CHRIST says, "With thine own self," which determines it to be a real glory he had in GOD'S own presence. So evidently this is the sense, that to refuse it, must be owing to prejudices against the doctrine contained in the text, or at least, an unacquaintedness with the proper way of explaining it; were it not for one of these every reader would naturally and necessarily take it in this sense.

Without admitting this to be the meaning, I cannot see how it is possible to understand some other parts of our Lord's prayer with any degree of clearness. He says, "Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."* How unprofitable does the sense appear to say, that God loved CHRIST before the world as to the divine nature? But it is most edifying to us, and quite suitable to his purpose, to consider it as spoken by him as man, referring to his pre-existing state and nature; as it gives a grand idea of his being the early and ancient object of his Father's love. But this love. cannot be referred to the decree of God, for he loves the saints as foreseen in his decree; whereas the evident design of CHRIST is, that the saints might enjoy the divine love in their measure, which he actually enjoyed before the world.

CHRIST does not here pray, that the saints may enjoy such a love as is supposed to be peculiar to the internal distinctions of Deity; but such a sort of love in their degree, as he himself enjoyed in his pre-existent soul. This renders other verses plain,†-"That they may be one as we are oneThou hast loved them as thou hast loved me."Here the love which JEHOVAH bears to CHRIST as man, and the union of CHRIST as man, to Deity, is made a pattern of the union of the saints to God,

and the love of God to them. But is it possible to suppose that the eternal, ineffable, essential, and necessary union in Deity, can be a pattern of the unnecessary, unessential, and voluntary union between God and saints? But the union and love between God and CHRIST as man, may be a pattern of the love and union between GOD and believers in CHRIST. Yet it becomes us to maintain a high sense of the unknown and sublime difference between the union of the man CHRIST to Deity, and the union of saints to God. The one is so hear, as to make what is said and done by God, to be attributed to CHRIST; which would be blasphemy to attribute to the best of saints.

It is an excellent rule for interpretation of scripture, 'Never to have recourse to a strained and metaphorical sense, but when we know that either the nature of the thing, or some other revelation of scripture will not admit of a proper one ;and that we must understand words in a proper and natural sense, where there is no apparent reason of a figure.' Now in the present case, there is nothing in nature or in scripture that forbids this literal meaning of the passage; and what further observations may be made on other texts, I willingly submit to be tried by the above rule; which is the duty of every one to mind, who would give the true and plain meaning to scripture.

The next passage which we shall consider, is the advice which the apostle gives to the Philippians, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in CHRIST JESUs, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, (he emptied himself) and took upon him the form of a servant, (being) and was made in the likeness of men," &c.*

It is very clear from this passage, that the apostle intends to set CHRIST before the Philippians as the best pattern of humility; which he does in the most striking manner, by aggrandizing his former state and circumstances, and then describing how he emptied himself of the glory of them, and then appeared on earth in a very mean and low estate" Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God."-His human soul being in union with the Deity, was vested with a God-like form and glory in all former ages; thus he frequently appeared to the patriarchs as the "Angel of the LORD," (the ANGEL JEHOVAH,) and as God or JEHOVAH, with a heavenly brightness about him, or clothed with the divine Shekinah, the robe of light, and spake and acted like God himself. This is the form of God which is here spoken of by the apostle, who says, "nor did he think it any robbery, or sinful presumption, so to do, that is, to appear and act as God, since he was united to Deity, and in that sense one with GOD.* Yet he emptied himself, that is, he divested himself of the God-like form, or appearance, the divine Shekinah, and coming in flesh, he was content to be made in the likeness of other men ; yea, instead of the form of a God, he took upon him "the form of a servant;" that is, instead of the glory in which he appeared and acted as GOD; he came in a mean servile form, and "humbled

* A critical explanation of the words, "He thought it no robbery to be equal with God," would have tended more to confirm the sentiment I am endeavoring to illustrate; but as it would not have been, perhaps, so clear to an English reader, I have followed the English translation, and the sense of the most orthodox protestant divines. Yet though these words are applied to the most exalted character, the Deity of CHRIST, it appears evident, that the other parts of the passage are most happily applied to the pre-existence and incarnation of the human soul of Christ; and that this doctrine requires no change in the English translation, nor the common sense of this phrase to be altered in order to support it.

himself even to death," &c. - That the most natural meaning of this passage is concerning the human soul of CHRIST, and its humiliation, and not concerning the abasement of his DEITY, will plainly appear by considering,

1. That though God commands our conformity to himself, in holiness, love, and beneficence, yet Deity is never in all the bible propounded as an example of self-denial and humility: but as it is the chief design of this passage to propose a wonderful example of humility and self-denial, it must therefore be some inferior nature to Deity that is proposed, which could be none other, consistent with the plain sense of the text, and the analogy of faith, than the human soul of CHRIST, in union to Deity; and the most glorious example it was, when he divested himself of such ancient glorysuch a God-like form.

2. CHRIST being in the form of God cannot here mean his Deity, because this form is represented as inconsistent with the state of his humiliation; therefore he puts off this form, or empties himself of it, and puts on the opposite form, viz. that of a servant, when he became incarnate, and was made in the likeness of man: but none will say that he could put off his Deity when he came in flesh! Therefore it must refer to his human soul which was in the form of God, or made God-LIKE appearances before his incarnation; this divine form he put off, when he took on him the fashion of a man, and the form of a servant. Besides, the word translated here form of God, no where signifies nature, essence, or proper Deity, but only appearance, shape, likeness. And that this is the meaning of it here is further evident by observing, that the form of God stands expressly opposed to

the form of a servant. Now CHRIST in the civil life on earth was not in the condition of a servant among men directly and expressly; for though he condescended to perform servile offices upon some occasions, he at the same time claimed the authority of a master, over those very persons, for or to whom he performed servile offices. Therefore though his condition was mean, it was not that of a servant; consequently, his being in the form of a servant, must signify his acting sometimes as a servant; so his being in the form of God cannot signify his Deity, but rather his appearing and acting as GOD.

3. It will not admit of contradiction, that the same nature which emptied itself was afterwards filled with glory as a recompence,-that the same nature which humbled itself, was afterwards highly exalted by GOD. Now this was not the Deity of CHRIST, but his human nature: for it would be strange to suppose the apostle to say, that the Deity emptied and abased itself, and the human nature was exalted as a recompence of this abase

ment.

Let us now consider a similar passage, which tends to illustrate the former, and give new force to the present argument. The apostle says to the Corinthians, "Ye know the grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might be made rich.”*

It cannot be said of God, that he became poor, who is infinitely self-sufficient, necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and glories, and the indefeasable possession of all things. -And if CHRIST