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 fo expound these Words, you must affirm,. that the Apostle, to prove the great Humility

ན་

of Chrift, endeavours to clear him of that, which imports the greateft Pride and Infolence imaginable. Whatever therefore is meant by the To eival Toa e, St. Paul evidently fuppofes in his Argument, that it did belong to Chrift before his Humiliation, when he was in the Form of God.

ན

Secondly, By comparing the several Parts of St. Paul's Argument together, it will, I think, appear, that the μogon, and the To eva loa O, here spoken of, are Expreffions that relate to the fame Thing; so that he who is poffeffed of the firft, has a Right to the last. The Foundation of the Apostle's Argument is this; That Christ, 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 fetting forth the Humility of Chrift, there is no Occafion of mentioning any other Glory, than that which, out of his great Humility, he laid

afide. The Glory therefore which the Apostle here fays Chrift had, and the Glory which he here fays he laid afide, are one and the fame Glory, the Glory which belongs to the Form of God,

But further: Let us read this and the next Verse together: Who, being in the Form of God, did not eagerly infist to be equal with God, but made himself of no Reputation; or, as the Original fignifies, he emptied himself, and took upon him the Form of a Servant, and was made in the Likeness of Men. The Humility of Christ confifted in changing willingly a glorious for an inglorious Condition: The glorious Condition, which he was poffeffed of, was the Form of God; the inglorious Condition, to which he fubmitted, was the Form of a Servant. When the Apoftle therefore fays, Who, being in the Form of God, took upon bim the Form of a Servant, he plainly intimates to us, that he obfcured, or laid afide the Glory belonging to the Form of God, when he took the Form of a Servant: The Form of God therefore expreffes and contains all thofe Glories, which Chrift willingly fuffered to be hid in his State of Humility, The very fame Thing is expreffed

by

by the Equality with God here mentioned; for it is faid, that he did not eagerly infift to be equal with God: Now certainly that which he did not infift to keep, and that which he emptied himself of, is one and the fame Thing. If therefore the Glories which he laid afide were the Form of God, and if the Glories which he did not infift to keep were this Equality with God, you must neceffarily fay that the Form of God, and the Equality with God, are one and the fame Thing, What has hitherto been faid, does not fufficiently discover what the precise Notion belonging to each of these Expreffions is; but it fhews evidently, I think, that the Equality with God, whatever it means, did as properly and really belong to our bleffed Lord, before his coming into the World, as the Form of God did; which, as far as I remember, all allow to be the proper Character of Chrift in this Place, however they limit and reftrain it in their various Expofitions.

Befides, the Form of the Argument affords us ftill a further Evidence, that St. Paul esteemed these Characters to be proper and peculiar to Chrift, to be his natural and inherent, not his borrowed Glories: For,

confider

confider what it is that St. Paul exhorts the

you

Philippians to; Look not, fays he, every Man on his own Things, but every Man also on the Things of others: that is, do not act merely upon the View of your own proper Good and Advantage only, but take into your Confideration likewise the Good and Advantage of your Fellow-Creatures : He exhorts them that they fhould not rà aulav oxoner, look to their own Things; but, fays he, Let this Mind be in which was alfo in Chrift Fefus. Then he fets forth, as the Argument requires he fhould, how little Chrift regarded tà eau, Things belonging to himself; for, being in the Form of God, he was not eager of appearing equal with God. This Form of God therefore, and this Equality with God, were certainly thofe Things of his own, which the Apostle intended to fhew that he did not look to: And without taking this to be his Meaning, the Precept and the Example cannot meet in the fame Point.

Suppose then here, that the Form of God means the Glories proper and peculiar to the Prefence of God; and that to be equal with God, in this Place, fignifies only to be cloathed with equal Glories, to appear in

his Majesty and Power; yet it deserves to be confidered, who, and what Manner of Perfon he is, to whom the proper and peculiar Glories of God, to whom his Majesty and his Power do belong, and so belong to him, as to be his own. Should God communicate his Glories to a Creature, in the highest Degree that a Creature is capable of receiving them; yet the Glories of God, so communicated to the Creature, could in no Senfe be faid to be the Creature's own Glories. Our own Glories are thofe only which are proper and peculiar to our own Nature; for, as the Apostle elsewhere says, one Thing differeth from another Thing in Glory.

But the Apostle's Mind will ftill further appear as we go on: He took upon him, says he, the Form of a Servant, and was made in the Likeness of Man: And being found in Fashion as a Man, be humbled bimfelf. The Form of a Servant is here plainly opposed to the Form of God: When he laid afide the Form of God, he took the Form of a Servant: If we can therefore come at the determinate Meaning of either of these Expreffions, it will certainly lead to the Knowledge of the other. The true Key to this Place is, I think, to be found in the firft

and