l'hil. ii. 6. was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant, and consequently, before he was made man. For he which is pre-supposed to be, and to think of that being which he hath, and upon that thought to assume, must have that being before that assumption; but Christ is first expressly said to be in the form of God, and, being so, to think it no robbery to be equal with God, and notwithstanding that equality, to take upon him the form of a servant: therefore it cannot be denied but he was before in the form of God. Beside, he was not in the form of a servant, but by the emptying himself, and all exinanition necessarily presupposeth a precedent plenitude; it being as impossible to empty any thing which hath no fulness, as to fill any thing which hath no emptiness. But the fulness which Christ had, in respect whereof assuming the form of a servant, he is said to empty himself, could be in nothing else but in the form of God, in which he was before. Wherefore, if the assumption of the form of a servant be contemporary with his exinanition; if that exinanition necessarily presupposeth a plenitude as indispensably antecedent to it; if the form of God be also coeval with that precedent plenitude; then must we confess, Christ was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant: which is the second proposition. Again, it is as evident from the same Scripture, that Christ was as much in the form of God, as [in] the form of a servant, and did as really subsist in the divine nature, as in the nature of man. For he was so in the form of God, as thereby to be equal with God'. But no other form beside the essential, which is the divine nature itself, could infer an Isai. xl. 25; equality with God. To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal? saith the Holy One. There can be but one iufi xlvi. 5. 1 Tò elvai loa Oe. 'Pariari Deo.' Tertull. adv. Marcion. 1. v. c. 20. Esse se æqualem Deo.' S. Cyprian. Testim. 1. ii, adv. Jud. [ad Quirin.] § 13. [p. 79.] et 1. iii. ad Quirin. § 39. [p. 149.] 'Esse æqualis Deo.' Leporius. [Lib. Emendat. c. 6.] Thus all express the notion of equality, not of similitude: nor can we understand any less by τὸ εἶναι ἴσα, than τὴν ισότητα, ἴσον and ίσα being inditerently used by the Greeks, as Pindarus, Olymp. Od. ii. 109: Ισον δὲ νύκτεσσιν αἰεί, ον ἔχοντες, ἀπονέστερον TOV. So whom the Greeks call ισόθεον, Ποmer loa 0e. Odyss. O. 520: Τὸν νῦν ἶσα θεῷ Ιθακήσιοι εἰσορόωσιν. Where loa has not the nature of an adverb, as belonging to eloopówoi, but of a noun referred to the antecedent Tóv, or including an adverb added to a noun, Tov vuv is iσóleov. The collection of Grotius from this verse is very nite, eternal, and independent Being; and there can be no comparison between that and whatsoever is finite, temporal, and depending. He therefore who did truly think himself equal with God, as being in the form of God, must be conceived to subsist in that one infinite, eternal, and independent nature of God. Again, the phrase, in the form of God, not elsewhere mentioned, is used by the apostle with respect unto that other, of the form of a servant, exegetically continued strange; elva loa Oew, 'est spectari tanquam Deum.' As if he should have said eiropówo signifies spectant, therefore elva signifies spectari. This he was forced to put off thus, because the strength of our interpretation, rendering an equality, lies in the verb substantive rò elva. As Dionysius of Alexandria very anciently: Kevwoas ἑαυτόν, καὶ ταπεινώσας ἕως θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ, ἴσα Θεῷ ὑπάρχει. Epist. ad Paulum Samosat.* [Labbe, Vol. 1. p. 853 c.] For we acknow ledge that loa by itself ofttimes signifieth no more than instar, and so inferreth nothing but a similitude: as we find it frequently in the Book of Job. Where it sometimes answereth to the inseparable particle 2; as quasi in nocte, loa VUKтi, v. 14. na sicut caseum, loa Tuр, x. 10. apr quasi putredo Sym. ὁμοίως σηπεδόνι, LXX.ἶσα ἀσκῷ, xiii. 28. DD sicut aquam, loa оT, XV. 16. y tanquam lignum, loa úλw, xxiv. 20. sicut lutum, loa λ, xxvii. 16. bynɔ sicut vestimento, loa dinλotdi, xxix. 14. paɔ quasi bos, loa Bovoív, xl. 15. [10]. Where we see the Vulgar Latin useth for the Hebrew , quasi, sicut, tanquam, the LXX. loa. Sometime it answereth to no word in the original, but supplieth a similitude understood, not expressed, in the Hebrew: as, y tanquam pullum. loa ov, xi. 12. 128 et lapis, loa Xie, xxviii. 2. n luto, loa #ŋλ, xxx. 19. Once it rendereth an Hebrew word rather according to the intention, than the signification; used adverbially for instar, and in none hath the addition of rò elvai to it. As for that answer of Socinus, that Christ cannot be God, because he is said to be equal with God: 'Tantum abest ut, ex eo quod Christus sit æqualis Deo, sequatur ipsum esse æternum et summum Deum, ut potius ex hoc ipso necessario consequatur non esse æternum et summum Deum. Nemo enim sibi ipsi æqualis esse potest.' Socin. ad 8. c. Vujek. [Arg. iii. p. 576.] as if there could be no predication of equality, where we find a substantial identity: it is most certainly false, because the most exact speakers use such language as this is. There can be no expressions more exact and pertinent than those which are used by geometricians, neither can there be any better judges of equality than they are; but they most frequently use that expression in this notion, proving an equality, and inferring it from identity. As in the fifth proposition of the first Element of Euclid, two lines are said to contain an angle equal to the angle contained by two other lines, because they contained the same angle, or γωνίαν κοιvý and the basis of one triangle is supposed equal to the basis of another triangle, because the same line was basis to both, or βάσις κοινή. In the same manner certainly may the Son be said to be equal to the Father in essence or power, because they both have the same essence and power, that is, οὐσίαν καὶ δύναμιν κοινήν. Ocellus de Universo. Ἀλλ ̓ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὸ καὶ ὡσαύτως διατελεῖ καὶ ἴσον καὶ ὅμοιον αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ. c. 1. § 6. -comparabitur cineri, ad ver משלי אפר bum proverbia cineris, loa orodŵ, xiii. xlviii. 12; xliv. 6. in the likeness of man; and the respect of one unto the Thirdly, He which is expressly styled Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, without any restriction or limitation, as he is after, so was before any time assignable, truly and essentially God. For by this title God describeth his own Isni. xli. 4; being, and distinguisheth it from all other. I the Lord, the first, and with the last, I am he. I am he, I am the first, I also am the last. I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God. But Christ is expressly called Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. He so proclaimed himself by a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Which answereth to that solemn call and Isai. xlviii. 12. proclamation in the prophet, Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called. He comforteth St John with the majesty of this title, Fear not, I am the first and the last. Which words were spoken by one like unto the Son of man, by him that liveth, and was dead, and is alive for evermore; that is, undoubtedly, by Christ. He upholdeth the Church of Smyrna Rev. i. 11. Rev. i. 17. Rev. i. 13. Rev. i. 18. in her tribulation by virtue of the same description. These Rev. ii. 8. things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive. He ascertaineth his coming unto judgment with the same. assertion, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the Rev. xxii. 1. end, the first and the last1. And in all these places this title is attributed unto Christ absolutely and universally, without any kind of restriction or limitation, without any assignation of any particular in respect of which he is the first or last; in the same latitude and eminence of expression in which it is or can be attributed to the supreme God. There is yet another Scripture, in which the same description may seem of a more dubious interpretation: I am Alpha and Rev. i. 8. Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. For being it is the Lord who so calls himself, which title belongeth to the Father and the Son, it may be doubted whether it be spoken by the Father or the Son; but whether it be understood of the one or of the other, it will sufficiently make good what we intend to prove. For if they be understood of Christ, as the precedent and the following words imply, then is he certainly that Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to 125 come, the Almighty; that is, the supreme eternal God, of the same divine essence with the Father, who was before described 1 With the article so much elsewhere stood upon, τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, ὁ πρῶτος, καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, The Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. For we must not take rò A as the grammarians do, by which they signify only the letter written in that figure, and called by that name. As appeareth by Eratosthenes, who was called Bîra, not τὰ βήματα, as Suidas corruptly 87. attribute as much unto himself. Wherefore being Christ hath so immediately, and with so great solemnity and frequency, taken the same style upon him by which the Father did express his Godhead; it followeth, that he hath declared himself to be the Supreme, Almighty, and Eternal God. And being thus the Alpha and the first, he was before any time assignable, and consequently before he was conceived of the Virgin; and the being which then he had was the divine essence, by which he was truly and properly the Almighty and Eternal God. Fourthly, He whose glory Isaiah saw in the year that king Uzziah died, had a being before Christ was begotten of the Virgin, and that being was the divine essence, by which he was naturally and essentially God; for he is expressly Isai. vi. 1, 3. called the Lord, Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of hosts, whose glory filleth the whole earth; which titles can belong to none beside the one and only God. But Christ was he whese John xii. 41. glory Isaiah saw, as St John doth testify, saying, These things, said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him: and he whose glory he saw, and of whom he spake, was certainly Christ for of him the apostle treateth in that place, and of John xii. 33, none but him. These things spake Jesus, and departed. But though he (that is, Jesus) had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him, that is, Christ who wrought those miracles. The reason why they believed not on him John xii. 38. Was, That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and as John xii. 39, they did not, so they could not, believe in Christ, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. For those who God foresaw, and the prophet foretold, should not believe, could not do it without contradicting the prescience of the one, and the predictions of the other. But the Jews refusing to assent unto the doctrine of our Saviour, were John xii. 41. those of whom the prophet spake: for these things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. Now it the glory which Isaias saw, were the glory of Christ, and he of whom Isaias in that chapter spake, were Christ himself; then must those blinded eyes and hardened hearts belong unto these Jews, and then their infidelity was so long since 40. |