could not be imposed on him; but he chose them out of pure love and compaffion to men. And this one confideration, if duly weighed, might have fhewn his Lordship, that our Saviour's fufferings were not like to the fufferings of a Slave; Slaves fuffer not voluntarily, but out of necessity; not out of love to those from whom they fuffer, but because they can no way avoid it. This is the very circumftance upon which St. Paul lays the stress, in that paffage referr'd to by the Bishop; and therefore in that paffage St. Paul confiders him not fuffering as a Slave by the neceffity of his condition, but as the freest among men, and suffering nothing but what he chose to fuffer. This was his great glory, this was the ground of his great reward and exaltation: and when Christians find him thus reprefented to them in Scripture; as fuffering every thing for their fakes out of his own free choice; how can they poffibly conceive of him as a flave, as one fold into fervitude, who has no will of his own, but muft endure what the imperious will of another thinks fit to lay on him? Yes, his Lordship will fay; our Saviour did fuffer out of choice; and it was out of choice that he appeared as a flave. And for this he will quote (his only authority) the paffage of St. Paul to the

Philip

Philippians, Chap. ii. that he (Christ) took upon him the form of a fervant, &c.

it;

To quote Scripture by the mere found of words, is to judge of Scripture by the Ear, and not by the Understanding. In our English translation of this passage we have the word Servant, for which his Lordship in his book puts the word Slave as equivalent to and leads his Reader to think that St. Paul represents our Saviour as taking on him the form of a Slave, i. e. of one who is not fui juris, but is bought and fold in the Market for the fervice of a private Master: and yet certain it is, that nothing can be more difagreeable to St. Paul's sense than this Interpretation of his words. The Apostle was not fpeaking to Slaves peculiarly, and therefore had no occafion (fuppofing that he could truly have done it) to represent Chrift under the form of a Slave properly fo called: He writes to all the Servants (not Slaves) of Jefus Chrift at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. And at Ch. ii. he exhorts them, not to bear the hardships of their fervile condition patiently, but to be like-minded, to have the fame love, to be of one accord, of one mind. And left Pride (as it is naturally apt) should prevent their compliance with these Duties, he adds . 3. Let nothing be done

thro'

thro' ftrife or vain-glory, but in lowliness of mind let each efteem others better than themfelves: At . 5. he says, Let this mind be in you, which was alfo in Christ Jefus. And in the following verfes he fets forth his example, and fhews that he did not va saul onerav look on his own things, but was content to lay afide his glory, that he might do good to others. This is the Apoftle's view; and now let us confider what he says of Christ. Thus he speaks who being ĉu μogpỹ. Dax in the form of God ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, emptyed himself, or voluntarily laid afide that divine form of glory, power and majefty, and took upon himself (willingly) og ding the form of a Servant. The form of a Servant is here oppofed (not to the form of a Subject, or of a Freeman, but) to the form of God. And I defire his Lordship to confider whether the form of God be fo little, fo inconfiderable a thing, that the form of a Servant, when opposed to it, must needs fignify the form of a Slave properly fo called. With respect to God, the very highest Beings are Servants; Servant is the impreffed Character of every Creature, as Supreme is the effential attribute of the Creator. When therefore the form of a Servant is opposed to the form of God, it fignifys a Servant to God, and not a Slave

to

to Men. And thus our Saviour himself describes his own Service; that he came to do the will of God; nor is there a fingle Instance to be found. (that I know of) where our Saviour appears to be subject to the will of man like a Slave, but his whole fubjection lay in fubmitting to the will of God his heavenly Father; for this reason he (who in the beginning was with God, and was God) came down to men, and was made Man. The Author to the Hebrews, to fhew the great excellency of Christ above the Angels of God, puts this queftion, To which of the Angels faid he, at any time, Thou art my Son, this Day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son, Ch. i. . 5. This was the excellency of Christ, that he was the Son of God, and heir of all things, the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his perfon, upholding all things by the word of his power, $.3. But Angels were not the Sons of God in the fame fenfe; they had not the (pogon Jes) the brightness of his glory, but were all Servants.

Are they not all miniftring Spirits, fent forth to minifter for them who shall be heirs of falvation? . 14. Here you fee that Angels are distinguished from Chrift, because he was, the brightness of his Father's glory, the express

F

exprefs Image of his perfon; (v pog‡ñ Deỡ;) but they were all miniftring Spirits (cv pogon Sóλwv) fent forth (by God) to minifter for them who fhall be heirs of falvation. And thus our Saviour, when he laid afide the form of God, the brightness of his Father's glory, in order to do the will of God, and to minifter to them who were to be heirs of Salvation, he then took upon him (μogol dóλ8) the form of a Servant, i. e. from appearing in the glory and majesty of God, as ruler of the Universe; he took upon him that form in which he was fo to minifter, and which is therefore called pogon dλ8. In this fenfe all Christians, ancient and modern, (Socinians excepted) have understood the Text; and little fulpected that the form of a Servant, as opposed by St. Paul to the form of God, had any relation to the state or condition of Slaves properly fo called: and, I believe, had any one explained this Text in the Council of Nice, as his Lordfhip has, it would have made the ears of the Chriftian Bishops tingle.

The antient Author Hermas in his Paftor, proposes this question, Quare Filius Dei, in fimilitudine bác, fervili loco ponitur? The Paftor anfwers him; In fervili conditione non ponitur Filius Dei fed in magná poteftate & imperio. And then, after mentioning the In

carnation,