himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men," (Phil. ii. 17.); hence three propositions. 1. That Christ was in the form of a servant, as soon as he was made man. 2. That he was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant.

3. That he was in the form of God, i. e. did as truly and really subsist in the divine nature, as in the form of a servant, or in the nature of man.

Q. How did he take upon him the form of a servant?

A. In that he was "made flesh." In that he was thus made man, he "took upon him the form of a servant." "He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.' Therefore, if it be asked, how Christ emptied himself? the text answers, "by taking the form of a servant." If it be again asked, how he took the form of a servant? it answers, " by being made in the likeness of men."

Q. How was Christ in the form of God, before he was in the form of a servant?

A. He is expressly said to be in the form of God, and notwithstanding his equality with God, to take upon him the form of a servant. Besides, he was not in the form of a servant, but by emptying himself; and all exinanition pre-supposes a precedent plenitude; it being as impossible to empty any thing which has no fulness, as to fill any thing which has no emptiness. But the ful

-ness which Christ had, could be in nothing else but in the form of God, in which he was before. If, therefore, the assumption of the form of a servant be contemporary with his exinanition; if that exinanition necessarily pre-suppose a plenitude, as indispensably antecedent to it; if the form of God be also coeval with that plenitude; then was Christ in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant.

Q. Show Christ's subsistence in the divine nature, as well as in the nature of man.

A. It is 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 "to be equal with God." But no other form veside the essential, which is the divine nature itself, could infer an equality with God. 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. Since, then, it is clear, 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, does as truly signify the divine, as the likeness of man the human nature; it follows 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.

66

3. He which is 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. By this. title God describes his own being, and distinguishes it from all other; "I the Lord, the first, and with the last, I am he." "I am he, and 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," (Isai. xli. 4. xlviii. 12. xliv. 6.) But Christ is expressly called Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." He so proclaimed himself, (Rev. i. 11.) 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 man," (Rev. i. 13.) "By him that liveth, and was dead and is alive for overmoro," (Rev. i. 18.) i. e. by Christ. Further texts, see Rev. ii. 8. xxii. 13. 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.

66

ont like unto the Son of

4. He whose glory Isaiah saw, 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 called "the Lord, boly, holy, holy, the Lord of hosts, whose glory filleth the whole earth,” (Isa. vi. 1, 3.); which titles can belong to none but God. But Christ was he whose glory Isaiah saw, as St. John testifies, saying, "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him," (John xii. 41.) And he, whose glory he saw, was Christ; for the apostle is treating of no other in that place. Thus St. John has taught, that the prophet saw the glory of Christ; and the prophet has assured us, that he whose glory he saw, was the one omnipotent and eternal God; so that both have sealed. this truth, that Christ did then subsist in that glorious majesty of the eternal Godhead.

Q. How do you illustrate your third proposition, that this divine essence was communicated to him by the Father?

A. There can be but one essence properly divine, and so but one God of infinite wisdom, power, and majesty; there can be but one person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being; because a plurality of such would infer a multiplicity of Gods; the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being from any other. Therefore it follows, that Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a person subsisting in the divine nature originally of himself; and since he is proved to be truly and properly the eternal God, he must have

had the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eternally, but originally God. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine," (John xvi. 15.) saith Christ; yet there is this disparity, that the Father hath the Godhead not from the Son, whereas, the Son hath it from the Father. Christ is the true God and eternal life; but that he is so, is from the Father; "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself," (John v. 26.); not by participation, but by communication, (John v. 18, 19. xiv. 28. vii. 29.) There is no difference or inequality in the nature or essence, because the same in both; but the Father has that essence of himself, from none; Christ has it not of himself, but from him.

Q. How do you show that the whole of the divine nature was communicated to Christ?

A. Christ is co-essential, of the same substance with the Father, because the divine nature being immaterial and incorporeal, is also indivisible. Our Saviour says, "I and the Father are one,' (John x. 30.) thereby declaring a perfect identity of essence.

Q. Illustrate your fourth proposition, that this communication of the divine nature was a proper generation, by which he which communicateth is a proper Father, and he to whom it is communicated, a proper Son.

A. That God always had a Son appears in the