Testament that I find for Adam but still either Adam or the first man nor is it here put with the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it noted a special or singular man by excellency but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man that is a man simply considered according to humane nature Nor is the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here used as noting only likeness without reality of Nature but as Sect. 22. is shewed it to be used John 1. 14. and elsewhere as a confirming and assuring particle noting certainty And surely where that in Psal. 8. is applied to Christ mystically Heb. 2. 6. it notes not man in conspicuous dignity but rather as contemptible as the words what is man that thou art mindful of him and thou hast lessened him for a little time below Angels shew nor is it peculiarly meant of Adam but of men as men as the word Son of man shews although it be mystically fulfilled in Christ alone and he be by excellency stiled man or the Son of man 15. Found notes not apprehension of him when he was betrayed by Judas and laid hold on by the Souldiers for it was afore his humbling himself and obedience to death and if the form of a Servant did note his whipping and servile usage which was after his apprehension and yet is set down by the Apostle as antecedent to being found in fashion as a man his finding cannot be referred to his apprehension Nor is his being found appropriated to the time of his conspicuity in the exercise of his Dominion over the creatures but the fashion as a man being the same with the likeness of men it notes only his appearing or being as a man simply considered among men the word found frequently noting only being or appearing to be Phil. 3. 9. Gal. 2. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 3. and 11. 12. 1 Pet. 1. 7. Rom. 7. 10. Luke 17. 18 c. 16. That of Grotius he humbled himself he did not behave himself according to that dignity but very humbly so as to wash his Disciples feet John 13. 12 13. As he emptied so he humbled are of the form Hiphil but signifie to exhibit or shew himself such So also the Latins say to make himself courteous is not right the humbling noting not an exercise of the vertue of humility but patient subjection to affliction and that not by shewing humility only but by patient undergoing of it And thus is it used Phil. 4. 8. I know how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be abased or humbled as appears by the oposite term to abound and by other places where he useth the same of himself 2 Cor. 11. 7. and 12. 21. and is apparent in that the humbling himself is in the Text opposite to his superexaltation verse 9. Now that doth not oppose the vertue of humility and the exercise of it which consists with his exaltation but the state of a person debased which is removed by his super-exaltation Besides this very place is parallel with that Acts 8. 32. out of Isa. 53. 7. where of Christ Philip expounds the words of that Prophet He was led as a Sheep to the slaughter and like a Lamb dumb before the shearer so he opened not his mouth in his humiliation the Noun in the Greek derived from the verb Phil. 2. 8. and so explains it his judgment or right was taken away and who shall declare his generation For his life is taken away from the earth Lastly the Text shews wherein his humiliation consists which was in his being obedient unto death even the death of the Crosse which is not rightly translated by our Translators and became obedient putting a conjunction copulative without cause as they did verse 7. and so obscure the meaning of the Apostâ—e but it is to be read by apposition becoming obedient and so shewing wherein the humbling of himself was 17. Grotius his note here is not right He was made obedient to wit to men Jews as well as Romans He opposed not that Divine Power to them that took him condemned him slew him So great injuries he patiently underwent for the good of men For it was shewed before that the obedience was to his Father otherwise there had not been such reason of his super-exaliation as is expressed vers 9 10 11. 18. By this which hath been said it may appear that Christs being in the form of God and not accounting it as a prey to bb equal or as God was afore his being a man and consequently that he had a Divine Being as God afore he was incarnate and therefore consubstantial to the Father as touching his God-head 19. It may appear that then Christ emptied himself when he took the form of a Servant who was antecedently in the form of God when he came not to be ministred to but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many Mat. 20. 28. 20. That then he did this when he was made in the likeness of men had a body prepared for him which proves him to be consubstantial to us according to his Man-hood which thing was to be demonstrated SECT 25. Some Objections against the proof from Philip. 2. 5 6 7 8. are answered NEvertheless I meet with some Arguments to the contrary which I think fit to set down in the Authours words 1. He setteth before them Christs Example exhorting to humility and therefore the act of Christ which he doth exemplify must be manifest But to whom was or could that incarnation which Christians commonly talk of be manifest when they themselves say it passeth the understanding of Angels to comprehend it To which I answer It was manifest by the Angels and others Revelation and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was so was comprehensible as is proved before although the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or manner how it was be incomprehensible we are to imitate God in many of his works the manner of which is incomprehensible by us as being performed immediately or by invisible Agents in secret manner As Magistrates are to imitate God in his righteous judgement though it be unsearchable in respect of the manner Parents are to imitate God in his providence for his Creatures though the manner of doing it be indiscernible and therefore the incomprehensibleness of the incarnation hinders not but that it being revealed may be propounded as an imitable pattern Yet in this of our Apostle it is to be observed that he propounds not only Christs incarnation but also his humiliation in becoming obedient unto death as an example to be imitated by the Philippians 2. The Apostle speaketh of our Lord as a man in that he giveth him the Titles of Christ Jesus both which agree to him onely as a man For he is called Jesus as he was a child conceived of the Holy Spirit in the Virgins womb and brought forth by her Luke 1. 27 30 31 35. and Christ signifieth the anointed John 1. 41. and
it before himself nor the Preposition used being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through or by not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with or in conjunction do sute with such a sense but it is in construction annexed and referred to the offering and notes the cause and means of offering Besides the reason of Piscator is good in his Scholie on the Text that it belongs not to the Deity to offer Sacrifice but that is it to which it is offered by a man as a man And indeed it is not good sense to say Christ offered himself by his God-head to God it being not easily conceivable what notion the God-head should have in such a speech which is not absurd or inept Nor do I think Piscators opinion good that by the Eternal Spirit is meant Christs Immortal Soul partly because no where is Christs Humane Soul called the Eternal Spirit partly because I think it should rather be said in than through the Eternal Spirit if Christs Immortal Soul were meant by it the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noting the efficient cause not the subject in which the act of offering was And therefore I rather pitch upon it to understand by the Eternal Spirit the holy Spirit answering to the fire which kindled the Sacrifice and moving or inflaming the heart of Christ with love to us and obedience to God to give himself an Offering and a Sacrifice to God for us Ephes. 5. 2. The holy Spirit is fitly resembled by fire Mat. 3. 11. and he well termed the Eternal Spiâ—it in opposition to the temporary fire kindling the legal Sacrifices But if the allusion be not thereto yet the sense is good and right For as it is said that Christ had not the Spirit by measure John 3. 34. and that he was full of the Holy Ghost Luke 4. 1. that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him that it anointed him verse 18. So it is said that he was moved by the Spirit to be Tempted to Preach in the same places and to cast out Devils by the Spirit of God God putting his Spirit on him he shewed Judgment to the Gentiles sent forth Judgement to victory Maâ— 12. 18 20 28. gave Commandements through the Holy Ghost Acts 1. 2. And accordingly here is said to offer himself to God by the Holy Eternal Spirit Nor is the want of the Article any more against the expounding the Eternal Spirit of the Holy Ghost than against the expounding it of Christs Spiritual Immortal Body it being as requisite in respect of use to design the one as the other But the truth is it is not requisite that it should be prefixed to shew it to be meant of the holy Spirit sith it is omitted Rom. 9. 1. and 14. 17. c. and even in this Eâ—â—stlâ— Hâ—b 2. 4. and 6. 4. So that the sense may be notwithstanding any thing I find to the contrary that Christ willingly obediently offered or yielded through the holy Spirits incitation or operation in him himself a Sacrifice without spot or blemish to God And as executing the function of Priest-hood to which he was anointed above others Heb. 1. 9. And this sense is most agreable to the Apostles intent which is to set forth the efficacy and validity of Christs Sacrifice above the Legal which he doth here from the obedience and readiness of will to offer himself as he doth Heb. 10. 10. and the holiness of his person or his being without spot or blemish as he doth Heb. 7. 26 27. 1 Pet. 1. 19. no where that I find from the Hypostatical Union or the spirituality immortality and glory of his humane body or the immortality of his Soul 5. The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 1. 4. is not rightly rendered determined or ordained Son of God in Power For though it be true that the verb signifies appointment ordination or predestination and that this last is used by the Latin vulgar translation and by sundry of the Antients and the verb is used so in the New Testament Lukâ— 22. 22. Acts 2. 23. and 10. 42. and 17. 26 31. in which places the appointment or determination is by God of a thing future yet that cannot be the meaning Rom. 1. 4. For then the sense should be that Christ should be appointed or ordained or determined by God either that by power according to his Spiritual body by the resurrection of the dead he should be the Son of God Or else that his appointment ordination or determination that he should be the Son of God was by power according to the Spirit of holiness that is his holy spirituall body by the Resurrection from the dead This latter sense is most absurd it would intimate as if Gods determination were in power according to Christs Spiritual body by the Resurrection of the dead whereas the determination of Gods purpose or his ordaining of things future hath no cause but his will his ordaining is not an act of power though the execution of it be Nor is the former sense true For then the meaning should be that Christs being the Son of God was consequent on the power the spirit of holiness and resurrection of the dead sith ordaining or fore-appointing his Sonship to be thereby supposeth them to be before as the cause is before the effect and his Sonship to be future to them or after them But this is contrary to what is confessed by the adversaries that he was the Son of God before his resurrection and is proved from Luke 1. 35. Mat. 16. 16. John 6. 69. and Heb. 5. 8. Although he were a Son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered which shews he was a Son afore he learned obedience by the things which he suffered For which reasons I like not to say as Dr. Pearson doth in his Exposition on the second Article of the Creed that he was defined or constituted and appointed the Son of God in Power by the Resurrection from the dead Nor that of Grotius that he was made a celestial King after his Resurrection and also before destinated to that Kingdom by so many Miracles done by Divine Power proper to him and dwelling in him where the term Son of God standing in contradistinction to being of the seed of David according to the flesh is as much as a Celestial King and the Participle determined is expounded by two other made and before destinated the one noting a thing past the other a thing future so as that the same word in the same place shall signifie being made a Celestial King after Christs resurrection and being aestinated before to that Kingdom and in Power according to the Spirit of holiness shall be Divine Power proper to him and inhabiting in him by that Spirit of holiness that is force of Divinity by which from the beginning of his conception he was sanctified and by which he did Miracles and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be after the Resurrect on from
the dead None of which are made good by Heb. 5. 9. Acts 2. 30. or Acts â—6 23. or any other which he produâ—eth in his Annot. on Rom. 1. 4. Nor do I conceive can be Nor do I think Dâ— Hammond his Paraphrâ—se right but according to the Spirit of holiness or in respect of that other Nature in him called his Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. far above all that is flesh and blood that I say which shone in him most perfectly after and through and by his Resurrection from the dead 2 Cor. 13. 4. was set at Gods right hand the Son of God in Power to whom accordingly as to a Son all Power was given by the Father For besides what before and after is or will be said about the Spirit of holiness and Eternal Spirit there is nothing of Gods right hand in the Text nor doth set at Gods right hand the Son of God in Power well explain determined the Son of God in Power nor is he rightly said to be set at Gods right hand according to the Spirit of Holiness or in respect of that other Nature in him called his Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. For his being set at the right hand of God is not precisely according to that other Nature but rather according to that which he had of the Seed of David according the flesh Nor is it fitly said that other Nature did shine most perfectly after through or by his resurrection from the dead 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though his being the Son of God was proved by it yet how the Divine Nature did shine in him through by after his Resurrection from the dead is hard to understand nor do any words in the Text countenance such a Paraphrase Wherefore not mis-liking Dr. Hammond's translation demonstrated or defined the Son of God iâ— Power Nor that of the Syriak Interpreter who turns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by who was known I stick to that sense which our Translators have chosen declared or as Chrysostom In 〈…〉 t s it shewed demoâ—strated or manifested to be the Son of God over and above what he was of the seed of David according to the flesh and sundry others with him And so determined notes not an act of the Will of God concerning the futurity of a thing but Gods sentence as it were setling the understanding by way of certification of what was surely so or evidence of it as of a thing already being to take away doubting in the sense in which in the Schools their resolutions concerning things in question are called their determinations In which sense I conceive it taken Heb. 4. 7. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Translators rendered limiteth is the same which he expresseth verse 8. he had not spoken of another day And likewise that which declareth what a thing is in Logick is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a definition of it and the Mood which is Indicative is termed by Grammarians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the boundaries of Lands are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they shew what is belonging to a person and in composition Hyppocrates his Determinations or Declarations about Medicines are entituled his Aphorisms and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a distinct explication of a thing According to which Exposition the meaning is Rom. 1. 4. that God had determined as it were by sentence in the Resurrection of him from the dead that Christ Jesus had another nature above that he had of the seed of David to wit that he was the Son of God 6. The Resurrection of the dead cannot be meant of the general Resurrection as if the sense were he is predestinated or fore-appointed that he shall be the Son of God in Power when he shall raise the dead but of Christs particular Resurrection For though the general Resurrection shall most fully demonstrate the glory of Christ yet the determination being of a thing past must be understood of his own Resurrection Nor is it a sufficient exception against this that the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Resurrection of the dead not from the dead and that it is not by his Resurrection from the dead but the Resurrection of the dead For Acts 26. 23. there is in St. Paul's speech the same expression where speaking of what the Prophers fore-told of Christs Resurrection he useth this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word by word that he the first by rising of the dead that is as he should suffer so he should be the first or chief risen from the dead who should shew or publish light to the people and the Gentiles 7. In Power Rom. 1. 4. cannot be referred to the Power of Christ whereby he did Miracles but to the Power of God by which he was raised from the dead of which the same Apostle speaketh 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though he was crucified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through or by reason of weakness yet he liveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of or by the Power of God 1 Cor. 6. 14. And God hath both raised up the Lord and will also raise up us by his own Power Rom. 6. 4. like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Glory that is the Power of the Father Which is confirmed in that he is said to be determined the Son of God in Power which determination is referred to the Fathers and therefore the Power is the Fathers by which he is determined to be the Son of God 8. I confess the Divine Nature of Christ is no where that I find termed the Spirit of holiness or the holy Spirit nor the glorified body of Christ although God be termed a Spirit John 4. 24. and 2 Cor. 3. 17. the Lord is that Spirit which to me seems most likely to be meant of Christ who is in the Epistles of Paul most commonly meant by this title the Lord and in the verse before meant where it is said Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord that is Christ and the next verse following But we all with open face beholding the glory of the Lord that is Jesus Christ distinguished in the same verse from the holy Spirit termed the Spirit of the Lord if it be not to be read as from the Lord the Spirit and so applied to Christ It is said that Christ knew in his Spirit Mark 6. 8. that he grew and waxed strong in Spirit or was strengthened by the Spirit Luke 2. 40. that he groaned in Spirit Joh. 11. 33. which may or are to be understood otherwise than of his Divine Nature John 6. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words which I speak unto you are Spirit and are life are meant otherwise than of Christs Divine Nature and 1 Tim. 3. 16. Justified in Spirit or in the Spirit may be meant otherwise than of his Divine Nature and so may quickened by the Spirit 1 Pet. 3.
18. of which in that which follows The Spirit of Christ is Rom. 8. 9. termed the Spirit of God and if the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 2. 13 14. and 12. 3. And that which was born of Mary is said to be that Holy thing which shall be called the Son of God Luke 1. 35. and Dan. 9. 24. he is termed the Holy of Holies or as we read the most Holy but no where the Spirit of Holiness And therefore if the Spirit of Holiness note not the Divine Nature of Christ because it is no where in the Scripture designed by the name of Spirit or Spirit of Holiness the reason is as good against the interpretation of the Spirit of Holiness by the Holy Spiritual Body of Christ Nor is there likelehood that by Spirit should be meant Body sith Spirit and Body are opposed or contradistinguished 1 Cor. 6. 20. and 7. 34. James 2. 26. 1 Thes. 5. 23. c. as well as Flesh and Spirit And if by Spirit of Holiness be meant a constituting part of Christ distinct from Flesh which he had by means of the Resurrection it cannot be meant of his body which is the same in substance it was in the daies of his flesh and so the same constituting part differing only in quality and external condition as having an alteration not another Generation or Creation and therefore cannot be rightly termed another constituting part And this reason with the Texts alledged do better countenance the understanding the Deity of Christ by the Spirit of Holiness than his Holy Spiritual Body Yet for my part I incline to neither but rather to the opinion that conceives by the Spirit of Holiness is meant the Holy Ghost or third Person of the sacred Trinity and that for these reasons 1. Because the term Spirit of Holiness is all one in sense with the Holy Spirit which is the usual title given to that person Mat. 28. 19. 2 Cor. 13. 13. 1 John 5. 7. and is according to usual manner of expressing the Adjective by the Genitive case of the substantive as the Children of Wisdom are wise Children Children of obedience 1 Pet. 1. 14. obedient Children the Children of l 〈…〉 enlightned Children Eph. 5. 8. 2. Because the Resurrection is ascribed to the Spirit Rom. 8. 11. If the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you be that raised Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you 1 Pet. 3. 18. Being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit 3. Because the sense thus seems to be easiest and most agreeable to the Apostles scope who having said that the Son of God was made of the seed of David according to the flesh noting a being beyond this adds that he was declared determined defined or resolved to be the Son of God beyond his being the Son of David with power by his rising from the dead which was by Power according to the Spirit of holiness that is the holy Spirit to whom acts of power are usually ascribed as Luke 1. 35. Mat. 12. 28. which was an undoubted evidence of his being the Son of God or having a Divine Nature sith he foretold it as a thing to be done by himself John 2. 19. and 5. 25 26. and 10. 17 18. Nor is it necessary that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should note a constituting part Rom. 1. 4. For it may note an efficient cause mediate as when it is said Mark 1. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with authority he commandeth the unclean Spirits which is Luke 4. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Authority and Power so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by might or mightily Heb. 7. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the power is by vertue or reason of the power or proportion and congruity to the agent as when it is said Rom. 1. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much as in me lies and the sense be in power according to the Spirit of Holiness that is with or through the holy Spirit or congruously proportionably to the holy Spirit which if it do not so fully answer the use of the preposition yet we may say as Dr. Hammond in a like case Annot on Mark. 9. 3. though the preposition do not favour this Interpretation yet the promiscuous uncertain use of prepositions among sacred Writers is so observable that it may take off much of that one objection So far as my observation hath hitherto attained in the Apostles and other Writers Greek Expressions if the Apostle had intended that the Spirit of Holiness should note another constituting part he should have put next to the Son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness as he did ver 3. according to the flesh next to of the seed of David but being put between with Power and the Resurrection of the dead it seems not to note a constituting part but the efficient cause of the Resurrection or subject of that power by which Christ was raised 9. The distinct mention Rom. 9. 5. of Christs being of the Fathers according to the flesh that is his humane nature and then adding who is over all God blessed for ever shews that he is over all God blessed for ever according to his Divine Nature or deity Nor is the defect of the Article a sufficient reason to the contrary sith it is very frequent to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Article where it is meant of God in Nature as 1 Cor. 3. 16. 23. and 1. 24. and 2. 5. 7. c. 10. In that God said to Christ Psal. 110. 1. and he was then Davids Lord Acts 2. 34. when he knew verse 30. that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins he would raise up Christ to sit on his Throne it proves that Christ was in being and was his Lord afore he was his Son and so had a Divine Nature though he was his Son according to the flesh SECT 18. The consubstantiality of Christ with the Father and us is proved from 1 Tim. 3. 16. THe next Text of Scripture I shall insist on to prove the consubstantiality of Christ to God and us is 1 Tim. 3. 16. where St. Paul saith And without controversy great is the Mystery of godliness God was manifested in the flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels Preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory This passage is undoubtedly meant of the Lord Jesus sith of no other are these things true that â—e was manifested in the flesh c. And they are true of him He was manifested in the flesh being made flesh justified in or by the Spirit at his Baptism by his Miracles and at his Resurrection to be that which he said himself to be the Son of God against the false accusations of the Pharisees as a Deceiver confederate with Satan seen of Angels at his Birth
things he upholds Heb. 1. 3. comprehend not only the Church but the world 's made by him or all creatures as Heb. 2. 8 10. Col. 1. 16 17 must be understood It is true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Prince nor will I deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius Dr. Hammond Heinsius exercit sacr l. 16. c. 1. conceive signifies to rule or Govern Numb 11. 14. Deut. 1. 9. yet it signifies not only to Govern or Order them but also to sustain them by provision as both the occasion of the peoples desire of flesh and the words of Moses ver 11 12. Wherefore host thou afflâ—cted thy Servant And wherefore have I not fâ—und favour in thy sight that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me Have I conceived all this people Have I begotten or born as the Greek hath it them that thou shouldest say unto me Carry them in thy bosome as a nursing Father beareth the sucking Child unto the Land which thou swarest â—â—to their Fathers shew It is true Deut. 1. 9. bearing notes rule but not it only but also provision and sustentation as the words verse 12. shew How can I my self alone bear your â—â—mbrance or wearisom molestation trouble as Isa. 1. 14. and your burden Greek and your Hypostasis that is your subsistence or sustentation by provision and your â—trifâ— in Greek your antilogies gain-sayings or contradictions And v. 31. In the wilderness the Lord thy God bare thee as a man doth bear his Son in all the way that ye went until ye came to this place Where saith Ainsworth in his Annotation this word meaneth not the bearing of the body only but bearing of their infirmities and suffering the evils and troubles in the education of them as a Father doth in his children which the Greek explaineth by etrophophorese a word that Paul useth in Acts 13. 18. Where the Syriak expoundeth it nourished or as some copies have it Etropophorese he suffered their manners Dr. Hammond Annâ—t on Acts 13. 18. carried as a Nurse Whence I infer that if Heb. 1. 3. the word bearing be used as Numb 11. 14. Deut. 1. 9. yet it doth not signifie meer ruling or ordering the Church by wisdom and authority but up-holding sustaining maintaining the worlds or ages which he made or all things created by the Word of his Almighty Power by which they were framed at first Heb. 11. 3. which bearing or upholding all things is not limited to the time after Christs Resurrection but is antecedent to his death For so the words are He by whom God made the worlds being the brightness of his glory the character of his subsistence and bearing all things by the Word of his Power having by himself made purgation of our sins sate at the right â—and of the Majesty in the heights This order of words shews that he was the brightness of Glory and character of Gods subsistence and bare a 〈…〉 things by the Word of his Power and made purgation of our sins by himself afore â—e saâ—â— at the right hand of the Majesty or greatness in the heights 8. It is true that Heb. 1. 13. is spoken of Christ as man exalted yet as Christ argued against the Pharisees from the same passage of Psal. 110. 1. which the Chaldee renders the Lord said unto his Word meaning Christ saith Ainsworth Annot. Mat. 22. 42 43 44 45. that Christ must be a greater person than David's Son because David in spirit calls him Lord and therefore to have an higher nature than himself being then his Lord so we may argue from Heb. 1. 13. The Scripture proves Christ to be Lord of Angels because God said Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool therefore he had a nature above Angels and consequently Divine For Christ supposeth in that place that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be David's Lord which was not denied and thereby pâ—oveth that he must be denied than David and of another nature than his â—orasmuch as he that was no more than his Son could not be his Lord the Father being Superiour to the Son in Nature who hath no other Nature than what he deriveâ— from himself SECT 13. Heb 7. 3. Is urged to prove the Eternal Son-ship of Christ. TO what is said Heb. 1. I shall add what is said Heb. 7. 3. concerning Meâ—chizedeâ— that he is mentioned without Father without Mother without Genealogy that is without speech of his descent or pedigree neither having beginning of daies nor end of life but made like unto the Son of God remaineth a Priest for ever Which intimates that the Son of God was without Father without Mother without Genealogy neither having beginning of daies nor end of life that is as he was the Son of God he was Father or Mother among meâ— in which respect there is no Genealogy of him that he is without beginning of daies or end of life therefore he was before any creature was made begotten of the substance of his Father not made of nothing very God of the same substance of the Father by whom all things were made For as the Son of man and according to his office he had beginning of daies and had a Mother Nor can the sense be right that the beginning of daies is meant of the Priest-hood of Melchizedec for the other part nor end of life is to be expounded of his Being not of his Priest-hood and therefore also his not having beginning of daies must be meant of his Being as the Son of God not of his Priesthood SECT 14. Christs Kingdom is the Kingdom of the Son of Man so termed according to his Excellency above all men THe Kingdom we are to seek is termed sometimes the Kingdom of the Son of man Mat. 16. 28. Verily I say unto you there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom which title Christ often takes to himself Mat. 16. 13. whom do men say that I the Son of man am and upon this consideration he hath the Kingdom given to him according to what our Lord Christ saith John 5. 27. That the Father hath given him authority and to do judgment because he is the Son of man Accordingly where Christ fore-tells his chief act of regâ—lity he useth this title Mat. 25. 31. When the Son of man shall come in his glory and all the Holy Angels with him then shall he sit upon the Throne of his glory and ver 34. 40. terms this Son of man the King Whence it is apparent that this title of the Son of Man is to be considered that we may have right intelligence of this Kingdom Now this title of the Son of man may be understood 1. As noting him to be a man of the same kind with other men And in this sense â—he Son of man is no more than a man as Numb 23. 19. Psal. 4. 2. 144. 3.
1. 3. in whom therefore his Name is said to be Exod. 23. 22. he that appeared unto Moses in the bush Exod. 3. 2. Styled Jehovah there verse 4. and by Jacob the Angel that delivered or rescued him out of all evil Gen. 48. 16. and by Malachy lastly Jehovah the Angel of the Covenant Mal. 3. 1. termed an Angel or Messenger in regard of his Mediatourship Heb. 8. 6. of Gods face either because he doth exactly resemble God his Father John 14. 9 10. Col. 1. 15. or because he appeareth before the Face or in the Presence of God for us Heb. 9. 24. See Rom. 8. 34. Revel 8. 3. this Angel secured and safeguarded them all the way thorow the Wilderness from Egypt to Canaan Deut. 8. 2 4. and 32. 10 12. which it 's not unlikely Nebuchadnezzar somewhat understood as well as that God sent an Angel to deliver his Servants that trusted in him verse 28. by Daniel whom God used to reveal to Nebuchadnezzar the succession of the four Monarchies whereupon he acknowledged Daniels God to be a God of Gods and a Lord of Kings and a Revealer of secrets Dan. 2. 47. And I judg the opinion of Cameron in his praelection on Mat. 16. 27. to be right that the term Son of man Dan. 7. 13. notes the Messiah and that the title of Son of man is given to him not as importing any diminution but his excellency and that in allusion to that place in Daniel Christ when he speaks of himself Mat. 16. 27. Mat. 25. 31. John 5. 27. useth that title of the Son of man to shew that he was meant therein and that we need not either alter the pointing as some of the Antients nor make that the reason of committing judgement to him John 5. 27. because he only of the three Persons in the holy Trinity is man as Dr. Pearson conceives in his Exposition of the seventh Article of the Creed but that Christ intimates that all judgment was committed to him because he was the son of man meant Dan. 7. 13. which is also the opinion of Grotius Annot. ad Johan Evang. c. 5. 27. because he is that Son of man of whom Daniel foretold that to him should be given dominion and a Kingdom over all Nations without end Dan. 7. 13 14. Nor is it of force to enervate this opinion that it is said that he who came before the Antient of daies was as the Son of man For the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only the likeness of a thing but also the verity of it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth John 1. 14. 2 Cor. 2. 17. And if it should note only likeness and not identity both there and Revel 1. 13. and 14. 14. it should intimate as if he whom Daniel and John saw were not Christ but one like him and so the person to vvhom dominion was given and the person described should not be Christ But the words being conceived aright Daniel saw Christ the Son of man in the apparition Nor is it absurd to say so of Daniel though Christ were not then Incarnate For he had by the Spirit Christ represented to him as he was to David when in Spirit he called him Lord Mat. 22. 43. And Abraham rejoyced to see his day and saw it and was glad John 8. 57. And if in the apparations of the Angel that spake to Abraham about Sodom to Joshua about Jericho it were Christ that appeared and so at other times Christ appeared in humane shape as sundry Arguments evince then Daniel could not be ignorant who the Son of man was Nor is the defect of the Article Rev. 1. 13. and 14. 14. a sufficient reason to shew the Son of man there to be no more than a man For the Article is also wanting John 5. 27. and yet the Son of man is meant peculiarly of Christ And so is Dan. 10. 5. though it be only read a man It is to be considered that the term Son of man is still given by Christ to himself not as Maldonat the Jesuite conceived as debasing himself or speaking of himself diminutively as Psal. 22. 6. But I am a worm and no man a reproach of men and despised of the people For he doth give himself the title of the Son of man not in his prayer to God as Psal. 22. 6. but in his speeches to the people and then when he expresseth his Power Mat. 9. 6. Mat. 12. 8. Mat. 26 64. 13. 37 41. nor do the places alledged prove that the title of Son of man is taken by Christ to himself to shew his debasement by it but to imply that though he were that Son of man to whom dominion over all Nations did belong yet he had not then where to lay his head And the like is to be said of that Mat. 12. 40. that even he who was the Son of man by excellency should be three daies and three nights in the heart of the Earth Nor is there Mat. 12. 32. a lessening of Christs person below the Holy Spirit implied by the title Son of man the sin is less which is against the Son of man than the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit not because of the excellency of the Spirits Person above the Person of the Son of man but because of the property of that sin being against the conviction of the Spirit by his operation John 12. 34. The Jews enquire Who is this Son of man not meaning that the Son of man was a diminitive term but doubting how that Son of man should be the Messiah of whom he had said that he should be lifted up verse 32. And for that place Psal. 8. 6. Heb. 2. 6. the Son of man doth not express an abject condition though an inferiour low nature in comparison of Gods but rather Christs high dignity the Authour of that Epistle proving that to no other man were all things made subject but to him who being made little lower than the Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a little time to wit the time of his suffering verse 9. as Cameron expounds it praelect in Mat. 16. 27. was made Superiour to Angels and had all things subjected to him SECT 15. Christ's Consubstantiality with the Father according to his Deity with us according to his Humanity as the Chalcedon Councel determined is asserted and proved from John 1. 14. Acts 2. 30. Rom. 1. 3 4. and 9. 5. HOwever whether the reason of the appellation be this latter or no it is certain that thereby is signified that Christ hath an Humane as well as a Divine Nature and according to the Doctrine of the Councel of Chalcedon I determine that the Son of God our Lord Jesus Christ is truely God and truely man the same of a reasonable soul and body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantial with the Father touching the God-head and consubstantial or of one essence or substance with us according to the Man-hood Which it
slew the Beasts but when having put on his linnen Robes he brought their blood into the Sanctuary before the Mercy-Seat So neither did Christ offer his sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross but when after his Resurrection being cloathed with Robes of Immortality and Glory he entered into Heaven the true Sanctuary and presented himself to God Wherefore to return to the foresaid passage Rom. 9. 5. When it is there said of whom according to the flesh for so the Greek hath it Christ came who is over all a God to be blessed for ever we ought by the authority of the Apostle himself to supply in our mind the other member of the opposition and to understand the place as if it had been said who according to the Spirit of holiness by the Resurrection from the dead is over all a God blessed for ever But if Christ be according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the dead that is according to his spiritual Body which he received by means of the Resurrection from the dead the Son of God in Power and accordingly a God over all he is not the Son of God in Power and accordingly a God over all by having the Divine Nature personally united to his Humane Nature but by the Glorification and Exaltation of his vâ—ry Humane Nature SECT 17. This Exception against the Argument is refuted I Reply that in this passage there are many errours 1. That Rom. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendered born rather than made For though I deny not that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie born yet here it is not so fitly thus rendered as made because it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly used for birth or generation as Mat. 1. 16. Luke 1. 35. 57. 23. 29. Joh. 3. 41. 18. 37. Rom. 9. 11. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Gal. 4. 4. nor is it said born of the Mother or Woman as in expressions of birth is usual Job 14. 1. Mat. 11. 11. Luke 7. 28. and the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth note not the womb from whence he came but the matter out of which he was formed For doubtless of the seed of David according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. is the same with of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh Acts 2. 30. now of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh notes the matter out of which he had flesh or a humane body and therefore the Father or antient Progenitour David is mentioned and his seed and the fruit of his loins as the Jew is said to come out of the loins of Abraham and Levi to be in his loins Heb. 7. 5 10. in respect of the matter out of which they came not the Mother or her Womb as the place from whence And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes the Act of God answerable to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 2. 30. raise up not the act of the Mother in bringing forth and therefore Rom. 1. 3. it is rightly translated made or as Piscator orti raised answerably to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprang up Heb. 7. 14. 2. It is granted that according to the flesh notes a constituting part but that it notes a constituting part which Christ had only afore his Resurrection and not after his Resurrection is not to be granted For as it is now the humane body of Christ or humane nature is made of the seed of David and raised of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh sith it is the same numerical body and Christ is still the same man which was made or descended or sprang out of David notwithstanding any alteration in the outward estate or inherent qualities in his humanity or humane body it doth not become a constituting part in its humiliation and not a constituting part in his exaltation That very being which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh which was raised of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh was to sit on his Throne Acts 2. 30. and to reign Luke 1. 32 33. And therefore as the Exceptor argues that by the Spirit of Holiness cannot be meant the Soul or Divinity of Christ because he had both in our opinion at least in the daies of his flesh though the Soul were not then glorified I may argue by the Spirit of Holiness is not meant his glorified body because he had it though not then glorified even in the daies of his flesh 3. Which is more amply confirmed by shewing that according to the flesh notes not his fleshly body as he speaks that is Christs humane body in its debasement only but his humane nature For according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. signifies by the same Authours opinion and the evidence arising from comparing the place the same that it doth Rom. 9. 5. now it signifies Rom 9. 5. the same which it doth ver 3. where Paul calls the Israelites his Brethren Kinsmen according to the flesh but he means not they were his Brethren or Kinsmen according to the flesh that is restrictively to their weakness debasement or mortality in opposition to their glorification and excluding that as inconsistent with their being his Brethren or Kiâ—smen according to the flesh But he means by according to the flesh their humane nature as men and as men descended from the same Ancestors and so in like manner when it is said Christ was from the Fathers according to the flesh the meaning is not according to his weak or inglorious condition precisely and exclusively to his glorified condition but simply according to his humane nature as descended from them whether in the daies of his flesh or exaltation without any discrimination Which is confirmed by our Saviours own speech to his Disciples Luke 24. 39. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have Therefore Christ supposed atter his Reâ—urrection that he had flesh that his humane Body was a fleshly Body the same according to the flesh that it was before which is also strengthened by the expressions Acts 2. 3 〈◊〉 that God raised him â—p of the fruit of Davids loins according to the flesh buâ— God did not raise him up of the fruit of Davâ—ds loins according to the flesh barely â—s weak mortal and debâ—sed but simply as man descended from him therefore according to the flesh imports Christs humanity or humane body as from David without restriction to his low estate And v. 31. when it is said his flesh did not see corruption his body is still termed flesh the same flesh and not considered as weak for as such it saw a change which may be termed in some sort a corruption to wit a change from that weakness it had to a better form but as the constituting part of his humane nature
Temptation in the Wilderness Agony in the Garden Resurrection from the Grave and Ascension into Heaven Preached to the Gentiles by his Apostles believed on in the World even by the Gentiles and received up in or into Glory at his Ascension into Heaven Now he of whom these things are said is God therefore the same Person Christ Jesus is both God and Man or consubstantial to the Father in respect of his God-head to us in respect of his Man-hood SECT 19. The Exceptions against this Proof THe Exception against this Argument is 1. That the reading God was manifested in the flesh is suspected to have been altered by Nestorians because the vulgar Latin the Syriak Arabian Interpreters and Ambrose all read which was manifested and refer it to the Mystery of Godliness and so this sense is given of it that the Gospel was first made known not by Angels but by mortal men and according to their outward appearance weak Christ and his Apostles as flesh Col. 1. 26. notes a mortal man 2 Cor. 2. 16. 1 John 4. 2. was justified in Spirit that is that truth was approved by many Miracles for Spirit is Miracles by a Metonymy which is 1 Cor. 2. 4. and elsewhere And to be justified here is to be approved as Mat. 11. 19. so he is said to be justified who in a contention is a Conquerour because his cause is approved Deut. 25. 1. add Psal. 21. 6. I imagine Grotius means Psal. 51. 4. Seen of Angels to wit wiâ—h greatest admiration Angels leâ—rned this secret by mortal men Ephes. 3. 10. 1 Pet. 1. 12. To see with the Hebrews is translated to all manner of knowing Was preached to the Gentiles that truth was not only declared to the Jews but also to the Gentiles who were most estranged from God Eph. 2. 12. Col. 1. 21. believed in the World that is in a great part of the world Rom. 1. 8. Col. 1. 6. received up in Glory it was very gloriously exalted to wit because it brought much more holiness than any Doctrines formerly To be taken up is to be lifted up on high and answers to the Hebrew Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in glory gloriously Phil. 4. 19. Col. 3. 4. See alâ—â—o 2 Cor. 3. 8. so they glorified the word of the Lord Acts 13. 48. 2. Others thus God the Father was manifested that is his Will made known in the flesh that is with or by the infirmity of Christ and his Apostles justified in Spirit taken or acknowledged for true by Divine vertue which shined in Christ as well as his Apostles or put forth it self powerfully by them was seen of Angels the good will of God towards men was revealed to Angels received up in glory the will of God was by many chearfully received and constantly retained or the holy Religion of Christ was gloriously admitted and received SECT 20. These Exceptions are refelled TO which I Reply 1. That the reading of which instead of God should be followed against all Copies of the Original now extant is unreasonable and not to be yielded to The Syriak Arabian and Latin are not to be put in the ballance with the Greek Copies The Latin translation is found and confessed even by Romanists to be so faulty as that it is not of itself to be rested on much less are Ambrose and Hin 〈…〉 arus who were mis-led by it That Nestoriaâ—s should foyst in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is not likely sith it is against their opinion and was used by Chrysostom before Nestorius and by Cyril against the Nestorians as Dr. Pearson shews in his Exposition of the Creed Artic. 2. page 142. of the second Edition 2. By God cannot be meant either God the Father or his Will or the Gospel or the truth of it 1. Because the words cannot be expounded so in either of the senses given Neither is God the Father any where said to be manifested in the flesh justified in the Spirit received up in Glory Nor doth God manifested in the flesh signifie God or his Will or Gospel or truth manifested in infirmity or Christ and his Apostles in their infirmity nor justified in or by the Spirit approved by Miracles nor seen of Angels learned by them from mortal men nor received up in Glory admitted or received in mens minds None of all the Texts alledged countenance these Expositions Though flesh sometimes signifies mortal weak man it being a word of very various acceptions and the Gospel is said to be manifested as Col. 1. 26. and 2 Cor. 2. 14. and Gal. 4. 13. St. Paul saith he preached the Gospel at first to the Galatians through the infirmity of the flesh yet no where is the Gospel said to be manifested in the flesh or flesh put simply for infirmity That 1 Joh. 4. 2. that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is against his sense of preaching the Gospel in infirmity it plainly noting his coming into the world in a humane nature in the sense in which he said John 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us Though I deny not that words of sense do often note other knowledge than by sense yet these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are scarce ever found to be applied to any thing but that which is descernable by sight However if they were yet the sense imagined hath no colour sith it is not said seen of Angels by the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not receiving by men that glorifie it but the glory of the person or thing manifested Phil. 4. 19. Col. 3. 4. are not meant of such glory or alacrity or rejoycing as is made the meaning of Glory 1 Tim. 3. 16. Nor do we find in the Greek Bibles such language as answers to the pretended Exposition of it in that place And for receiving the Gospel the usual word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes. 1. 6. and 2. 14. Acts 2. 41. not the word there used 2. According to that Exposition it would be an inâ—pt tautology to say he was believed on in the world and received up in glory if meant of receiving in mens hearts For what is it to be believed on but to be received in mens hearts which is not to be conceived of the Apostle in these concise Aphorismes 3. There would be no Mystery much less a great Mystery without contradiction in that which the Apostle saith if the meaning were as it is made sith Gods will was often manifested by mortal men even by all the Prophets who testified before-hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1. 11. and approved by Miracles done by Moses Elias Elisha known by Angels who brought Messages to Daniel and others preached to the Gentiles by Jonah at Niniveh believed in the world by the Ninivites received with alacrity as by David and others 3. The words in the plain obvious sense are truely and rightly expounded of Jesus