he laid aside his nature he could not lay aside: he was still the Son of God; and therefore, says the Apostle, being man, he was found in fashion as a man: which expression answers to the being equal with God. The form of God, in the first part, answers both to the form of a servant, and to the likeness of men, in the second part; the form of a servant being common to all God's creatures, it did not of itself sufficiently denote Christ's nature: hence the addition, in the likeness of men, was necessary: the form of God required not this: the argument for our Saviour's divinity from this text briefly recapitulated. This exposition of the text is farther confirmed by St. Paul to the Ephesians, iv. 22-24., again in 1 Cor. xv. 47. 48., and many other places of like import. In our text, the Apostle does not expressly compare the first with the second Adam; but the contrast which he draws between the conduct and spirit of the second Adam, and the corrupt affections of the first, leaves no doubt of his meaning. Moses relates that Adam was created after God's image, and was made lord over this lower world. St. Paul tells us that Christ was in the form of God, which gave him dominion over the works of nature. Moses declares how Adam, through disobedience and a vain ambition, fell from the dignity in which he was created, and intailed misery on his descendants: St. Paul says, that Christ through obedience hath set us an example, by which, if the same mind be in us, we may recover what is lost : this contrast carried on and completed. If then we admit of this reference to the case of the first Adam, it will determine the sense of those words in our translation, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God; for in that case the opposition between the two characters would require that it should be said of Adam, that he thought it a robbery to be equal with God: which is absolutely inconsistent with the account of Moses, and with the view and reasoning of St. Paul.

PART III.

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross: this point enlarged on, and the humility of Christ shown in taking on himself the form of a servant, and becoming obedient to the death of the vilest of slaves. This humility is plainly represented to us under two views: in one Christ, who was in the form of God, descends so low as to become man; in the other, he descends yet lower, taking on himself the meanest condition, and undergoing the most ignominious death. The first instance of Christ's humility has been explained by considering from what, and to what, he descended; the second instance is now subjected to a similar examination. In the first we learned the Apostle's opinion concerning our Saviour before his incarnation; in this we shall find what notion he had of him during his abode on earth. The question then is, what manner of person did St. Paul conceive Christ to be, when he said of him, being found in fashion as a man? This will appear by considering what is meant by the fashion of a man, and why St. Paul thus expressed himself; and likewise by examining the instances of humility given in the text, and considering of whom it can properly be said, that he was humble in submitting to death. The fashion of a man denotes those proper and distinguishing characters, which belong to a man as such, and not to any other kind of being: this shown from a consideration of St. Paul's use of the original word, and of the verb de rived from it: thus, when he tells us of Satan's transforming himself into an angel of light, and of his ministers transforming themselves into Apostles of Christ, in both places he uses the verb derived from the original word in this place; and in both places he means, not that these persons actually became such, but that they appeared in such fashions, and could not be distinguished from their originals. Hence the fashion of a man

only means the true and real appearance of a man. To ascertain what led St. Paul to this expression, and why he might not as well have said, and being man he humbled himself,`we must look back to the first rise of the Apostle's argument. The person here spoken of, Jesus Christ, was in the form of God, yet emptied himself not of his being or nature, but of the glory and majesty belonging to him: this point enlarged on, showing that though he continued to be the same, yet, as to his outward dignity and appearance, he was mere man: otherwise, in what tolerable sense could the Apostle say of him, being found in fashion as a man? for in what other fashion should a man be found? The reason of this limitation fully explained in his being something more than man. The Apostle perhaps had another view in the expression, and being found in fashion as a man, with respect to what follows, he became obedient unto death. It might well seem strange that any should attempt the life of him, who was himself the Lord of life: who would be bold or vain enough to think of compassing his death? To which the Apostle gives this previous answer; he was found in fashion as a man, and as such underwent the consequences : this the proper import of the word found: by whom? by those who sought his life, and called him to the obedience which he readily paid. Allowing the Apostle to have had this view, we must suppose that he thought him more than mortal man, as he is at some pains to assign a reason which could tempt any one to suppose him liable to death. This topic enlarged on. II. From the instances of humility given in the text, it is considered to what sort of person they can be applied as such; he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. All must die, and if to die be humility, all are in this respect equally humble. Why then this distinction of Christ's humility? why is it humility in him, which in the case of others is necessity? This point enlarged on, showing that he was mortal, else he could not have died; that he was more than mortal,

else he could not have avoided death; in which case, to die had been no humility. St. Paul therefore supposes him to be more than mere man, who willingly laid down his life, which no man could take from him. We may also observe the Apostle's accuracy, who says, that when Christ quitted the glories proper to the form of God, he emptied himself; for the form of a servant and the likeness of men were inconsistent with divine glories: had he retained them, he could not have come in such form or likeness: he therefore emptied himself of them. In the second instance, he considers Christ as found in the fashion of a man and humbly submitting to death: now to die, even on the cross, has nothing in it incompatible with the fashion of a man; therefore, says the Apostle, he humbled himself. This humility therefore bears no relation to the fashion of a man here spoken of, which continued one and the same on the cross as before: it relates to his person and real dignity, as distinguished from the appearance in which he was found this point enlarged on. But farther, Christ took on him the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men : it indeed was great humility for him who was in the form of God, to become mere man: but having become so, since death is the natural end of all men, what farther humility is there in that he became obedient unto death? The reason is, that though he was man, yet as Lord of all things, he could, as he himself has told us, take up his life and lay it down; hence St. Paul, 1 Cor. ii. 8. says, they killed the Lord of life, or the Prince of life, as expressed in St. Peter's sermon. For him therefore to die was great humility; to die on the cross was still greater; submitting himself to the malice of those who lived only by the power of him they were destroying. It was humility therefore to become man; and when so, it was humility to die. Consider St. Paul in this view, and his discourse is just, the example full; but otherwise we shall hardly find either his argument, or the humility of Christ Jesus.

PART IV.

From verses 9-11, of the text enlarged on, we are instructed in the true reason, and the true foundation of the honor, worship, and glory, which the Christian church has ever paid, and still continues to pay to our blessed Lord. It is difficult to conceive how any accession of glory or honor should be made to him, who was, before his coming into the world, in the form of God, and therefore possessing all things. Yet the Apostle's argument supposes such an accession on his exaltation as a reward for his humility and obedience. Wherefore God has more highly exalted him, &c.: now, according to the Apostle's reasoning, this glory ought to be more excellent than the first glory; for if God gave him nothing but what he had a right to, according to the very excellency of his nature, how did he reward his humility? This point enlarged on. But it may be said, how can these things be? how can he, who is the brightness of his Father's glory, the express image of his person, be exalted in glory? especially considering that Christ, in praying for glory for himself, prays for no other than that which he had before the world was: John xvii. 5. To set this matter in its true light, we must consider that the glories of nature and the glories of office are different and distinct. The Apostle says nothing of nature or essence: he speaks of the person of Christ, and considers him as the same person, and of the same nature, in all his different states of glory, humility, and exaltation: this point enlarged on. The Apostle then infers, not that the natural powers and dignities of Christ were increased, or capable of being so, but only that in consequence of redemption, God made him head over all, and so intitled him to that worship and those honors which were not paid to him before. He was subservient to his Father in the creation of the world: John i. 3. Yet the worship and honor due from the creature to his Creator, always were, and still are