before he was in the form of a servant: which is the second proposition.

Again, it is as evident from the same Scripture, (Phil. ii. 6.) that Christ was as much" in the form of God," as "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

* Tò eivai loa 0ɛû. ‘Pariari Deo.'Tertull. adv. Marcion. 1. v. c. 20. 'Esse se æqualem Deo.' S. Cyprian. Testim. I. ii. adv. Jud. §. 13. et l. iii. ad Quirin. §. 39. Esse æqualis Deo.' Leporius, Lib. Emendat, p. 15. opusc. Dogm. Vet. V. Script. Par. 1630. Thus all express the notion of equality, not of similitude: nor can we understand any less by rò ɛivai loa, than rǹv icóloov and loa being indifferently used by the Greeks, as Pindar, Olymp. Od. ii. 109.

τητα,

Ἴσον δὲ νύκτεσσιν αἰεὶ,

Ισα δ ̓ ἐν ἁμέραις ἅλι

ον ἔχοντες, ἀπονέστερον Εσθλοὶ νέμονται βίο

του.

So whom the Greeks call iσóɛov, Homer loa Se. Odyss. 0.519.

Τὸν νῦν ἶσα θεῷ Ἰθακήσιοι εἰσορόωσι. Where loa has not the nature of an adverb, as belonging to ɛiopówσi, but of a noun referred to the antecedent Tòv, or including an adverb added to a noun, tòv võv ¿ç iœódεov. The collection of Grotius from this verse is very strange; elvai loa Oey, 'est spectari tanquam Deum.' As if he should have said loopów 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 εiva. As Dionysius of Alexandria very anciently: κενώσας ἑαυτὸν, καὶ ταπεινώσας ἕως θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ, ἶσα Θεῷ ὑπάρχει. Epist. ad Paulum Samosat. For we acknowledge 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 ; as, quasi in nocte, loa vurri, v. 14. sicut caseum, loa rvp, x. 10. p quasi putredo, Sym. ὁμοίως σηπεδόνι, LXX. ἶσα ἀσκῷ, xiii. 28.. sicut aquam, loa Tотη, XV. 16. tanquam lignum, loa súλw, xxiv. 20. sicut lutum, loɑ πŋλ,

xxvii. 16.

sicut vestimento, loa dimλoidi, xxix. 14. pa quasi bos, Where we see the loa ßovoiv, xl. 15. Vulgar Latin useth for the Hebrew, quasi, sicut, tanquam, the LXX. ioa. Sometimes it answereth to no word in the original, but supplieth a similitude understood, not expressed, in the Hebrew: as tanquam pullum, loa övy, xi. 12. ) et lapis, loa Xídy, xxviii. 2. luto, loa πŋλm̃, XXX. Once it rendereth an Hebrew word rather according to the intention,

19.

משלי אפר ;than the signification

comparabitur cineri, ad verbum proverbia cineris, loa σñodų, xiii. 12. So that in all these places it is used adverbially for instar, and in none hath the addition of rò elva 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, ab co 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. Weik, 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 ywvíav kowýv⋅ and the basis of one triangle is supposed equal to the basis of another triangle, because the same line was basis to both, οι βάσις κοινή. In the same manner certainly may the Son be said to be equal to the Father in essence or

༄

the essential, which is the divine nature itself, could infer an equality with God. "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, saith the Holy One?" (Isa. xl. 25. xlvi. 5.) There can be but one infinite, 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 "in the likeness of man ;" and the respect of one unto the other is so necessary, that if the form of God be not as real and essential as the form of a servant, or the likeness of man, there is no force in the apostle's words, nor will his argument be fit to work any great degree of humiliation upon the consideration of Christ's exinanition. But by the form is certainly understood the true condition of a servant, and by the likeness infallibly meant the real nature of man: nor doth the fashion, in which he was found, destroy, but rather assert the truth of his humanity. And therefore, as sure as Christ was really and essentially man, of the same nature with us, in whose similitude he was made; so certainly was he also really and essentially God, of the same nature and being with him, in whose form he did subsist. Seeing then we have clearly evinced from the express words of St. Paul, that Christ was in the form of a servant as soon as he was made man; that he was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant; that the form of God in which he subsisted, doth as truly signify the divine, as the likeness of man the human nature: it necessarily followeth, that Christ had a real existence before he was begotten of the Virgin, and that the being which he had, was the divine essence, by which he was truly, really, and properly God.

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 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." (Isa. xli. 4. xlviii. 12. xliv. 6.) 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." (Rev.i. 11.) Which answereth to that solemn call and proclamation in the prophet, "Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my power, because they both have the 'AXX' ảɛì karà тavrò kai woavrws diatesame essence or power, that is, οὐσίαν λεῖ καὶ ἴσον καὶ ὅμοιον αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ. c. 1. kai dúvaμiv kovýv. Ocell. de Universo. §. 6.

called." (Isa. xlviii. 12.) He comforteth St. John with the majesty of this title, "Fear not, I am the first and the last." (Rev. i. 17.) Which words were spoken by "one like unto the Son of man," (Ibid. 13.) by him "that liveth, and was dead, and is alive for evermore ;" (Ibid. 18.) that is undoubtedly, by Christ. He upholdeth the Church of Smyrna in her tribulation by virtue of the same description. "These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive." (Rev. ii. 8.) He ascertaineth his coming unto judgment with the same assertion, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Rev. xxii. 13.)* 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 Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Rev. i. 8.) 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 come, the Almighty;" that is, the supreme eternal God, of the same divine essence with the Father, who was before described by "him which is, and which was, and which is to come," (Rev. i. 4.) to whom the six-winged beasts continually cry, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come :" (Rev. iv. 8.) as the familiar explication of that name which God revealed to Moses. (Exod. iii. 14.) If they belong unto the supreme God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; then did he so describe himself unto St. John, and express his supreme Deity, that by those words, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending," he might be known to be the one almighty and eternal God; and, consequently, whosoever should assume that title, must attribute as much unto himself. Wherefore being Christ hath so immediately, and with so

With the article so much elsewhere stood upon, rò A kai rò Q, ò πρῶτος, καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, The Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. For we must not take τὸ A as the grammarians do, by which they signify only the letter written in that figure, and called by that name. As appear eth by Eratosthenes, who was called

Bñra, not rà ßýμara, as Suidas corruptly. Hesychius Illustrius, from whom Suidas had that passage: Εραroodévng dià tò devtepeveiv #avtì eïdel παιδείας τοῖς ἄκροις ἐγγίζων, Βῆτα ἐkλŋŋ. And Martianus Heracleota in Periplo: Καὶ μετ ̓ ἐκεῖνον Ερατοσθένης, ὃν Βῆτα ἐκάλεσαν οἱ τοῦ Μουσείου προorávTES.

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 called "the Lord, Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of hosts, whose glory filleth the whole earth;" (Isa. vi. 1. 3.) which titles can belong to none beside the one and only God. But Christ was he whose glory Isaiah saw, as St. John doth testify, saying, "These things said Esaias, when he was his glory, and spake of him :" (John xii. 41.) 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 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,” (Ibid. 36, 37.) that is, Christ who wrought those miracles. The reason why they believed not on him was, "That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report?" (Ibid. 38.) and as they did not, so they could not believe in Christ, "because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I should heal them." (Ibid. 39, 40.) 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 those of whom the prophet spake: for "these things said Esaias when he saw his glory, and spake of him.” (Ibid. 41.) Now if the glory which Isaiah saw, were the glory of Christ, and he of whom Isaiah 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 foretold. Thus doth the fixing of that prophecy upon that people, which saw our Saviour's miracles, depend upon Isaiah's vision, and the appropriation of it unto Christ. Wherefore St. John infallibly hath taught us, that the prophet saw the glory of Christ, and the prophet hath as undoubtedly assured us, that he whose glory then he saw, was the one omnipotent and eternal God; and consequently both together have sealed this truth, that Christ did then subsist in that glorious majesty of the eternal Godhead.

Lastly, He who, being man, is frequently in the Scriptures called God, and that in such a manner, as by that name no other can be understood but the one only and eternal God, he had an existence before he was made man, and the being which then he had was no other than the divine essence; because all novelty is repugnant to the Deity, nor can any be that one God, who was not so from all eternity. But Jesus Christ, being in the nature of man, is frequently in the sacred Scriptures called God; and that name is attributed unto him in such a manner, as by it no other can be understood but the one almighty and eternal God..

: Which may be thus demonstrated. It hath been already proved, and we all agree in this, that there can be but one divine essence, and so but one supreme God. Wherefore were it not said in the Scriptures, there are "many gods;" (1 Cor. viii. 5.) did not he himself who is supreme, call others so; we durst not give that name to any but to him alone, nor could we think any called God to be any other but that one. It had been then enough to have alleged that Christ is God, to prove his supreme and eternal Deity: whereas now we are answered, that there are "gods many," and therefore it followeth not from that name, that he is the one eternal God. But if Christ be none of those many gods, and yet be God; then can he be no other but that one. And that he is not to be numbered with them, is certain, because he is clearly distinguished from them, and opposed to them. We read in the Psalmist, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." (Psal. lxxxii. 6.) But we musť not reckon Christ among those gods, we must not number the only-begotten Son among those children. For "they knew not, neither would they understand, they walked on in darkness:" (Ibid. 5.) and whosoever were gods only as they were, either did, or might do so. Whereas Christ, in whom alone dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," (Col. ii. 9.) is not only distinguished from, but opposed to, such gods as those, by his disciples saying, "Now we are sure that thou knowest all things;" (John xvi. 30.) by himself proclaiming, "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, shall not walk in darkness." (John viii. 12.) St. Paul hath told us, "there, be gods many, and lords many;" but withal hath taught us, that "to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.) In which words,' as the Father is opposed as much unto the many lords, as many gods; so is the Son as much unto the many gods as many lords; the Father being as much Lord as God, and the Son as much God as Lord. Wherefore being we find in Scripture frequent mention of one God, and beside that one an intimation of many gods, and whosoever is called God, must either be that one, or one of those many; being we find our blessed Saviour to be wholly opposed to the many gods,

66