God-Man, Section 17 – Section 18
SECT. 17.
This Exception against the Argument is refuted.
I Reply, that in this passage there are many errours.
1. That Rom. 1. 3. foreign is to be rendered [born] rather than made: For though I deny not that the Participle foreign may signifie [born] yet here it is not so fitly thus rendered, as [made] because it is not foreign or foreign 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 foreign, 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 foreign 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 foreign notes the Act of God answerable to foreign 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 foreign 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 Ki…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 Re…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 …p of the fruit of Davids loins according to the flesh bu… God did not raise him up of the fruit of Dav…ds loins according to the flesh, barely …s weak, mortal, and deb…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.
4. By [the Spirit of Holiness Rom. 1. 4.] whether foreign 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 foreign fleshly, but to foreign natural, or …oulary. 2. No where termed foreign a Spirit. 3. Nor foreign 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 bloodshedding, 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 sa…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 fl…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 sanct…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 Armi… 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 it before himself, nor the Preposition used, being foreign through or by, not foreign 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 foreign 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 Spi…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, Rom. 15. 16. The Offering of the Gentiles is sa d to be accepted being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.Ma…. 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 E…stl… H…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 [foreign 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, Luk… 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 foreappointing 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 foreign, shall be after the Resurrect on from the dead: None of which are made good by Heb. 5. 9. Acts 2. 30. or Acts …6. 23. or any other which he produ…eth in his Annot. on Rom. 1. 4. Nor do I conceive can be; Nor do I think D…. Hammond his Paraphr…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 i… Power; Nor that of the Syriak Interpreter who turns foreign by, who was known; I stick to that sense, which our Translators have chosen, declared, or as Chrysostom, In…ts it [shewed, demo…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 foreign 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 Job 22. 28.foreign or a definition of it, and the Mood which Additions to Esther ch. 14. 9. foreign, Numb. 30. 8. Exod. 8. 12. 2 Mac. 12. 25. Prov. 16. 30. Epiphan. panar. l. 1. tom. 1. impress. 19. foreign Petav. istud diserte significat.is Indicative, is termed by Grammarians foreign, and the boundaries of Lands are called foreign, because they shew what is belonging to a person, and in composition Hyppocrates his Determinations, or Declarations about Medicines are entituled his Aphorisms, and foreign 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 foreign not foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign through, or by reason of weakness, yet he liveth foreign because of, or by the Power of God, 1 Cor. 6. 14. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own Power, Rom. 6. 4. like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Glory (that is the Power) of the Father: Which is confirmed in that he is said to be determined the Son of God in Power, which determination is referred to the Fathers, and therefore the Power is the Fathers by which he is determined to be the Son of God.
8. I confess the Divine Nature of Christ is no where that I find, termed the Spirit of holiness, or the holy Spirit, nor the glorified body of Christ, although God be termed a Spirit, John 4. 24. and 2 Cor. 3. 17. the Lord is that Spirit, which to me seems most likely to be meant of Christ, who is in the Epistles of Paul most commonly meant by this title [the Lord] and in the verse before meant, where it is said [Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord] that is Christ; and the next verse following [But we all with open face beholding the glory of the Lord] that is Jesus Christ distinguished in the same verse from the holy Spirit, termed the Spirit of the Lord, if it be not to be read, as from the Lord the Spirit, and so applied to Christ: It is said that Christ knew in his Spirit, Mark. 6. 8. that he grew, and waxed strong in Spirit, or was strengthened by the Spirit, Luke 2. 40. that he groaned in Spirit, Joh. 11. 33. which may, or are to be understood otherwise than of his Divine Nature, John 6. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words which I speak unto you are Spirit, and are life, are meant otherwise than of Christs Divine Nature, and 1 Tim. 3. 16. Justified in Spirit, or in the Spirit may be meant otherwise than of his Divine Nature, and so may quickened by the Spirit, 1 Pet. 3. 18. of which in that which follows: The Spirit of Christ is, Rom. 8. 9. termed the Spirit of God, and if the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 2. 13, 14. and 12. 3. And that which was born of Mary is said to be that Holy thing, which shall be called the Son of God, Luke 1. 35. and Dan. 9. 24. he is termed the Holy of Holies, or as we read, the most Holy, but no where the Spirit of Holiness. And therefore if the Spirit of Holiness note not the Divine Nature of Christ, because it is no where in the Scripture designed by the name of Spirit, or Spirit of Holiness, the reason is as good against the interpretation of [the Spirit of Holiness] by [the Holy Spiritual Body of Christ:] Nor is there likelehood that by [Spirit] should be meant [Body] sith Spirit and Body are opposed, or contradistinguished, 1 Cor. 6. 20. and 7. 34. James 2. 26. 1 Thes. 5. 23. &c. as well as Flesh and Spirit: And if by [Spirit of Holiness] be meant a constituting part of Christ distinct from Flesh, which he had by means of the Resurrection, it cannot be meant of his body, which is the same in substance it was in the daies of his flesh, and so the same constituting part, differing only in quality and external condition, as having an alteration, not another Generation or Creation, and therefore cannot be rightly termed another constituting part: And this reason with the Texts alledged do better countenance the understanding the Deity of Christ by [the Spirit of Holiness] than his Holy Spiritual Body: Yet for my part, I incline to neither, but rather to the opinion, that conceives by [the Spirit of Holiness] is meant the Holy Ghost, or third Person of the sacred Trinity, and that for these reasons. 1. Because the term [Spirit of Holiness] is all one in sense with [the Holy Spirit] which is the usual title given to that person, Mat. 28. 19. 2 Cor. 13. 13. 1 John 5. 7. and is according to usual manner of expressing the Adjective by the Genitive case of the substantive, as the Children of Wisdom are wise Children, Children of obedience, 1 Pet. 1. 14. obedient Children, the Children of l…, enlightned Children, Eph. 5. 8. 2. Because the Resurrection is ascribed to the Spirit, Rom. 8. 11. If the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, be that raised Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you, 1 Pet. 3. 18. Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. 3. Because the sense thus seems to be easiest, and most agreeable to the Apostles scope, who having said, that the Son of God was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, noting a being beyond this, adds, that he was declared, determined, defined or resolved to be the Son of God beyond his being the Son of David with power, by his rising from the dead, which was by Power, according to the Spirit of holiness, that is the holy Spirit, to whom acts of power are usually ascribed, as Luke 1. 35. Mat. 12. 28. which was an undoubted evidence of his being the Son of God, or having a Divine Nature, sith he foretold it as a thing to be done by himself, John 2. 19. and 5. 25, 26. and 10. 17, 18. Nor is it necessary that foreign should note a constituting part, Rom. 1. 4. For it may note an efficient cause mediate, as when it is said Mark. 1. 27. foreign with authority he commandeth the unclean Spirits, which is, Luke 4. 36. foreign with Grot. in Rom. 2. 7. foreign hic idem est quod foreign. Solent enim ist… particulae permisceri, ut 1 Cor. 12. 8. ubi foreign habetur. Ephes 3. 3. & alibi in 1. Cor. 12. 8. Idem …i… valet foreign quod foreign in sequentibus.Authority and Power, so foreign is by might, or mightily, Heb. 7. 16. foreign 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. foreign 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 foreign 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 …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, 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.