is meant of Christ's Incarnation The second that in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render he dwelt amongst us St. John alludes to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle I begin with the first It cannot be denied that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred was as well as was made Thus it is taken Luke 1. 5. and 24. 19. and even at Verse 6. of this Chapter Nor can it be doubted that the word Flesh signifies not only Humane Nature but very often Humane Nature as subject to Infirmities and Afflictions Now is it not more agreeable to Reason and Scripture to interpret these words thus And the Word Jesus was a Man like unto us in all things Sin excepted having the same Mortal Nature being exposed to the same Miseries and Afflictions than to say The Word was Incarnate which is a Language unknown to Scripture wherein we never find that God made himself Man and altogether repugnant to Reason And this I confirm by Heb. 2. 14. Forasmuch then as the Children are Partakers of Flesh and Blood He likewise himself took part of the same that thrô Death he might destroy him that had the Power of Death even the Devil Here Christ is said to be Partaker of Flesh and Blood as pious Men are which cannot be meant in a sense of Incarnation for pious Men are not said to be Incarnate but the one and the other are Partakers of Flesh and Blood that is of Infirmities and Sufferings This he explains farther at Verse 17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his Brethren but his Brethren were not Incarnate But at Ver. 10 and 18. he expresly expounds this of Christ's Sufferings Ver. 10. It became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things to make the Captain of their Salvation perfect through Sufferings Ver. 18. For in that he himself hath suffered he is able to succour them that are tempted Mr. Limborck saw and confessed this that I have been saying his Words are these Theol. Christ pag. 226. The true sense of this place is that the Word was Flesh That is a true fleshly Substance subject to all the Infirmities that attend our Flesh that is to say He was Mortal Vile and Contemptible Which appeared more especially in the days of his Passion and of his Death which are called at Heb. 5. 7. The days of his Flesh 2. Our Author charmed with Allegories and mysterious Interpretations has found out that St. John alludes here to God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and this he thinks God did to make the Anti-type answer the Type Christ's Body to the Tabernacle or Temple Since he is so much in love with Allegories it may be I may do him a kindness to help him to one which I have ready at hand it is this As the Tabernacle in the Wilderness had no fixed place to stand in as the Temple afterwards had but was carried from one place to another according to the several Incampments of the Israelites So Christ to fulfil that Type was always wandring with his Disciples having no where to lay his Head Mat. 8. 20. This Allegory is as probable and more natural than his without supposing an impossible Incarnation I cannot tell whether the Author will like it better than his own I am sure I like neither of them No no there is no Mystery in the Greek Word Our Version renders it well He dwelt among us So does Seb. Castalio Et apud nos Gratiae Veritatisque plenus habitavit And he full of Grace and Truth dwelt among us And the same word is thus used without any Mystery Rev. 12. 12. and 13. 6. where it is applied to the Inhabitants of Heaven By way of conclusion I will set down the sense of the whole Verse which is an Abridgment of the Life of Christ The Word was Flesh a mortal Man obnoxious to Sufferings and Death here is his Priestly Office He dwelt among us full of Grace and Truth here is his Prophetic Office We have seen his Glory here is his Kingly Office Thus therefore we ought to paraphrase the whole Jesus Christ was a Mortal Man Partaker of Flesh and Blood subject to the same Infirmities that we are in a word like unto us in all things but Sin And he dwelt among us preaching the happy News of Reconciliation with God and the Doctrine and Truth revealed to him by the Father But thô he were a Mortal Man a Man of Sufferings and Griefs yet we have seen his Glory shining in his Miracles his Transfiguration his Resurrection his Ascension into Heaven c. Such a Glory as was well becoming the beloved Son of God Having spoken of the Temple he comes to discourse of Sacrifices and tells us The true meaning of the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World is not meerly that he was slain in God's Decree for what God has decreed to be done is not therefore said to be done before it is done But this Lamb was slain in Types and Figures from the Foundation of the World ever since the fall of Adam in those early Sacrifices which were offered after the Fall which were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ But 1. Where has he found that those early Sacrifices were Typical of the Sacrifice of Christ The Scripture is silent about it and the Apostle to the Hebrews who inlarges on the Sacrifices of the Mosaical Law does not so much as mention those that were offer'd before which is unaccountable if they were Figures of the Sacrifice of Christ 2. But he says He knows no Principle of natural Reason that teaches us to offer the Blood of Beasts to God and therefore he must think the Sacrifices of Beasts to be an Institution But suppose those early Sacrifices were an Institution does it follow from thence that they were instituted to be Types of the Sacrifice of Christ By no means God might have other Reasons for such an Appointment But since the Scripture does not mention the appointing of those Sacrifices we have good reason to believe that they were of Humane Institution for had God appointed them it would not it should seem have been omitted in Scripture 'T is reasonable to think that Abel and Cain thought fit to offer Sacrifices and Oblations to God to shew by such visible Marks the Sense they had of God's Majesty and to express the Reverence they ought to pay to him 3. To deny that the Lamb was slain from the Foundation of the World meerly in God's Decree because what God has decreed to be done is not therefore said to be done before it is done is no very accurate reasoning in a Divine because 't is contrary to the stile of Scripture Is there any thing more usual with the sacred Writers especially with the Prophets than to speak of things to come as if they were come to pass already by reason of their certainty and the immutable Decree of God
Men who only are capable of knowing not of this visible World As indeed the 11th Verse is a plain Explication of Verse 10. St. John expresses in this Chapter the same thing several ways He was in the World He came unto his own The Light shined in Darkness these are equivalent Expressions So also The World knew him not His own received him not the Darkness comprehended it not signify one and the same thing Thus the World was made by him is explained at Ver. 12. thus But as many as received him to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God and by Verse 4 and 9. So that in all this there was no Intention to saythat the Old Creation was the work of Je sus Christ CHAP. VIII HIS second Charge is That Socinianism makes the Jewish Oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable pag. 231. because if Christ were no more than a meer Man the Anti-type should fall very short of the Types contained in the Old Testament The Tabernacle and Temple says he was God's House where he chose to dwell by the visible Symbols of his Presence and was so contrived as to be the Figure both of Heaven and Earth for so the Apostle to the Hebrews expresly tells us the Holy of Holies was a Figure of Heaven But we must all confess that this was a very unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God who fills Heaven and Earth with his Presence to dwell in an House made with Hands had it not prefigured something more Divine and Mysterious The Temple then was a Figure and we must inquire what it was the Figure of Now a Typical Presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real Presence and God's Personal dwelling among Men for Presence and Habitation can signify nothing but Presence and a Figure must be a Figure of some thing that is real and nothing can answer to a figurative visible Presence of God but a personal visible Presence He goes on and applies this to Christ who at John 2. 19. calls his Body a Temple which says our Author was that in Truth and Reality which the Temple was but a Figure of that is God's Presence on Earth which he explains of his being personally united to Christ's Humane Nature But if Christ be not Incarnate adds he if the Divine Word be not personally united to the Humane Nature the Body of Christ is but a figurative Temple as the Temple at Jerusalem was and then one Figure is made a Type of another which is as great an Absurdity in Types as a Metaphor of a Metaphor in speech I do not remember I ever saw so much trifling so seriously urged in a weighty Question but I have undertaken the drudgery of making Reflections on it and therefore will consider what he has offered 1. That the Temple was a Figure both of Heaven and Earth I am content to admit the Apostle to the Hebrews may be interpreted to that purpose But that it was also a Type of Christ's Body we have no colour from Scripture to affirm it and the Author has offer'd no other ground for it but his own wandring Fancy The Author to the Hebrews who inlarges upon the Temple does not give the least Intimation of this why then should we contrive Types and Figures of our own without any reason for it If this be allowed we may make Types of any thing and increase Figures to an infinite Number If the Author is in love with cold and groundless Allegories every Body is not of his Mind and therefore he should keep them to himself But why should the Temple be a Figure of Christ's Body rather than the Ark God is said all over the Old Testament to dwell between the Cherubims it was the proper Seat of God where he gave forth his Oracles and made his Glory to appear by affording sensible Signs of his Presence If therefore such Allegories had any Signification of future Times and Things it would be more probable that the Ark was a Type of Christ's Body than the Temple the rather because we know already by a Divine Testimony that the Temple was a Figure of some-thing else But he will say that Christ calls his Body a Temple What then so St. Paul calls the Corinthians Ye are says he the Temple of God Was the Temple at Jerusalem a Figure or Type of the Bodies of the Corinthians Or does our Saviour say that he calls his Body a Temple because it was the Anti-type of the Temple of the Jews 2. Tho the Temple were not a Figure of Christ's Body yet it would be no unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God to dwell in an House made with Hands to appoint this the place of his Worship c. which our Author thinks to be inexplicable without admitting his Doctrine of the Trinity Who knows not that the Israelites were given to Idolatry and that the pompous way of Worship used among the neighbouring Nations agreed so much to their Fancies that it was necessary to comply with them in this thing that they might be kept from worshipping other Gods and the current of Idolatry be restrained Thus God in his infinite Wisdom thought fit to set up among his People a carnal and sensible Worship and to appoint an House where he would dwell after a particular Manner and afford visible Symbols of his Presence All this he did to accommodate himself to the gross genius of the Israelites and to perswade them to forsake Idols and to acknowledg no other God but himself This was the true reason of the Temple of God's dwelling there and the Glory with which it was sometimes filled and to affirm that all was done to prefigure Christ's Body is a Fancy which the Author might better have kept to himself 3. But suppose the Temple was a Type of Christ's Body yet there is no need God should be incarnate in Christ's Body to answer that Type The Scriptures tell us God was with Christ and in Christ which I hope might be done without an Incarnation or Personal Union as he was in the Temple As God spake in the Temple so he spake in and by Christ But besides all this Christ was greater than the Temple because God was always present with him which cannot be said of the Temple where the Signs of God's Presence were not always visible God's Dwelling in Christ was always conspicuous by the Oracles which he delivered and the Miracles he wrought But he objects a place of Scripture To this says he St. John plainly alludes The Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tabernacled amongst us fulfilled that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem by his dwelling Personally in Humane Nature This Argument or rather Congruity is grounded on two false Suppositions The first is that The Word was made Flesh
free and voluntary Choice when he did not take it but was made so What when the Apostle says that Christ took upon him the Form of a Servant must we say that he did not Is it not a plain Contradiction to the Apostle He adds And what Humility was this for a meer Man to be a Minister and Servant of God and so great a Minister as to be in the Form of God that is as he says to be glorious for Miracles and admired as the great Power of God especially when he was to be exalted unto Heaven for it and advanced above all Principalities and Powers This is such Humility as would have been Pride and Ambition in the most glorious Angel Shall we not call Humility what St. Paul calls so He tells us that the same who has been advanced above all the Orders of Angels humbled himself All the Glory that Christ has been crowned with doth not hinder the Apostle from praising and extolling his Humility Because Christ's Sufferings have been remunerated with a transcendent Glory must they not be accounted Humility but Pride On the contrary the more that he who humbles himself is great and glorious the greater is his Humility Seeing therefore Christ had received from God more Glory than ever any Man had it follows that his Humility was the most stupendious and unparallel'd that ever was But according to our Author's way of reasoning there is no such thing as Christian Humility For every Christian who humbles himself endeavours thereby to fit himself for the Kingdom of Heaven but all our best Actions are not worthy to be compared with that Glory which shall be revealed in us and therefore will our Author say Humility is but a Chimera because he who is said to humble himself expects to get by the means an Eternal Glory Indeed if the most bitter Sufferings of Christ are not to be accounted Humility because they were to be rewarded with a more excellent Glory I cannot see how any Christians may be said to be humble for they expect a glorious and transcendent Reward Pag. 242. After Christ was come into the World there was no place saith our Author for his Choice and Election he could not shew either his Love or his Humility in choosing Poverty or Death and therefore if it was matter of his free Choice and a Demonstration of his great Humility and Love as the Apostle says it was he must and did choose it before he came into the World But all this is contrary to the place of the Apostle wherein he speaks only of what Christ has done since he came into the World and does not so much as mention what he had done before Which has forced several Trinitarian Interpreters to acknowledg that this Text does not relate to the Incarnation I desire our Author to tell me the meaning of these words Who being in the Form of God thought it not Robbery to be equal with God For if to be in the Form of God signifies to be the true God then the sense will be this Christ being the true God thought it not Robbery to be equal with the true God Which is just as if one should say Leopold who is Emperour does not think it Robbery to be equal with the Emperour Is it possible Men should put such a trifling sense on the words of an Apostle Besides how can it be said here that the Supream God made himself of no Reputation In a word of all the things spoken of Christ in this place not one of them can be applied to the Supream God which plainly shews that the Man Christ Jesus only did humble himself and that this Humility is so far from proving that Christ is God that it demonstrates he was only a Man He goes on The Faith and Worship of Christ is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion That the Faith of Christ is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion I grant but I deny that the Worship of Christ is so too I suppose by the Worship of Christ he means only the Worship of Christ's Divine Nature for he tells us in the following words that both the Natural and Mosaical Religion condemn the Worship of any Creature therefore Christ's Humane Nature being a Creature ought not to be worshipped Of the Worship paid to Christ I have said enough already but because our Author gives occasion for it by repeating his Charge of Idolatry I will consider what he has offered in its proper place Only here I shall mind him that the Compilers of the Apostles Creed have made no mention of the Worship of Christ but only of Faith in him At pag. 245. He goes on to prove that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Christian Religion Because it does not ascribe to Christ such Knowledg as is proper to the Supream God His first Proof is John 2. 25. He knew what was in Man To which the Historian had before answered thus The Knowledg which the Lord Christ had or now in his State of Exaltation hath of the Secrets of Mens Hearts is the pure Gift of and Revelation from God and the Divine Word abiding on him Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to shew unto his Servants Our Author would elude the strength of this Answer thus This saith he is a plain abuse of the Text and the Reason of it He knew what was in Man is the Reason assigned why he needed not external Information or Testimony of Man He needed not that any should testify of Man for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he himself knew what was in Man and knew all Men. Which according to the propriety of Words signifies an inherent Personal Knowledg in opposition to any external Manifestation and therefore to Revelation it self For he always knew all Men which cannot be done by Revelation which is particular and occasional Here one may plainly see what strange shifts Men are put to when they oppose Truth Who denies that those Words He knew what was in Man signify inherent Personal Knowledg Can any Man know any thing but by his inherent Personal Knowledg He that knows knows with his own Mind and therefore has an Inherent and Personal Knowledg But does it follow from thence that such a Knowledg is not from Revelation I hope it may be said of a Man inlightned by Revelation that he knows as well as of any other And yet thô such a Man be inspired he has an inherent Personal Knowledg for his own Mind knows inwardly what he did not know before But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says our Author he himself knew which according to the Propriety of Words signifies an inherent Personal Knowledg in opposition to Revelation No surely For then the Prophet Elisha was God for he knew what the King of Syria spake in his Bed-chamber 2 Kings 6. 12. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he himself knew what the King of Syria spake yet this