unto the Law, Declared and Vindicated 369 Life : So he was not abfolutely in Abrahams Loyns, and was exempted from being tithed in him. Wherefore the Obedi- ence whereof we treat , being not the Obedience of the Humane Nature abflractedly, however performed in and by the Humane Nature , but the Obedience of the Perfon of the son of God, however the Humane Nature was fubjeCt to the Law, (in what Senfe, and unto what Ends ¡hall be declared afterwards) it was not for himfelf, nor could be for himfelf, becaufe his whole Perfon was not obliged thereunto. It is therefore a fond thing to compare the Obedience of Chriff, with that of any other Man, whole whole perfon is under the Law. For although that may not be for himfelf and others, (which yet we than (hew that in fome cafes it may ;) yet this may, yea mutt be for others, and not for himfelf. This then we muff firióly hold unto. If the Obedience that Christ yielded unto the Law were for himfelf, whereas it was the A& of his Perlon, his whole Perfon, and the Divine Nature therein, were made under the Law, which cannot be. For although it is acknowledged , that in the Ordination of God, his Exinanition was to precede his Glorious Majefli- cal Exaltation, as the Scripture witnefleth. Phil. 2. 9. Lu. 24. 26. Rom. 14. g. yet abfolutely his Glory was an imme- diate confequent of the Hypofatical Vnion. Heb.i. 6. Matth. 2. II. socinus, I confefs, evades the force of this Argument, by denying the Divine Perfon of Chrifi. But in this Difputation I take that for granted, as having proved it elfwhere, be- yond what any of his followers are able to contradi&. And if we may not build on Truths by himdenied, we (hall fcarce have any one principle of Evangelical Truth left us to prove any thing from. However, I intend them only at prefent, who concur with him in thematter under debate, but re- nounce his opinion concerning the Perfon of Christ. B b b 2, As
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=