Abraham was, I am?"-Omnipotence, when with such sublimity, he declared to John in the Isle of Patmos, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, saith the Lord Almighty ?" Did he not receive every expression of homage that was paid to him, while in this earth? Is there a title, an honour, an operation of glory ascribed to the Father that is not, without limit and without reserve, ascribed to the Son? But we are told this is not a right translation; that it should be rendered, "He did not eagerly grasp at resemblance to God." That having the power of working miracles, he did not, on that account, claim to be God. We accept the emendation; but it makes nothing for the views of those by whom it is asserted. If, as I have already remarked, the passage is intended to bring forth the sublimest instance of humility that could be presented to us, what humiliation is there, if this view of the case be true-that He who was but man, though invested with the power of working miracles, should not actually claim to be God? What should we say of an individual who would bring forward the conduct of some petty officer of some small municipality who, because he officiated in the character of an officer or constable, did not claim the honours of the imperialal crown? Is this an act of humility? Could it have been an act of condescension and humility on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ not to do that which would have been the greatest blasphemy for the most exalted creature in the universe to do-not claim the honours of Divinity? Was it any humiliation of Paul and Barnabas, when the inhabitants of Lystra were going to worship them, they suggested at once they were but men of like passions with themselves, and refused the homage? Was it an instance of humility on the part of the angel that he did not receive homage when the apostle fell at his feet, and was about to worship him?

We now take up the language that is employed in describing the subsequent state of our Lord's humiliation and depression, "He made himself of no reputation." Here, again, critics suggest, and with propriety, a little alteration in the rendering. They would have it," He emptied himself-divested himself." Of what? Not of the essence of divinity; that he could not do. And here we borrow a proof that our view of the meaning of "the form of God" is a correct one, because Christ never divested himself of the essence of the Godhead, but he could divest himself of its manifestation; and this is its meaning. He emptied himself-divested himself of it. When he rose from his throne of glory in heaven, and came down to our world in the character of a Saviour, he threw over the form of God the veil of humanity; and instead of coming to our world arrayed in the splendour of divinity, he appeared as a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;" he divested himself of it, and "took upon him the form of a servant," appeared in a low menial condition, even as man. He did not come as monarch, warrior, or hero, but he was born in a stable, laid in a manger, passed through life in the lowest state of poverty; so that he could say, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head."

And he was made in the likeness and fashion of man, that is, truly and properly man. But his humiliation stopped not there. He came not, as we have already observed, in the pomp of majesty, the splendour of exalted rank; this had been condescension. He came as a poor man. But his humility stopped not even there either, for the language goes on to state that "he was found in fashion as a man," that is, truly and properly man. Another proof, I think, that the interpretation I have given of the "form of God" is correct. If the "fashion of man" means truly and properly man; the "form of God" means truly and properly God. But observe, his humility ended not in his incarnation, or merely becoming man, "He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death." Obedient unto death! Is not death the common lot of humanity? Is not the loftiest monarch as truly subject to the king of terrors as the meanest peasant of his realm? "Humbled himself, and became obedient unto death!" How comes that to be humility in Christ which is necessity in every one else, and which would have been necessity in him as well as every

75

one else, had he been only man-mortal like ourselves? But we are told that he "humbled himself, and became obedient unto death." This implies that there was no antecedent necessity for his doing it apart from what he came to accomplish, that there was nothing in his nature, nothing in his conduct, which subjected him to the king of terrors. How comes that but that there was a singularity of nature in him which appertained to none others but himself? He tells us that "No man taketh his life from him, that he laid it down of himself." Was it any humiliation in the apostles or in Moses to die? was it not the law of their nature? How, then, we still leave the question, how can it be set forth as illustrating humility in our Lord Jesus Christ that he condescended to die? It is because he stood distinct from all mortals-he was the Son of God as well as the Son of Man.

But, my brethren, we should fall short altogether of the extent of our Lord's humiliation if we ever stopped here; step by step he goes down from depth to depth, even to a lower depth still, till he has reached the very last stage to which humility itself could conduct him. The sentence would have been complete of itself, if there had been nothing further stated. "He humbled him

self, and became obedient unto death." But that would have told but half the story-that would have left the sublimest wonder untold,__and therefore he goes on to say, Even the death of the CROSS." There is a graduated scale of rank even in the hands of the king of terrors; there are doors to the gloomy mansions of the dead for both plebeian and patrician; there are additional stages of degradation and infamy, even in the last stern act of justice when taking away human life. In ancient times there were the axe, the hemlock, and the cross; in modern times there are the halter, the axe, and the soldier's bullet; and it would be felt by many the very bitterness of death to go out of existence in the lowest stage of degradation. It is recorded of that interesting soldier, Major Andres, and I bring it forward for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the text, that when taken as a spy in the American war, and doomed to death, he solicited from Washington the single and simple favour, that he might die the soldier's instead of the felon's death-that he might be shot instead of hanged. And when brought in front of the gallows a thrill of horror passed through his frame, not that he was to die, but that he was to die thus, for it was concealed from him that the mode of his execution was not to be changed until just that moment that it was to take place.

Think, then, of the wondrous condescension of our Lord, "He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Ah, my brethren, you and I see nothing but glory in the cross. Ever since it has been

assumed as the visible symbol-the badge of christianity, it has waved in the banners of victorious armies, it has adorned the palaces of princes, it has been employed, as it has been supposed, to give sanctity to places of worship, it forms, even to this day, although to me it is a kind of desecration of it, an ornament, a personal ornament to hang around the neck of beauty. We have acquired in these days all this veneration for the cross, which, however, never belonged to it on its own account. Why, an ancient citizen of Rome would have died an hundred deaths rather than to have died once by crucifixion; and many of you know, who are read in history, that one of the most eloquent of Tully's orations, directed against Venice, was intended to arouse indignation against his judges because they had dared to put a citizen of Rome to death by the cross. Oh, then, christian men and women, think, think of what you owe to Jesus Christ, not merely for dying, but for dying upon the cross, a death accursed by the Jewish law, and the very lowest depth of degradation and ignominy to which any one could be sunk by the law of the Gentiles. "He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Oh, thou Lamb of God, we in these days cannot even conceive of the ignominy to which thou didst condescend for us, and for our salvation!

We now proceed to the third division of the subject, to show, as far as can be, the importance of the doctrine which the text contains, I mean the true 76

and proper divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the strongest single passage in support of this doctrine in the view of the preacher, which is contained in this whole range of scripture. No sophistry can get rid of it, no criticism can weaken its force; there it is, and there it will remain to proclaim the Godhead of Christ to the end of time.

But I am to consider now, according to the announcement of this division of discourse the importance of this doctrine; and this will appear if we consider that, apart from it there can be no consistent explanation of Holy Scripture. No one can have read the New Testament, I think, with impartiality who is not struck with this fact. There are some passages which seem to speak of Christ as having more than humanity, and others there are that seem to speak of him as having less than divinity; there are passages which, taken by themselves, would imply that he was only man; there are other passages which, taken in the same isolation, would imply that he was only God; so that there is no consistent explanation of Scripture which does not take in the two views of our Lord's divine and human nature. Here is the reconciling point; here is that which gives harmony and consistency to what would otherwise appear discrepancy and opposition. The doctrine of our Lord's divinity, however, is not so much formally proved in Scripture as asserted-taken for granted. We find it not merely in passages like the present, where it is so explicitly and intentionally set forth, it meets us at almost every turn.

I knew an Unitarian physician who was brought over to the orthodox view of the persons of Christ in the following manner: He visited a patient for whom he felt a very deep interest and tender solicitude. He was a baptist minister, and an exceedingly interesting young man. The patient was so impressed with the disinterested, devoted, and affectionate attention of his medical friend, that he was at a loss for some means of expressing his gratitude in the most efficient manner. Knowing that the physician was an Unitarian, he felt an earnest anxiety for his conversion to a sounder creed; sometimes he ventured, as far as his strength would allow, to discuss the doctrines of Scripture with his kind and candid friend by his bedside. On one occasion he lent him a volume on the Unitarian controversy, and obtained a promise that it should be read carefully and seriously through. The book was returned, with the painful information to the lender, that it had made no alteration in the views of the physician. As the closing scene drew nigh, the dying minister, as his last resource, and as the likeliest means of leading to the desired change in the opinions of his medical friend, obtained a promise that after his decease, he would read with great seriousness and as much impartiality as his already long formed opinions would allow, the gospel according to John; and pause, after every saying of Christ, and every reference to him, and ask himself the question, "Can this be said by and of one that was only man?" He faithfully complied with his patient's request, and rose, from the perusal of this portion of Holy Scripture, a firm believer in the true and proper divinity of Christ, and held fast this great truth till his death. The importance of the doctrine will appear again, when we consider its connexion with the whole system of divine truth-with all the doctrines—the fundamental doctrines, of the gospel. It is to them what the sun is to the solar system; that which assigns to them their station, imparts to them their radiance, light, and vigour; guides their revolutions, and keeps the whole in harmony. Take away this Central Luminary, the harmony is broken, the elements rust to chaos, and the light of salvation is extinguished for ever. What is the doctrine of the atonement apart from the doctrine of the divinity of Christ? The value of the great sacrifice on Calvary arises not so much from the quantity of the suffering, or even altogether the quality of it, as it does from the nature and the dignity of the sufferer-" He hath by himself purged away our sins." The doctrine of the atonement if it mean anything, must mean a scheme by which the authority of the law, and the principles of God's moral government, shall be as stable and firm, even though man be pardoned, as if the whole race of transgressors had sunk together, as the conse

77

quence of their own sins, to the bottomless pit. And to talk of the manifestation of divine justice through the atonement of one who is but a mere creature, is " as rational as it would have been," says Mr. Fuller, "to have spoken of British public justice having been displaced, if the monarch of these realms had pardoned the deluded followers of the pretender, through the sufferings of a worm transfixed on the point of a needle." We want the divinity of Christ to give efficacy to the sacrifice; and it is chiefly that which imparts all its value to the atonement of the cross. As a principle, the doctrine of the atonement is as essential to our hope, as it is interesting as a fact to our faith. When looking around for a Saviour, such as my conscience and the Word of God tell me I need, direct not my eye to a man, a mere man, a creature, a mortal like myself. My Redeemer owns my person, I am his property, I have committed myself into his hands; and all I am and have as an immortal being, are in his keeping, and all I expect hereafter is from him. What! commit myself-my eternal all, into the hands of a mere creature like myself? I could not trust my body for its everlasting welfare to the highest archangel that glows and serves in the temple of God above, much less my precious and inmortal soul! The hour is approaching of transition from time to eternity, from the visible to the invisible world; and in that awful hour I must commit myself-my departing spirit, into the hands of Jesus. What! again I say, into the hands of a mere mortal like myself? No! he is in the "form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

But I go further still. I say, according to my own view, I could not trust the Bible as a safe book, if Jesus Christ be not divine. The Bible was given to root out idolatry, to establish the unity of God; yet if Jesus Christ be not divine, it has established an idolatry more subtle, and therefore more dangerous, and more extensive, than any other which ever prevailed; for is it not a fact, that ninety-nine out of a hundred, that have read the Bible in times even of freedom of thought, when a persecuting church does not dictate their creed, when the terrors of the law do not hang over them, compelling them to receive a particular creed, have received the truth that Christ is divine? so that the Bible seems to have failed in its object, and established, I repeat, an idolatry more extensive, more subtle, and therefore the more dangerous. See, then the importance of the doctrine contained in this momentous and glorious passage.

I go on now to the fourth and last head of my discourse; which is to enforce the cultivation of the disposition which is enjoined in the text-" Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." All who are read in the history of classical antiquity, know full well that whatever morality there was among the Greeks and Romans, stood in no connexion whatever with their religion. Their theology and their morality were in opposition to each other. Some of their writers, especially of the stoic school, said many fine and beautiful thingsthings which any Christian might do well to remember. The philosopher must have wished his pupils to avoid the priests, and not to come within the precincts of the temple. You know that the gods of Greece and Rome were deification of the worst passions and vices of humanity, which were exalted, as Foster says, to the heavens, to be invested with Olympian charms, and thence come down with a divine authority to make men wicked; so that these men were made wicked by their religion. Their gods and goddesses were characters such as one would scarcely mention in a religious assembly. What a glorious contrast does Christianity present to all this! Christianity is not merely a system of doctrine, a synopsis of principles; nor is it a book of mere duties, but it is a union of both; a connexion of the most sublime theology, and the purest morality, and the morality is the emanation of its theology. Nothing in the New Testament is purely scientific-all is practical. Nothing is merely theoretical-all is something to be done; and it is the glory of Scripture, that while it inculcates the most exalted pity and devotion, it makes love to God productive at the same time of love to man; and allows no man to consider that he loves God, who does not love his fellow creature also. The

first and second tables of law do not clash against each other, or break each other into pieces; they are a consistent system of theology and ethics-ethics, however, based upon theology. And in the New Testament, all the strongest motives of right and holy conduct are drawn to the very doctrine, which as sinners we are required to believe for our salvation, down to the very inculcation of the duties between man and wife.

How fully the character of God is presented in the teaching of Scripture! With what attributes is he invested, and in what light enthroned, and presented, all his moral perfections as the example to be imitated. And if it be true that the devout worshipper most resembles his God, what must be the character of those who bow at the throne of the holy, holy Lord God, and return from thence, to give evidence by his conduct, of the sincerity of his worship? So with respect to the character of Christ. Here the uncreated glories of the Godhead are exhibited in association with the milder beauties of a perfect man, and both are brought in, not merely as something to be admired, and worshipped, but as something to be imitated. Bear with me, then, while I inculcate the disposition mentioned in the text-" Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." Christians, look at your model. Professor of religion, let me present to you your Great Pattern-you are to be like Christ; you are not only to have his character stamped upon your character, you are to have his mind introduced into your mind. You are not only to act as he acted, not only to speak as he spake, you are to think as he thought; you are to feel as he felt; you are to will as he willed; you are not only to stand on the outside of this divine living temple upon earth, looking at its majesty, beauty, and glory, but you are to go into the holiest of holies of his own immaculate Spirit and heart, and looking round upon that as far as it is possible for you to conceive of it, you are to say, "I am to resemble this."

Now there are two things in the disposition or "Mind of Christ," which this passage brings out. I shall confine myself to those.

1st. Humility, the hardest lesson for man upon earth to learn. A lesson so hard, that even the rebel angels in heaven did not permanently learn it, but for want of it forfeited their seat in glory, and were expelled from the celestial world. Humility! that meek and lowly disposition which makes a man backward to take offence, equally backward to give offence, and very forward to pardon offence. That meek and lowly disposition of mind which suppresses the pride of intellect, or wealth, or rank. That meek and lowly disposition which makes a man sometimes willing to forego his own rights rather than disturb the world by the turbulent assertion of them. That meek and lowly disposition which extinguishes the lust of power, the love of precedence, and which makes a man love to be first, second, last, anything, nothing, in order that he may serve God, the church and the world. And oh! brethren, this is what we want-the mind which is in Jesus. Look at the mischief that has been done by the contrary disposition to that enjoined in the text. It hath half depopulated heaven: it hath peopled hell with miserable ghosts; it lives in our world, brought and kept there by satan; it hath embroiled families, disturbed churches, and engaged nations in destructive hostilities. Pride is the fire-brand brought up from hell in the hands of satan, and with which he has fired our earth; and the conflagation still rages, injurious to the most sacred interests of humanity. Pride! why is it not so bad, that men have contrived means of hiding its deformity, by calling it by another name? They are ashamed to own it as it is, and they have called it "spirit, honour, dignity;" and they have represented humility as a low, servile, abject thing. Why don't they carry out their principle, and reproach the Saviour, and tell him he acted unworthy of himself that he did not scatter thunderbolts of vengeance from his throne upon guilty man, rather than die upon the cross for his redemption ? Pride is the besetting sin of our nature, it is ever doing the devil's work, and it has turned many men into devils.

Now this epidemic of our race, this besetting sin of humanity, needed something to counteract it, something more than the force of precept; we wanted

79