of," that is, meditated or devised, as it is made to do in that false version. The other three are more like glosses or paraphrases than translations, and are founded upon pretended metaphorical meanings of the word άρπαγμος, the literal meaning of which is allowed, on all hands, to be "robbery," an act of theft or dishonest violence, or a thing acquired by such means. The true literal translation of the clause, therefore, is, "Thought it not robbery (or usurpation) to be equal with God."

The only metaphorical interpretation for which I have seen any sound authority, seems to be founded on a thievish proverb, still current in the world, that "Stolen things are sweet, or precious." In the state of society which so long ago existed in Greece, similar to that of the Scottish Border a few generations back, every one valued himself most upon those possessions which had been acquired by predatory acts of theft or violence. Hence “ågжayμa, a thing acquired by predatory theft or violence, would naturally come to signify a thing upon which the possessor valued or prided himself; and, in process of time, would be used in this latter sense, without any regard to the manner in which the thing had been acquired. Extending this figurative sense to the cognate word graypos, the first part of our text might be thus rendered"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought not (even) his being (not merely appearing) like or (more literally) equal to God, a thing to value or pride himself upon; but -made himself of no reputation," &c.1 The metaphorical

1 The three passages quoted by Whitby from Heliodorus, but not, I think, correctly explained by him, are strong confirmations of this interpretation; which is the same as that of Theodoret, a learned GREEK father of the fifth century.

interpretation, therefore, is, in truth, more fatal to the Socinians than the literal; but finding that it may have a metaphorical sense, they take occasion to twist and torture the passage into any form that suits their purpose, in pursuance of the laudable design before mentioned, of banishing all mystery from the doctrines of Scripture, though it be at the expense of involving in impenetrable mystery the meaning of every word.

How striking is the contrast between the laboured, mystical, deceitful glosses of the Socinian versions, or rather perversions, of Holy Scripture, and the honest, undesigning simplicity of our own excellent Translation. Few and unimportant are the instances in which it fails to give the exact sense of the original, in the plainest and best words that the English language affords; nor have I ever met with an instance in which the translators appear to have been influenced by the slightest desire to fa vour or disfavour any particular tenet by their mode of rendering a particular passage. Their whole conduct is marked by an earnest desire to unfold the truth, and so to acquit themselves of the awfully responsible duty imposed upon them, that they might, on the great day of account, be able to "take you," their fellow-countrymen, "to record, that they are pure from the blood of all, not having shunned," but earnestly endeavoured, clearly and truly, "to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Whenever there was a doubt or difference of opinion among them, as to which of two ways of rendering a particular word or phrase would convey the meaning best to an English reader, they printed both, one in the text

2 Acts, xx. 26, 27.

H

and the other in the margin. The marginal readings are almost always the most literal translations; and it is much to be regretted, and may be doubted whether it be quite legal, that Bibles should ever be printed without them, or without the marginal references of the original translators.

To the united learning, industry, and caution of fortyseven of the best divines and linguists that this country has ever produced, we are indebted, under Providence, for the most faithful translation of the Scriptures that exists in any modern language. It is free from all wilful corruptions, as well as from every sort of error that can mislead an honest mind in matters of importance to salvation; for which we can never be sufficiently grateful to God, who enabled them to make it so far faultless. But to say that it is altogether faultless, or free from errors of every description, would be to claim for the translators as high a degree of inspiration as that which guided the original penmen of Holy Writ. As men, they were liable to errors of judgment; and I think they have committed one in their mode of expressing Philippians, ii. 7, in our Text, where they have fallen into a fault, by no means common with them, of not making the translation sufficiently close; and thus, though they have not altered the meaning, they have impaired the spirit and clearness of the original. Many of my readers will be obliged to me for bringing them acquainted with the following demonstration of the pre-existence and Divinity of our Saviour, from Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, vol. i. pp. 198-202, in which the more correct rendering of the said verse is also shewn.

"He who was subsisting in the form of God, and

thought himself to be equal with God, (in which thought he could not be deceived, nor be injurious to God,) must, of necessity, be truly and essentially God; because there can be no equality between the Divine Essence, which is infinite, and any other whatsoever, which must be finite. But this is true of Christ, and that antecedently to his conception in the Virgin's womb, and existence in his human nature. For being (or rather subsisting) in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, (Phil. ii. 6, 7.) Out of which words naturally result three propositions, fully demonstrating our assertion. First, that Christ was in the form of a servant as soon as he was made man. Secondly, that he was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant. Thirdly, that he was as much in the form of God, that is, did as truly and really subsist in the Divine nature, as in the form of a servant, or in the nature of man.

"It is a vain imagination that our Saviour then first appeared a servant, when he was apprehended, bound, scourged, crucified. For they were not all slaves which ever suffered these indignities, or died that death; and when they did, their death did not make, but find them, or suppose them servants. Besides, our Saviour, in all the degrees of his humiliation, never lived as a servant unto any master upon earth. It is true, he was subject at first, but as a son, to his reputed father and undoubted mother. When he appeared in public, he lived after the manner of a Prophet and a Doctor sent from God, accompanied with a family, as it were, of his Apostles, whose Master he professed himself; subject to the commands of no man in that office, and obedient only to God,

The form, then, of a servant, which he took upon him, must consist in something distinct from his sufferings, or submission unto men, being the condition in which he was when he so submitted and so suffered. In that he was made flesh, sent in the likeness of sinful flesh,3 subject unto all infirmities and miseries of this life, attending on the sons of men fallen by the sin of Adam: In that he was made of a woman, made under the law, and so obliged to perform the same, which law did so handle the children of God, as that they differed nothing from servants: In that he was born, bred, and lived in a mean, low, and abject condition; as a root out of a dry ground, he had no form nor comeliness; and when we saw him, there was no beauty that we should desire him; but was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:5 In that he was thus made man, he took upon him the form of a servant. Which is not mine, but the Apostle's explication; as adding it, not by way of conjunction, in which there might be some diversity, but by way of apposition, which signifieth a clear identity. And therefore it is necessary to observe, that our translation of that verse is not only not exact, but very disadvantageous to that truth which is contained in it. For we read it thus-But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. Where we have two copulative conjunctions, neither of which is in the original text, and three distinct propositions, without any dependence of one upon the other; whereas all the words together are but an expression of Christ's exinanition, with an explication, shewing in what it consisteth; which

3 Rom. viii. 3.

4 Gal. iv. 4.

Isa, liii. 2, 3.