicut, prout, velut." Heder. Lex.

3. I think it appears from the frequency with which the Scripture speaks of Christ as a servant, receiving and executing a commission, &c. that his "taking upon him "the form of a servant," means, agreeably to this prevailing phraseology of Scripture, his voluntarily assuming this relation to the Father-his actually becoming a servant-appearing among men in this character or capacity:-in which case, "the form of God" must have a corresponding signification, and mean his existing in the character or capacity of Deity. This view receives further confirmation from the other phrase here used," he was made in the likeness of "men," which very obviously means his becoming in reality a man. Compare Rom. viii. 4.

4. It is sufficiently clear that his "being" (or subsisting, iTagxwv)" in the form of God"-stands here in contrast with his "taking, or assuming, the form of a servant." He subsisted, then, in the form of God," previously to his assuming "the form of a servant." When, then, did he assume the form of a servant? If he was a mere man, it is not easy to say either when or how.-Indeed, if he was a mere man, or a mere creature, however exalted, it is difficult to conceive how he could at all, with propriety, be said to assume the form of a servant. No creature can properly be said to assume, or take upon himself, the station, or work, which the supreme God is pleased expressly to assign to him. -But if he subsisted previously as God, he took the form of a servant when he "was made in the likeness of men," and came to accomplish a work given him to do.

5. In admitting that means "on an equality with "God," Mr. Yates dissents from the more common Uni

tarian interpretation, which makes this phrase correspond

to pogon sou, and both to signify resemblance to God, viz. in the possession of miraculous powers :-" Who, being in the "form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance "to God." Improved Version. The explanation in the notes is, "Who, being invested with extraordinary miracu"lous powers, did not make an ostentatious display of these powers : or, if the second clause should be trans"lated, with the public version, he thought it not robbery "to be as God' the sense would be, he did not regard "it as an act of injustice to exert upon proper occasions ❝his miraculous powers."-Such an exposition sufficiently exposes itself. Mr. Yates does not adopt it; and my present business is with him. He interprets indeed, "being in the "form of God," as signifying that Jesus resembled God in the possession of miraculous powers; but the subsequent clause he explains of his not founding upon these powers a claim to equality with God; his not, as he expresses it, "grasping at Divine honours."

6. No instance has yet been produced of the original word agayos signifying a prey, or spoil. The only instance I have heard of being ever insisted on as parallel, is one, not of άρπαγμος, but of ἁρπαγμα. And, however similar the words may appear, the precise difference between them is, as every Greek scholar knows, that the latter signifies a prey or plunder, the former the act of preying or plundering."'Agrayua, quod raptum est, rapina præda rapta.-Agrayμos, "ipsa rapiendi actio, raptus." Heder. Lex.-The French translation seems to me to convey the true sense :-" Lequel, ❝étant en forme de Dieu, n' a point regardé (comme) " une usurpation d'être égal à Dieu :"-" Did not account "it an act of usurpation to be equal with God."

. It has been objected that aλλa, rendered "but,"

denotes opposition between the ideas expressed in the two clauses which it separates; and that such a construction. as "he possessed equality with God," but "emptied himself, or "made himself of no reputation," is unnatural and imperfect; whereas "he did not esteem it a prey to be as "God,"-" he did not grasp at divine honours,"-expresses something which he might have done, and did not, which is naturally and properly opposed, by the word but, to what he actually did. "He did not grasp at divine honours, but". on the contrary-" divested himself," &c.-The answer to this is obvious and simple. The word aλλa, rendered but, has not unfrequently the signification of yet; and it has this meaning, it would appear, oftener in the writings of Paul than in any other parts of the New Testament: "AAAA. "Conjunctio, tam inter copulativas quam inter adversativas a "grammaticis numerata:"-" 7. tamen, sed tamen. John xvi. "20. 1 Cor. iv. 15: viii. 6: ix. 2, 12: 2 Cor. xiii. 4. Col. "ii. 5." &c. Schleusner.-Understanding it in this sense here, the meaning is complete, and the construction natural: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not "robbery to be equal with God; yet made himself of no "reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant :” i. e. "although possessing the high dignity of equal honour with “God, he, notwithstanding, divested himself of it, assuming "the form of a servant."

8. It has been further objected, that if the two clauses, translated "being in the form of God," and "thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” (εν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπαρχων,—and ουχ ἁρπαγμον ήγησατο το ειναι ισα Θεῳ,) had been both intended to express the previous dignity of Christ, the construction would have been different; that instead of ός εν μορφη Θε8 υπάρχων, ουχ ἁρπαγμον ἡγησατο το ισα είναι Θεῳ, αλλα εκένωσεν έαυτον• we should