human Soul of Chrift, thus vefted with divine Ideas, may be included in Solomon's Idea of Wisdom.

And those who believe the Doctrine of the pre-exiftent Soul of Christ, have made it appear that if it refer to Chrift, it is very probable this pre-existent Soul confidered as having the divine Nature united to it, is here represented as commencing its Existence, its Union with Godhead, receiving its Commiffion, and beginning its Office. And the learned Dr. Thomas Goodwin, (tho' he firmly believed the eternal Generation of Chrift, as the Son of God) yet he supposes this Chapter to relate to Chrift, as God Man, and not mecrly to his Godhead.

2d Text, is that remarkable one, Pfal. 2. 7. Thou art my Son, this Day have I begotten thee; which has been usually interpreted by our Divines, to fignify the eternal Sonship of Chrift as God.

Anfw. 1. Tis evident that in Act. 1 3.33. St. Paul applies this to the Refurrection of Chrift, and the beginning of his Exaltation, and not to any eternal Generation; fo that we have a divine Interpreter giving quite a different Sense of it.

Anfw. 2. Befides, Chrift is here faid to become a Son by a Decree which cannot fignify eternal Generation, but muft relate to his Office.

Anfw. 3. Again, 'tis fpoken literally concerning the Exaltation of David as the

Type

Type of Christ to his Kingdom, and not concerning the natural Production or Generation of David; and therefore in the Antitype it muft fignify myftically the Exaltation of Chrift to his Kingdom, and not his natural eternal Generation.

Anfw. 4. Let it be farther remembred that the word, This Day, never fignifics Eternity in Scripture in any other Place, and why then muft it do so here?

Anfw. 5. I add also, that this Text is cited in Heb. 1. 5. where it is joined with God's Promife in future times to be a Father to Chrift; I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son; which does not fignify eternal Generation. But of this Verfe I have spoken more largely in other Places; and fhewn that Bishop Pearfon, Dr. Owen, and other zealous Trinitarians do not conftrue this Text to mean the eternal Generation of Chrift.

3d Text, Matth. 28. 19. Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. Why is the Son joined with the Father and the Holy Ghoft, who are confeffedly divine, if the Name Son does not include the Godhead of Chrift?

Anfw. If Chrift, confidered as the Son of God, be perfonally united to the divine Nature, or the Eternal Word, he has Godhead belonging to his complex Perfon; and therefore the Name Son, which fignifies his perfonal Character and Office, may be well joined

with the Father in this initiating Ordinance, the whole complex Person of Chrift, who is the Son of God, including true Godhead.

4th Text, Rom. 1. 3, 4. His Son Jefus Chrift our Lord, which was made of the Seed of David, according to the Flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with Power, according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Refurrection from the Dead. Now fome fay, here is a plain Antithefis between the human Nature and divine Nature of Chrift: the human Nature, which is called the Flesh, and the divine Nature, which is called the Spirit of Holiness, and according to this divine Nature he is declared to be the Son of God.

Anf. 1. There are feveral Criticks who believe the eternal Generation of Chrift, who yet don't fuppofe there is fuch an exact Antithefts here; but they conftrue the Spirit of Holiness, to fignify the Holy Ghost who raised Chrift from the Dead, and who manifested, teftified and declared him to be the Son of God with Power by his Refurrection.

Anfw. 2. There are others who chufe to fupport the Antithefis, and make the Spirit of Holiness to fignify the glorious human Spirit of Chrift replenish'd with all Holinefs; and fuppofe that the Name Spirit of Holiness is here given to this human Soul of Chrift, not only to aggrandize its Character above all other holy Creatures, but alfo to intimate that this Spirit governed the animal Nature, and kept

it pure, as well as to diftinguish it from the Holy Spirit, which is the third of the Sacred Three. But I am not fo well fatisfied in this Expofition, and therefore I dare not venture to maintain it. But there is a third Answer, which I prefer to both these.

Anwf3. This Text may be thus paraphras'd: Jefus Christ our Lord, who was derived from the Seed of David, according to (his fleshly Original, or) the Influence of the Flesh into his Birth, but was declared powerfully, by his Refurrection from the Dead, to be the Son of God, according to (his fupernatural and holy Original, or) the Influence of the Holy Spirit. So that the Fles here, does not mean any constituent part of Chrift, or his very Flesh or Body, but the Operation or Influence of the Flesh, or share that Flesh of the bleffed Virgin had in the Conception of Chrift: And fo the Spirit does not mean any constituent part of Chrift, but the Influence or Operation of the Holy Spirit in his first Conception, or in his Refurrection, on both which accounts he is called in Scripture the Son of God. See Luke 1. 35. and Act. 13. 33. and both are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. There is a large Confirmation of this Exposition, in some Notes on Rom. 1. 3, 4. wherein it is fhewn how the Antithefis of the Apostle is preferved, and that the Apostle always ufes xalà oάgxx and xxlx Va in an Antithefis, to fignify the Influence

of

of each Principle, rather than for two conftituent parts of a Perfon.

5th Text, Heb. 7. 3. Melchifedec was without Father, without Mother, without Defcent, having neither beginning of Days, nor end of Life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Prieft continually. Now this hiftorical Eternity of Melchifedec, whofe Father and Mother, Life and Death are not recorded, is made a Type of the real Eternity of Chrift, confidered as he is the Son of God.

Anfw. 1. Since Melchifedec is reprefented here without a Father, and yet as a Type of the Son of God, it would deftroy the Doctrine of Chrift's eternal Generation from God the Father, rather than fupport it, fince the very Type here has no Father.

Anf. 2. This Place refers more naturally to the Priesthood of Chrift than to his Nature or Existence. His Priesthood was not derived by genealogical Succeflion as Aaron's was: He had no Father, no Mother of the Levitical Tribe, or of the Family of Aaron, from whom his Priesthood could defcend; nor did he die and leave it to others by way of Defcent; but was conftituted a fingle Pricft himfelf, without a Predeceffor, without a Succeffor: and herein the Pricfthood of Melchifedec and the Priesthood of Chrift run very parallel, and greatly answer the Apostle's Defign. And I think this Senfe is patroniz'd by fome Expreffions in Dr. Owen's Comment.