fore he abaſed himſelf with reſpect unto us. For he ſays not the form of God was in Chrift, (however, that might be truly aid) that the Adverſaries might not have occation to ſay only there was ſomewhat in Chriſt like unto God, but he ſpeaks ot that wherein Chriſt was, viz. in the form of God, and ſo that torm is predicated of God, as his Effence and Nature, and can be no other thing. None can rationally imagine that God was an exter- nal figure, wherein Chrift was ſublifting. For ſubſiſtence im- plizs ſome peculiarity relating to the ſubſtance of a certain thing, whence we may conclude the Son to be of the @me, (not only ot like) ſubftance with the Father, conſidering what ſignantly fol- lows. u Ze thought it m#r, eſteemed, counted, held, (ſo the word is uſed, V. 3+ + 3+ 7, 8. 1 Thefſ. 5. 12..and 3. I5. 1 Time. Is 12» and 6. 1. Heb. 10. 29. and 11. 26.) it not Robbery, it being his right by eternal Generation) 7. e. He did not judge it any wrong, or uſurpation, on that account of his being in the form of God, to be equal to his Father, being a /ubſiſtent in the ſame Nature and Effence with him. From openly ſhewing equal Ma- jeſty with whom he did not not for a time abſtain, in that he could reckon this Robbery, as if ſuch Majeſty were that which.did not azree to his Nature, ever preſuppoſing this inherent right to his
sreat condeſcention, or abaſing kimſelt, which follows as the,
rerm to which; or he reſolved for a time not to ſhew himſelf in that glory which was his own right, but freely condeſcended to. the vailing of it. He did not really forego (neither was it poſ- fible he ſhould) any thing of his Divine Glory, being the Son of God ſtill, without any Robbery or Rapine, equal to his Fa- ther in Power and Glory, Fohn 10. 3. and 1 Fohn 5. 7. 20. w Paul doth not ſay (as the Arians of old would pervert his ſenſe) he robbed not, or ſnatched not, held not faft equality with God, (or as the Socinians ſince) Chriſt thought not to do this Robbery to God, or commit this Rape upon God, ſo as that he ſhould be equal to him, but acknowledged he had it of the free Gift of God, chopping in the adverſative particle, {bur} where it really is not: Whereas we read not in the ſacred Text, he thought nor #0 do this robbery; but he thought it not robbery to be equal to God; which two are vaſtly different (even as much as to have the God-head by Uſurp1tio, and to have it by na- ture.) In the former *tis q. d. Chriſt did not rob or ſnatch a- way the equality; in the, latter, the equality which Chriſt had with God, he thought it no Robbery; he reputed not the Em- pire, he might have always continued in the exerciſe of, equal with the Father, as a thing uſurped, or taken by force, (as one doth hold that he hath taken by ſpoil, making ſhew of it.) For when he had ſaid he had ſubliſted in the Form of God, he could (before he condeſcended) ſay alſo he was equal to God, 7. e. the Father, without any Robbery, Rapine, or uUſurpation. And if Socinus urge that it is abſurd and falſe in any ſenſe to ſay, God thought he had robh'd or taken by robbery the Divine E(- ſence; then this contradiftory, God thought not he took by robbery the Divine Eſſence, ' is rational and true; as when it is ſaid, God cannot lie, or God changeth mot, as 1 Sam. 15. 29. If. 55. $. Mal. 3. 6. What things are denied of God, do not imply the oppoſites are atfirmed of him. The Particle [But] which follows in its proper place before, made himſelf of no repu- r2ri0n, may be fairly joined with this ſenſe. For if Chriſt ſhould know that by Rapine and unjuſt Uſurpation he was equal to God, (as likely the attempt to be ſo, was the Sin of cur firſt Parents, which Robbery of theirs Chriſt came to expiate) he had not emptied himſelf, nor vouchſafed to abaſe himtel, x Neither is Chriſt (aid to be equal to God, only in r:{p:# of his works (which yet argue the ſame cauſe and principle, Fotn 5. 19, 21, 23, 20, 29. and 10. 37.) but abſolutely he thought it not Robbery