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
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
4. By the Spirit of Holiness Rom. 1. 4. whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note a constituting part or an efficient cause cannot be meant Christs holy Spiritual Body in the Exceptors sense For 1. It would imply that his Spiritual Body were another constituting part than his fleshly body which is already refuted 2. It would imply that his fleshly body were not his holy body whereas that which was born of Mary was that holy thing which should be called the Son of God Luke 1. 35. 3. No where is the body of Christ termed a Spirit or the Spirit of Holiness in any estate For though it be true that 1 Cor. 15. 44. mentions a Spiritual body yet 1. That is there contradistinguished not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fleshly but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natural or â—oulary 2. No where termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit 3. Nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit of Holiness 4. After his Resurrection Christ denies his body to be a Spirit as having flesh and bones Luke 24. 39. and he is said to enter into the holy place by his own blood Heb. 9. 12. and to have consecrated for us a new and living way to enter into the holiest by his blood through the Veil that is to say his Flesh Heb. 10. 19 20. It is an errour that by the eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. is meant Christs Eternal Spiritual Body For the Eternal Spirit there must be of something distinct from himself Else the meaning should be he offered himself by himself which is tautological and absurd but by himself must be meant his body as Heb. 1. 3. Having purged our sins by himself is by his own body For the thing offered was his own Body or his Life or Soul Isa. 53. 10. In the Type the thing offered is some body gift or sacrifice Heb. 5. 1. and 8. 3. and 9. 7. 9. and 10. 1. and 11. 4 17. whence the body offered is termed the oblation Heb. 10. 5 8. In the antitype Christ is said to offer himself that is his body called his oblation Heb. 10. 10. and this offering is termed Heb. 9. 25 26. the Sacrifice of himself for the putting away of sin and this to be not often but once in the end of the world ver 26. he was once offered to bear the sins of many verse 28. He needed not daily as those High-Priests to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the peoples For this he did once when he offered up himself Heb. 7. 27. By the which will we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. 10. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God verse 12. which must be afore he sate down on the right hand of God and therefore on earth and this was by his suffering or dying Heb. 9. 26 27 28. and therefore cannot be referred to his appearing in Heaven but to his blood-shedding Heb. 9. 22. in the daies of his flesh whereby it appears to be false that Christ did not offer his Sacrifice for our sins on the Cross there being no other time meant by that once when he offered up himself for the sins of the people Heb. 7. 27. and whereas it is saâ—d Heb. 9 28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many St. Peter tells us 1 Epistle 2. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead to sin should live unto righteousness by whose stripes ye were healed Which doth evidently refer to Isa. 53. 4 5 6. whence the last clause is taken and shews the bearing of our sins by the offering of himself to have been on the Cross or at the time of his suffering on Earth And hereby it appears to be false that Christ made not atonement till he came to Heaven For Col. 1. 20. It is said And having made peace through the blood of his Cross he reconciled all things to his Father ver 21 22. Now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin or by a sacrifice for sin as Heb. 10. 8. condemned sin in the flesh which is all one with making atonement That which is alledged that the atonement was not then made when the High-Priest slew the Beasts but when having put on his linnen Robes he brought their blood into the Sanctuary before the Mercy-Seat is partly false there being atonement made for himself and his house Levit. 16. 5 6. before he entered into the holy place and partly impertinent sith the point in question is not where the atonement was made but where Christ offered himself Heb. 9. 14. though both the offering and the atonement are resolved to have been afore his sitting at the right hand of God Heb. 1. 3. and 10. 12. Nor doth it appear that Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. is put in opposition to the daies of his flesh Heb. 5. 7. For it is not said Heb. 5. 7. flesh that hath daies as if it noted a distinction of his body mortal from his Spiritual Immortal Body but daies of his flesh only to note the time of his offering prayers not the quality or adjunct of his body Nor is it said he offered by the daies of his flesh as here by the Eternal Spirit but in the daies of his flâ—sh to note the time which is not intimated Heb. 9. 14. by that term by the Eternal Spirit for then it should rather have been said by or in the Eternity of the Spirit The offering being an act of Christ on Earth is no other than the act of his Deed and Will whereby he did present himself as a Sacrifice to God as the phrase is Rom. 12. 1. or as it is Eph. 5. 2. Gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour by reason of such acts Abraham is said to offer up Isaac Heb. 11. 17. and we are said to offer the Sacrifice of Praise Heb. 13. 15. Spiritual Sacrifices 1 Pet. 2. 5. which is plainly expressed Heb. 10. 10. By which Will we are sanctâ—fied by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once or for once which was no other than that which he expressed in that prayer which Armiâ—â—â—â— termed rightly the Canon or rule of Christs Sacrifice John 17. 19. And for them I sanctifie my self that they also may be sanctified in truth Which being considered I see not what good sense can be made of it as many Divines expound it of the Divinity of Christ making the Sacrifice of Christ of value to satisfie for sins For the words through the Eternal Spirit have not respect to himself who was offered as enhauncing the price of the thing offered by reason of the union of it to himself neither the place of
the dead None of which are made good by Heb. 5. 9. Acts 2. 30. or Acts â—6 23. or any other which he produâ—eth in his Annot. on Rom. 1. 4. Nor do I conceive can be Nor do I think Dâ— Hammond his Paraphrâ—se right but according to the Spirit of holiness or in respect of that other Nature in him called his Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. far above all that is flesh and blood that I say which shone in him most perfectly after and through and by his Resurrection from the dead 2 Cor. 13. 4. was set at Gods right hand the Son of God in Power to whom accordingly as to a Son all Power was given by the Father For besides what before and after is or will be said about the Spirit of holiness and Eternal Spirit there is nothing of Gods right hand in the Text nor doth set at Gods right hand the Son of God in Power well explain determined the Son of God in Power nor is he rightly said to be set at Gods right hand according to the Spirit of Holiness or in respect of that other Nature in him called his Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. For his being set at the right hand of God is not precisely according to that other Nature but rather according to that which he had of the Seed of David according the flesh Nor is it fitly said that other Nature did shine most perfectly after through or by his resurrection from the dead 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though his being the Son of God was proved by it yet how the Divine Nature did shine in him through by after his Resurrection from the dead is hard to understand nor do any words in the Text countenance such a Paraphrase Wherefore not mis-liking Dr. Hammond's translation demonstrated or defined the Son of God iâ— Power Nor that of the Syriak Interpreter who turns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by who was known I stick to that sense which our Translators have chosen declared or as Chrysostom In 〈…〉 t s it shewed demoâ—strated or manifested to be the Son of God over and above what he was of the seed of David according to the flesh and sundry others with him And so determined notes not an act of the Will of God concerning the futurity of a thing but Gods sentence as it were setling the understanding by way of certification of what was surely so or evidence of it as of a thing already being to take away doubting in the sense in which in the Schools their resolutions concerning things in question are called their determinations In which sense I conceive it taken Heb. 4. 7. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Translators rendered limiteth is the same which he expresseth verse 8. he had not spoken of another day And likewise that which declareth what a thing is in Logick is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a definition of it and the Mood which is Indicative is termed by Grammarians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the boundaries of Lands are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they shew what is belonging to a person and in composition Hyppocrates his Determinations or Declarations about Medicines are entituled his Aphorisms and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a distinct explication of a thing According to which Exposition the meaning is Rom. 1. 4. that God had determined as it were by sentence in the Resurrection of him from the dead that Christ Jesus had another nature above that he had of the seed of David to wit that he was the Son of God 6. The Resurrection of the dead cannot be meant of the general Resurrection as if the sense were he is predestinated or fore-appointed that he shall be the Son of God in Power when he shall raise the dead but of Christs particular Resurrection For though the general Resurrection shall most fully demonstrate the glory of Christ yet the determination being of a thing past must be understood of his own Resurrection Nor is it a sufficient exception against this that the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Resurrection of the dead not from the dead and that it is not by his Resurrection from the dead but the Resurrection of the dead For Acts 26. 23. there is in St. Paul's speech the same expression where speaking of what the Prophers fore-told of Christs Resurrection he useth this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word by word that he the first by rising of the dead that is as he should suffer so he should be the first or chief risen from the dead who should shew or publish light to the people and the Gentiles 7. In Power Rom. 1. 4. cannot be referred to the Power of Christ whereby he did Miracles but to the Power of God by which he was raised from the dead of which the same Apostle speaketh 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though he was crucified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through or by reason of weakness yet he liveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of or by the Power of God 1 Cor. 6. 14. And God hath both raised up the Lord and will also raise up us by his own Power Rom. 6. 4. like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Glory that is the Power of the Father Which is confirmed in that he is said to be determined the Son of God in Power which determination is referred to the Fathers and therefore the Power is the Fathers by which he is determined to be the Son of God 8. I confess the Divine Nature of Christ is no where that I find termed the Spirit of holiness or the holy Spirit nor the glorified body of Christ although God be termed a Spirit John 4. 24. and 2 Cor. 3. 17. the Lord is that Spirit which to me seems most likely to be meant of Christ who is in the Epistles of Paul most commonly meant by this title the Lord and in the verse before meant where it is said Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord that is Christ and the next verse following But we all with open face beholding the glory of the Lord that is Jesus Christ distinguished in the same verse from the holy Spirit termed the Spirit of the Lord if it be not to be read as from the Lord the Spirit and so applied to Christ It is said that Christ knew in his Spirit Mark 6. 8. that he grew and waxed strong in Spirit or was strengthened by the Spirit Luke 2. 40. that he groaned in Spirit Joh. 11. 33. which may or are to be understood otherwise than of his Divine Nature John 6. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words which I speak unto you are Spirit and are life are meant otherwise than of Christs Divine Nature and 1 Tim. 3. 16. Justified in Spirit or in the Spirit may be meant otherwise than of his Divine Nature and so may quickened by the Spirit 1 Pet. 3.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and should be rendred a God not God or the God 5. That by all things made by him is not meant the Heaven and Earth at the first creation but the things or persons belonging to the new creation by Iesus Christ expressed in these places 2 Cor. 5. 17 18 19. Ephes. 2. 10. Ephes. 3. 9. 6. That when it is said the world was made by him the meaning is the Church was reformed by him or life eternal was revealed by him called Heb. 2. 5. the world to come 7. That his life was the light of men by his preaching or that in him was life upon his Resurrection and that this life was the light of men by saving them and raising them up from the dead 8. That it should not be read Iohn 1. 14. he was made flesh but the Word was flesh that is a man of humane weakness after he was a man and so not meant of his humane nature at his incarnation but his after condition in his life 9. That as Isaack is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 11. 17. by reason of his being Abraham's Heir and extraordinary birth not because he was the only begotten of the substance of Abraham So Iesus Christ is termed the only begotten of the Father not from his peculiar generation of the substance of the Father before the Heaven and Earth were made but so other peculiarities 1. Because he was by peculiar operation of the Holy Ghost generated in the Virgins womb which is the reason of this title of the Son of God given to Christ by the Angel himself Luke 1. 35. 2. Because of his special sanctification and mission which is the reason given by Christ himself Iohn 10. 36. 3. Because of his resurrection from the dead which is the reason given by St. Paul Acts 13. 33. and therefore termed the first begotten from or of the dead Col. 1. 18. Rev. 1. 5. 4. Because of his singular exaltation and office which is agreeable to what is said Psal. 89. 27. and whereby he is termed the first born among many brethren Rom. 8. 29. and by reason of his calling to the office of chief-Priest-hood that is applied to him Heb. 5. 5. which is written Psal. 2. 7. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee 10. That he was before Iohn Baptist not in him but in power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mightier or stronger than him which is the word used concerning the same speech in the other three Evangelists Matth. 3 11. Mark 1. 7. Luke 3. 16. SECT 5. The sense of John 1. 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 14 15 18. given by the Adversaries is refelled I Reply 1. That Irenaeus lib. 3. Adv. Heresies c. 11. and others near the Apostles time say that the scope of the Evangelist Iohn in writing this Gospel was to oppose the Heresies of the Gnosticks Ebion Cerinthus Marcion Valentinus and such others as whether from Platonick Philosophy or other fancies corrupted the doctrine of the God-head made Christ a meer man contrary to which St. Iohn asserts his divinity in the beginning and thence got the name of the Divine and his Gospel to be that part of Scripture which doth most plainly deliver Theology or speech of God and thereby as also in relating many Acts and Sermons of Christ omitted by other Evangelists which makes a supplement to their Histories 2. That the series of the Apostles words the expressions compared with Gen. 1. 1 2 3 4 5. of in the beginning was the word with God all things were made by him the life was the light of men the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not are so correspondent to each other that none but will say that at least St. John did allude to Moses his description of the first creation and that he did use Moses his expressions and therefore meant the same thing hath been conceived not only by Christians but also by Aâ—relius the Platonist as Eusebius in his book of Evangelical preparation lib. 11. c. 19. relates nor is it to be slightly passed over which John Cameron observes in his answers to questions on the Epistle to the Hebrews ch 1. v. 2. concerning Gods manner of delivering mysteries in the Old Testament that it was to be but dusky as in the twi-light until the Messias his time who should fully discover the things of God as the Sun when it is risen doth things before obscured and that the Apostle knew Christs creating the world in the beginning even from Gen. 1. For wherefore saith he I beseech you should Moses which no where else is done in the whole Scripture so often bring in God speaking let this and that be made and after it was made For certainly God then used no speech as when he spake to the Prophets It is but a cold answer that Moses did so write that it might be signified after a humane manner that God made all things by his beck For who doubts of that or doth not indeed know that to make the frame of the world God used no tools or engines Besides if that were the intent why is not also else-where God brought in using like speech when he did some great work or miracle I do no whit doubt but John had an eye on that place when he termed Christ the Word as if he had said that Christ was pointed out by those expressions He said and it was made although obscurely indeed as befitted those times even as also obscurely mention is made of the Holy Spirit in the same chapter when Moses said and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters For indeed at first view he seems to speak of some wind and so the Chaldee Paraphrast expounded that place But because no reason can be given whence that wind should arise or fit cause why it should move upon the waters men might be inclined to conjecture that Moses in that place had respect to another thing In the same manner plainly sith no reason of so diligent and heedful an observation fit enough can be given that God spake of each thing severally Let it be made and it was made there must be some mystery couched under those expressions When therefore in the New Testament we are taught that all things were made by Christ let the Jews either open and explain to us that Mystery or let them not shew themselves stiff in this matter I confess indeed that without the light of the Gospel we should be hesitant here with the Jews but sith Christ is called the Word and said to be he by whom God made all things no man hath any more cause of doubting left but that Moses would intimate it by that diligent observation which the words of the Psalmist Psal. 33. 6. 9. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth He spake and it was done besides those wordâ— Psal. 136.
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
were unnecessary to prove sith his composition of Body Birth Growth Properties Actions Sufferings and what ever else prove a Person to be a man as we are as plainly are related and were as fully manifested to have been in Christ Jesus as in any other man but that as of old Valentinus Marcion and some others denied his body to have been of humane seed as the matter holding it to have been imaginary not real or Coelestial and to have passed through the Virgins womb So others of late have denied the truth of Christs Incarnation and the reason of his being termed the Son of man contrary to the holy Scriptures as shall be shewed by these Texts following which ascribe both a Divine and Humane Nature to one and the same Person the Lord Jesus Christ both while he was on Earth and as he is now in Heaven and shall appear at his future coming to Judgement To this purpose are the words alledged before out of John 1. 14. which shew that the same Person who is the Word was Flesh which because I have before vindicated Sect. 6. I shall not insist on here nor on such proofs as may be made from Col. 1. 18. or Heb. 1. 3. in which that is ascribed to the Son whom I before proved Sect. 9 10 11 12. from those chapters to be God which proves him a man to wit his being head of the body the Church the first-born from the dead who by himself purged our sins and is sate down on the right hand of the Majesty in the heights But consider other places where both natures in one Person are declared Among which I shall chuse to insist on first those places which speak of Christ as descending from the Fathers according to the Flesh as Acts 2. 30. Therefore David being a Prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit on his Throne Rom. 1. 3 4. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh who was declared or determined the Son of God in or with Power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection of or from the dead Rom. 9. 5. Whose are the Fathers and of whom Christ according to the flesh who is over all God blessed for ever Which Texts do expresly teach that Jesus Christ had a humane nature which is termed the flesh as it is frequent by Flesh to understand a man or Humane Nature Rom. 3. 20. and 11. 14. Isa. 58. 7. Gal. 2. 16. For he was of the fruit of Davids loins according to the Flesh which being a restriction cannot limit raising up but Christ and so notes another part according to which Christ was not raised up out of the loins of David which must be understood of his Divine Nature according to which he was Davids Lord Mat. 22. 44 45. He was of the seed of David and of the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to that which was according to the Flesh restrictively after it implying another Nature according to which he is of an higher original even the Son of God Rom. 1. 3 4. God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. Whence it is inferred He who is so Davids Son according to the flesh raised up out of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh made of the seed of David according to the flesh of the Fathers according to the Flesh as that he is also Davids Lord the Son of God God over all blessed for ever is consubstantial with the Father as touching the God-head and consubstantial with us as touching his Man-hood But such is Jesus Christ. Therefore c. SECT 16. The Exception against the Argument from Acts 2. 30. Rom. 1. 3 4. Rom. 9. 5. is set down AGainst this it is thus excepted When the Apostle saith that Christ came of the Fathers according to the flesh who is over all a God blessed for ever the opposition is not entire and exact as wanting the other Member What that Member is another passage of the Apostle wherein you have the same opposition in describing Christ will inform you It is Rom. 1. 3 4. concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who was made or rather born of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with Power Gr. determined or ordained Son of God in Power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the dead Here you see that to those words according to the flesh are opposed these according to the Spirit of Holiness Again What this Spirit of Holiness is will be no hard matter to find out if we consider that as the flesh signifyeth a constituting part of Christ namely his fleshly body so also must the Spirit of holiness opposed thereunto signifie a constituting part If so then it is not the holy Spirit as every one will confesse nor the reasonable soul of Christ because he is intimated to have had this Spirit by means of the resurrection from the dead whereas he had a reasonable Soul before his death Nor the Divine Nature for that is no where in Scripture designed by the name of Spirit or Spirit of holiness Besides the adversaries hold that Christ had the Divine Nature whilst he was yet cloathed with flesh It remains therefore that by the Spirit of holiness which Christ had by means of the resurrection of the dead and is a constituting part of him is to be understood his Holy Spiritual Body whereby he is excepted from other men being the first-born from the dead or the first that so rose from the dead as that he never dyed again but was cloathed with a Spiritual body and made like to God who is a Spirit And now the sense of that passage beginneth to appear Heb. 9. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit Gr. through an eternal Spirit for no Article is prefixed offered himself without spot to God Purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God By eternal Spirit is here meant the spiritual body of Christ which lasteth to all eternity and this expression is opposed to what the same Divine Authour speaketh of Christ Heb. 5. 7. who in the daies of his flesh c. For eternal is contrary to dayes and spirit to flesh Neither will that which we have here spoken seem strange to him who having penetrated into that profound Epistle to the Hebrews knoweth what is there frequently intimated that Christ then made his offering for our sins when after his Resurrection he entered into Heaven and being endued with a spiritual and immortal Body presented himself before God For so the Type of the Levitical High-Priest making the yearly Atonement for the siâ—s of the People Levit. 16. did require For as the Atonement was not then made when he
it before himself nor the Preposition used being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through or by not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with or in conjunction do sute with such a sense but it is in construction annexed and referred to the offering and notes the cause and means of offering Besides the reason of Piscator is good in his Scholie on the Text that it belongs not to the Deity to offer Sacrifice but that is it to which it is offered by a man as a man And indeed it is not good sense to say Christ offered himself by his God-head to God it being not easily conceivable what notion the God-head should have in such a speech which is not absurd or inept Nor do I think Piscators opinion good that by the Eternal Spirit is meant Christs Immortal Soul partly because no where is Christs Humane Soul called the Eternal Spirit partly because I think it should rather be said in than through the Eternal Spirit if Christs Immortal Soul were meant by it the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noting the efficient cause not the subject in which the act of offering was And therefore I rather pitch upon it to understand by the Eternal Spirit the holy Spirit answering to the fire which kindled the Sacrifice and moving or inflaming the heart of Christ with love to us and obedience to God to give himself an Offering and a Sacrifice to God for us Ephes. 5. 2. The holy Spirit is fitly resembled by fire Mat. 3. 11. and he well termed the Eternal Spiâ—it in opposition to the temporary fire kindling the legal Sacrifices But if the allusion be not thereto yet the sense is good and right For as it is said that Christ had not the Spirit by measure John 3. 34. and that he was full of the Holy Ghost Luke 4. 1. that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him that it anointed him verse 18. So it is said that he was moved by the Spirit to be Tempted to Preach in the same places and to cast out Devils by the Spirit of God God putting his Spirit on him he shewed Judgment to the Gentiles sent forth Judgement to victory Maâ— 12. 18 20 28. gave Commandements through the Holy Ghost Acts 1. 2. And accordingly here is said to offer himself to God by the Holy Eternal Spirit Nor is the want of the Article any more against the expounding the Eternal Spirit of the Holy Ghost than against the expounding it of Christs Spiritual Immortal Body it being as requisite in respect of use to design the one as the other But the truth is it is not requisite that it should be prefixed to shew it to be meant of the holy Spirit sith it is omitted Rom. 9. 1. and 14. 17. c. and even in this Eâ—â—stlâ— Hâ—b 2. 4. and 6. 4. So that the sense may be notwithstanding any thing I find to the contrary that Christ willingly obediently offered or yielded through the holy Spirits incitation or operation in him himself a Sacrifice without spot or blemish to God And as executing the function of Priest-hood to which he was anointed above others Heb. 1. 9. And this sense is most agreable to the Apostles intent which is to set forth the efficacy and validity of Christs Sacrifice above the Legal which he doth here from the obedience and readiness of will to offer himself as he doth Heb. 10. 10. and the holiness of his person or his being without spot or blemish as he doth Heb. 7. 26 27. 1 Pet. 1. 19. no where that I find from the Hypostatical Union or the spirituality immortality and glory of his humane body or the immortality of his Soul 5. The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 1. 4. is not rightly rendered determined or ordained Son of God in Power For though it be true that the verb signifies appointment ordination or predestination and that this last is used by the Latin vulgar translation and by sundry of the Antients and the verb is used so in the New Testament Lukâ— 22. 22. Acts 2. 23. and 10. 42. and 17. 26 31. in which places the appointment or determination is by God of a thing future yet that cannot be the meaning Rom. 1. 4. For then the sense should be that Christ should be appointed or ordained or determined by God either that by power according to his Spiritual body by the resurrection of the dead he should be the Son of God Or else that his appointment ordination or determination that he should be the Son of God was by power according to the Spirit of holiness that is his holy spirituall body by the Resurrection from the dead This latter sense is most absurd it would intimate as if Gods determination were in power according to Christs Spiritual body by the Resurrection of the dead whereas the determination of Gods purpose or his ordaining of things future hath no cause but his will his ordaining is not an act of power though the execution of it be Nor is the former sense true For then the meaning should be that Christs being the Son of God was consequent on the power the spirit of holiness and resurrection of the dead sith ordaining or fore-appointing his Sonship to be thereby supposeth them to be before as the cause is before the effect and his Sonship to be future to them or after them But this is contrary to what is confessed by the adversaries that he was the Son of God before his resurrection and is proved from Luke 1. 35. Mat. 16. 16. John 6. 69. and Heb. 5. 8. Although he were a Son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered which shews he was a Son afore he learned obedience by the things which he suffered For which reasons I like not to say as Dr. Pearson doth in his Exposition on the second Article of the Creed that he was defined or constituted and appointed the Son of God in Power by the Resurrection from the dead Nor that of Grotius that he was made a celestial King after his Resurrection and also before destinated to that Kingdom by so many Miracles done by Divine Power proper to him and dwelling in him where the term Son of God standing in contradistinction to being of the seed of David according to the flesh is as much as a Celestial King and the Participle determined is expounded by two other made and before destinated the one noting a thing past the other a thing future so as that the same word in the same place shall signifie being made a Celestial King after Christs resurrection and being aestinated before to that Kingdom and in Power according to the Spirit of holiness shall be Divine Power proper to him and inhabiting in him by that Spirit of holiness that is force of Divinity by which from the beginning of his conception he was sanctified and by which he did Miracles and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be after the Resurrect on from
Christ who is said to be God John 1. 1 2. to come in the flesh in his humane nature to be made flesh John 1. 14. to be manifested in his works John 2. 11. and his preaching Mark 1. 27. Luke 7. 16 22. justified in the Spirit or by the Spirit either by the Spirits descent on him at his Baptisme John 1. 33 34. whereby he was proclaimed and proved to be the Son of God or by his Miracles as Mat. 12. 28. against the accu 〈…〉 on of colluding with the Devil or at his Resurrection as I conceive Rom. 1. 3 4. or by giving the Holy Ghost Acts 2. 33. Seen of Angels Luke 2. 11 12. Mat. 4. 15. Luke â—2 43. and 4. 4 5. Acts 1. 10. Preached to the Gentiles 1 Cor. 1. 23. 2 Cor. 1. 19. Believed on in the World Rom. 1. 8. 1 T 〈…〉 1. 7 8. received up the word used 1 Tim. 3. 16. in glory Acts 1. 2 11 12. Mark 16. 19. Luke 9. 51 and 24. 26. 4. It being said God was manifested in the flesh and this meant of Jesus Christ proves he was before God and then he had flesh and therefore a Humane and Divine Nature and consubstantial to the Father and to us SECT 21. The samething is confirmed from 1 Pet. 3. 18 19 10. Gal. 4. 4. Rom. 8. 3. 1 John 4. 2. Heb. 2. 14. and 10. 5. John 16. 28. TO this I shall subjoyn for Confirmation and Explication 1 Pet. 3. 18 19 20. where Christ is said to be put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit Where flesh must note a constituting part and yet the Spirit note the efficient For quickened noting his Resurrection cannot note his Eternal Holy Spiritual Body as was conceived meant by the Eternal Spirit Heb. 9. 14. and the Spirit of Holiness Rom. 1. 4. For that was not till he was quickened and therefore he not quickened in or by it nor his Humane Soul for that dyed not and therefore the Spirit must note an efficient and that must be either the Divine Nature of Christ or as I conceive the Holy Spirit to whom his Resurrection is ascribed Rom. 8. 11. called the Power of God 2 Cor. 13. 4. as what is done by the Spirit is said to be done by the Power of God Luke 1. 35. Mat. 12. 28. Luke 11. 20. and he was quickened by the Spirit by which he preached verse 19. which was the Holy Spirit Gen. 6. 3. in the preaching of Noah 2 Pet. 2. 4. and this was the Spirit of Christ 1 Pet. 1. 11. the Holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1. 21. In that Spirit he went and preached to the spirits in Prison which were sometimes disobedient in the daies of Noah which those that deny Christs Divine Nature will not say to have been done in the thâ—ee daies of his death afore his Resurrection therefore in the daâ—es of Noah and consequently he had then a being to wit a Divine Nature otherwise he could not be said then to go and preach by the Spirit by which he was quickened nor the spirits in prison to have been disobedient when once the long-suffering of God waited in the daies of Noah while the Ark was a preparing To these Scriptures I add Gal. 4. 4. Rom. 8. 3. The sending his Son supposeth the Sons being before and so his Divine Nature Made of a Woman in the likeness of sinful flesh his Humane therefore he had both To the same effect are those Texts which speak of his coming in the flesh as 1 John 4. 2. his taking part of flesh and blood Heb. 2. 14. where he that was Superiour to Angels antecedently was made little lower than the Angels or debased below the Angels partaking flesh and blood not ashamed to call them Brethren ver 7 11. whom in respect of his native greatness he might have been ashamed to own as such and therefore is supposed to have a being above man afore he was a man His coming into the world with a body prepared for him out of obedience and compliance of will to his Fathers Heb. 10. 5. John 16. 28. shews his being with his Father before he was a man and so a Divine Nature antecedent to his Humane SECT 22. Christs consubstantiality with the Father and us is proved from Philip. 2. 5 6 7 8. THere yet remains that Text which is Philip. 2. 5 6 7 8. where the Apostle speaks thus Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus who being in the form of God thought or counted it not robbery or a spoil or prey to be equal to God or as God But made himself of no reputation or emptied himself and took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of men or when he had been made like to men as Meric Casaubon diatriba de usu Verborum p. 66. and being found in fashion or habit as man or a man and became obedient or rather being or becoming obedient unto death even the death of the Cross In which I confess are sundry unusual expressions needful to be cleared yet sufficient to prove him to have a Divine and Humane Nature sith he is said to have been in the â—orm of God first and then to empty himself to take on him the form of a Servant to be made in the likeness of men to be found in fashion as a man to humble himself to death whence I may argue He who beâ—ng in the form of God counted it no robbery or prey that he was as God emptied himself taking the form of a Servant when he was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man humbled himself becoming obedient untâ— death had a Divine and Humane Nature But this is true of Jesus Chrâ—st therefore he had both Natures SECT 23. The Exception against this Argument is recited TO this Argument the Exception is thus made The words and sense being thus Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus who being in the form of God for the exercise and demonstration of Divine Power whereby he wrought Miracles in as free and uncontrouled a manner as if God himself had been on the earth thought it not robbery or a prey to be equal with God that is did not esteem this equality of his with God consisting in the free exercise of Divine Power to be a prey by holding it fast and refusing to let it go as Robers are want to do when they have got a prey or booty but Gr. emptied himself in making no use of the Divine Power within him to rescue himself out of the hands of the Officers sent to apprehend him and took upon him the form of a Servant in suffering himself to be apprehended bound and whipt as Servants are wont to be being made in the likeness of men that is ordinary and vulgar men who are endued with no Dâ—vine Power and being found in fashion or habit as a man that
Testament that I find for Adam but still either Adam or the first man nor is it here put with the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it noted a special or singular man by excellency but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man that is a man simply considered according to humane nature Nor is the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here used as noting only likeness without reality of Nature but as Sect. 22. is shewed it to be used John 1. 14. and elsewhere as a confirming and assuring particle noting certainty And surely where that in Psal. 8. is applied to Christ mystically Heb. 2. 6. it notes not man in conspicuous dignity but rather as contemptible as the words what is man that thou art mindful of him and thou hast lessened him for a little time below Angels shew nor is it peculiarly meant of Adam but of men as men as the word Son of man shews although it be mystically fulfilled in Christ alone and he be by excellency stiled man or the Son of man 15. Found notes not apprehension of him when he was betrayed by Judas and laid hold on by the Souldiers for it was afore his humbling himself and obedience to death and if the form of a Servant did note his whipping and servile usage which was after his apprehension and yet is set down by the Apostle as antecedent to being found in fashion as a man his finding cannot be referred to his apprehension Nor is his being found appropriated to the time of his conspicuity in the exercise of his Dominion over the creatures but the fashion as a man being the same with the likeness of men it notes only his appearing or being as a man simply considered among men the word found frequently noting only being or appearing to be Phil. 3. 9. Gal. 2. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 3. and 11. 12. 1 Pet. 1. 7. Rom. 7. 10. Luke 17. 18 c. 16. That of Grotius he humbled himself he did not behave himself according to that dignity but very humbly so as to wash his Disciples feet John 13. 12 13. As he emptied so he humbled are of the form Hiphil but signifie to exhibit or shew himself such So also the Latins say to make himself courteous is not right the humbling noting not an exercise of the vertue of humility but patient subjection to affliction and that not by shewing humility only but by patient undergoing of it And thus is it used Phil. 4. 8. I know how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be abased or humbled as appears by the oposite term to abound and by other places where he useth the same of himself 2 Cor. 11. 7. and 12. 21. and is apparent in that the humbling himself is in the Text opposite to his superexaltation verse 9. Now that doth not oppose the vertue of humility and the exercise of it which consists with his exaltation but the state of a person debased which is removed by his super-exaltation Besides this very place is parallel with that Acts 8. 32. out of Isa. 53. 7. where of Christ Philip expounds the words of that Prophet He was led as a Sheep to the slaughter and like a Lamb dumb before the shearer so he opened not his mouth in his humiliation the Noun in the Greek derived from the verb Phil. 2. 8. and so explains it his judgment or right was taken away and who shall declare his generation For his life is taken away from the earth Lastly the Text shews wherein his humiliation consists which was in his being obedient unto death even the death of the Crosse which is not rightly translated by our Translators and became obedient putting a conjunction copulative without cause as they did verse 7. and so obscure the meaning of the Apostâ—e but it is to be read by apposition becoming obedient and so shewing wherein the humbling of himself was 17. Grotius his note here is not right He was made obedient to wit to men Jews as well as Romans He opposed not that Divine Power to them that took him condemned him slew him So great injuries he patiently underwent for the good of men For it was shewed before that the obedience was to his Father otherwise there had not been such reason of his super-exaliation as is expressed vers 9 10 11. 18. By this which hath been said it may appear that Christs being in the form of God and not accounting it as a prey to bb equal or as God was afore his being a man and consequently that he had a Divine Being as God afore he was incarnate and therefore consubstantial to the Father as touching his God-head 19. It may appear that then Christ emptied himself when he took the form of a Servant who was antecedently in the form of God when he came not to be ministred to but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many Mat. 20. 28. 20. That then he did this when he was made in the likeness of men had a body prepared for him which proves him to be consubstantial to us according to his Man-hood which thing was to be demonstrated SECT 25. Some Objections against the proof from Philip. 2. 5 6 7 8. are answered NEvertheless I meet with some Arguments to the contrary which I think fit to set down in the Authours words 1. He setteth before them Christs Example exhorting to humility and therefore the act of Christ which he doth exemplify must be manifest But to whom was or could that incarnation which Christians commonly talk of be manifest when they themselves say it passeth the understanding of Angels to comprehend it To which I answer It was manifest by the Angels and others Revelation and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was so was comprehensible as is proved before although the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or manner how it was be incomprehensible we are to imitate God in many of his works the manner of which is incomprehensible by us as being performed immediately or by invisible Agents in secret manner As Magistrates are to imitate God in his righteous judgement though it be unsearchable in respect of the manner Parents are to imitate God in his providence for his Creatures though the manner of doing it be indiscernible and therefore the incomprehensibleness of the incarnation hinders not but that it being revealed may be propounded as an imitable pattern Yet in this of our Apostle it is to be observed that he propounds not only Christs incarnation but also his humiliation in becoming obedient unto death as an example to be imitated by the Philippians 2. The Apostle speaketh of our Lord as a man in that he giveth him the Titles of Christ Jesus both which agree to him onely as a man For he is called Jesus as he was a child conceived of the Holy Spirit in the Virgins womb and brought forth by her Luke 1. 27 30 31 35. and Christ signifieth the anointed John 1. 41. and