were unnecessary to prove sith his composition of Body Birth Growth Properties Actions Sufferings and what ever else prove a Person to be a man as we are as plainly are related and were as fully manifested to have been in Christ Jesus as in any other man but that as of old Valentinus Marcion and some others denied his body to have been of humane seed as the matter holding it to have been imaginary not real or Coelestial and to have passed through the Virgins womb So others of late have denied the truth of Christs Incarnation and the reason of his being termed the Son of man contrary to the holy Scriptures as shall be shewed by these Texts following which ascribe both a Divine and Humane Nature to one and the same Person the Lord Jesus Christ both while he was on Earth and as he is now in Heaven and shall appear at his future coming to Judgement To this purpose are the words alledged before out of John 1. 14. which shew that the same Person who is the Word was Flesh which because I have before vindicated Sect. 6. I shall not insist on here nor on such proofs as may be made from Col. 1. 18. or Heb. 1. 3. in which that is ascribed to the Son whom I before proved Sect. 9 10 11 12. from those chapters to be God which proves him a man to wit his being head of the body the Church the first-born from the dead who by himself purged our sins and is sate down on the right hand of the Majesty in the heights But consider other places where both natures in one Person are declared Among which I shall chuse to insist on first those places which speak of Christ as descending from the Fathers according to the Flesh as Acts 2. 30. Therefore David being a Prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit on his Throne Rom. 1. 3 4. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh who was declared or determined the Son of God in or with Power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection of or from the dead Rom. 9. 5. Whose are the Fathers and of whom Christ according to the flesh who is over all God blessed for ever Which Texts do expresly teach that Jesus Christ had a humane nature which is termed the flesh as it is frequent by Flesh to understand a man or Humane Nature Rom. 3. 20. and 11. 14. Isa. 58. 7. Gal. 2. 16. For he was of the fruit of Davids loins according to the Flesh which being a restriction cannot limit raising up but Christ and so notes another part according to which Christ was not raised up out of the loins of David which must be understood of his Divine Nature according to which he was Davids Lord Mat. 22. 44 45. He was of the seed of David and of the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to that which was according to the Flesh restrictively after it implying another Nature according to which he is of an higher original even the Son of God Rom. 1. 3 4. God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. Whence it is inferred He who is so Davids Son according to the flesh raised up out of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh made of the seed of David according to the flesh of the Fathers according to the Flesh as that he is also Davids Lord the Son of God God over all blessed for ever is consubstantial with the Father as touching the God-head and consubstantial with us as touching his Man-hood But such is Jesus Christ. Therefore c. SECT 16. The Exception against the Argument from Acts 2. 30. Rom. 1. 3 4. Rom. 9. 5. is set down AGainst this it is thus excepted When the Apostle saith that Christ came of the Fathers according to the flesh who is over all a God blessed for ever the opposition is not entire and exact as wanting the other Member What that Member is another passage of the Apostle wherein you have the same opposition in describing Christ will inform you It is Rom. 1. 3 4. concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who was made or rather born of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with Power Gr. determined or ordained Son of God in Power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the dead Here you see that to those words according to the flesh are opposed these according to the Spirit of Holiness Again What this Spirit of Holiness is will be no hard matter to find out if we consider that as the flesh signifyeth a constituting part of Christ namely his fleshly body so also must the Spirit of holiness opposed thereunto signifie a constituting part If so then it is not the holy Spirit as every one will confesse nor the reasonable soul of Christ because he is intimated to have had this Spirit by means of the resurrection from the dead whereas he had a reasonable Soul before his death Nor the Divine Nature for that is no where in Scripture designed by the name of Spirit or Spirit of holiness Besides the adversaries hold that Christ had the Divine Nature whilst he was yet cloathed with flesh It remains therefore that by the Spirit of holiness which Christ had by means of the resurrection of the dead and is a constituting part of him is to be understood his Holy Spiritual Body whereby he is excepted from other men being the first-born from the dead or the first that so rose from the dead as that he never dyed again but was cloathed with a Spiritual body and made like to God who is a Spirit And now the sense of that passage beginneth to appear Heb. 9. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit Gr. through an eternal Spirit for no Article is prefixed offered himself without spot to God Purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God By eternal Spirit is here meant the spiritual body of Christ which lasteth to all eternity and this expression is opposed to what the same Divine Authour speaketh of Christ Heb. 5. 7. who in the daies of his flesh c. For eternal is contrary to dayes and spirit to flesh Neither will that which we have here spoken seem strange to him who having penetrated into that profound Epistle to the Hebrews knoweth what is there frequently intimated that Christ then made his offering for our sins when after his Resurrection he entered into Heaven and being endued with a spiritual and immortal Body presented himself before God For so the Type of the Levitical High-Priest making the yearly Atonement for the siâ—s of the People Levit. 16. did require For as the Atonement was not then made when he
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
Christ who is said to be God John 1. 1 2. to come in the flesh in his humane nature to be made flesh John 1. 14. to be manifested in his works John 2. 11. and his preaching Mark 1. 27. Luke 7. 16 22. justified in the Spirit or by the Spirit either by the Spirits descent on him at his Baptisme John 1. 33 34. whereby he was proclaimed and proved to be the Son of God or by his Miracles as Mat. 12. 28. against the accu 〈…〉 on of colluding with the Devil or at his Resurrection as I conceive Rom. 1. 3 4. or by giving the Holy Ghost Acts 2. 33. Seen of Angels Luke 2. 11 12. Mat. 4. 15. Luke â—2 43. and 4. 4 5. Acts 1. 10. Preached to the Gentiles 1 Cor. 1. 23. 2 Cor. 1. 19. Believed on in the World Rom. 1. 8. 1 T 〈…〉 1. 7 8. received up the word used 1 Tim. 3. 16. in glory Acts 1. 2 11 12. Mark 16. 19. Luke 9. 51 and 24. 26. 4. It being said God was manifested in the flesh and this meant of Jesus Christ proves he was before God and then he had flesh and therefore a Humane and Divine Nature and consubstantial to the Father and to us SECT 21. The samething is confirmed from 1 Pet. 3. 18 19 10. Gal. 4. 4. Rom. 8. 3. 1 John 4. 2. Heb. 2. 14. and 10. 5. John 16. 28. TO this I shall subjoyn for Confirmation and Explication 1 Pet. 3. 18 19 20. where Christ is said to be put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit Where flesh must note a constituting part and yet the Spirit note the efficient For quickened noting his Resurrection cannot note his Eternal Holy Spiritual Body as was conceived meant by the Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. and the Spirit of Holiness Rom. 1. 4. For that was not till he was quickened and therefore he not quickened in or by it nor his Humane Soul for that dyed not and therefore the Spirit must note an efficient and that must be either the Divine Nature of Christ or as I conceive the Holy Spirit to whom his Resurrection is ascribed Rom. 8. 11. called the Power of God 2 Cor. 13. 4. as what is done by the Spirit is said to be done by the Power of God Luke 1. 35. Mat. 12. 28. Luke 11. 20. and he was quickened by the Spirit by which he preached verse 19. which was the Holy Spirit Gen. 6. 3. in the preaching of Noah 2 Pet. 2. 4. and this was the Spirit of Christ 1 Pet. 1. 11. the Holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1. 21. In that Spirit he went and preached to the spirits in Prison which were sometimes disobedient in the daies of Noah which those that deny Christs Divine Nature will not say to have been done in the thâ—ee daies of his death afore his Resurrection therefore in the daâ—es of Noah and consequently he had then a being to wit a Divine Nature otherwise he could not be said then to go and preach by the Spirit by which he was quickened nor the spirits in prison to have been disobedient when once the long-suffering of God waited in the daies of Noah while the Ark was a preparing To these Scriptures I add Gal. 4. 4. Rom. 8. 3. The sending his Son supposeth the Sons being before and so his Divine Nature Made of a Woman in the likeness of sinful flesh his Humane therefore he had both To the same effect are those Texts which speak of his coming in the flesh as 1 John 4. 2. his taking part of flesh and blood Heb. 2. 14. where he that was Superiour to Angels antecedently was made little lower than the Angels or debased below the Angels partaking flesh and blood not ashamed to call them Brethren ver 7 11. whom in respect of his native greatness he might have been ashamed to own as such and therefore is supposed to have a being above man afore he was a man His coming into the world with a body prepared for him out of obedience and compliance of will to his Fathers Heb. 10. 5. John 16. 28. shews his being with his Father before he was a man and so a Divine Nature antecedent to his Humane SECT 22. Christs consubstantiality with the Father and us is proved from Philip. 2. 5 6 7 8. THere yet remains that Text which is Philip. 2. 5 6 7 8. where the Apostle speaks thus Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus who being in the form of God thought or counted it not robbery or a spoil or prey to be equal to God or as God But made himself of no reputation or emptied himself and took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of men or when he had been made like to men as Meric Casaubon diatriba de usu Verborum p. 66. and being found in fashion or habit as man or a man and became obedient or rather being or becoming obedient unto death even the death of the Cross In which I confess are sundry unusual expressions needful to be cleared yet sufficient to prove him to have a Divine and Humane Nature sith he is said to have been in the â—orm of God first and then to empty himself to take on him the form of a Servant to be made in the likeness of men to be found in fashion as a man to humble himself to death whence I may argue He who beâ—ng in the form of God counted it no robbery or prey that he was as God emptied himself taking the form of a Servant when he was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man humbled himself becoming obedient untâ— death had a Divine and Humane Nature But this is true of Jesus Chrâ—st therefore he had both Natures SECT 23. The Exception against this Argument is recited TO this Argument the Exception is thus made The words and sense being thus Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus who being in the form of God for the exercise and demonstration of Divine Power whereby he wrought Miracles in as free and uncontrouled a manner as if God himself had been on the earth thought it not robbery or a prey to be equal with God that is did not esteem this equality of his with God consisting in the free exercise of Divine Power to be a prey by holding it fast and refusing to let it go as Robers are want to do when they have got a prey or booty but Gr. emptied himself in making no use of the Divine Power within him to rescue himself out of the hands of the Officers sent to apprehend him and took upon him the form of a Servant in suffering himself to be apprehended bound and whipt as Servants are wont to be being made in the likeness of men that is ordinary and vulgar men who are endued with no Dâ—vine Power and being found in fashion or habit as a man that
4. By the Spirit of Holiness Rom. 1. 4. whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note a constituting part or an efficient cause cannot be meant Christs holy Spiritual Body in the Exceptors sense For 1. It would imply that his Spiritual Body were another constituting part than his fleshly body which is already refuted 2. It would imply that his fleshly body were not his holy body whereas that which was born of Mary was that holy thing which should be called the Son of God Luke 1. 35. 3. No where is the body of Christ termed a Spirit or the Spirit of Holiness in any estate For though it be true that 1 Cor. 15. 44. mentions a Spiritual body yet 1. That is there contradistinguished not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fleshly but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natural or â—oulary 2. No where termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit 3. Nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit of Holiness 4. After his Resurrection Christ denies his body to be a Spirit as having flesh and bones Luke 24. 39. and he is said to enter into the holy place by his own blood Heb. 9. 12. and to have consecrated for us a new and living way to enter into the holiest by his blood through the Veil that is to say his Flesh Heb. 10. 19 20. It is an errour that by the eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. is meant Christs Eternal Spiritual Body For the Eternal Spirit there must be of something distinct from himself Else the meaning should be he offered himself by himself which is tautological and absurd but by himself must be meant his body as Heb. 1. 3. Having purged our sins by himself is by his own body For the thing offered was his own Body or his Life or Soul Isa. 53. 10. In the Type the thing offered is some body gift or sacrifice Heb. 5. 1. and 8. 3. and 9. 7. 9. and 10. 1. and 11. 4 17. whence the body offered is termed the oblation Heb. 10. 5 8. In the antitype Christ is said to offer himself that is his body called his oblation Heb. 10. 10. and this offering is termed Heb. 9. 25 26. the Sacrifice of himself for the putting away of sin and this to be not often but once in the end of the world ver 26. he was once offered to bear the sins of many verse 28. He needed not daily as those High-Priests to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the peoples For this he did once when he offered up himself Heb. 7. 27. By the which will we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. 10. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God verse 12. which must be afore he sate down on the right hand of God and therefore on earth and this was by his suffering or dying Heb. 9. 26 27 28. and therefore cannot be referred to his appearing in Heaven but to his blood-shedding Heb. 9. 22. in the daies of his flesh whereby it appears to be false that Christ did not offer his Sacrifice for our sins on the Cross there being no other time meant by that once when he offered up himself for the sins of the people Heb. 7. 27. and whereas it is saâ—d Heb. 9 28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many St. Peter tells us 1 Epistle 2. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead to sin should live unto righteousness by whose stripes ye were healed Which doth evidently refer to Isa. 53. 4 5 6. whence the last clause is taken and shews the bearing of our sins by the offering of himself to have been on the Cross or at the time of his suffering on Earth And hereby it appears to be false that Christ made not atonement till he came to Heaven For Col. 1. 20. It is said And having made peace through the blood of his Cross he reconciled all things to his Father ver 21 22. Now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin or by a sacrifice for sin as Heb. 10. 8. condemned sin in the flesh which is all one with making atonement That which is alledged that the atonement was not then made when the High-Priest slew the Beasts but when having put on his linnen Robes he brought their blood into the Sanctuary before the Mercy-Seat is partly false there being atonement made for himself and his house Levit. 16. 5 6. before he entered into the holy place and partly impertinent sith the point in question is not where the atonement was made but where Christ offered himself Heb. 9. 14. though both the offering and the atonement are resolved to have been afore his sitting at the right hand of God Heb. 1. 3. and 10. 12. Nor doth it appear that Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. is put in opposition to the daies of his flesh Heb. 5. 7. For it is not said Heb. 5. 7. flesh that hath daies as if it noted a distinction of his body mortal from his Spiritual Immortal Body but daies of his flesh only to note the time of his offering prayers not the quality or adjunct of his body Nor is it said he offered by the daies of his flesh as here by the Eternal Spirit but in the daies of his flâ—sh to note the time which is not intimated Heb. 9. 14. by that term by the Eternal Spirit for then it should rather have been said by or in the Eternity of the Spirit The offering being an act of Christ on Earth is no other than the act of his Deed and Will whereby he did present himself as a Sacrifice to God as the phrase is Rom. 12. 1. or as it is Eph. 5. 2. Gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour by reason of such acts Abraham is said to offer up Isaac Heb. 11. 17. and we are said to offer the Sacrifice of Praise Heb. 13. 15. Spiritual Sacrifices 1 Pet. 2. 5. which is plainly expressed Heb. 10. 10. By which Will we are sanctâ—fied by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once or for once which was no other than that which he expressed in that prayer which Armiâ—â—â—â— termed rightly the Canon or rule of Christs Sacrifice John 17. 19. And for them I sanctifie my self that they also may be sanctified in truth Which being considered I see not what good sense can be made of it as many Divines expound it of the Divinity of Christ making the Sacrifice of Christ of value to satisfie for sins For the words through the Eternal Spirit have not respect to himself who was offered as enhauncing the price of the thing offered by reason of the union of it to himself neither the place of
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
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