*The comment of a great scholar on Phil. 2:7. is "emptied, stripped Himself of the insignia of majesty"; and again, "He divested Himself, not of His divine nature, for this was impossible, but of the glories, the prerogatives, of Deity. This He did by taking upon Him the form of a servant" (Commentary on Philippians, 12th ed., 1908, by Bp. Lightfoot.). In connection with Christ's self-emptying, a charge of heterodoxy has been brought against the late William Kelly, based, as it seems, upon a half-dozen words occurring in one of his early lectures on this Epistle. This charge of false doctrine is preposterous, but we hope is not as malicious as it is ill-founded. The words of W.K. quoted against him are: "He (Christ) emptied Himself of His deity." And on the evidence of this brief sentence, it is declared that W.K. taught that on becoming man Christ ceased to be God, founding this serious accusation upon what is merely their own hasty interpretation of a brief sentence selected from the speaker's somewhat lengthy expository remarks upon the Philippian passage (2:5-8). Indeed, the falsity of this implication is evident even from the speaker's remarks which precede the words quoted. Before using them, W.K. had made clear to his audience what he himself considered was conveyed by the passage he was expounding (2:5-8), and especially the sense of the phrase, "emptied Himself." He taught his hearers that "emptied Himself" meant not that Christ Jesus in taking the form of a bond-servant thereby dispossessed Himself of His absolute deity, but of its prerogatives by abstaining from using these on His own initiative. But on this point, we may let W.K. speak for himself. From the long passage (some five pages of print) dealing with chap. 2:5-8 we have selected from the Notes the following extracts, dealing with the deity of Christ Jesus. "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 (on equality) with God, but made Himself of no reputation (emptied Himself), taking a bondman's form, being come in men's likeness" (Phil. 2:5-7). What an illustrious testimony to the true, proper, intrinsic deity of Christ! It is all the stronger because, like many more, it is indirect (p. 46). . . . Nothing can be conceived more conclusively to prove is own supremely divine glory than the simple statement of the text, . . . Of Christ alone it was true that He took a bond-servant's form; and of Him alone could it be true, because He was in the form of God. In this nature He subsisted originally, as truly as He received a bondman's; both were real, equally real: the one intrinsic, the other that which He condescended to assume in infinite grace (p. 47). . . . "Yet must we carefully bear in mind that it would be as impossible for a divine person to cease to be God as for a man to become a divine person. But it was the joy and triumph of divine grace that He Who was God equally with the Father, when about to become a man, did not carry down the glory and power of the Godhead to confound man before Him, but rather emptied Himself. . . He was God: yet in the place of man which He truly entered He had, as was meet, the willingness to be nothing. He made