Well then, the Queftion is, whether the Apostle affirms in this Paffage, that tho' the human Soul of Chrift was ir uogos and You 9, it afterwards emptied it felf of that Glory, or debafed it self, by the Incarnation. As for those, that do already own the Preexistence of our Savior's human Soul, even tho' they had formerly inferr'd it from other Texts of Scripture, I dare fay, they will readily affent to my Expofition of this Place, whatever their Opinion of the WORD, or Chrift's Divine Nature, be. And as for thofe, who own the WORD, or Divine Nature of Chrift, to be the very God, I have already prov'd (and I doubt not but you'll agree) that they are oblig'd by their own Principles, to interpret this Paffage of Chrift's human Soul preexifting before the Incarnation. My prefent Bufinefs therefore is, to convince fuch, as affirm the WORD, or Divine Nature of Chrift, to be diftinct from, and inferior to, the very God, and who do alfo flatly deny the Preexiftence of our Savior's human Soul; I fay, my Business is to convince those Perfons, that this Paffage of St. Paul does moft certainly prove the Preexiftence of Chrift's human Soul. And this I fhall do by fhewing, that the Apostle can't be understood to mean the WORD, or Divine Nature of Chrift, when he affirms of our Savior, that he was og de and Toa de before the Incarnation. For,

"

First, If the Apostle meant, that the WORD was 2 μoson des and fou before the Incarnation; 'tis evident, that he purposely weaken'd the Force of his own Argument. To evince this, let it be obferv'd, 1. That the WORD, or Divine Nature, is affirm'd to have been deès, God, er åsxã, in the beginning, which you own to mean before the Foundation of the World. 2. That if the human Soul of Chrift

did

did not preexift, you must be forc'd by your own Principles to acknowledge, that the WORD left at the Incarnation, not only the Glory of being ge and one, but even that Glory also, which he enjoy'd before the Creation of all things, when he could not be ev poso e and Toa e, that is, perfonat the very God. This is evident from John 17. 4, 5. where our Savior fays to God, I have glorified thee on earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O father, glori fie thou me with thine own felf, with the glory which I bad with thee before the world was. You well (o) obferve, that the Socinian Interpretation of this Paffage, is very barsh and unnatural: who understand it to fignify only the Glory, which Chrift had in the Foreknowledge and Predetermination of God. The plain and literals Meaning of the Words, is that which has been before expreffed, Numb. 535. And what is that? Why, explaining the first Words of St. John's Gospel (viz. in the beginning) you (p) fpeak thus, In the beginning] Before all Ages; before the Creation of the World; before the World was, John 17:5: And Verf. 3. of this Chap→ ter, All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. And Ver. 10. The world was made by him. Thus was i this Phrafe conftantly understood in the Primitive Church And nothing can be more forced and unnatural, than the Interpretation of the Socinian Writers ; who understand, in the beginning, to fignify only at the firft Preaching of the Gospel. Wherefore, if Chrift's human Sout did not preexift, this Paffage of our Savior's Pray-er must be meant of the WORD, or his Divine Nature. And accordingly you (q) fay, that at his

Incarnation he emptied himself [ixivworr Sauror] of that Glory, which he had with God before the World was. And if fo, 'tis evident, that his Divine Nature was not, at the Time of our Savior's praying, poffefs'd of that Glory, which it had before the Foundation of the World; but he pray'd to be restor'd to the Poffeffion of it. And confequently his Divine Nature left, at the Incarnation, not only the Glory of being μg and is (which was neceffarily pofterior to the Creation) but even that Glory which he enjoy'd before the Creation of all Things. 3. That an Argument for Humility and Condefcenfion, drawn from Example, is by fo much the ftronger, by how much the more excellent the Perfon is reprefented, and the greater distance there is between his proper Condition and the Practice he fubmits to. 4. That being even a Secondary God, and the Maker of all created Be-, ings, argues a Perfon to be more excellent, than being & pogon des and fox Se, that is, the Being which perfonated God; which is the utmost that those Phrases do or can import, as has been fully. fhewn. For any created Being can perfonat God; whereas being next in Nature to the very God, and being the Creator of the Universe, muft neceffarily argue a vaftly füperior Excellency of Nature, than the perfonating of the very God amounts to or implies.

Let us now confider the Apoftle's Argument for Humility and Condefcenfion, as it ftands upon your Principles. 'Tis drawn from the Example of Chrift. And what is the Heighth of that Excellence, which Chrift is faid to have laid afide? Why, the Office of perfonating God. But was this all the Excellence that Chrift laid afide upon your Principles? Did he not leave that Glory, which he

had

had before the Creation of the World, as he was even & dex, in the Beginning, eòs, God, and the Creator of all things? Would not this Confideration enforce the Argument from his Humility and Condefcenfion vaftly more, than that of his ceafing to perfonat God, or be God's Embaffador to Men? Is not the Distance between his being by Nature next to the very God, and the Maker of all created Beings, and the fervile Offices he discharged, vaftly greater, than the Distance between thofe fervile Öffices and his perfonating God, which any other created Being is capable of?

The Apostle therefore, had he meant the WORD or Chrift's Divine Nature, would not have argued thus, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Chrift Jesus, who is moson der asov (personating God) did not earnestly defire to be, or continue fou de (like God, viz. in the aforefaid glorious Office) but debafed himself, or emptied himself thereof, &c. I fay, the Apoftle would not have argued thus, and thereby have in a great measure enervated the Force of Chrift's Example: but he would have exprefly call'd him os, God, as he does elsewhere, particularly 1 Tim. 3. 16. and accordingly he would have faid, as ded's vászon, who being himself God; and then he would have fubjoin'd, ἐν ᾧ ἐκτίπε τα πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς ἔρχ τοῖς, καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ δὲ γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι, εἴτε κυρι ότητες, εἴτε ἀρχαὶ, εἴτε εξεσίαι, τα πάντα δι' αυτό κὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισα. Καὶ αυτός ὅτι πρὸ πάντων, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέςηκε· which are his own lofty Expreffions in Col. 1. 16, 17. or fomething else parallel to these Words, and to what he fays elfewhere.This would have demonftrated a vaftly greater Humility and Condefcenfion than what the Apoftle defcribes; and the Fact is as certain as the other that he exprefly insists on. Would St. Paul therefore argue in this manner, if.

he

he meant the WORD, or Chrift's Divine Nature? Let any Man that has a Taft of that Apoftle's Strength and Majefty of Stile upon other (efpecially the like) Occafions, judge, whether he could upon this fublime Argument write (comparatively fpeaking) fo flatly, and fo unlike himself. For my own part, I confefs, had I nothing else to offer, Í have a better Opinion of St. Paul's admirable Genius (fetting afide the Divine Affiftance) than to think him capable of it. And this Confideration alone would therefore oblige me to embrace any other poffible Interpretation; fuch as that, which makes him speak of the preexifting human Soul of Christ, most certainly is; as I have fully fhewn. But,

Secondly (what is far worfe) if St. Paul meant, that the WORD was ir uogo e and fou Je, his Argument is utterly inconclufive and impertinent. To evince this we must take notice, that St. Paul exhorts his Difciples to imitate the Example of the Bleffed Jefus; and accordingly he reprefents to them, 1. What the Bleffed Jefus did, 2. What Recompence he received. He proposes therefore Chrift's Practice, and the Reward of his Practice; and enforces the one with the other. His Argument amounts to this, viz. that Chrift practifed the utmost Humility and Condefcenfion, merely to obtain and promote the Happiness of us Men and that for this amazing Inftance of Love and Compaffion, he was amply rewarded by Almighty: God and confequently, if we follow his Example, we shall be proportionably rewarded for fo doing. How then did the Bleffed Jesus condescend and humble himself for our fakes? and how was he rewarded for fo doing? upon Suppofition that his human Soul did not preexift? Why thus. The

;

WORD