Chapter XXII.179    According to Pamelius, ch. xvii.  Argument—That the Same Divine Majesty is in Christ, He Once More Asserts by Other Scriptures.

But why, although we appear to hasten to another branch of the argument, should we pass over that passage in the apostle: “Who, although He was in the form of God, did not think it robbery that He should be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking up the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore also God hath highly exalted Him, and hath given Him a name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bent, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord, in the glory of God the Father?”180    Phil. ii. 6–11.  “Who, although He was in the form of God,” he says.  If Christ had been only man, He would have been spoken of as in “the image” of God, not “in the form” of God. For we know that man was made after the image or likeness, not after the form, of God. Who then is that angel who, as we have said, was made in the form of God? But neither do we read of the form of God in angels, except because this one is chief and royal above all—the Son of God, the Word of God, the imitator of all His Father’s works, in that He Himself worketh even as His Father. He is—as we have declared—in the form of God the Father. And He is reasonably affirmed to be in the form of God, in that He Himself, being above all things, and having the divine power over every creature, is also God after the example of the Father. Yet He obtained this from His own Father, that He should be both God of all and should be Lord, and be begotten and made known from Himself as God in the form of God the Father. He then, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He should be equal with God. For although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He never either compared or associated Himself with God the Father, mindful that He was from His Father, and that He possessed that very thing that He is, because the Father had given it Him.181    [Not “a seipso Deus.” See Bull, Defens., vol. v. p. 685.] Thence, finally, both before the assumption of the flesh, and moreover after the assumption of the body, besides, after the resurrection itself, He yielded all obedience to the Father, and still yields it as ever.  Whence it is proved that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery, to wit, that of equalling Himself with God the Father; but, on the other hand, obedient and subject to all His rule and will, He even was contented to take on Him the form of a servant—that is, to become man; and the substance of flesh and body which, as it came to Him from the bondage of His forefathers’ sins according to His manhood, He undertook by being born, at which time moreover He emptied Himself, in that He did not refuse to take upon Him the frailty incident to humanity. Because if He had been born man only, He would not have been emptied in respect of this; for man, being born, is increased, not emptied. For in beginning to be that which He could not possess, so long as He did not exist, as we have said, He is not emptied, but is rather increased and enriched. But if Christ is emptied in being born, in taking the form of a servant, how is He man only? Of whom it could more truly have been said that He was enriched, not emptied, at the time that He was born, except because the authority of the divine Word, reposing for awhile in taking upon itself humanity, and not exercising itself with its real strength, casts itself down, and puts itself off for the time, in bearing the humanity which it has undertaken? It empties itself in descending to injuries and reproaches, in bearing abominations, in experiencing things unworthy; and yet of this humility there is present at once an eminent reward. For He has “received a name which is above every name,” which assuredly we understand to be none other than the name of God. For since it belongs to God alone to be above all things, it follows that the name which is that God’s who is above all things, is above every name; which name by consequence is certainly His who, although He was “in the form of God, thought it not robbery for Him to be equal with God.”  For neither, if Christ were not God, would every knee bend itself in His name, “of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;” nor would things visible and invisible, even every creature of all things, be subjected or be placed under man, when they might remember that they were before man. Whence, since Christ is said to be in the form of God, and since it is shown that for His nativity according to the flesh He emptied Himself; and since it is declared that He received from the Father that name which is above every name; and since it is shown that in His name “every knee of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, bend and bow” themselves; and this very thing is asserted to be a furtherance of the glory of God the Father; consequently He is not man only, from the fact that He became obedient to the Father, even to death, yea, the death of the cross; but, moreover, from the proclamation by these higher matters of the divinity of Christ, Christ Jesus is shown to be Lord and God, which the heretics will not have.

CAPUT XXII, al. XVII. Eamdem divinam majestatem in Christo aliis iterum Scripturis confirmat.

0929B

Cur autem, licet ad aliam partem disputandi festinare videamur, illum praetereamus apud Apostolum locum? Qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est aequalem se Deo esse; sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens, in similitudine hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo: humiliavit se obediens factus usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis: propterea et Deus illum superexaltavit, et dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen; ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur, coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur, quoniam Dominus Jesus in gloria est Dei Patris (Philip. II, 6-11). Qui cum in forma Dei esset, inquit. Si homo tantummodo Christus, in 0929C imagine Dei, non in forma Dei relatus fuisset. Hominem enim scimus ad imaginem (Gen. I, 27), non ad formam Dei factum. Quis ergo est iste, qui in forma Dei, ut diximus, factus est Angelus? Sed nec in Angelis formam Dei legimus, nisi quoniam hic praecipuus atque generosus prae omnibus, Dei Filius, Verbum Dei, imitator omnium paternorum operum, dum et ipse operatur sicut et Pater ejus (Joan. V, 19), in forma (ut expressimus) est Dei Patris. Et merito in forma pronuntiatus est Dei, dum et ipse super omnia, et omnis 0930A creaturae divinam obtinens potestatem, et Deus est exemplo Patris: hoc ipsum tamen a Patre proprio consecutus, ut omnium et Deus esset, et Dominus esset, et Deus ad formam Dei Patris ex ipso genitus atque prolatus. Hic ergo quamvis esset in forma Dei, non est rapinam arbitratus aequalem se Deo esse. Quamvis enim se ex Deo Patre Deum esse meminisset, numquam se Deo Patri aut comparavit aut contulit, memor se esse ex suo Patre, et hoc ipsum quod est habere se, quia Pater dedisset. Inde denique et ante carnis assumptionem, sed et post assumptionem corporis, post ipsam praeterea resurrectionem, omnem Patri in omnibus rebus obedientiam praestitit, pariter ac praestat. Ex quo probatur numquam arbitratum illum esse rapinam 0930B quamdam divinitatem, ut aequaret se Patri Deo: quin immo contra, omni ipsius imperio et voluntati obediens atque subjectus, etiam ut formam servi susciperet contentus fuit (hoc est, hominem illum fieri) et substantiam carnis et corporis, quam ex paternorum et secundum hominem delictorum servitute venientem nascendo suscepit: quo tempore se etiam exinanivit, dum humanam conditionis fragilitatem suscipere non recusavit. Quoniam si homo tantummodo natus fuisset, per hoc exinanitus non esset: homo enim nascens augetur, non exinanitur: nam dum incipit esse quod cum non esset habere non potuit, ut diximus, non exinanitur, sed potius augetur atque ditatur . At si Christus exinanitur in eo quod nascitur, formam 0930C servi accipiendo, quomodo homo tantummodo est? de quo verius dictum fuisset, locupletatum illum esse tunc cum nasceretur, non exinanitum; nisi quoniam auctoritas divini Verbi, ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens, nec se suis viribus exercens, dejicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert quem suscepit. Exinanit se, dum ad injurias contumeliasque descendit, dum audit infanda, experitur indigna: cujus tamen humilitatis adest statim egregius fructus. Accepit enim nomen, 0931A quod est super omne nomen, quod utique non aliud intelligimus esse quam nomen Dei. Nam cum Dei sit solius esse super omnia, consequens est, ut nomen illud sit super omne, quod est ejus, qui super omnia est, Dei. Est ergo nomen illud quod super omne nomen est: quod nomen est ejus utique consequenter, qui cum in forma Dei fuisset, non rapinam arbitratus est aequalem se Deo esse. Neque enim si non est Deus esset Christus, omne se in nomine ejus genu flecteret, coelestium et terrestrium et infernorum: nec visibilia aut invisibilia, aut rerum omnium omnis creatura homini esset subjecta sive substrata, quae se ante hominem esse meminisset. Ex quo dum in forma Dei esse Christus dicitur, et dum in nativitatem secundum 0931B carnem se exinanisse monstratur, et dum id accepisse nomen a Patre quod sit super omne nomen exprimitur, et dum in nomine ejus omne genu coelestium, terrenorum et infernorum se flectere et curvare monstratur, et hoc ipsum in gloriam Dei Patris, succurrere asseritur: consequenter non ex illo tantum homo est, quia obediens Patri factus est usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis; sed ex his etiam rebus superioribus divinitatem Christi sonantibus, Dominus Christus Jesus et Deus, quod haeretici nolunt, esse monstratur.