Page images

be admitted : but I shall not contend for either. And indeed I'm of Opinion, that they are in the End and Consequence the very same.

But the greatest Difficulty is about i pospa Jet

regger. This Phrase is exprefly apply'd to our Bleffed Lord: bur Learned Men have interpreted it very differently.

Such as would persuade us, that Christ is a mere Man, and that he did not exist before his Incarnation, pretend, that his being é mogoñ ver signifies his Power of working Miracles by the Finger of God during his Abode upon Earth. But this Exposition is utterly precarious. For tho’ Christ had such a Power of working Miracles during his Abodę upon Earth; yet there is not the least Shadow of Proof, that this is what the Apostle meant by o jogoña Jes id'sgan. Neither this Phrase, nor any thing like it, has such a Signification in the Scriptures; nor is it the natural and obvious Meaning of the Words themselves. Nay, on the contrary, there are just Objections against this Expliçation. For tho' Moses, and the Prophets, and our Savior's Disciples, wrought so many Miracles, and their Power of doing so is expressed by such a Variety of Phrases; yet this Phrase is never once us'd to denotę it by any Writer whatsoever. Besides, Christ's being & mogpo deš, is opposed to his réuwars, and being or uogon Sóng. What then can his xirwors and being is mogen sónx signify, upon this Suppofition? Did Christ ever want the Power of working Miracles? And can his répwors and being on noson sax bear such a Sense ?. Besides, if his being en pogoña Jex signifies his Power of working Miracles ; how could it be said, that he did not earnestly desire to be Tou Jeal, which is certainly equivalent to his being šu kosom Jes? Did not Christ always earnestly de

firg fire to continue poffess'd of, and to exert, that Divine Power, by which he demonstrated the Truth of his Mission. But I need not spend more Timne in the Confutation of this arbitrary Fansy.

It may be imagined perhaps, by others, that Christ did therefore in mopon Jeg Vadexav, because he was the Great Prophet. For our Savior assures us, that the Psalmist called them Gods,'' unto whom the Word of God came, John 10.35. And he confirms the Psalmist's Use of that Phrase by subjoining immediatly, and the Scripture cannot be broken. Now those unto whom the Word of God came, were inspira Persons. Thus the Word of the Lord came to Jeremie ah, Chap. 1. Ver. 2, 4, 15. that is, God reveled his Will to him by Inspiration. And accordingly God said to Mofes concerning Aaron his Brother, be shall be thy Spokesman unto the

People : and he shall be, even be shall be to thee (778, that is, as it should be translated) a Mouth; and thou shalt to bim (pigs, that is, as it should be translated) a God, Exod. 4, 16. And again, God faid to Moses, See I bave made tbee a God to Pharaob, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy Prophet. Thou shale /peak all that 'I command thee : and Aaron thy brother Braill speak 'unto Pharaoh, that he fend the children of Israel out of his land, Exod. 7:: 1, 2. thefe Places, Moses is stiled a God to Aaron and Phae raoh, because he was inspired, and they learned the Will of God from him.. And confequently our Savior, who received the Spirit without Measure might more justly have been stiléd a God upon that Account, than any other inspired Perfon whatsoever. And if he might have been justly ftiled a God upon the account of his being the Great Prophet; why might he not be said pogoña 988 Edstry for that Reason?


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I answer therefore, that tho' our Savior did certainly deserve the Appellation of a God, upon the : account of his being inspired, much more juftly than any other Prophet whatsoever; nay, if thao very: Appellation had been given him, upon, that very account, a thousand times over (as it never once is in all the Bible) yer it can't be said, that he was in logon Isä upon the account of his being inspired. For, as I observ'd before, the Apostle opposes his. being i pogon des to his xévwors, and being in GOSPÑ Sólo If therefore his being in luogoani Jed fignifies his being inspired; what can his xerwors and being or poppñ mean? Did Christ ever cease to be inspired? Can any Christian bear such a blasphemous Suppofition. Besides, 'tis said, that when he was en rapon ges, he did not earnestly desire to be fou demo; that is, he did not earnestly desire to continue è scoppunto Jeg, which is equivalent to divou ioa Jeộ, but was pleased Saw Tòv revšv, and to take soppled senso · But-isia not this deteftably false, upon Suppofition, that his being in popom Des, and consequently his being i od tego, denotes his being inspired ? For did Christ ever cease to desire the Continuance of the Spirit's Presence with him? Or did he ever throw it up, or caft it off? This Exposition therefore cannot stand.

And indeed, let Men strain their Wits as hard as they please, they will never be able to make Mogoña Iső de xwx applicable to our Savior during his Abode upon Earth. And accordingly, not only your self; but the Generality of Writers, especially those who affirm that the WORD, or divine Nau ture of Christ, is very God, do unanimously and zealously contend, that Christ did y nosoin geta Padang Xav. before the Incarnacion. The Truth is, this is so plainly the obvious Meaning of the Apostle's

Expreslions ;

Exprefsions; that as the common Senfe of Man. kind has led them to understand him thus, so one would wonder how any Person can think them capable of a different Interpretation. For is not that State, wherein Christ did in logon Jes Badexe, ma. nifestly oppos’d to, and distinguish'd from, and suppos'd inconsistent with that State in which he existed, after he had condescended kautov revšv, and pogolul Nśás nabar? And could he then be in those two opposite and distinct, nay, inconsistent States, at the same time? And did he not lau Toy neršv and jogol No ad accév, when he became incarnat, in duona part ev Spátran gluéel? For does not that Phrase manifestly mean his Incarnation? Wherefore that State, wherein he did in pogoña Jeg vardexhy, was prior to his Incarnation, and was left by him, when he vouchsaf’d to take upon him Flesh and Bloud.

Besides, 'tis remarkable, that these Words, er duose auan av@gazowe glaóulo, are so placed, that they are necessarily appropriated to that State, in which Christ existed, after he did low tùy vevőr and wogole d'éas naktiv, and can't be extended to that State, in which 'tis said that he did en wagon 268 und exer. For there are two opposit Branches of the Apostle's Words, the latter of which begins at 'Ama, and is thereby totally separated from what goes before. Now thefe Words, εν ομοιώματα ανθρώπων νόμωO, concludes this latter Branch, and must therefore appertain to it : But they can't be extended to the former Branch also with any tolerable Congruity of Speech. For had the Apostle meant, that our Lord was in occord pan :vgarwy, that is, Incarnat, at that time, of which he exprefly affirms, that he did in poog pñ Jedewdexty, as well as when he had vouch. . saf'd law Tór xeyêr and rogol Sś28 226iv: He would certainly have plac'd ev Ôncora quan ari gara gluóule G in


. 2.

. 2. 3-11. explain’d. the former Branch, and not have made those Words the very Conclusion of the latter. He would have said thus, or to this purpose, os e occorab lan av Og af meron Sfoónleo, xing &n, logon des oes www, 8x áprayudu vignoan Tod sem, dm' taw Toy énévwos, x. 7. d

This would naturally have express’d his Meaning; whereas the prefent Disposition of his Phrases confines er ómondó quan év@gar mewn gluópfo to Christ's Afterftate, to his xéywo is, when he did nogplu Sms aabto: nor can we faften any other Intention on St. Paul, without ta, king such Liberty, as his usual Di&ion does not warrant, and consequently we must not arrogas to our felves.

Nay farther, our Lord himself says, And now, o Father, glorifie thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I bad with thee before the world was, John 17:5. This plainly shews, that our Lord left a glorious State, which he did not enjoy during his abode upon Earth. Nay, this very Apostle says, Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though be was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that we through bis poverty might be ricb, 2 Cor. 8. 9. But was Chrift both Poor and Rich at the same time? Did he not therefore leave his Riches, and become Poor? Was he not then Rich, or Glorious and Happy, before his Incarnation : and did he not become Poor, that is, mean and miserable, by it? These Texts are notoriously parallel to that which we are considering; and they do

all of them speak of a prior State of Glory, which Christ left; and a posterior State of Contempt and Sorrow, which he voluntarily assum'd by being Incarnat.

Nay farther still, were the Apostle's Words in this disputed Place fairly capable of different Sen. fes; yet we ought to understand them in that Sense, which I have been contending for, and which



« PreviousContinue »