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
5. to him that by wisdom which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as well as speech made the Heavens Psal. 148. 5. he commanded and they were created did so far intimate that the Chaldee Paraphrast Isa. 45. 12. reads I in my word have made the earth and created man upon it and Isa. 48. 13. By my word I have founded the earth and Philo the Jew besides other sayings in his book of allegories shewing his inklings of his knowledge of this mystery though dark saith the word or reason for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both made the world These with many other allegations which might be produced out of Jewish Writers and others do evince that the Evangelist means the same creation when he saith all things were made by him and the same beginning when he saith In the beginning was the word as Moses meant when he said In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth Gen. 1. 1. 3. The sense of the words in which the force of the argument consists is according to the plain and obvious use of the words and phrases the other for the most part without example and so streined as that it may easily be perceived they studied rather to wrest than to interpret them as will appear by comparing the allegations and senses on both sides given in the particulars as they are in order examined in the next Section 4. The Adversaries acknowledge that the intent of the Evangelist in that which is said of Christ was to set out Christ in what he was singular and was excellent in him But to expound his words as they do is to make the Evangelist deliver things common to him with others as to say in the beginning was the Word that is preaching the Gospel or in the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel the Word Christ was that is had a being that he was with God that is was known of God is to say no more than might be said of John Baptist to say he was with God to learn Mysteries is the same which St. Paul saith of himself when he was rapt into Paradise or is true of Moses when he conferred with God in the Mount to say all things were made by him that is by his preaching the Gentiles were become new creatures is no more than might be said of Peter Paul and other Apostles to say he was a God in office that he had Divine Power to work Miracles is to say no more of him than might be said of Moses of the Apostles nor do they or can they give any good reason which may agree with the Majesty and Wisdom of so divine a writing and Writer as this of John to deliver things so obvious in so obscure Phrases as are not congruous to a divine Historian when the same might be and were by other Evangelists delivered in plainer expressions nor why he should prefix those sacred Aphorisms before his History if they contained no Mystery but things easily perceivable by sense nor is such an end as is imagined by some to shew that John Baptist was not the Messias any thing probable to have been propounded by John the Evangelist who wrote long after John Baptist was dead nor could be or was by any conceived to be the Christ Such things as these can hardly be imputed to the Evangelist without some note of dotage 5. To expound the words in the beginning was the Word that is in the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel was the Word that is Christ was preaching of the Gospel or the preaching of the Gospel was is more like an inept tautology of a trifler than the holy wise saying of a Divine Writer 6. The sense given by the Adversaries is in sundry things not true for in the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel Christ was not with God in Heaven as they expound verse 1. 2. his being with God but was come from Heaven and conversed familiarly with men nor is it true that in the beginning of the Preaching of the Gospel be the beginning at John's beginning to preach or Christs or his Apostles or the continuing of it in the daies of his flesh all things belonging to the new Creation the new Covenant the reconciling the world the preaching and propagating of the Gospel were done by him For the many Miracles of Christ were not done in the beginning of the Preaching of the Gospel nor was his dying for us nor the sending his Apostles and their impowering by the coming of the Holy Ghost to them till after his Resurrection and Ascention Yea those men who expound the words John 1. 3. All things were done by him of divine and marvelous works yet many divine marvelous works as the opening of the Heavens the descent of the Spirit in the form of a Dove the transfiguration and glory in the Mount the rending the veil of the Temple the Earthquake cleaving the Rocks opening the Graves darkening of the Sun at his death his Resurrection from the dead they deny to have been done by Christ or the concurrence of his power or operation nor is it true in their sense that without him was nothing done that was done For in the business of the preaching of the Gospel afore Christs manifestation to Israel Iohn did preach and Baptize and in the working of Miracles there were some that did cast out devils in Christs name who followed not Christ Luk. 9. 49. Nor is it true that in their sense the world was made by Christ that is the Gentiles reconciled by Christs Preaching or the world reformed for that was done by the Apostles after his Ascention And if it be said that after Christs Ascention all things were done by him that the world was made by him that was not in the beginning in which they say he was the Word that is did preach the Gospel was a God that is did work Miracles was with God that is was taken up into heaven and therefore the making of all things John 1. 3. cannot be understood according to their own exposition of in the beginning of Christs care in ordering and moderating all things belonging to his Church after his ascention nor had any more been said of him as then done than may be said now which is contrary to the adversaries grant that some more than ordinary remarkable things is related of Christ by St. John in the first verses of his Gospel Whence may be justly inferred that the Exposition given by them neither is consistent with the truth of things nor the Evangelists words nor their own sayings SECT 6. The reasons of the Adversaries Exposition of John 1. 1 c. are shewed to be insufficient BUt besides other absurdities which are in the Exposition of the Adversaries the reasons they give are mistakes and insufficient for what they produce them For in the first there is a great mistake as if the Evangelist used the term Word to intimate by whom the Preaching
contrary that ver 5. it is said and the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not For taking the shining by enallage of tense as it must be whether it be meant of shining by creation or Preaching for the time past and the sense be and the light shined in the darkness it may be meant of the beginning of the Creation allusively to Gen. 1. 1 2 3 4 5. and in the sense of the Apostle 2 Cor. 4. 6. God spake to wit by the Word that the light should shine out of darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it or if the sense be Christ the true light when he came into the world shined among dark men and they did not comprehend him or his Doctrine which he taught it proves not that verse 4. is not meant of Christs life by nature and his life being the light of men by creation of them with understanding in the beginning For as ver 9 10 11. the stupidity and perversness of men is shewed that notwithstanding Christ made the world and enlightens all men yet when he was in the world and preached to them they knew not nor received him so in like manner v. 4. 5. to the same purpose with good congruity of sense and reason the Evangelist to shew the great alienation of men from their Creatour saith that though in the Word was life in the beginning and his life was the cause of mens natural light in the creation of Adam and Eve the Mother of all living yet when he the true light shined by his preaching among men who were by sin and ignorance in darkness and the shadow of death the dark Spirits of men did not comprehend understand and receive him and his Doctrine 8. That Flesh is as much as a man simply as man is obvious out of many passages in holy Scripture and particularly John 17. 2 c. and that it notes Christs humane nature or humane body as such is manifest from John 6. 51 52 53 54 55 56 c. and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendred was made as John 1. 3 10. and the sense as in Rom. 1. 3. Gal. 4. 4. Heb. 2. 14. and such places is that he was incarnate or made a man and that this was a voluntary act in taking a humane nature not a part of his sufferings is manifest from what is added he was made flesh and dwelt among us which notes an act of his will or choice and imports his assumption of a humane body that it might be an everlasting habitation for his Divine Majesty and therein converse with man And that he was made flesh not under the notion of weakness but humane nature is evident from the words following and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father which shews that in his flesh which he was made his glory that is his Divine Majesty was beheld in the great works he did in his humane body and that he dwelt in or among us full of grace truth which shew that he was made flesh notes not his weakness but humane Nature having Power and Excellency Adde hereto that the Being of the Word was expressed before John 1. 2 3 4 9 10. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 14. must be meant of his being made a man besides his being the Word And to say the Word who was a man was a man had been to trifle to say nothing but what might be said of every man yea and that which was discernable by sense and so needless to be testified by John who intended to express Divine Mysteries concerning Christ in things that were singular and excellent and could be known but by revelation from God and this reason overthrows this sense the Word that is the Interpreter of Gods Will was flesh that is a man of infirmities for then no more had been said of him than might have been said of John Baptist and other prophets The sense then must be this and no other The Word which was in the beginning was with God was God by whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made that was made in whom was life and the life was the light of men enlightning every man that someth into the world by whom the world was made was in the fulness of time made a man in a humane body having his Divine Majesty dwelling in him full of Grace and Truth so that we beheld his Glory in his Miracles his Grace and Truth in his Holy and Wise Doctrine such as manifested him to be the only begotten of the Father 9. The terms John 1. 15. the only begotten of the Father verse 18. the only begotten which is in the bosom of the Father must be understood of Generation before the World was made of the substance of the Father For the term notes Generation and so subsistence from his Substance not Creation out of nothing or created matter as Adam nor can he be said to be the only begotten Son of the Father from his peculiar forming as man expressed Luke 1. 35. for Adam who was formed without the help of man and called the Son of God Luke 3. 38. was so as much the only begotten Son of God as the Word or Jesus Christ. Nor is he said to be the only begotten of the Father by reason of his peculiar love for the peculiar love is from his peculiar Sonship not that the form or cause of it nor is he said to be the Son of God by regeneration as they that believe in Christ are the Sons of God John 1. 13. for so many are Sons of God nor from his peculiar mission resurrection or exaltation For though these proved him the only begotten of the Father as evidences thereof yet not as causes of his Son-ship But he is intituled the only begotten Son of the Father from his proper generation and Sonship whence he is stiled his Son Rom. 8. 3. his own proper Son verse 32. not adopted but natural otherwise Adam might be from his original as well stiled his own proper Son That Christ Jesus is in respect of his natural generation before the world was the only begotten Son of God may be evinced 1. From Mat. 16. 13 16 17. Christ asking whom do men say that I the Son of man am it being answered verse 14. Some say John the Baptist others Elias others Jeremias or one of the Prophets our Lord Christ further presseth them to tell him whom they said him to be verse 15. plainly intimating that these opinions of him were short of what they were to esteem him whereupon Simon Peter answered and said verse 16. Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God to whom Christ replies verse 17. Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee but my Father which is in the Heavens which plainly shews 1. that
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
slew the Beasts but when having put on his linnen Robes he brought their blood into the Sanctuary before the Mercy-Seat So neither did Christ offer his sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross but when after his Resurrection being cloathed with Robes of Immortality and Glory he entered into Heaven the true Sanctuary and presented himself to God Wherefore to return to the foresaid passage Rom. 9. 5. When it is there said of whom according to the flesh for so the Greek hath it Christ came who is over all a God to be blessed for ever we ought by the authority of the Apostle himself to supply in our mind the other member of the opposition and to understand the place as if it had been said who according to the Spirit of holiness by the Resurrection from the dead is over all a God blessed for ever But if Christ be according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the dead that is according to his spiritual Body which he received by means of the Resurrection from the dead the Son of God in Power and accordingly a God over all he is not the Son of God in Power and accordingly a God over all by having the Divine Nature personally united to his Humane Nature but by the Glorification and Exaltation of his vâ—ry Humane Nature SECT 17. This Exception against the Argument is refuted I Reply that in this passage there are many errours 1. That Rom. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendered born rather than made For though I deny not that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie born yet here it is not so fitly thus rendered as made because it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly used for birth or generation as Mat. 1. 16. Luke 1. 35. 57. 23. 29. Joh. 3. 41. 18. 37. Rom. 9. 11. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Gal. 4. 4. nor is it said born of the Mother or Woman as in expressions of birth is usual Job 14. 1. Mat. 11. 11. Luke 7. 28. and the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth note not the womb from whence he came but the matter out of which he was formed For doubtless of the seed of David according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. is the same with of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh Acts 2. 30. now of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh notes the matter out of which he had flesh or a humane body and therefore the Father or antient Progenitour David is mentioned and his seed and the fruit of his loins as the Jew is said to come out of the loins of Abraham and Levi to be in his loins Heb. 7. 5 10. in respect of the matter out of which they came not the Mother or her Womb as the place from whence And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes the Act of God answerable to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 2. 30. raise up not the act of the Mother in bringing forth and therefore Rom. 1. 3. it is rightly translated made or as Piscator orti raised answerably to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprang up Heb. 7. 14. 2. It is granted that according to the flesh notes a constituting part but that it notes a constituting part which Christ had only afore his Resurrection and not after his Resurrection is not to be granted For as it is now the humane body of Christ or humane nature is made of the seed of David and raised of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh sith it is the same numerical body and Christ is still the same man which was made or descended or sprang out of David notwithstanding any alteration in the outward estate or inherent qualities in his humanity or humane body it doth not become a constituting part in its humiliation and not a constituting part in his exaltation That very being which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh which was raised of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh was to sit on his Throne Acts 2. 30. and to reign Luke 1. 32 33. And therefore as the Exceptor argues that by the Spirit of Holiness cannot be meant the Soul or Divinity of Christ because he had both in our opinion at least in the daies of his flesh though the Soul were not then glorified I may argue by the Spirit of Holiness is not meant his glorified body because he had it though not then glorified even in the daies of his flesh 3. Which is more amply confirmed by shewing that according to the flesh notes not his fleshly body as he speaks that is Christs humane body in its debasement only but his humane nature For according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. signifies by the same Authours opinion and the evidence arising from comparing the place the same that it doth Rom. 9. 5. now it signifies Rom 9. 5. the same which it doth ver 3. where Paul calls the Israelites his Brethren Kinsmen according to the flesh but he means not they were his Brethren or Kinsmen according to the flesh that is restrictively to their weakness debasement or mortality in opposition to their glorification and excluding that as inconsistent with their being his Brethren or Kiâ—smen according to the flesh But he means by according to the flesh their humane nature as men and as men descended from the same Ancestors and so in like manner when it is said Christ was from the Fathers according to the flesh the meaning is not according to his weak or inglorious condition precisely and exclusively to his glorified condition but simply according to his humane nature as descended from them whether in the daies of his flesh or exaltation without any discrimination Which is confirmed by our Saviours own speech to his Disciples Luke 24. 39. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have Therefore Christ supposed atter his Reâ—urrection that he had flesh that his humane Body was a fleshly Body the same according to the flesh that it was before which is also strengthened by the expressions Acts 2. 3 〈◊〉 that God raised him â—p of the fruit of Davids loins according to the flesh buâ— God did not raise him up of the fruit of Davâ—ds loins according to the flesh barely â—s weak mortal and debâ—sed but simply as man descended from him therefore according to the flesh imports Christs humanity or humane body as from David without restriction to his low estate And v. 31. when it is said his flesh did not see corruption his body is still termed flesh the same flesh and not considered as weak for as such it saw a change which may be termed in some sort a corruption to wit a change from that weakness it had to a better form but as the constituting part of his humane nature
Temptation in the Wilderness Agony in the Garden Resurrection from the Grave and Ascension into Heaven Preached to the Gentiles by his Apostles believed on in the World even by the Gentiles and received up in or into Glory at his Ascension into Heaven Now he of whom these things are said is God therefore the same Person Christ Jesus is both God and Man or consubstantial to the Father in respect of his God-head to us in respect of his Man-hood SECT 19. The Exceptions against this Proof THe Exception against this Argument is 1. That the reading God was manifested in the flesh is suspected to have been altered by Nestorians because the vulgar Latin the Syriak Arabian Interpreters and Ambrose all read which was manifested and refer it to the Mystery of Godliness and so this sense is given of it that the Gospel was first made known not by Angels but by mortal men and according to their outward appearance weak Christ and his Apostles as flesh Col. 1. 26. notes a mortal man 2 Cor. 2. 16. 1 John 4. 2. was justified in Spirit that is that truth was approved by many Miracles for Spirit is Miracles by a Metonymy which is 1 Cor. 2. 4. and elsewhere And to be justified here is to be approved as Mat. 11. 19. so he is said to be justified who in a contention is a Conquerour because his cause is approved Deut. 25. 1. add Psal. 21. 6. I imagine Grotius means Psal. 51. 4. Seen of Angels to wit wiâ—h greatest admiration Angels leâ—rned this secret by mortal men Ephes. 3. 10. 1 Pet. 1. 12. To see with the Hebrews is translated to all manner of knowing Was preached to the Gentiles that truth was not only declared to the Jews but also to the Gentiles who were most estranged from God Eph. 2. 12. Col. 1. 21. believed in the World that is in a great part of the world Rom. 1. 8. Col. 1. 6. received up in Glory it was very gloriously exalted to wit because it brought much more holiness than any Doctrines formerly To be taken up is to be lifted up on high and answers to the Hebrew Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in glory gloriously Phil. 4. 19. Col. 3. 4. See alâ—â—o 2 Cor. 3. 8. so they glorified the word of the Lord Acts 13. 48. 2. Others thus God the Father was manifested that is his Will made known in the flesh that is with or by the infirmity of Christ and his Apostles justified in Spirit taken or acknowledged for true by Divine vertue which shined in Christ as well as his Apostles or put forth it self powerfully by them was seen of Angels the good will of God towards men was revealed to Angels received up in glory the will of God was by many chearfully received and constantly retained or the holy Religion of Christ was gloriously admitted and received SECT 20. These Exceptions are refelled TO which I Reply 1. That the reading of which instead of God should be followed against all Copies of the Original now extant is unreasonable and not to be yielded to The Syriak Arabian and Latin are not to be put in the ballance with the Greek Copies The Latin translation is found and confessed even by Romanists to be so faulty as that it is not of itself to be rested on much less are Ambrose and Hin 〈…〉 arus who were mis-led by it That Nestoriaâ—s should foyst in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is not likely sith it is against their opinion and was used by Chrysostom before Nestorius and by Cyril against the Nestorians as Dr. Pearson shews in his Exposition of the Creed Artic. 2. page 142. of the second Edition 2. By God cannot be meant either God the Father or his Will or the Gospel or the truth of it 1. Because the words cannot be expounded so in either of the senses given Neither is God the Father any where said to be manifested in the flesh justified in the Spirit received up in Glory Nor doth God manifested in the flesh signifie God or his Will or Gospel or truth manifested in infirmity or Christ and his Apostles in their infirmity nor justified in or by the Spirit approved by Miracles nor seen of Angels learned by them from mortal men nor received up in Glory admitted or received in mens minds None of all the Texts alledged countenance these Expositions Though flesh sometimes signifies mortal weak man it being a word of very various acceptions and the Gospel is said to be manifested as Col. 1. 26. and 2 Cor. 2. 14. and Gal. 4. 13. St. Paul saith he preached the Gospel at first to the Galatians through the infirmity of the flesh yet no where is the Gospel said to be manifested in the flesh or flesh put simply for infirmity That 1 Joh. 4. 2. that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is against his sense of preaching the Gospel in infirmity it plainly noting his coming into the world in a humane nature in the sense in which he said John 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us Though I deny not that words of sense do often note other knowledge than by sense yet these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are scarce ever found to be applied to any thing but that which is descernable by sight However if they were yet the sense imagined hath no colour sith it is not said seen of Angels by the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not receiving by men that glorifie it but the glory of the person or thing manifested Phil. 4. 19. Col. 3. 4. are not meant of such glory or alacrity or rejoycing as is made the meaning of Glory 1 Tim. 3. 16. Nor do we find in the Greek Bibles such language as answers to the pretended Exposition of it in that place And for receiving the Gospel the usual word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes. 1. 6. and 2. 14. Acts 2. 41. not the word there used 2. According to that Exposition it would be an inâ—pt tautology to say he was believed on in the world and received up in glory if meant of receiving in mens hearts For what is it to be believed on but to be received in mens hearts which is not to be conceived of the Apostle in these concise Aphorismes 3. There would be no Mystery much less a great Mystery without contradiction in that which the Apostle saith if the meaning were as it is made sith Gods will was often manifested by mortal men even by all the Prophets who testified before-hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1. 11. and approved by Miracles done by Moses Elias Elisha known by Angels who brought Messages to Daniel and others preached to the Gentiles by Jonah at Niniveh believed in the world by the Ninivites received with alacrity as by David and others 3. The words in the plain obvious sense are truely and rightly expounded of Jesus