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
of the Gospel began For Christ is not termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate the Word because he was Gods Messenger to declare Gods mind to us in the Gospel the term Word is not fit to expresse a deputy but the term Ambassador Legaâ—e but because it signifies Reason and Wisdom and therefore fitly expresseth Christ who was the Wisdom of God by whom he made all things at the beginning of the Creation Psal. 136. 5. Prov. 3. 19. with whom he was when he prepared the Heavens Prov. 8. 27. to which the Evangelist alludes when he saith John 1. 2. the same was in the beginning with God and the Authour of the Book of Wisdom ch 9. 2. alluding to that Gen. 1. 26. Let us make man in our Image saith who hast framed man in thy Wisdom or because all things are said to be made by the Word of God as in the places before alledged Psal. 33. 6. 9. Psal. 148. 5. alluding without doubt to the expressions Gen. 1. 3 6 9 11 14 20 24 26 28. and accordingly the holy Writers in the New Testament expresse the first Creation as done by the Word of God St. Paul 2 Cor. 4. 6. God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness Heb. 11. 3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God 2 Pet. 3. 5. For this they willingly are ignorant of that by the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the heavens were of old and the Earth standing out of the water and in the water or as it may be read consisting of water and by water for which reason the Chaldee Paraphrast in abundance of places especially where Gods creating of Heaven and Earth is signified useth this expression I have done it by my Word as Isa. 45. 12. and 48. 13. Hos. 1. 7. whence it is apparent that St. John used the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word as a title known to the Jews answering to the Chaldee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that as Heinsius Arist. sac exercit in non c. 3. observes it undoubtedly comes from the East not from the Greeks and that by reason of his relating Gods acts especially the Creation as done by the Word it is not given by the Evangelist to Christ to signifie his preaching of the Gospel but his creation of the World at first and consequently to be understood of his Divine Nature in which he created all things in the beginning of the world nor doth the speech 1 John 1. 1 2. that what was from the beginning which he and other Apostles had seen with their eyes and their hands handled of the Word of Life prove that the term Word of Life imports only Christs humane nature or that he is so termed from preaching the Gospel For it is not said that they handled or saw the Word of life but they heard saw handled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the Word of life that is as verse 2. And the life was manifested and we have seen and witness and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us that is as is expressed 1 Tim. 3. 16. God was manifested in the flesh so that what they heard saw handled concerning the Word of Life or Divine Nature was manifested in the flesh by his words of command to unclean Spirits to depart to the Winds and Seas to be still by his Miracles which they saw felt tasted whereby he manifested his glory Joh. 1. 14. and 2. 11. and 11. 40. whence Christ argues John 10 37 38. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not But if I do though ye believe not me believe the works that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him John 14. 10 11. The words that I speak unto you I speak not of my self but the Father that dwelleth in me he doth the works Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me or else believe me for the very works sake nor is Christ described Rev. 19. 13. where he is called the Word of God as a Prophet to shew that the title Word of God imported his preaching but as a Warriour to shew his power not as the Essay on Rev. 19. 13. Because he came immediately from the Divine Majesty in Heaven to publish the Gospel to the world and had full power to do whatsoever miracles he pleased 2. It is true that in the beginning is wont to be restrained to the matter in hand nor is it denied but that in many of the places alledged in the second exception in the beginning is meant of the preaching of Christ nor is it material in this point whether beginning Luke 3. 23. be referred to Christs age or the preaching of the Gospel though the latter be lesse probable because then when Christ was Baptized of John he had not begun to preach the Gospel till after his temptation in the Wilderness But the thing to be proved is that the preaching of the Gospel is the matter in hand Joh. 1. 1 2. The word the beginning is used John 8. 44. 1 John 3. 8. Mat. 19. 4 8 and 24. 21. Mark 10. 6. and 13. 19. Heb. 1. 10. 2 Pet. 3. 4. for the beginning of the Creation and the very expressions John 1. 1 2 3 〈◊〉 5 10. and other evidences before alledged shew it answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 1. 1. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as John 1. 1. and in both places are delivered with the like agreableness to Gods Majesty in creating that even as Longinus the Philosopher magnified Moses his description of the Creation so Franciscus Junius that eminent Divine was taken with the reading of John 1. 1. c. and from his inclinations to Atheism was by it brought to the knowledge of Christ as he relates in the narration of his own life As for the sense the Adversaries give In the beginning was the Word that is in the beginning of the Gospel was the Word that is the man Christ Jesus called the Word in that he was the immediate Interpreter of God by whom he revealed his counsel touching our salvation as we are wont to disclose our secrets by our words which reason it is said may not obscurely be collected from the 18. v. of the same chapter and the Word was with God being taken up into Heaven that so he might talk with God and be indeed his Word or the immediate Interpreter of his Will and receive the most certain and absolute knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven which he was to propound to men it hath no colour from the Text For neither is it said in the beginning of the Gospel nor the appellation of the Word is given to Christ in regard of his Prophetical Office nor is it said in the beginning the Word was preaching but simply was noting his existence not his acting nor will the order
going forth from the Father every one may easily perceive by the opposition of the following clause is meant of a local procession of Christ from God and that before the discharge of his Embassy for to come or to come into the world signifieth to treat with men in the name of God and to perform a publick Office among men See Iohn 1. 15. 27 30. and Iohn 1. 5 20. Mat. 11. 3 18 19. Ioh. 17. 18. compared with chap. 16. 21. and chap. 18. 37. it evinceth not a bodily ascent into Heaven of Christ to learn of God afore his publishing the Gospel For it is not said whither he ascended before but was before which notes presence there but not local motion nor is it said in his humane body though it be said the Son of man was there before yet this may be understood by the figure of communication of properties very frequent in speeches of Christ according to his Divine Nature nor is he said to be there before his preaching the Gospel restraining the time to it it may be meant of his being in Heaven afore the World was as it is said Iohn 17. 5. nor is it said Christs flesh came from heaven or that he came from Heaven by local motion or saw God by his eyes of flesh his coming and seeing God may be understood of his Divine Nature in respect of which he was of Heavenly Original though his being bread be meant of his flesh and humane nature in which he suffered and his coming out from God and coming John 8. 42. is expounded of his receiving commission from God as the words shew neither came I of my self that is I have not taken upon me this Office I now administer of mine own motion only but he sent me nor is coming out from the Father necessarily understood of coming out from the Father and coming into the world by local procession but the coming out from the Father may be meant of receiving commission from his Father or his original being and his coming into the world either of his humane birth or as the allegation expresseth it his treating with men in the Name of God and performing a publick office among men unto one of which the Texts produced lead us and not to the sense of local procession in his humane body nor doth the opposition prove it for the sense may be right thus I came out from the Father by generation and taking my commission from him and came into the world by humane birth or as it is Iohn 12. 46. A light into the world by my preaching the Gospel and again or on the contrary I leave the world by death or removing from the Earth and go by my bodily ascent to the Father As for Iohn 3. 13. neither is the coming down from Heaven nor his being in Heaven necessarily understood of removal from Earth to Heaven and back again by bodily motion but may be meant of his being in Heaven in his Divine nature and coming down from Heaven by being made flesh or receiving his commission from God in respect of one or both of which he is said verse 31. to come from Heaven from above in opposition to being of the Earth by humane generation or authority And verse 32. he is said to have seen and heard by his intimacy with his Father and the communication of the Spirit verse 34. not by his bodily eyes or ears upon a supposed personal humane presence and conference with God in Heaven 4. The Apellation of God given to the Word Job 1. 1. is not from his Office as altogether Divine as being above Prophets whose Office if compared with Christs was humane For Moses was a Prophet of whom God said Numb 12. 8. With him will I speak mouth to mouth even apparently and not in dark speeches and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold and St. Paul was rapt into the third Heaven and heard words unspeakable 2 Cor. 12. 4. and yet neither of them termed God yea St. Paul abhorred it with indignation Acts 14. 11 15. such persons may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine men not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods nor is the Word termed God as endued with Divine Power For then Moses might be so termed for he was a Prophet endued with Divine Power and Empire so as to controul Pharaoh and to work Miracles But Moses is not termed God though God said to him I have made thee a God to Pharaoh Exod. 7. 1. and thou shalt be to Aaron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or instead of God that is as a Prince or Master to command or direct him Exod. 4. 16. But the Word it 's said Iohn 1. 1. was God absolutely noting what he was in himself not relatively what he was to another shewing what he was in nature and power not what he was designed for or what his imployment or work should be or what he was in Office no whit expressing from whom to whom for what he was sent or what he did but what he was And his being God is said to be in the beginning not in the progress of his preaching in which he did Miracles nor after his Resurrection when all Power was given him in Heaven and in Earth Mat. 28. 18. nor after his ascention when he was exalted by the right hand of God Acts 2. 33. God made him both Lord and Christ verse 36. But in the beginning of the Creation when he made all things and therefore was God the Creatour as the Authour to the Hebrews ch 3. 4. asserts He that built or framed all things is God where it may be observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is put without the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet by God is there meant not a substituted God by Office but God the Creatour and Iohn 1. 6 12 13 18. and in a great number of other places it is likewise used and therefore notwithstanding this exception the Word is to be believed to have been God Creatour very God of very God in the beginning of the Creation at first as v. 3. is asserted 5. That the making of all things by the Word is not meant of the new Creation is proved before Sect. 13. and that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Iohn 1. 3 10. translated by us made are used of the first Creation is manifest from the use Heb. 4. 3. and 11. 3. 1 Cor. 15. 45. as Gen. 2. 7. and Gen. 1. 3 6 9 11 14 15 20 24. and 2. 4. and therefore the creation of all things of the world at first is fiâ—ly expressed by those words Iohn 1. 3 10. and so the universal Creation at first ascribed to the Word Nor is it any deminution to Christ that it is said all things were made by him and without him was nothing made which was made and the world was made by him For the expressions by him not
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
the confessing him to be the Son of God was more than to be the Son of Man John Baptist Elias Jeremiah or one of the Prophets 2. That this being the Son of God was such a thing as was not to be revealed by flesh and blood but by his Father in Heaven therefore it was not his being Gods Son by the supernatural conception of the blessed Virgin for that she could tell both by her own knowledge of her Virginity and the Angels revelation nor by special mission for that had been but as one of the Prophets as Moses and had been discernable by flesh and blood upon the sight of his great works to which he often appealed as demonstrating him to be sent of his Father as the Messiah John 14. 10 11. nor as Mediatour only for then there had been no more acknowledged by Peters confessing him to be the Son of the living God than by confessing him to be the Christ therefore he was the Son of the living God by generation of his Fathers Substance before the world was which his Father onely could reveal 2. This is further proved from these Texts of Scripture which make it the demonstration of the greatest love of God in giving his only begotten Son John 3. 16. not sparing his own Son but giving him up for us all Rom. 8. 32. But this had not been such a commendation of his love if Christ had been only a supernaturally conceived man specially commissionated as Mediatour if he had not been the Son of God by generation before the world was of his Fathers substance it had not been more than the not sparing holy Angels but giving them for us therefore he must be the Son of God by such generation of the Fathers substance as he had before the world was 3. Heb. 3. 4 5 6. our Lord Christ is preferred before Moses as being a Son over his own house and this house built by himself who built all things and therefore God whereas Moses was but faithful as a Servant in Gods house not his owâ— therefore Christ is the Son of God as he is God with his Father building or framing all things and consequently the Son of God by generation of his Fathers substance before the World was 4. It is said Heb. 5. 8. Though he were a Son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered which shewed a singular demission of himself in his obedience but if he had been only a Son by creation as the Angels or as a meer man by supernatural conception in the Virgins womb there had been no such demission of himself by agreement or accord as here and Heb. 10. 7. is set forth his subjection had not been free but necessary as being Gods creature if he had not been the Son of God by natural generation of his substance before the world was If he had been the Son of God only as sent by God to be Mediatour there had been a tautology to say although he was sent by God to be Meâ—iaâ—our yet he did obey as Mediatour and being consecrated or perfected became Authour of salvation to them that obey him which is as if he had said though he were Mediatour yet he was Mediatour which had been â—ugatory As for that which is chiefly objected that the reason of this title the Son of God given to Christ is from the peculiar Generation he had by the operation of the holy Ghost Besides that which is already said that such a forming was of Adam at first who was not the Son of God in that singular manner that Christ was and if there were no other reason of his being the Son of God but this he should be termed peculiarly the Son of the Spirit whereas he is stiled the only begotten of the Father it is said that holy thing which shall be born of thee intimates that what should be born of her was holy and had being before that birth of the Virgin and that his being called the Son of God was not for that as the cause at least not the sole cause and that his being called the Son of God was a consequent of being that holy thing God with us as it is Mat. 1. 23. The other Texts John 10. 36. Acts 13. 33. Heb. 5. 5. c. do only prove that his singular mission resurrection and Priest-hood demonstrated him to be the Son of God not made him such for then he had not been the Son of God before these whereas the Angels words shew Luke 1. 35. and the Adversaries yeild he was the Son of God from his Generation and Birth of the blessed Virgin 10. It is true the speech John 1. 15 27 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being translated is prefered before me may be well conceived to be the same or to answer to that which is Mat. 3. 11. Mark 1. 7. Euke 3. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is stronger than I or is more prevalent or more powerful than I But the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he was before me must note priority of time For 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was notes his actual existence what he was in Being not what he was to be in Gods Intention 2. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first note not only priority of order but also of rule and power and is sometimes as much as the chief yet it cannot be so meant John 1. 15 27 30. For 1. That was before expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred well was preferred before me noting chiefdom preheminence or power and therefore must note something distinct from it otherwise it would be a triâ—ling tautology and therefore it must be understood of priority of Essence in duration and excellency of being before him which alone may well be conceived as the cause of his praelation 2. If Christ had not being before John Baptist it could not be well said as it is v. 16. by him including himself And of his fulness we all have received and grace for grace sith John had his being as man before Christ and was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb Luke 1. 15. SECT 7. Christs Generation before the world was is proved from John 8. 58. CHrists being the Son of God afore his incarnation is proved from his words John 8. 58. verily verily I say unto you Before Abraham was I am The occasion of which words was from that which our Lord Christ in the Temple spake to the Jews ver 51. verily verily I say unto you if a man keep my saying he shall never see death Which the Jews conceived so notorious an untruth that they inferred he must be possessed by the Devil sith Abraham was dead and other holy men To which our Lord Christ replied that he honoured not himself but his Father honoured him that Abraham rejoyced to see his day and saw it and was glad which did intimate that he had seen Abraham and Abraham him
being the brightness of his glory and the express Image of his person and upholding all things by the Word of his power verse 3. by so much being more excellent or better than the Angels by how much he inherited a more excellent name than they verse 4. of whom God said that which he said not of the Angels thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And again I will be to him a Father and he shalt be to me a Son And again when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world he saith And let all the Angels of God worship him verse 5 6. Unto the Son or of the Son he saith thy Throne O God is for ever and ever a Scepter of Righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdom thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity therefore God even thy God hath annointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy follows And thou Lord in the beginnings hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of thy hands They shall perish but thou remainest they all shall wax old as doth a garment and as a vesture shalt thou sold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy years shall not fail But to which of the Angels said he at any time sit on my right hand until I make thine Enemies thy Foot-stool verse 8 9 10 11 12 13. Whence I argue He of whom all these things are said was before any creature was made begotten of the substance of the Father not made of nothing very God of the same substance with the Father by whom all things were made But of Jesus Christ all these things are said therefore c. The minor proposition is the express words of the Text but the major is denied and as a reason of the denial it is said 1. That Christ is said to be the Son the first-begotten this day begotten in respect of his Incarnation Resurrection Exaltation as before 2. That he was the brightness of his glory Ray or Beam of Gods Majesty that in Christ men might have a kind of sight of Gods Majesty that he was the express Image of his person in respect of his qualities resembling his Father the latter words interpreting the former For God did as it were imprint his person on Christ that Christ might be his Substitute upon earth to personate represenâ— and resemble the person of God to be in wisdom as God by publishing the Mysteries and secrets of God and by knowing the thoughts of men and discovering them to be in holiness as God without all stain of sin to be in power as God having dominion over all Gods Creatures over Winds Seas Devils 3. That he was brought into the world not as being before the world but being in the world was sent as the great Prophet of the Church among men or at his Resurection he was raised from the dead and brought into the world or it is to be applied to his great exaltation at the last day when he shall be brought into the world to come as it is termed Heb. 2. 5. which refers to Heb. 1. 6. and so without trajection the word again shall be read as it stands in the Greek Text and the verb of the second Aorist of bringing into be read as of the future time not as the vulgar Beza our translation of the time past and again noting another citation out of the Psalms And therefore Mr. Mede in his opusâ—ula Latina in answer to Ludovicus de Dieu would have our English version corrected thus And when he bringeth again the first-begotten into the world or shall bring c. For what things are from thence cited out of the Book of Psalms to the end of the Chapter concerning the adoration of Angels the Scepter of the rectitude of God the changing the World the treading of enemies under his feet all if we believe the Apostle are to be referred to the second coming of Christ. To which agree Cameron resp ad quaest in Heb. 1. 6. Heinsius exercit sac l. 16. c. 1. Dr. Homes Resur revealed l. 3. c. 2. c. 4. That he inherited or possessed a more excellent Name than the Angels by grant from his Father being appointed Heir of all things not by vertue of his generation before the world but because of his office by reason of which the Angels were to worship him as Peter did Christ as man Luke 5. 8. and all the Disciples Luke 24. 52. 5. That he was God by Office and not by Nature as it appears in that God is said to be his God he to be annointed by God with the oyl of gladness and others his fellows ver 8 9. 6. Grotius would have ver 2. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for whom not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom But if it be to be read by whom it is meant of the new world not of the Heavens and Earth or Ages or Times of this world And v. 10 11 12. are but accommodated to him in respect of his dissolving the world and duration of his Kingdom not in respect of the Eternity of his person or operation in the first Creation 7. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated upholding is to be translated ruling with the word that is at the command of his Father mannaging all things as personating his Father and following his command Gr 〈…〉 in his Annotation on the place saith thus The manuscripts in which those Grammatical spirits are distinguished have also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his the Fathers not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own as we read it and so reads Cyril in his 8th against Julian The sense is Christ governs all things by the Word of his Fathers Power that is Command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often to govern and which Chrysostom here adds with some easiness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears to be put for command Luke 5. 5. and Heb. 11. 3. So also 1 Kings 1. 27. more to the same purpose hath Heinsius Exercit. sacr l. 16. c. 1. and Dr. Hammond in his annot on Heb. 1. 3. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies two things fero to bear and rego to rule and from the latter of them it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the ordinary word for a Prince Agreeably to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is sometimes the rendering of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Numb 11. 14. Deut. 1. 9. may accordingly signifie to Rule to Govern 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Administer as a Commander or Governour or Procurator of a Province and so 't is here taken to denote the Regal Power of Christ to which he is advanced by his Resurrection 8. That verse 13. is spoken of Christ as man exalted to sit on Gods â—ighâ—-hand SECT 12. The Argument from Heb. 1. 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13. is vindicated from Exceptions TO the first I
to come though the same word be not used in both places For which reasons I conceive it better to make a transposition in the word again and to expound the words thus Again he saith when he did bring his first-begotten into the world using again as he did verse 5. to express another citation Nevertheless were Mr. Medes reading yielded it must shew a former bringing into the vvorld and so a being of Christ afore his coming into the world and consequently his being the Son of God begotten before the world began 4. It is true Christ had a more excellent name by grant as appointed Heir of all things yet was not the Son of God because Heir of all things but Heir of all things because his Son by whom he made the worlds v. 1. 2. which is the reason also given Col. 〈◊〉 15 16. as the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because shews It is true the Angels were to worship Christ because of his office and his exaltation yet not barely because of his office and exaltation but also because of his generation as the Son of God and the union of his two Natures in one Person by reason of which he was worshipped afore his Resurrection Mat. 2. 11. in his minority 5. Jesus Christ is not termed God in respect of his office but nature as being the Son of God the Creatour by whom he made the worlds ver 2. and in respect of his generation God the Father is said to be his God and he God of God as in the Nicene Creed And being made a man was anointed and other men were his fellows or Partakers with him though not in the same measure as he who had the Spirit without measure Job 3â— 34. 6. Grotius his change is without any warrant of Copy or Example and therefore is too bold an alteration to be allowed nor had the Apostles assertion of Christ that for him he made the worlds been so full to his purpose to set out Christs Excellency as to say that by him he made the worlds Besides sith Col. 1. 16. it is said by him were all things created and for him and that made the reason of his being the first-born of every creature ver 15. it is in like manner to be conceived Heb. 1. 2. that 〈◊〉 appointed his Son Heir of all things because by him he made the worlds By the worlds is not meant the future world or blessed immortality not the making them the renewing of them But the worlds signifie either the frame of Heaven and Earth at first Creation or the times and generations of men and their making the creating at the beginning of time or the forming and continuing of them in their successions The former sense of making Heaven and Earth and their Inhabitants as it is confirmed by the parallel place Col. 1. 16. so it is put out of doubt by the words of the same Authour Heb. 11. 3. By Faith we understand that the worlds the word used Heb. 1. 2. were framed by the Word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things appearing which doth evidently refer to Gen. 1. 1 2. and Heb. 9. 26. the end of the worlds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to the foundation of the world and in conformity to this sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 9. 32. is as much as from the beginning of the world nor can it be meant of a future world sith the word of making notes a thing already done and to say he made that which was not yet in being or which was not yet made had been to say that he made that which he did not make and to say he made by him the worlds if he were not then existent had been to say he made the worlds by a not being Nor can it be shewed that making that it have various senses is put for revealing or that said to be made which is only made known Heb. 1. 10 11 12. are a testimony cited concerning Christ as verse 8. the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto or of the Son shew as v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith of the Angels and the copulative conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 10. shews it to be a distinct testimony from the former and the words cited together shew all meant of Christ Ifs the latter part of them belong to Christ it follows that also the former belongs to him for it belongs to the same person and power which dissolves or changeth the Heavens to lay the foundation of them Nor is there an instance produced either Mat. 12. 17 18 19 20 21. or Acts 2. 17 18 19 20 21. in which words are cited whereof part only belong to the matter for which they are cited although Mat. 12. 19. alone had fitted the occasion Nor are there or any where else words cited as spoken part of one person part of another as they would have them who use this evasion Nor are the words Heb. 1. 10 11 12. cited only to prove ver 4. that Christ was made so much better thaâ— the Angels as he hath inherited a more excellent Name than they But to prove that by him God made the worlds verse 2. Nor can there be good sense in making the first part verse 10. to be directed to God and the other ver 11 12. of Christ when it is the same Lord who is spoken to ver 10 11 12. Nor can that which is spoken of an eternal duration à parte antè on the part before as well as à parte post the part after be applied only to the duration of his Kingdom which is only eternal à parte post on the part after and which is also to be resigned to the Father 1 Cor. 15. 24. 7. Grotius is still too bold to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning the Fathers Word or Power instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own meâ—ning the Son without any extant Copies named by him and clean against the Apostles scope to set out Christs Excellency Now to Rule at his Fathers command had noted his obedience and subserviency not his excellency For so do all holy Angels and good Magistrates they rule at Gods command Nor is the expression suitable to his sense If he had meant as Grotius conceives the sense he should have said ruling all things at the command of his Fathers authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power and not have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Word which notes the means of effecting as Heb. 11. 3. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to his Word as the rule of administration or as it is Luke 5. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at thy command Besides Heb. 11. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Word of God notes not a command to the Son to do it but the powerful word to the world by which it was made Gen. 1. And the all
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
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
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