I answer therefore, that tho' our Savior did certainly deserve the Appellation of a God, upon the account of his being infpired, much more juftly than any other Prophet whatsoever; nay, if that very Appellation had been given him, upon, that very account, a thousand times over (as it never once. is in all the Bible) yet it can't be faid, that he was in μogen des upon the account of his being infpired. For, as I obferv'd before, the Apostle oppofes his being ἐν μορφή θεῖ to his κένωσις, and being ἐν μορφή δέλεα If therefore his being mogen de fignifies his being infpired; what can his xiveos and being o mean? Did Chrift ever ceafe to be infpired? Cans any Chriftian bear fuch a blafphemous Suppofition? Befides, 'tis faid, that when he was voron 9, he did not earnestly defire to be fe; that is, he did not earnestly defire to continue uoganv Jes, which is equivalent to vou loa de, but was pleafed auto v, and to take Mogolò da. But is not this deteftably falfe, upon Suppofition, that his being og der, and confequently his being Toe, denotes his being inspired? For did Chrift ever cease to defire the Continuance of the Spirit's Prefence with him? Or did he ever throw it up, or caft it off? This Expofition therefore cannot ftand.

1

And indeed, let Men ftrain their Wits as hard as they please, they will never be able to make meson des codexo applicable to our Savior during his Abode upon Earth. And accordingly, not only your felf, but the Generality of Writers, especially thofe who affirm that the WORD, or divine Na ture of Chrift, is very God, do unanimoufly and zealously contend, that Chrift did è uoson des vads Xer before the Incarnation. The Truth is, this is fo plainly the obvious Meaning of the Apostle's Expreffions;

Expreffions; that as the common Senfe of Mankind has led them to understand him thus, so one would wonder,how any Person can think them capable of a different Interpretation. For is not that State, wherein Chrift did &uogon des dexew, manifeftly oppos'd to, and diftinguish'd from, and fuppos'd inconfiftent with,that State in which he exifted, after he had condefcended tv xever, and μoggles A Aacer? And could he then be in thofe two oppofite and diftinct, nay, inconfiftent States, at the fame time? And did he not autov nerv and μospl δέλε λαβεῖν, when he became incarnat, ἐν ὁμοιώματα civspámv SvóμlvC? For does not that Phrafe manifeftly mean his Incarnation? Wherefore that State, wherein he did evμogo de dexen, was prior to his Incarnation, and was left by him, when he vouchfaf'd to take upon him Flesh and Bloud.

Befides, 'tis remarkable, that these Words, iv duos áuan ávůçãπwv you, are fo placed, that they are neceffarily appropriated to that State, in which Chrift exifted, after he did Lavrov never and μoggle d'sas λaber, and can't be extended to that State, in which 'tis faid that he did ev moçoñ der indexer. For there are two oppofit Branches of the Apostle's Words, the latter of which begins at 'Ama, and is thereby totally feparated from what goes before. Now thefe Words, ἂν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων νόμῳ, concludes this latter Branch, and must therefore appertain to it: But they can't be extended to the former Branch alfo with any tolerable Congruity of Speech. For had the Apostle meant, that our Lord was in veganov, that is, Incarnat, at that time, of which he exprefly affirms, that he did in μospy der væáexe, as well as when he had vouchfaf'd ἑαυτὸν κενῖν and μορφω δέλε λαβεῖν: He would cercainly have placad ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γυόμθυα in

the

the former Branch, and not have made thofe Words the very Conclufion of the latter. He would have faid thus, or to this purpofe, s práμm ávőgá Χρόμιθ, καίπερ ἐν μορφὴ θεῖ ὑπάρχων, ἐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλ ̓ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, κ. τ. λ. This would na turally have exprefs'd his Meaning; whereas the prefent Difpofition of his Phrafes confines & duocáfan ávogámov go to Chrift's Afterftate, to his xivos, when he did moggle λ λab; nor can we faften any other Intention on St. Paul, without ta king fuch Liberty, as his ufual Diction does not warrant, and confequently we must not arrogat to our felves.

ye

Nay farther, our Lord himself fays, And now, O Father, glorifie thou me with thine own Self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was, John 17. 5. This plainly fhews, that our Lord left a glorious State, which he did not enjoy during his abode upon Earth. Nay, this very Apoftle fays, Te know the grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift, that though be was rich, yet for your fakes be became poor, that through his poverty might be rich, 2 Cor. 8. 9. But was Chrift both Poor and Rich at the fame time? Did he not therefore leave his Riches, and become Poor? Was he not then Rich, or Glorious and Happy, before his Incarnation: and did he not become Poor, that is, mean and miferable, by it? Thefe Texts are notoriously parallel to that which we are confidering; and they do all of them fpeak of a prior State of Glory, which Chrift left; and a pofterior State of Contempt and Sorrow, which he voluntarily affum'd by being Incarnat.

Nay farther ftill, were the Apostle's Words in this difputed Place fairly capable of different Senfes; yet we ought to understand them in that Senfe, which I have been contending for, and which

Mankind

Mankind have ufually put upon them, for this plain Reason. The Apoftle is preffing his Difciples to Humility and Condefcention from the Example of Chrift. And it can't be doubted, but that Chrift's leaving a glorious State preceding his Incarnation, merely to do us good, and redeem our Souls, would make the Apoftle's Argument from his Example much stronger, than if he urg'd only what Chrift did upon Earth, without taking notice of his leaving a preceding State of Glory. Since therefore the Apoftle certainly knew, what the Bleffed Jefus left at his Incarnation; we muft fuppofe, that he took into his Argument that Glory, which Chrift enjoy'd before he was cloath'd with Flesh and Bloud; unless we can imagin, in spight of the good Manners due to an Apoftle, and in manifeft Contradiction to St. Paul's conftant Pra&tice, of preffing every thing to the very best Advantage, that he purpofely omitted what was moft of all to his own Purpose, and defignedly enervated his own Reasoning.

Upon the whole, I think, 'tis very clear, that our Savior did pogon des dexen before his Incarnation; and that when he became Incarnat, he left that State in which he did & μορφῇ θεῖ ὑπάρχαν, and which he had till then enjoy'd. The Question therefore is, in what Senfe Chrift did ev mogañ deš adsxev before his Incarnation.

Those that affirm the WORD, or Divine Nature of Chrift, to be very God, have endevor'd to eftablish that Doctrin by this very Phrafe. For they imagin, that μogo desexe fignifies to be really and truly God; because they fuppofe, that being i pogon λ fignifies being really and truly a Servant. Now tho' none can more heartily believe,that the WORD, or Divine Nature of Chrift,

is very God, than I my felf; and I hope, in due time, to give you fufficient Demonftration of the Truth of that Doctrin: yet I must own, I am fully perfuaded, that iv og de deze does not fignify being really and truly God. For is this Phrafe, or any thing like it, ever us'd in that Senfe in any part of the Bible? Or rather, if the Apoftle meant to express Chrift's being very God, would he use this Way of Expreffion? Is it in any measure proper, or tolerable? Does not upp denote a Shape, Form, Likeness, or Appearance? And could he that is very God, be faid to be a pogo that is, in his own μορφή ? Chrift might indeed be ἐν ὁμοιώμα náváлv, and be found an as vegan, that is, be a Man like others; because with respect to his Manhood there are fo many others of the fame kind, whom he resembles and appears like: But 'tis abfurd to fay, that a Being which has not any other of the fame Kind, is in its own ago, that is, refembles or appears to be like it felf. Befides, Chrift's being μogy de, is opposed to his Humiliation, and being i pogon x. So that whilft he was a μocon deg, he was not a μoggy Séax, and" vice verfa. For ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε μορφων δέλε λαβών, be emptied (or debased) himself, taking (or by taking, or when he took) upon him the form of a fervant. But can this be faid of him that is very God? Can the very God cease to be what he is? If being a posode is being the very God, could Chrift empty himself of his gene at his Incarnation?

But in truth, the very Ground of this Interpretation is utterly falfe. 'Tis commonly argued, that being og der does therefore fignify being really and truly God, becaufe being mogen das fignifies being really and truly a Servant. But was Christ at any time during his Humiliation, really and truly E