Virgin, was not any created, but the divine essence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God. This will evidently and necessarily follow from the last demonstration of the first assertion, the creating all things by the Son of God; from whence we inferred his pre-existence," in the beginning' assuring us as much that he was God, as that he was, "For he that built all things was God." (Heb. iii. 4.) And the same

ex Deo Patre, in quo carnis veritatem Council of Nice, and at the same time confitetur ex Virgine.' Fulg. ad Thra- by a Council at Rome under Sylvester: sim. l. i. c. 6. Gregory Nazianzen, ac- but this is delivered only in a forged cording to his custom, gives a very Epilogus Concilii Romani. He was brief, but remarkable expression: - then first condemned with Marcellus τεινοῦ τὸν κάτω Χριστὸν καὶ ἀπὸ Μαρίας his master, as Sulpitius Severus reapxóμevov. Orat. 26. But the opinion lates, probably by the Synod at Conof Photinus cannot be better under- stantinople; for in that Marcellus was stood, than by the condemnation of deprived. [circ. A. D. 344.] Sozom. it in the Council of Sirmium; which 1. ii. 33. Socrat. 1. ii. 36. Secondly, his having set out the confession of their heresy is renounced in the second faith in brief, addeth many and various Synod at Antioch. Athanas. de Syn. anathemas, according to the several Socrat. 1. ii. 19. Thirdly, he was conheresies then apparent, without men- demned in the Council of Sardes. tioning their names. Of these, the S. Epiphan. Hæres. 71. §. 1. and Sulpififth aims clearly at Photinus: Si tius Severus, p. 240. Fourthly, by a quis secundum præscientiam vel præ- Council at Milan. [A. D. 347.] S. destinationem ex Maria dicit Filium Hilar. Fragm. ii. §. 19. Fifthly, in a esse, et non ante sæcula ex Patre Synod at Sirmium, he was deposed by natum, apud Deum esse, et per eum the western bishops; but by reason of facta esse omnia, Anathema sit.' The the great opinion and affection of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, people, he could not be removed. also were particulars directed against [A. D. 349.] S. Hilar. Fragm. ibid. him, as St. Hilary hath observed: but. 21. Sixthly, he was again conthe last of all is most material: Si demned and deposed at Sirmium by quis Christum Deum, Filium Dei, the eastern bishops, and being conante sæcula subsistentem, et ministrantem Patri ad omnium perfectionem, non dicat, sed ex quo de Maria natus est, ex eo et Christum et FiJium nominatum esse, et initium accepisse ut sit Deus, dicat, Anathema sit.' Upon which, the observation of St. Hilary is this: 'Concludi damnatio ejus hæresis, propter quam conventum erat, (that is, the Photinian) expositione totius fidei cui adversabatur, oportuit, quæ initium Dei Filii ex partu Virginis mentiebatur.' S. Hilar. de Synod. contra Arianos, c. 61. Thus was Photinus bishop of Sirmium condemned by a Council held in the same city. They all agreed suddenly in the condemnation of him; Arians, SemiArians, and Catholics: кa◊eïλov ɛvdùç, says Socrates, kai toữтo μèv wg kaλg καὶ δικαίως γενόμενον, πάντες ἐπήνεσαν Kai TÓTE Kai μɛTà Taura. lib. ii. c. 29. And because his history is very obscure and intricate, take this brief catalogue of his condemnations. We read that he was condemned at the

victed by Basil, bishop of Ancyra, was banished from thence. [A.D.351.] S. Hilar. ibid. §. 22. et de Synod. c. 37. S. Epiph. Socrat. Sozom. Vigil. Indeed, he was so generally condemned not only then, but afterwards under Valentinian, as St.Jerome testifies, and the synodic Epistle of the Aquileian Council, that his opinion was soon worn out of the world. "Hon yàp kai διεσκεδάσθη εἰς ὀλίγον χρόνον ἡ τούτου Tov harηévov alpeois, says Epiphanius, who lived not long after him. So suddenly was this opinion rejected by all Christians, applauded by none but Julian the heretic, who railed at St. John for making Christ God, and commended Photinus for denying it; as appears by an Epistle written by Julian unto him, as it is (though in a mean translation) delivered by Facundus: 'Tu quidem, O Photine, verisimilis videris, et proximus salvare, bene faciens nequaquam in utero inducere, quem credidisti Deum.' Facun, ad Justinian, 1. iv. c. 2. p. 163.

apostle which assures us, "All things were made by him," at the same time tells us, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John i. 3. 1.) Where "In the beginning" must not be denied unto the third proposition, because it cannot be denied unto the second. Therefore "in the beginning, or ever the earth was, the Word was God," (Prov. viii. 23.) the same God with whom he was. For we cannot, with any show of reason, either imagine that he was with one God, and was another, because there can be no more supreme Gods than one; or conceive that the apostle should speak of one kind of God in the second, and of another in the third proposition; in the second, of a God eternal and independent; in the third, of a made and depending God.* Especially, first considering that the eternal God was so * And that upon so poor a ground as the want of an article, because in the first place it is, ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, in the second, Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, not ὁ Θεός• from hence to conclude, ὁ Θεὸς is one God, that is, κατ ̓ ἐξοχὴν, the supreme God, Θεὸς another, not the supreme, but one made God by him. Indeed, they are beholden to Epiphanius for this observation, whose words are these: 'Eav εïπwμev, Oεòç, ävεv TO ἄρθρου, τὸν τυχόντα εἴπομεν Θεὸν τῶν ἐθνῶν, ἢ θεὸν τὸν ὄντα (or rather οὐκ ὄντα)· ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωμεν, ὁ Θεὸς, δῆλον ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄρθρου, τὸν ὄντα σημαίνομεν áλnon rε kai yivwokóμɛvov. Samarit. Hares. ix. §. 4. But whosoever shall apply this rule to the sacred Scriptures, will find it most fallacious. In the beginning, kπoinσev å Ɖeds Tòv oùpavòv kaÌ TÙv yñv, undoubtedly belongs to the true and supreme God: but it does not thence follow, that TVεvμа Θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος, should be understood of the spirit of another or inferior God. Certainly St. John (i. 6.) when he speaks of the Baptist, ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Oεou, meant, he had his commission from heaven; and when it is spoken of Christ, (ver. 12.) ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι, and again, (ver. 13.) ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν, it must be understood of the true God the Father. In the like manner, (ver. 18.) Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε, if it were taken Tuxóvτws of any ever called God; nay, even of Christ Jesus as man, it were certainly false. How can then any deny the Word to be the supreme God, because he is called simply Θεὸς, when St. John in the four next places, in which he speaketh of the supreme God, mentioneth him without an arti

cle? This criticism of theirs was first the observation of Asterius the Arian: Οὐκ εἶπεν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος Χριστὸν κηρύσσειν τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμιν, ἢ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ σοφίαν, ἀλλὰ δίχα τῆς προσθή της, δύναμιν Θεοῦ, καὶ Θεοῦ σοφίαν· ἄλλην μὲν εἶναι τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμιν τὴν ἔμφυτον αὐτῷ καὶ συνυπάρ xovσav ayεvvýtwg, кngúσowv. These are the words of Asterius recorded by Athanasius, Orat. 2. contra Arianos, §. 37. In which place, notwithstanding, none can deny but Θεοῦ is twice taken without an article for the true and supreme God. Thus Didymus of Alexandria de Sp. S. would distinguish between the person and the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the addition or defect of the article: Apostoli, quando intelligi volunt personam Spiritus Sancti, addunt articulum, rò πvɛõμa, sine quo Spiritus Sancti dona notantur.' Inter oper. S. Hieronym. And Athanasius objects against his adversaries denying the Holy Ghost to be God, that they produced places out of the prophets to prove him a creature, where πνεῦμα had not so much as an article prefixed, which might give some colour to interpret it of the Holy Spirit: Οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδ' ἂν τὸ ἄρθρον ἔχε τὸ παρὰ τοῦ προφήτου λεγόμενον νῦν πνεῦμα, ἵνα κἂν πρόφασιν ἔχητε. Epist. ad Serapionem, i. §. 7. Whereas we find in the same place of St. John, the same Spirit in the same sense mentioned with and without an article. 'Eav μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, John iii. 5. and, tò yɛyɛVVNμÉVOV ÉK TOỮ TVεúμаToç, ver. 6. So 1 John iv. 1. Μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε, ἀλλὰ δοκιμάlere тà πveúμara. And again, (ver. 2.) Εν τούτῳ γινώσκετε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Oɛoỡ' ñãν πvėõμа, &c. And beside,

constantly among the Jews called "the Word," the only reason which we can conceive, why the apostle should thus use this phrase: and then observing the manner of St. John's writing, who rises strangely by degrees, making the last word of the former sentence the first of that which followeth: as, "In him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not: so, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word," (John i. 4,5.) which so was in the beginning, "was with God, and the Word was God;" that is, the same God with whom the Word was in the beginning. But he could not be the same God with him any other way, than by having the same divine essence. Therefore the being which Christ had, before he was conceived by the Virgin, was the divine nature by which he was properly and really God.

Secondly, 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 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,

according to that distinction, τὸ πνεῦ μα certainly stands for the gift of the Spirit, 1 Thess. v. 19. τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ BEVVUTE. In the like manner, it is so far from truth, that the Scriptures observe so much the articles, as to use o Θεὸς always for the true and supreme God, and Θεὸς for the false or inferior; that where the true is professedly opposed to the false, even there he is styled simply Oɛóg. As: 'Aλλà Tóre μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες Θεὸν, ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς μὴ φύσει οὖσι θεοῖς· νῦν δὲ γνόντες Θεὸν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. Gal. iv. 8, 9. And where the supreme is distinguished from him whom they make the inferior God, he is called likewise Oɛog without an article, as: Δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς

εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ, and τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, Rom. i. 1. 4. ̓Απόστο λος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. i. 1. 2 Cor. i. 1. Eph. i. 1. Col. i. 1. And if this distinction were good, our Saviour's argument to the Pharisees were not so: Εἰ δὲ ἐγὼ ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ ̓ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, Matt. xii. 28. For it doth not follow, that if by the power of an inferior or false god he cast out devils, that therefore the kingdom of the true and supreme God is come upon them.

scourged, crucified. For they were not all slaves which ever suffered such indignities, or died that death; and when they did, their death did not make, but find them, or suppose them servants. Beside, our Saviour in all the degrees of his humiliation never lived as a servant unto any master on earth. It is true, at first he was subject, 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 unto God. "The form" then "of a servant" which he " took upon him," must consist in something distinct from his sufferings, or submission unto men; as the condition in which he was, when he so submitted, and so suffered. In that he was "made flesh," (John i. 14.) sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh," (Rom. viii. 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," (Gal. iv. 4.) 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 they saw him, there was no beauty that they should desire him; but was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:" (Isa. liii. 2, 3.) 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: "He 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 will clearly appear by this literal translation, But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.' Where if any man doubt how Christ emptied himself,' the text will satisfy him, "by taking the form of a servant;" if any still ques

̓Αλλ ̓ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, μορφὴν δούλου λαβὼν, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, which is_also exactly observed by the Vulgar Latin, Sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in

similitudine hominum factus, where γενόμενος is added by apposition to λαβών, and have both equal relation to Èkέvwσɛ: or, which is all one, ¿kivwσe λaßwv, ïλaße yɛvóμɛvoç. Phil. ii, 7.

tion how he took the form of a servant, he hath the apostle's resolution," by being made in the likeness of men." Indeed, after the expression of this exinanition, he goes on with a conjunction, to add another act of Christ's humiliation; "And being found in fashion as a man," being already by his exinanition in the form of a servant, or the likeness of men, "he humbled himself, and became (or rather becoming),* obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Phil. ii. 8.) As therefore his humiliation consisted in his obedience unto death, so his exinanition consisted in the assumption of the form of a servant, and that in the nature of man. All which is very fitly expressed by a strange interpretation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. For whereas these words are clearly in the Psalmist, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears hast thou opened:" (Psal. xl. 6.) the apostle appropriateth the sentence to Christ; "When he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." (Heb. x. 5.) Now being the boring of the ear under the Law, (Exod. xxi. 6. Deut. xv. 17.) was a note of perpetual servitude, being this was expressed in the words of the Psalmist, and changed by the apostle into the preparing of a body; it followeth that when Christ's body first was framed, even then did he assume the form of a servant.

Again, it appeareth out of the same text, that Christ 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 presupposed 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

Εταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν, γενόμενος first exinanition, or ἐκένωσε, and his ὑπήκοος. For in both these verses there is but one conjunction, joining together two acts of our Saviour, his

farther humiliation, or iraπɛívwσɛ: the rest are all particles added for explication to the verbs.