OF THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST. 285
expresses it, Rom. viii. 3. Now, these things our catechists thought good to take no notice of in this place, nor of one of them any more in any other. But seeing the very head of our argument lies in this, that " in the form of God" he is said to be " equal with God," and that expression is in another place taken notice of by them, I must needs gather it into its own contexture before I do proceed. Thus, then, they: —
Q. How dost thou answer to those places where Christ is said to be equal to God, John V. 18, Phil. ii. 6?
A. That Christ is equal to God doth no way prove that there is in him a divine nature. Yea, the contrary is gathered from hence ; for if Christ be equal to God, who is God by nature, it follows that he cannot be the same God. But the equality of Christ with God lies herein, that, by that virtue that God bestovi'ed on him, he did and doth all those things which are God's, as God himself.'
This being the whole of what they tender to extricate themselves from the chains which this witness casts upon them, now lying before us, I shall propose our argument from the words, and proceed to the vindication of it in order.
The intendment and design of the apostle in this place being evi- dently to exhort believers to self-denial, mutual love, and condescen- sion one to another, he proposes to them the example of Jesus Christ ; and lets them know that he, being " in the form of God," and " equal with God" therein (b'rdp^ojv, existing in that form, having both the nature and glory of God), did yet, in his love to us, "make himself of no reputation," or lay aside and eclipse his glory, in this, that " he took upon him the form of a servant," being made man, that in that form and nature he might be " obedient unto death" for us and in our behalf Hence we thus plead : —
He that was " in the form of God," and " equal with God," exist- ing therein, and " took on him the" nature and " form of a servant," he is God by nature, and was incarnate or made flesh in the sense be- fore spoken of; now all this is affirmed of Jesus Christ : ergo.
1. To this they say (that we may consider that first which is first in the text), " That his being equal to God doth not prove him to be God by nature, but the contrary," etc., as above. But, — (1.) If none is, nor can be, by the testimony of God himself, like God, or equal to him, who is not God by nature, then he that is equal to him is so. But, "To whom will ye liken me? or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things," Isa. xl. 25, 26. None that hath not created all things of nothing can be equal to him. And, "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal,
' " Qui porro ad oa loca respondcs, etc. ? — Quod Christus sit lequalis Deo, id divinani in CO naturam nuUo mode probat : inio hinc res advcrsa colligitur ; nam si Cliristus Deo, qui natui-a Dcus est, tcqualis est, cfficitur, quod is idem Deus esse non possit. JT'^jua- litas vcro Christi cum I)co in co est, quod ca virtute quam in cum contulit Deus, ea omnia cfficeret, et efficiat, qute ipsius Dei siuit, tanquam Dcus ipso.
286 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
and compare me, that we maybe like?" chap. xlvi. 5. (2.) Between that which is finite and that which is infinite, that which is eternal and that which is temporal, the creature and the Creator, God by nature and him who by nature is not God, it is utterly impossible there should be any equality. (3.) God having so often avouched his infinite distance from all creatures, his refusal to give his glory to any of them, his inequality with them all, it must have been the highest robbery that ever any could be guilty of, for Christ to make himself equal to God if he were not God. (4.) The apostle's argu- ment arises from hence, that he was equal to God before he took on him the form of a servant; which was before his working of those mighty works wherein these gentlemen assert him to be equal to God.
2. Themselves cannot but know the ridiculousness of their begging the thing in question, when they would argue that because he was equal to God he was not God. He was the same God in nature and essence, and therein equal to him to whom he was in subordination as the Son, and in ofiSce a servant, as undertaking the work of mediation.
3. The case being as by them stated, there was no equality be- tween Christ an*d God in the works he wrought; for, — (1.) God doth the works in his own name and authority, Christ in God's. (2.) God doth them by his own power, Christ by God's. (3.) God doth them himself, Christ not, but God in him, as another from him. (4.) He doth not do them as God, however that expression be taken : for, ac- cording to these men, he wrought them neither in his own name, nor by his own power, nor for his own glory; all which he must do who doth things as God.