Matthew Poole and continuators on Philippians 2:6

6 Who being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God .

Who, i. e. Relative to Christ Jesus, the Eternal Son of God by Nature, very God extant with his Father before the beginning, Ioh. 1.1. Gal. 4.4. 1 Tim. 3.16. & 6.14, 15, 16.▪ Tit. 2.13. the express Image and Character of his Father's Person, which implies a peculiar subsistence distinct from the subsistence of his Father, Ioh. 8.42. 2 Cor. 4.4. Col. 1.15. Heb. 1.3. concerning whom, every word that follows by reason of the Socinians, and some Lutherans is to be well weighed.

i. e. Subsisting in opposition to taking or assuming, v. 7. and therefore doth firmly prove Christ, pre-existing in another Nature, to his so doing, namely his actual existing of himself in the same essence and Glory, he had from Eternity with the Father, Ioh. 1.1, 2. & 17.5.2. Cor. 8.9. Rev. 1.4, 8, 11.

To understand which clearly (1.) The word form, though it may sometime note somewhat outward, and so infer the Glory of Christ's Miracles, yet we do not find it any where so used in Scripture: 'tis true it is once used there for the outward visage, Mar. 16.12. which had excelling splendour and beauty, giving occasion to conceive Majesty in the Person, Mat. 17.2. 2 Pet. 1 16. (however his resplendent Garments could not be accounted the form of God) yet being, Luk. saith c. 24.16. The Eyes of the Persons which saw were holden, that for a time they could not acknowledge him, it argues that the appearance, Mark speaks of, noted onely an accidental form. Whereas the being or subsisting Paul here speaks of, respects (what the best Philosophers in their most usual way of speaking, do) the Essential form with the Glory of it, sith the Verbs in other Scriptures of the same Origine, signifie somewhat inward and not conspicuous, Rom. 12.2. 2 Cor. 3.18. Gal. 4.19. especially when there is a cogent reason for it here, considering the form of God, in opposition to the form of a Servant afterward, and in conjunction with equality to God which implies the same essence and Nature, Is. 40 25. & 46.5. it being impossible there should be any proportion or equality 'twixt infinite, and finite; eternal, and temporal; increase, and create; by nature God, and by nature not God, Gal. 4.4, 8. unto which the onely living and true God, will not suffer his Glory to be given. Neither indeed can he deny himself who is one, and besides whom there is no other true God, or God by Nature, Deut. 4.35. & 6.4. 2 Tim. 2.13. who onely doth wondrous things, Ps. 72.18. For to all Divine Operations, a Divine power is requisite which is inseparable from the most simple essence and its properties, Being, or subsisting in the form of God, imports not Christ's appearance in exerting of God's power, but his real and actual existence in the Divine essence, not in accidents wherein nothing doth subsist, neither the vulgar nor Learned do use to say any one doth subsist, but appear in an outward habit, why then should any conceit the Apostle means so? The Gentiles might speak of their Gods appearing; but then, even they thought the Deity was one thing, and the habit or figure under which, or in which it appear'd was another, Act. 14.11. so that subsisting in the form intimates in the Nature, and essence of God, not barely, but as it were clothed with properties and Glory. For the Apostle here treats of Christ's Condescension, proceeding from his actual existence, as the term wherein he is Co-eternal and Co-equal to God the Father, before he abated himself with respect unto us. For he says not the form of God was in Christ, (however that might be truly said) that the Adversaries might not have occasion to say onely there was somewhat in Ch[illegible: 1 letter]ist like unto God, but he speaks of that wherein Christ was, viz. in the form of God, and so that form is predicated of God, as his essence and nature and can be no other thing. None can rationally imagine that God was an external figure, wherein Christ was subsisting. For subsistence implies some peculiarity relating to the substance of a certain thing, whence we may conclude the Son to be of the same, (not onely of like) substance with the Father, considering what signantly follows.

He thought it not, esteemed, counted, held, (so the word is us'd, v. 3. c. 3. 7, 8. 1 Thess. 5.13. & 3.15. 1 Tim. 1.12. & 6.1. Heb. 10.29. & 11.26.) it not Robbery, it being his right by eternal Generation) i. 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 subsistent in the same nature and essence with him. From openly shewing equal Majesty with whom he did not for a time abstain, in that he could reckon this Robbery, as if such Majesty were that which did not agree to his nature, ever presupposing this inherent right, to his great condescension, or abusing himself, which follows as the term to which: or he resolv'd 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 foregoe (neither was it possible he should) any thing of his Divine Glory, being the Son of God still, without any Robbery or Rapine, equal to his Father in Power and Glory, Ioh. 10.3. & 1. Ioh. 5.7, 20.

Paul doth not say (as the A[illegible: 1 letter]ians of Old would pervert his sense) he robbed not, or snatched not, held not fast equality with God, or (as the Socinians since) Christ thought not to doe this Robbery to God, or comm[illegible: 1 letter]t this Rape upon God, so as that he should be equal to him, but acknowledg'd he had it of the free Gift of God, chopping in the Adversative particle, [but] where it really is not; whereas we read not in the sacred Text, he thought not to do this robbery; but he thought it not robbery to be equal to God; which two are vastly different (even as mu[illegible: 1 letter]h as to have the God-head by usurpation, and to have it by nature) In the former 'tis, q. d. Christ did not rob or snatch away the equality; in the latter, the equality which Christ had with God, he thought it no Robbery; he reputed not the Empire, he might have always continued in the exercise of, equal with the Father, as a thing usurp'd, 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 subsisted in the Form of God, he could (before he condescended) say also, he was equal to God, i. e. the Father, without any Robbery, Rapine or Usurpation. And if Socinus urge that it is absurd and false in any sense to say, God thought he had robb'd, or taken by robbery the Divine Essence; then this contradictory, God thought not he took by robbery the Divine Essence, is rational and true; as when it is said, God cannot lye, or God changeth not, as 1 Sam. 15.29. Isa. 55.8. Mal. 3.6. What things are denied of God, do not imply the opposites are affirmed of him. The particle [But] which follows in its proper place before, made himself of no reputation, 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 our first Parents, which robbery of theirs Christ came to expiate) he had not emptied himself, nor vouchsafed to abase himself.

Neither is Christ said to be equal to God onely in respect of his works (which yet argue the same cause and principle, Ioh. 5.19, 21, 23, 26, 29. & 10.37.) but absolutely he thought it not robbery to be altogether equal with God, as subsisting in the same nature and essence, the original phrase connoting an exact Parity. All the things of Christ (though he chose to have some of them vail'd for a time) are equal to God, so some expound the Neuter plural emphatically (as usual amongst the Greeks) to answer the Masculine singular foregoing, to express the ineffable sameness of the nature and essence of the divine subsistents. It may be read, He counted it no robbery that those things which are his own should be equal to God, i. e. the Father; or rather, that he himself should in all things be Equal or Peer to God. For had Christ been onely equal by a delegated power from God, why should the Iews have consulted to kill him, for making himself equal with God? which with them was all one, as to make himself God, Ioh. 5.18. & 10.33. But that he spake of his eternal Generation, as owning him for his own Father, with whom he did work Miracles, even as the Father did in his own name, by his own power, of himself, for his own glory: neither will the Evangelist's saying, The Son can do nothing of himself, infer an inequality with the Father, when what he doth, is equally perfect in power, and glory with the Father's, whence as Son, he hath it by nature. For (looking lower) though every Son receives from his Father, humane nature; yet is he not less a Man than his Father, or his Father more a Man than he; The Son having a being of the same perfection which is naturally in both; however the Father [illegible: 1 letter]o whom Christ is in subordination as the Son, and in Office a Servant, undertaking the work of Mediation, may be said to be greater than the Son, that can onely be understood with respect to the order of their working, if we compare Texts, Ioh. 14.28. & 16.13, 14, 15. Neither when Christ accounted it not robbery to be equal with God, is he said (as the Adversaries urge) to be equal to himself, but to another person, viz. God the Father. Things may be equal which are so divers, that yet they may be one in some common respect wherein they agree: wherefore when Christ is said to be equal with the Father, he is distinguished from him in Person and Subsistence, yet not in Essence, wherein it is his due to be his equal, and therefore One.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word] 1.1, 2.