was thus penned partly by Eusebius and partly by Hosiâ—s and yet we are sent to this Eusebius his first book but he doth not tell us to which of his first books for Eusebius hath many first books so I must trace him through Eusebius that I may hit on the place he meanes For I have observed that Eusebius hath no lesse then four times in severall places of his works set down his opinion concerning Gods visible appearing to the patriarks and in none of those places hath he said that which this Commenter would pin uppon him first he saith in his book de monsâ— lâ—b 1. c. 5. as Euseb de Demonst l. 1. â— 5. Ruffinui reads it Audi ut Moses cum qui amicis Dei seipsum ostenderet modo Deum modo Dei angelum appellet sic declarans non hunc fuisse ipsum patrem sed ejus filium qui idem et Deus ac Dominus amicorum Dei et supremi Patris Angelus dici consueverit id est Hear how Moses calleth him who used to appear to the friends of God sometimes he calls him God and sometimes the Angel of God and thereby Moses declareth that he was not the supream Father but his Son which son is usually called the God and Lord of the friends of God and also the Angell or messenger of the most high Father All that Eusebius in this place affirms is that he that appeared to Abraham and the patriarks was God in the person of the Son and not in the person of the Father that it was not the supream Father but it was the supream Son for both the Father and the Son are but one supream God the same supream God appeared which is both the Father and the Son and this he proveth because he that appeared is sometimes called the Angel of the supream Father which may be and is in Scripture said of the Person of the Son but not of the Person of the Father and yet he saith he that appeared was Deus Dominus id est the Lord God of the Patriarks But Eusebius doth not say as you would have him that he was not the most high God only he saith he was not the Father but the Son of the Father which no good Christan can find Euseb de Dem. l. 5. in prefat fault with in such a mystery the same Eusebius had said before in the preface of the same book Dei Verbum apud priora secula in hominis habitu apparuit id est The Word of God in former times appeared in the habit of a man Now we know that onely the Son or second Person is called the Word as Iohn 1. 1. and this the same Eusebius affirmeth again in the 19. Chapter of the said Book id est Idem est Dominus Euseb de Dem. l. 1. c. 19. Deus Christus qui Abrahoe visus habitu pacisico Iacobo tanquam Creator Mosen specie nubis ignis ducebat c. id est It was the same Lord and God and Christ which appeared to Abraham in a peaceable shape and to Iacob as a wrastler and lead Moses with a clould of fire You see that as yet Eusebius hath said nothing to confirm your opinion but let us see what he saith in his first book of his hystory for I guesse that is the first book Deus Abraâ—ae apparuit tanquam communis homo at ille adorat ut Deum veneratur ut Dominum dicens Eus hist l. 1. c. 1. Gen. 18. 25. dominator Domine qui judicas omnem terram quae omnia non ad â—aâ—â—em sâ—d ad fil um referenda sunt id est God appeared to Abraham as an ordinary man but Abraham adored him as God amd worshipped him as the Lord saying shall not the Judg of all the earth do right all which must be considered as spoken to the Son and not to the Father The result of all that Eusebius hath said in this businesse is That the most high God of all the earth appeared to Abraham in the person of his Son and not in the person of the Father But yet it was the same Lord God for Godhead and substance which is in the person of the Father and in the person of the Son therefore he that appeared was the same God with the Father but not the same person with the Father therefore Saint Austin saith very truly That the Father and the Aug. cont Epist Manâ—chae c. 6. n. 7. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. Son are to be called unum but not unus id est one God for essence but not one for person So he expresseth himself in another place upon these words I and the Fâ—thâ—r are one unum secundum essentiam non seeundum relatum id est One in Godhead but not so in personall relation it is very remarkable that in our Saviours prayer for his Church it is desired Iohn 17. Theod. hist l. 2. c. 8. Aug. n. 47 174. 22. That they all may be one as we are one he doth not say That they and we may be one because God and man are not of the same essence for unum cannot be said of two severall natures although they be united Aug. Epist 174. in one person or subsistence sine adiectione as Austin hath observed as the soul and body of man united are not unum except you understand animal you may call them one man one person one living creature but not absolutely One because they differ in essence or nature but the Father and the Son are therefore said to be one because they are but one God though severall persons just as Ensis gladius are unum they are the self-same thing So the Father and the Son are one and the same God though two persons Substanâ—iaâ—iâ— unâ—â—as personalis pluralitas id Rie de St. vict de Trin. l. 3. c 8. est unity of Godheâ—d plurality of persons Therefore the Scripture speaks of them with great caution both plurally and singly Gen. 1. 1. God câ—â—ated the the noune is the plurall but the verb is the singular number and let us make man and in our image this shewes a plurality but yet the persons are never called Gods or Lords Plurally but as he who intended to point at one particular man named Tertullius described him by thrice repeating Tullus Tullus Tullus Jul. cap. in Mar. Ant. c. 10. and as the Consulship of Caesar men used to say that these two Consuls were Julius and Caesar so when the Scripture would intimate the two distinct persons of the Father and the Son it doth it by Sugt in Julio c. 20. repeating the same word because there is but one Lord and but one God it will not say Lords or Gods but The Lord rained from the Lord and The Lord Gen. 19. 24. Ps 45. 7. Aug. Epist 37. said unto my Lord and God thy God hath anointted thee because the same God
of God the Son and the reason and purpose why he was Incarnate THe Mysterie of the Incarnation of God is frequently in Scripture set forth unto us when the Saviour promised is said to be the seed of the woman the seed of Abraham Emmanuel the Son of David the Word made flesh taking the form of a servant and most evidently of all Heb. 2. 14 taking part of the same flesh and blood with us men And yet this commenter tels us that Christ can not be said to be Incarnate 31. c. 2. v. 14. though both of them are confessed to partake of flesh and blood a bould assertion but false and dull untheological unphilosophical for here are two Propositions both false and one of them blasphemous also I. The faithful are not Incarnate Faithfulnes or unfaithfulnes doe not hinder Incarnation the question must be whether a man may be said to be Incarnate if every man prove Incarnate then must Christ also be so for he is a perfect man and more also a very smal matter will give a denomination a man that hath but a gowne on his back is denominated Tâ—gatus and shall not he who hath an immortal soule united with his flesh be called incarnate to be incarnate is to be in Carne i in the flesh I hope you will not denie that the soule of a man whilest it is in the bodie may be said to be Incarnate the soule of a man can exist without the body and is seperable and when it shall be parted from the body then it is Discarnated but when it is joyned with the body who will doubt to say it is incorporated or incarnated now from the Incarnation of this principal and essential part of man the whole man is said to be Incarnate S. Paule knew a man whether in the body or out the body he could not tell 2 Cor. 12. 2. surely a man in the body may be called Incorporate and so Incarnate and Gal. 2. 20. the life which I now live in the flesh S. Paule saith he lived in the flesh in Corne therfore he thought himself incarnate againe Phil. 1. 22. If I live in the flesh abide in the flesh is more needful for you S. Paule is one of the faithfull and he confessed that he lived abode in the flesh therfore he was in Carne incarnate I never read that a beast is called incarnate because the body and soule of a beast cannot both exist if seperated as mans soule and body doe therfore the fathers spake of them as of two distinct men Care anima duo homines exterior interior Amb. de Inst veig l. 2. n. 35. Naz. Epist 94 n. 38. Ath. de Incar n. 23. Tert. de anim c. 9. Mens cujusque is est quisque Tul in Som. Scip. Ro. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 2. 14. i. the soule and the body two men the outward and the inward man Apud nos Philosophus Anima vocantur externus internus homo i. The Philosopher with his soule are called by us the outward and the inward man just so saith Athanasius and Tertullian although he went too far in saying the soul was corporeal If any the soule a man be denominated Animatus shall he not as well from his flesh be called Carnatus I am sure in Scripture a man is called both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carnal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Animalis because he hath some of the natural inclinations of soule and body in him not wholly subdued by the Spirit If wee will speak strictly and properlie Incarnation must principally be said of the Soule because that part of us in its owne nature is incorporeal but being joyned with the flesh becomes Incarnate it seemes by Moses description of the Creation Gen. 2. 7. that the body of man was framed before the soule was insufflated and both Orâ—gen and divers Philosophers before him thought that the soule was more ancient then the bodie and they called the body the sepulcher and Theod. de div decret l. 5. n. 17. Ambr. Epist l. 4. n. 53. id in Hex l. 6. c. 6. Tert. de anim prison of the Soul and the Christian writers said of it to the like purpose one calleth it Tunicam Pelliceam Adami and againe Caro est amictus animae and another cals it Domum animae and another vestimentum animae and saith that the soule is but inquilinus corporis i. the body is the coat of skin the apparel the howse of Chrys ho. 5. Antioc the soule and the soule is but a temporary inmate of the body the departure of the soule is like the putting off the apparrel of the body the 2. souldier-martyrs in id Epist ad Olymp. n. 39. Chrysostome calleth their bodies Indusium ultimum i. the innermost garment of the soule and of the holy woman Olympics he said That she was more ready to put of her body for Christ then others were to put of their apparel wherfore as when our naked bodyes are invested with garments they are said to be apparrelled so our souls clothed with our flesh are said to be Incarnate the Apostle describes the reuniting of our souls and bodies at the resurrection by this phrase of putting on immortalitie then I think no Christian will denie that when our souls after a long discontinuance from our flesh shall be restored and reunited with our bodies they may be said to be Incarnate or re Incarnate and the same kind of reasoning will much more prove the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus against the Commenters second proposition viz. 2. Christ the Captaine of the faithfull is not Incarnate Because the Ingredients of which our Jesus the Emmanuel is Composed are two viz. the divine nature or Godhead and the humane nature or manhood and because one of these ingredients I meane the Godhead had a real and seperate being by it self without flesh and without a body from all Eternitie before the creation of the world and because the same divine nature in the fulnes of time did assume an humane body and so partake of our flesh and blood I may now well say that our God is Incarnate because he is in carne in the flesh so that his Godhead and manhood are as the principles and ingredients of one Compound for they are but one person one Christ one Emmanuel because that divine nature which before had bin entire and single by it self is now joyned with another inferior nature the Scripture expresseth the mysterie in this phrase Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh he saith the word rather then the Son because the word signifieth his pure Godhead but the Son may also signifie his humane nature and that alone too for if Christ were nothing but a mere man yet hee might be called the Son but he could not be called the Word This is that which in Scripture is called God manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16. and Christ is
so said to be in the body of his flesh Col. 1. 22. And after his incarnation the time is called the dayes of his flesh Heb. 5 7. And he is said to be sent in the likenes of sinfull flesh Rom. 8. 3. not that his flesh was not real or but a meer similitude or phantasme as the Manichees said but it was real and pure without sin yet like unto our flesh which is sinfull surely S. Peterâ— thought Christ to be incarnate when he said Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh 1 Pet. 4. 1. I desire this Commenter who denieth this to consider Soberlie what the divine Apostle S. John hath said to this point more then once 1 Ioh. 4. 3. Every Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist wherof you have heard that it should come and even now already it is in the world Thus is this place now read and againe he saith 2 Ioh. 7. Many deceivers are entred into the world who confess not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh this is a deceiver and an Antichrist The fathers spake in the same manner of the Godhead to be Incarnate in the flesh of Christ as they spak of the incarnation of an humane soule in an humane bodie Corpus Domini est vestis regia Chrys to 5. ser 65. Atha Disp in Nic. Concil n. 27. Aug. de Civit. l. 18. c. 35. Euseb Emiss n. 32. i. the bodie of the Lord his garment royal Corpus Domini est amiculum dei Caro est amictus verbi i. the flesh of the Lord is the garment of God and upon those words Mal. 3. 1. The Lord shall suddenly come to hisâ— Temple S. Austin expounds thus In Templum id est in Carnem i. by coming into his temple is meant his coming in the flesh and â—hristi vestimentum humanitas est qua divinitas induta videri non poterat i. The garment of Christ is his humane nature which covered his divinitie as garments doe our bodies The reason why our Commenter denieth the Incarnation of an humane soule is as I imagine because he thinketh the soule dieth wiih the body And shall rise againe at the resurrection of the body and that it hath no existence but only in the body and the reason why he denies the Incarnation of Christ is because he doth not believe Christ to be God from Eternitie but that he hath his beginning from his humane birth and that after his resurrection he was Deified for his fore-runners the Arians said that Christ was but a God made that is all one with Deified that this Son of God was not equall to the Father in Eternitie in his answer I trow he will resolue that question which S. Austin asked the Arians Quot annis precedit Deus Pater Aug. de 5. her to 6. n. 6. filium suum i. how many yeares was God the Father older then God the Son or how long was the Father God before the Son was God in the meane time we will rest satisfied in the sure word of God who saith Esa 43. 10. Before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me wee read that by God the Word all things were made Joh. 1. 3. time is a creature therfore it was made by him and he was before for if time time were before the Son of God then could he not be called The first borne of every creature Coloss 1. 15. The reason why rhe Son of God did take upon him our nature was because he would in our stead as a suretie and undertaker both performe the whole Law and also sustaine all the penaltie of our transgressions of which more hereafter CHAP. VIII More reasons why the Son of God was Incarnate how and when he became our suetrie the Aeternal covenant explained distinction of Persons in the Godhead THe Supream and Eternal â—od in the person of the son did for mans redemption â—â—kâ— man's nature upon him not because God had no other way by which he could have saved us but because he would not save us any other way for wee know that the same God who saveth man by taking man's nature did and still doth preserve the blessed angels in their estate of glorie and from falling by his power and gracious goodnes although he did not take upon him the naâ—ure of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2. 16. The Church never taught thaâ— God could not have saved man without the Incarnation of his Son but the contrarie Athanasius saith a Poterat Deusâ—sine adventu Atha cont Aria ser 3. n. 7. Christi peccatum solvâ—re verbulo suo i. God could have remitted our sins with the least word though Christ had not come in the flesh for if an earthly King can save his subject who hath by the law forfeited his life could not the Omnipotent King have saved mankind by his power for who can resist his will But then why did God give his Son to take our nature on him To this it may be answered that albeit the Son of of God was Originally a meer gift and from the free grace of God to mankind yet accessarily it became a debt and due to man so that God was bound in Justice ro give his Son because God had by his promise and Covenant ingaged and bound himself so to doe for although his meer mercy and goodnes moved him to make such a promise yet when he had once promised his justice and truth required the performance of that promise Deus dignatur promissionibus suis debitor Aug Confes. l. 5. c. 9 fieri i. God vouchsafed to make himself a debtor to or by his owne promises and having so made himself a debtor to man how could he without violating his word and promise forbeare the performance But where doth this promise appeare and how shall wee know that the Son of God became an undertaker and suert â— for us men and when was this Covenant made for the mysterie of man's redemption doth depend upon the Covenaâ—t and by it the Son of God did engage and bind himself out of his free and meer grace to become a suertie for man therfore before I proceede any further this Covenant must be inquired after as the cheife evidence of Christs ingagment It was an old question moved either by some scoffers or curious persons what God did before he made heaven and earth unto which some made answer with a jocular reproof Gâ—hennas parabat alta Scrutâ—ntibus i. he made hel for such seekers but S. Austin liked not Aug. Conf. l. 11. c. 12. this answer but said libentius respondeo nescio quod nescio i. I would rather answere that I know not So in that book of Cicâ—ro which was called Hortensius but is now lost this objection was made against the unitie of God Si Deus unus est
notes and the grand Heresie of Apollinarius applied this errour to Christ himself in saying that Christ had no reasonable or humane soul as other men have but that his Divine Nature was in steed of an humane soul and supplied all the Offices thereof in the body of Epiph. haer 77. Aug. n. 88. Soc. l. 2. c. 36. Christ as we reade in Epiphanius and in the Ecclesistick Histories and in S. Austine CHAP. XIII Of the Originall of Christs humane soul whether it were derived by Propagation from his Progenitors as his body was THe mention of that Heresie of Apollinarius leads me to a new quaere not yet discoursed but yet as I conceive very usefull and pertinent to the setting forth of this great Mystery of the Incarnation of God and Mans Redemption if it could be clearly determined and this it is That seeing the Christian World Catholick hath ever confessed that the Son of God received his flesh and blood by propagation from the first Adam It would be now inquired whence the same Son of God had his reasonable or humane Soul The reason which moved me to make this inquiry is taken from the Arguments which divers of the Fathers used against some Hereticks particularly against Valentinus and his Gnostick followers and against the Manichees and Eutyches for these taught that Christ did not receive his Body by traduction from the Virgine Mother and so not from Adam but that it was either from heaven or else that it was a mere apparition and a phantasticall body which Heresies are so well known to men learned that I shall not need to send the Reader by Quotations to Fathers to finde them The Arguments which the Father 's used against those Hereticks were to this purpose that they might shew a necessity that the Redeemer must needs take his flesh from Adam First Saint Augustine saith Omnis massa Adami Aug De 〈◊〉 cum Felic l. â—â— c. 11. maledicta est Dominus carnem de illa suscepit hinc maledictus dicitur i. Because the whole lump of Adam was accursed therefore the Son of God taking the curse upon himself must needs take flesh from Adâ—m for otherwise how could he take the cuâ—se upon himself to cure mankind And Theoâ—â—â—â— asketh this question Theod. dial 1. n. 12. Why was not Châ—ists Body made of Earth as Adams was And he returned this answer 〈…〉 Creature servaretur quae perieâ—a i. That Christ might save the same creature which was lost therefore he took the same creature upon himself and Athanasiâ—â—s Atha Epist ad Epicter n. 3. strictly examining how mans curse could be fastned on our blessed Saviour answereth thus Christus sic pro nobis execratio factus est sicuâ— factus est caâ—o i. He took our curse as he took our flesh and Saint Basil saith expressely that the Heresie of Valentinus did nullifie Mans redemption for if the flesh of Christ were not derived from Adam Non occâ—dâ—sset Basil Epist 65. n. 37. peccatum in carnâ— i. Christ had not destroyed sin in the flesh and upon this very gâ—ound Diosâ—urus the Bishop of Alexandria and Euâ—yches the Monk were condemned by the Councill of Chalcedon as Euagrius Euag. l 2. c. 18. writeth The self same kind of Argument doth Naziarzâ—n use against Apollinarius who taught that Christ had no humane or reasonable soul as is said before Naz. ad Cledon Orat. 51. but that he took onely flesh from Adam Deus assumâ—sit id quod salute indigebat c. i. God took of Man all that which stood in need of salvation and therefore he took the humane soul also For that fell and needed help as well as the Body For if Christ had taken from Man onely his flesh and not his Soul he had done as if a Man that hath a fore foot and a fore eye should apply a Medicine onely to the foot and neglect the eye besides Christ took the whole and perfect Man upon him but the Godhead with a Body onely is not perfect Man as neither could it be perfect man if it were joyned with an humane Soul without a Body But if you say that God could have saved man though he had never taken an humane soul so may you as well say God could have saved man though he had not assumed a Body Thus far Naziaâ—zen From this discourse I may upon the same grounds infer That if Christ must needs take his Body from man because otherwise he could not destroy sin in the flesh It will follow by the like Argument that Christ must needs take his humane soul by traduction from man for otherwise how could he destroy sin in the soul and then though the body might be saved yet the soul having no medicine applied to it must needs undergo the sentence Ezech. 18. 4. The soul that sinnâ—th iâ— shall diâ— For the soul and body of man are two distinct natures although joyned in one person just so as the Godhead and Manhood in Christ are Thus for ought I can yet see the same reasons that induce us to believe that the flesh of Christ was propagated from the first man may as well prove that his soul must also be so transmitted throughout all Generations to Christ Furthermore because in Scripture phrase the natural soul of Man goes under the notion of Carnall as well as his Natural body for 1 Cor. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a carnall man the very soul not regenerate is carnall I do not peâ—ceive how the Incarnation of God can be compleat but by his assuming both soul and body from man for otherwiâ—e how can we say that he tooke the whole man upon him the denying whereof was by the Church judged an Heresie in the Apollinarians For they would not confess Christ to Naz. ad Cledon orat 5â— be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est A perfect man having God in him but they called Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idest God bearing flesh onely and this because they believed not that Christ took our humane soul but onely that he took our flesh and therefore the Apolinarian is by Nazianzen called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est One that worshipped a God that had assumed nothing but flesh And the Apollinarian in derision said that the Catholick was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. one who worshipped a man Now although the Church of England doth not expresly declare the propagation of the Soule of Christ from the Virgine Mother yet the second Article of Religion something implicite seemeth rather to incline thereunto for it saith First The Word tooke Mans nature in the wombe 1. Artic. 2. of the blessed Virgine of her substance so that two whole and perfect Natures that is to say The Godhead and Manhood were joyned in one Person c. If the meaning be that Christ took perfect Manhood from his Mother it must needs follow that he took both Body and soul
our whole Man in our Redemption Thus having said so much concerning this question I submit the determination thereof to the Judicious Reader onely adding this that if Christ did indeed take not onely his Body but the whole man by traduction from Adam we may most comfortably entertain a more evident and reasonable Argument of the Redemption both of our bodies and soules by him because hereby we may conceive our selves to be joyned and united unto Christ in a more noble tie then onely in our flesh that as he hath communicated his Divine Spirit to Man as is shewed before so our humane Spirit is communicated to him CHAP. XV. That the Spirit of God is communicated to the unregenerate and of the diversitie of the Measures and the graces therof IN the next place I am to shew how the Spirit of God is said to be communicated to men unregenerate as I promised before and this because many men are apt to beleeve that to have the Spirit of God is a grace proper and peculiar only to those that are the the Sanctified holy ones but the contrarie will appeare a none for a man may have Gods Spirit in him yea and divers common gifs and graces of that Spirit and yet remaine unsanctified and void of vertue and holines Aug. de beat vita n. 16. S. Austin saith Omnis homo deum habet nec tâ—mâ—n omnis beatus est i. every man hath God in him and yet every man is not in a state of blessednes so there is in every man a natural goodnes for every creature is good and where goodnes is there is God though this natural bonitie may be mixed with a great deale of moral pravitie and the same Spirit of God worketh in all men but yet to several purposes and with several Naz. Orat. 44. operations and in diverse degrees Spiritas spirat quando vult super quos vult quantum vult i The Spirit bloweth when it will and on whom it will so much as it will and though the Spirit of God be alwayes in man yet men doe not alwayes perceive it Aug. Confes. lib. 9. c. 4. Id. n. 88. or consider it S. Austin confessed Christus miserat spiritum in me Ego nesciebam i Christ had sent his Spirit into me and I knew it not and againe he saith â—git Spiritus Domini per bonos malos per Scientes nescientes ut per Caipham i The Spirit of the Lord worketh by good and bad by men that know it and by men that know it not as it did by Caiphas Men may have the Spirit of God and Operations of that Spirit in them and some graces also of that Spirit and yet those graces possibly shall not be operative so high as to Sanctification neither are they such high graces as divines call Gratum facientes But yet graces they are for grace is but a free gift and therfore is it called grace because it is Gratis data i freely given There may be grace in those persons who are not therby rendered favourable gracious or acceptable in Gods sight for even our natural endowments and temporal blessings and our very Creation rightly considered will appeare to be an act of Gods grace and therfore men do usually give thanks to God for their very Creation This doctrine of the great variety of graces and workings of Gods Spirit is most evidently set forth 1 Cor. 12. There are diversities of gifts and diversities of operations but the same Spirit the same Lord the same God And you may find mention of many graces there which are not saving or sanctifying graces but are Common even to reprobates as knowledge healing prophecie toungs c. Which wee know may be and are found in men not Sanctified even the knowledg and skill of manual arts are the operations of Gods Spirit in man which no divine will say are saving or sanctifying graces as wee read of Bâ—zaleel Ex. 35. 31. That he was filled with the Spirit of God in wisedome and in all manner of workmanship to devise Curious workes and to worke in Gold Silvâ—â— and brass Philosophers use to say If heaven stood still man could not move so much as his litle finger but surely if God were not Primus Motor in us to be as the soule of our soules we could not live or move and though God be in man and operateth in him yet his operations are diversified by divers degrees in some he worketh but weakly and low in others higher and stronger even to produce holines and happines but though the Spirit of God be in every man yet this Spirit is not a Sanctifier in every man as he is not Paracletus i a Comforter in every man this doctrine hath bin taught of old by the ancients Deus in est multiformiter Richard de S. Vict. de Trin. l. 2. c. 23. secundum participationem Gratiae aliis per participationem potentiae aliis vita aliis sapientiae aliis bonitatis aliis beatitudinis imanum suam parcius vel largius extendens i God is in us by distributing his graces in great diversitie some partake of power some of life only others have wisdome others goodnes others blessednes for so doth he open his hand more or less as he pleaseth The Spirit of God in Scripture is often resembled to water because as the same water falling from heaven in raine upon several Creatures produceth in them great diversitie and varietie of effects Aqua in spiâ—is alba in rosis rubra in Cyril Hieroâ— n. 18. hyacinthis purpurea i The same raine in the thorne produceth a white flower on the rose bush a red and on the hyacinth a purple Colour So doth the Spirit produce diversitie of effects in men so againe Aqua in Aug. de Mirab. script l. 1. c. 18. vite vinum â—it in apibus mel in Oliva olâ—um i Water in the vine is made wine in the Olive tree Oyl in bees honie in man blood teares c. And the like illustration is used by Epiphanius Chrysost To shew Epiph. in Ane Chrys ho. 4. Antioch that the same Spirit of the same God in some mea produceth but life or understanding in others it produceth those effects and more also as wisdome judgment counsel in others more also as faith hope charitie fortitude even to martyrdome and to blessednes the effect of Gods Spirit in Samson was seen eminently in his great strength in Solomon it was great wisdome in Moses mâ—eknes in the Prophets foresight all these are gifts of one and the same Spirit though in such great varietie and when the Scripture mentioneth divers Spirits as Esa 11. 2 Rev. 1 4 It meaneth severall gifts and graces of one and the same Spirit wee may observe that Elisha 2 Kings 2. 9. did not pray for two Spirits but duplex Spiritus that the same Spirit of Eliah might be doubled on him that is increased
and matter here handled is the most noble and high cause in the World and the most neerly concerning the glory of God and the salvation of man to which I was drawn by the importunity of some Learned and Religious friends and also by the iniquity of a most blasphemous Book lately Printed and called A Commentary on the Hebrewes written by a namelesse Doctor of Divinity who new resideth in this Countrey but formerly in Broad-gate Hall so it was then called wherein he hath vented such blasphemies against Jesus Christ as without special revocation and repentance will in the end bring both himself and all his seduced Sectaries to that wofull Broad-gate of which mention is made Matth. 7. 13. Lata est porta quae ducit ad perditionem The Controversies are not concerning the mighty and glorious reformrtion of a square-cap a Surplisse and Crosse and a painted glasse-window or the like which have been an out-side pretendment amongst Vulgars to bring upon this Land innumerable Calamities But that Commentary hath laid the axe to the root and foundation of our Christian Religion by un-Godding Jesus Christ and blasphemously denying his grand and most gracious Work of Redemption and it is feared that the pernicious doctrines therein contained have many abetters and favourers in these dangerous Times albeit this Commenter is the first of all the Serpents nest that dared to peep out and appear in our English print who both by this Book and by his personal insinuations hath already as we know perverted many from the saving truth of the Gospel to the evident danger both of theirs and of his own soul and his iâ—pious ambition to be the Ring-leader in this blasphemy hath in this Countrey procured to him such a Title and Character as was fastned on Marcion the Heretick by Polycarpus when he called him Euseb hist â— 4. c. 14. Primogenitum Satanae Wherefore setting before me the honour of Jesus Christ and the service which I owe to the Church and to my Countrey and also the care which a Father ought to have of the soules of his Children I have endeavoured both to detect the blasphemies of this Commentary and also to set down with all such possible plainnesse as so weighty a cause would admit the evidences of our most necessary and precious Christian faith in the Eternal Son of God both by shewing his Divine nature and glorious Godhead who is our True Onely Supream and Eternal Jehova and also the Incarnation of this our God by assuming an humane body and soul and thereby the inestimable benefits which our Redeemer and Saviour hath acquired for us First in exempting his servants from eternal death by his obedience Passive in suffering death in our stead and Secondly by meriting eternal life for us by his Obedience Active in performing the whole Law of God as a Surety and Undertaker for us These things have I endeavoured to set forth not onely by the sacred evidences of the holy Scriptures and by the constant doctrine of the Church-Catholick in several ages thereof but also by humane illustrations and the probable correspondence of our Christian faith with right reason Which thing hath been formerly much wished and thereupon laudably begun in some of the high mysteries of our Religion long ago by a Writer of good antiquity to supply the defect thereof in the elder Writers whereof he saith Rich. de St. Vict. de Trin. l. 1. c. 5. Legi de Deo meo quòd sit Unus Trinus sed undè haec probentur me legisse non memini Abundant in his authoritates sed non aequè argumentationes i. We read the high and holy Mysteries of Christian Religion evidently and abundantly affirmed by authority of Scripture but where to read the proof thereof by humane arguments to convince our Carnal reason we find not This task I have taken upon me now especially in these dangerous Times for that the abounding of moral iniquity and dogmatical impiety maketh me fear that Christianity is upon the point of departure from our dear Countrey as it hath done formerly from most places both in Asia and Africa and also from some parts of our Europe where it once flourished as high as ever it did here I see false prophets multiply with great applause and that the greatest number of the true godly and learned Prophets are disgraced discountenanced silenced and left speechlesse and in their places God knowes for which this Kingdome generally groaneth a new Succession is sprung up like Darknesse succeeding light Which by an Ancient and Wise States-man was observed to be a forerunner and symptom of a Lands destruction Naevius apud Cicer. de Senect Cedo quî vestram Rempub. tantam amisistis tam cito Proveniebant Oratores Novi Stulti Adolescentuli For the like pressures which we now suffer extorted such a sad expression from the holy and learned Bishop Gregory Nazianzen when by reason of the insolencies of the domineering Sectaries he was fain to resign his Church of Constantinople saying in a publick Oration Naz. Orat. 46. ad Nect Deus Ecclesias vitam hanc deseruisse videtur He feared that God had withdrawn his providence from that Church and State Indeed God did in after-time remove the golden Candlestick from thence when he suffered the Turks to possesse that City God in mercy with-hold the like Judgment from this Land both in our dayes and for ever after us But yet when for the present we see so many most impious blasphemies not onely printed and published but also in shew licensed and connived at and that in so many Congregations unlearned intruders are crept in and take upon them to teach others what themselves never learned it seems to me a visible representation of our Saviours words foreshewing a fall For if Matth. 15. 14. the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch at least it seemeth to be like that which we have often seen a poor blind man led by a dog Certainly these things must needs make godly Parents very anxious how their posterity can be instructed in the succeeding generation I have heard a most learned and prudent Gentleman in these Times professe That for the reason before alledged he would be careful to provide some printed Books of the true old Clergy of England that in them the necessary doctrines of Christianity might be had when such will not be found in the new verbal time-serving and men-pleasing Sermon-makers This I confesse hath been a great motive to me for the penning and publishing this Book that so I may in some measure lay up both an antidote and also a store for the good of the soules of mine own family and of others also Which consideration my Lord I am firmly perswaded is deeply printed in your honourable and pious heart as being tenderly affected to your own noble off-spring the surviving Jewels of your most vertuous and dear Lady already with God Which care is imposed upon
Emmanuel as being one with us Let us next see what the Ancient Doctors conceived of this Union to avoid prolixity I will instance onely in St. Austin who saith Aug. in Psal 17. Christus Ecclesia est totum Christi caput corpus And upon those words My God my God why hast thou forsaken me and I cry in the day time and thou hearest not and Let this Cup passe from me and Not my will but thy will be done he saith In Psal 21. Christus dicit de te de me de illo corpus suum gerebat scilicet Ecclesiam membrorum vox erat non timebat mori sed pro his dixit qui mortem timent And again he saith in Ps 26. Omnes in illo Christi Christus sumus totus Christus caput corpus And upon those words Saul Saul why persecutest thou me he saith in Ps 30. Sic vâ—cem pedis suscipit lingua clamat calcas me in membris Christi Christus est Christus est multa membra unum corpus And in Ps 100. Christum induti Christus sumus cum capite nostro cum Christo capite unus homo sumus And in Ps 103. Omnes nos in Christo credentes unus homo sumue And in Ps 127. Multi Christiani unus Christus unus homo Christus caput corpus And in Ps 119. Omnes Sancti sunt unus homo in Christo The summe of all is That Christ and his Members are united so that they are one body and as one person for as the head and inferiour parts in one man are but one body so Christ and his members are but one Christ which the same Father calleth in Ps 36. Ser. 2. Ps 37. Christum plenum And Corpus Christi diffusnm Neither is the Church of England silent in this great mystery of our union with Christ for to shew that the grand reason and the intent and purpose for which Christ ordained the holy Supper was especially to set forth this Union of himself and members to be such as our food is to and with our bodies bread and wine unite themselves to us they grow into one body with us So she saith to faithful Communicants The Exhortat at the Commun That we dwell in Christ and Christ in us We be one with Christ and Christ with us And this also was the reason of instituting Baptisme as St. Paul expresseth it to be baptized Rom. 6. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one body Baptisme is the mysterious sign of our entrance into Christ But the Eucharist is the mystery of Christs entring into us for so St. John maketh the like distinction 1 Joh. 4. 13. Hereby we know that we dwell in him and he in us and after him St. Austin Aug. in Joh. Tract 48. Si benè cogitemus Deus in nobis est Si benè vivamus nos in Deo sumus and indeed this union is principally meant in the Article of the Communion of Saints which in our Creed we professe to believe This Union in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Communion The great Sacrament thereof is therefore called by St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Communion of the body and blood of Christ and because our union with Christ doth unite us with the whole Trinity the Apostle tells us 1 Joh. 1. 3. 1 Cor. 1. 9. Our fellowship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and this is also called 2 Cor. 13. 13. Philip. 2. 1. The fellowship of the Holy Ghost the fellowship of the Spirit But there is a great difference between our common or general union with the whole Trinity and our speciall and particular union with Christ alone for with all the three Persons we are united only by the Spirit because to us is given the Holy Ghost which is the Spirit of the Father and the Son But with the Son we are joyned and united in a threefold bond 1. Spiritu 2. Carne 3. Vadimonio Not onely by his Spirit in us but also in Nature for he assumed flesh with us from the self-same lump of the first man and moreover he is joyned to us in the strong bond of Vadimonie or Suretiship in that everlasting Covenant of Grace before mentioned Concerning the manner of our union with Christ one scruple is to be removed for if we say that we are really and substantially one body with him this doctrine may seem to affirm a personal or hypostatical union of us men with God such as is the union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ so we should make our body the body of God as Christs natural body is and so we make our selves God as Christ is God but this must be confessed to be intolerable blasphemy Our answer is That though Christ and his Church are indeed one body yet they are not one body natural and consubstantial but a body mystically Political as a Corporation a Society a Fraternity not Corpus continuum but Collectivum or aggregativum thus thousands of Souldiers are One Army many graines of corn are but One heap Unae quinque Minae Plaut in Pseud many pieces of money are One summe many letters and lines in one Epistle we call Vnas literas Tully calls one suit of apparel consisting of many parcels Cic. Orat. pro L. Flacco Vna vestimenta and we read Plaut in Trinum Vnos sex dies in Plautus Just so St. Austin expresseth this mystery of Christs body upon those words Psal 11. 1. Salvum me fac Domine Aug. de Unitate Eccles Cap. 13. To. 7. Sic est unus homo qui ait salvum me fac ut ex multis constet for though Christ and his members are many Ones and many Severals which are not united by any internal or natural form yet because they all have one and the same Spirit of Christ in them they are united and made one body or mystical corporation by that one Spirit of Christ of which it is said 1 Cor. 12. 13. By one Spirit ye are all baptized into one body and of these many severals it is said Ro. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ So a body Politick consisting of a multitude of individuals is made one Corporation by the Charter of the Prince and their own agreement but if upon dissension they be tumultuously gathered we rather call them a tumult then a Corporation Aug. De verb. Domini Ser. 26. Da unum populus est tolle unum turba est Touching the last clause of this first Proposition That the same that offended the same is punished whereby our sins seem to be charged upon Christ as if Christ himself had committed sin in whom we are assured no sin was either original or actual as is fully declared in my third Book Chap. 11. Sect. 2. Yet that this is true I am to shew in the explication of
of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Jesus Christ the communication of the properties of each nature the life and death of Nestorius and how Christ is said to be deified FOr the avoyding of the unpardonable sin before mentioned it will not be sufficient to believe and confess that God is in Jesus as a man in a ship or as God was in the Prophets and is now in holy men who are therefore called the Temples of the living God 2 Cor. 6. 16. or as God is every where who filleth heaven and earth Jer. 23. 24. For though God be in an holy Man yet we cannot say that God and that Man are one Person and though God be in Heaven yet he and Heaven are not one hypostasis or subsistence in one Personall union but as our soul and body united and composed are one Man and one Person so the Godhead and Manhood united in Iesus are one Person one Christ Now these two distinct natures to wit the Godhead and Manhood are in Christ so united that they will be for ever inseparable and they are so entwined one with the other that no action or passion can be said of the man Christ which may not be said of God the rule of Divines is Effâ—ctus hypostaticae unionis est Regula Theolog communicatio idiomatum i. The result or effect of the Personall union is a communication of properties which rule is laid and more plainly expressed by St Austine in these words Vnilas Personae Christi sic Aug. to 6. cont Ser. Arian n. 7. constat ex humana divina natura ut quaelibet earum vocabulum impertial alteri i. The unitie of the Person of Christ doth so consist of the Divine and humane natures that each nature imparteth its appellation mutually to the other so that what is properly belonging to the divine nature is ascribed as done also by the humane nature the same is also thus expressed by Theodoret Communia Persona evadunt quae sunt Theod. Dial. impatib n. 13. P. 398. propria naturarum i. By reason of this hypostaricall union those things which are proper to each nature severally become common to the whole person and hence it is that Christ is called the Son of Man and the Son of God eternall and yet born the on of David and yet the Lord of David of him it is said John 3. 13. He that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heauen yet the Manhood did not come from heaven nor was the Manhood at that time in Heaven so again Christ said to the thief Luke 23. 43. To day shalt thou be with me in paradise and yet Christ was not there that day in his body nor by his soul for ought we know but onely by his Godhead which was then in Paradise when his body was on the earth and hence it is that the appellation of God is stamped on the humane and infirm actions and passions of Christ for though he was crucified through weaknesse as it is said 2 Cor. 13. 4. that is as he was man yet because his Divine Nature is for ever inseparable from the humane nature he is truely called Deus crucifixus Hier. ut sup c. 6. Naz. Orat. 51. n. 35. i. God crucified as is shewed before out of Saint Hierome and Nazian saith Si quis crucifixum non adorat anathema sit i. He that doth not worship him that was crucified let him be accursed This great mystery of the hyposiaticall union was prudently discerned by the ancient Fathers Origen saith Judaei Dâ—um crucifixâ—â—unt i. The Jewes crucied Origen hom 5. in Ps 36. Orig. in Luc. hom 38. n. 45. Chrys in synax n. 35. God and the same Father speaking of the tears which Christ shed over Jâ—rusalem calleth them Lacrymas Dei i. the tears of God So St. Chrysostome calleth Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the crucified God The Prophet Esay prophesying of the birth of Christ Esay 9. 6. Vnto us a child is born immediately addeth his name shall be called The mighty God and the Church used the same language Fulgentius saith Maria Fulg. de grat n. 3. est genetrix Dei quia were propriâ— peperit Deum Verbum i. Mary is the Parent of God for she brought forth truly and properly God the Word St. Hierome saith Virgo Deum puerum peperit i. Mary brought Hier. Ep. 30. n. 8. forth a child that is God So Saint Ambrose speaketh i Ambr. in sym n. 20. Deus natus est ex virgine God was born of a Virgine and Athanasius saith k Atha apol 2. n. 15. n. 22. Deus incarnatus Deus passus est God was incarnate and God suffered This doctrine is so true and necessary that otherwise we could not have been redeemed the denying thereof no doubt is within the compass of the unpardonable blasphemy and the Church accounted such as taught the contrary to be in the number of the most dangerous hereticks as may appear by the story of Nestorius thus in brief This Nestorius was by birth a German and was admitted Soc. l. 7. c. 29. Theod. haer fab l. 4. n. 16. to be a Presbyter or Priest in the Church of Antioch from thence he was preferred to be Patriarch of Constantinople and there he was a sore vexer of the Arians Novatians and Macedonian hereticks and so eager therein that he incensed the Emperour against them using this proud speech O Imperator da mihi Soc. l. 7. c. 29. terram purgatam hâ—reâ—icis ego tibi eoelum vetribuam i. If the Emperour would purge his Empire of hereticks he would assure him of Heaven He was a man very cloquent and so proud thereof that he disdained to reade the ancient Writers and so being ignorant of Catholick Doctrine he fell into this Heresie of dividing or separating the two Natures of Christ and particularly teaching that the Virgin Mary ought not to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Parent or Mother of Evag. l. 1. c. 3â— God and because some of his sect would have her called onely ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the mother of a man Nestorius desiring to go in a middle way would have her called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the Mother of Christ but at no hand the Mother of God so his error was in this that he divided and rent and severed the two natures of Christ that which his crucifiers were not permitted to do to his very garments in effect as Vincentius noteth Nestorius duos vult esse Filios Dei duos Christos Vincent Lirin c. 17. n. 53. unum Deum alterum hominem i. Nestorius would have fancied two Sons of God and two Christs whereof one should be God and the other a man and so by denying the unity of his Person he indeed made a quaternity of Persons instead of a Trinitie against the sentence of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his word Men indued with Gods Spirit are Deified because God is in them and as it were mingled with them and worketh in them And Athanasius saith Homines in quibus est Spiritus Deificantur Atha ad Serapion n. 26. vid. 2 Pet. 1. 4. Now in what sense our Saviour may be said to be Deified in the later times of the world who was the supream and onely God from all eternity would next be inquired CHAP. IX More concerning Deification and in what sense Christ may be said to be Deified THe Arians were in this Doctrine something more ingenuous then this Commenter though in them it was also most pernicious for they Ath. Hil. cont Arian n. 7. confessed that Christ was the Son of God because they knew that the Saints were so called and they said Christ was before time began because they believed that Angels and Devils were before the world and they called Christ by the Name of God because the Scriptures call some creature so But they would not confess him to have the same Godhead with the Father for they said that he was Deus factus made a God or Ambros de cil div c. 2. n. 26. deified and that he was the Son of God not by nature but by gift or grace and not by eternall generation but by power given as Kings are called Gods for so Saint Ambrose observeth Deus in Scripturis est Ambr. de fide l. 1. lib. 5. c. 1. n. 22 23. 1 Verus 2 Nuncupativus nam sunt qui dicuntur Dii non sunt 3 Falsus ut Dâ—mones i. In Scripture God signifieth 1 The true God 2 Such as 〈◊〉 but called Gods and â—re not so 3 False gods of 〈…〉 this Commenter when he was argued 〈…〉 learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈…〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessed that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But one of the â—â—â—pany â—â—quired him further to declare how long Christ had been God and whether from Eternity at which question he seemed very angry and for present left the room Now indeed the Fathers do oftentimes apply this word to Christ and say that he was Deified and that in time also and not before his incarnation for he could never have been said to have been deified if he never had been incarnate it is only his humane nature that is said to be deified and not his Spirit or divine nature for the Word cannot otherwise be said to be deified then as he is hominified if I may have leave to use that word for Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh signifieth that God was made man by his incarnation and man was made God by the person I union of the divine and humane natures for so he alcame Theanthâ—opos and Emmanuel The reason is because when God assumed a body by his incarnation that body then became the body of God as is shewed before out of Origen and so that Orig. in Mat. tract 21. n. 41. Father expresseth himself thus Christus deificavit humanam naturam quam suscepit Christ deified that humane nature which he assumed Neither may we think so grosly of this deification as if the flesh of Christ were turned into the Goâ—head but onely because it is joyned to the Godhead and assumed into a personall union with it therefore the Name of God is also stamped upon it so that we may truly say the man Christ is God and yet the body and soul of Christ still are and for ever will be creatures In Aug. Epi. 221. this sense St. Austin saith Homo versus est in Deum nâ—c amisit naturam Man is become God and yet man did not lose his humane nature and thus Athanasius saith Archangeli semper antea adorabanâ— Filium sed nunc Atha Orat. 2. cont 2. Arian n. 5. Jesum adorant incarnatum carne quâ—m deâ—fiâ—averat The Archangels did alwaies before the incarnation worship the Son of God but they worship him now in that flesh which by assuming it he now hath deified For now it is the flesh of God as the Scripture calleth his blood the blood of God Act. 20. 28. and so the same Father useth thâ—s word divers times in the same sense g Atha orat 2. cont Ar. n. 5. h. Id. ser 4. cont Arian n. 7. Non deificatus fuisset homo nisi verbum fuisset incarnatum And h. Christus carnem assumendo hominem deificavit The manhood could not have been deified if the Word had not been incarnate and Christ deified man by assuming flesh St. Austin writing upon those words Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ not of men nor by man Gal. 1. Gal. 1. 1. 1. Aug. exp in Gal. in praefaâ— n. 97. 1. saith 1. Paulus missus est per Christum jam totum Deum quia ex omni parte immortalem That Paul is said not to be called by man because Christ was at that time wholly God because now he was perfectly immortall so he fastned this deification or immortality 2. Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 21. only on his humane nature for his divine nature was the immortall God from all eternity and Theodoret upon those words God hath highly exalted him Phil. 2. 9. saith Est de carne quae deificata est nam dominus Theod. Dial. in confu n. 12. gloriae non dicitur glorificari 'T is meant of the flesh of Christ deified for as he is the Lord of glory he cannot be exalted deified or more glorified So Origen Orig. in Levit. hom 3. saith of a Levitical sacrifice that it signified Carnem Christi in coelis deificandam that the flesh of Christ in heaven was to be deified and this deifying the flesh of Christ is said to be done in heaven because there it was glorified and immortall and on earth he is said to be deified because of the Hypostaticall union of his 3. Pet. Diac. apul Fulg. n. 2. 2 natures whereby his flesh was indeed Caro Dei the flesh of God By thus distinguishing the two natures in Christ the ancient Fathers answered the objections of old hereticks made against the eternall divinity of Christ for in the same sense that the Son of God is said to be Phil. 2. 9. Eph. 1. 20. Mat. 28. 18. Act. 3. 13 15. deified he is also in Scripture said to be exalted to be set far above all Angels and Principalities to be made the head of the Church to sit at the right hand of God to have a name given him above all names that are named That all power is given him in heaven and in earth that God raised him from the dead and that Jesus is made an high Priest for ever all these sayings and many more of this â—ind are to be understood of the humane nature of Christ but cannot be verified of his divine nature Athanasius doth in generall give us this excellent rule m Athan. Ser. 4. cont Ar. n. 7. n. ib. Quae Christus
Aug. de Trin. l. 1. c. 8. n. 60. I answer with St. Austin Tradere regnum est eredentes perducere ad contemplationem Dei to deliver up the kingdom is to bring his Saints to the vision and fruition of God to present them pure unspotted free and fully delivered from the bonds and the ruling power of sin and of death which before had some power over them and God ruled in them but in part so that the dominion of the flesh had also a share in them but at the last judgment they shall be given up free from those intanglements as it is there said that then Christ shall put down all rule and authority and power ver 24. So that nothing shall have rule over them but God and he alone that God may be all in all ver 28. So that this delivering up is but so as Saint Paul desired 2. Cor. 11. 2. to present them to Christ as chaft Virgins and as a Philosopher said to his disciple reddam te tibi meliorem So Christ shall deliver Seneca de Benef l. 1. c. 8. us up to the Father in better condition then he found us for although God by his Omnipotency ruled over us before yet it was but as a King over stubborn and rebellious subjects but then the same God shall reign over the same subjects amended and wholly and willingly and joyfully submitting themselves to his divine will Secondly where it is said Christ shall reign till he â— hath put all his enemies under his feet This doth not signifie that Christ shall reign no longer but that the Kingdom of Christ shall indure untill then in despite of all the opposition of heresies Persecutors and Tyrants or of the world and the flesh and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it So that Christ shall reign till then as a King whose people are perpetually opposing resisting and rebelling against him but yet the King still holdeth his kingdome so albeit in the Kingdom of Christ and in his servants there is strife between the flesh and the spirit yet still the Spirit of Christ retaineth a kingly power in them for although the flesh lusteth against the spirit Gal. 5. 17. yet the Spirit helpeth our infirmities Rom. 8. 26. and God giveth us the victorie through our Lord Lord Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 15. 57. Christ reigneth during this world as a Warrior as the Lord of Hosts but afterwards he shall reign as a true Melchisedec king of Salâ—m Prince of peace so that his kingdom doth not end with the world but shall be refined and reformed not by any change in our King but in his subjects and this is the meaning of this word till in the judgment of Expositors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not alwaies signifie an utter cesâ—ation b Orig. 39. Donec non est definiens tempus c Cyr. Hiero. 17. Donec non habet finem sed consequens quiddam d Thâ—oph in Mat. Donec non adimit posterius e Naz. 28. Donec sequens tempus non excludit i. this word until doth not so limit us to the time past but that it leaveth open all time to come as Matâ—h 28. 28. I am with you unto the end of the world doth not signifie that Christ shall be with them no longer and so also it is used Psal 112. 8. and in many other places Thirdly where it is said the Son himself shall be subject 3. the meaning is not that the Son of God shall cease to be a King and shall turn subject for we are assured that he shall reign over the house of Iacob for ever and of his kingdom there shall be no end Luk. 1. 33. Now what is it in Christ that is capable of subjection but only his humane nature for no man will say that his Godhead can be subjected and as for his naturall â— body or humane nature it ever was and is and for ever shall be subject to his Godhead for the humane nature is ever ruled by the divine nature Neither shall his humane nature ever be depressed depreciated or subjected lower then that preferment which was conferred on it by his Godhead therefore this subjection cannot be meant of his own naturall body but it is indeed meant of his body mysticall his Church his Saints and Elect which are called his members and his body Your bodies are the members of Christ 1. Cor. 6. 15. and the Church is his body Eph. 1. 23. Eph. 5. 30. this exposition as it is most true so was it also that which the Fathers gave of this hard place Athanasius saith f Atha Cont. Apol. n. 22. Cum omnes nos subjicimur tum ipse dicitur subject When all we are subjected to Christ then Christ is said to be suâ—ject and Saint Ambrose saith g Ambr. de Fid. l. 5. c. â— n. 24. Christus subjicietur in nobis nondum subjectus est Christus quia membra nondum subjâ—cta sunt pro nobis â—â—â—it subjectus non pro se et in nobis subjicietur Christ shall be subject but it is in us as yet Christ is not subject because his members are not yet subjected it is in regard of us that he must be subjected not in regard of himself for so long as hâ—s mystical body is not perfectly subjected to the divine will as is shewed before the whole Body of Christ cannot be said to be fully subject and his mysticall body which consists of men over-ruled by the power and rebellion of flesh and blood never was yet perfectly subjected to God nor ever will be wholly obedient to him untill after the resurrection they shall be thus delivered up to the Father perfectly Sanctified Aug. 83. quaest qu. 69. n. 87. and cleansed and thus doth Saint Austin also expound it Subjectus erit dicitur de Christo et de membris ejus Scil. ecclesiâ cujus est caput sic de universo Christo annumerato corpore membris ejus Omnes vos unum estis in Christo Gal 3. 28. Christus universus est caput cum membris This subjection is said of Christ and of his members the Church of which Christ is the head So there is an universall Christ signifying the head and all the members as we read Gal. 3. 28. Yâ— are all one in Christ By what hath been said I trust the Reader will understand that neither this Deification preferment or exaltation nor this Subjection which is said of Christ doth in the least measure derogate from his Eternall and Supream Godhead SECT II. More concerning the subjection of Christ THis speech of Saint Paul that The Son himself shall be subject would be more throughly examined being one of the grand Arguments used by Aâ—iuâ— and his Sect against the eternall Godhead of the Son Therefore I crave thy patience good Reader whilest I discourse unto thee two questions pertinent First how it can be said that The
Son himself shall 1. Quaest be subject whereas in truth onely hâ—s Church is then to be subjected more then it was before and not his own Person no not his very humanity more I say then it was whilest he walked on the Earth For then he was not onely without sin but moreover he was obedient to death even the death of the cross Philip. 2. 8. For the understanding hereof I premise three considerable observations First the Apostle doth not say the Word shall be subject for then he must mean that the Godhead of Christ should be subject which is impossible but he saith the Son shall be subject Now we know nothing is more frequent in Scripture then that holy men are called the Sons of God as Matth. 5. 9. Luke 6. 35. so that the subjection of the Son of God doth here signifie the perfect subjection of holy men at the resurrection of the just as will more appeare anon Secondly I observe that whereas he saith The Son himself shall be subject and yet cannot mean the naturall and individuall Person of Jesus Christ but onely his Church it must needs declare that the appellation of tâ—e Son of God himself is given and communicated to his elect members who are his Body mysticall as being really united to his body naturall and with him who is the head they are One body so that Christ and his Church are called One Christ which by the Fathers is usually called Plenitudo Christi Christus â—â—tuâ— Christus Vniverisus Tertullian in his sense said Tertul. de Poenit. Aug. â—n Jo. Tract 21. of this mystery Ecclesia est Christus cum ad fratrum gâ—nuate proter dis Christum contractas and so Saint Austine Christi facti sumus non soâ—um Christani Plenitudo Christi est caput membra Câ—â—istus Ecclesi i. The Church is Christ so that when you are prostrate at the knees of the brethren you touch the knees of Christ We are not onely Christians but we are Christ the Fulness of Christ is the head and the members that is Christ and hâ—s Church Thirdly Observe that it is said Then shall the Son 3. be subject by which future expression it may clearly appear that the subjâ—ctâ—on here meant is not yet come to pass and therefore cannot be understood of the naturall proper and individuall Person of Jesus Christ for all manner of subjectâ—on that can be expected from him is already perfect in his own proper humanity because himself never rebelled against the Godhead Nazianzen saith of him Annon nunc subjectus est an Naz. Orat. 36. ut de Deâ— hoste loqueâ—is But though Christ in hâ—s own proper humanity ever was is and will be subject to the Godhead yet of Christ in regard of his â—ody Mysticall which is the Church of Elect â—s called by her Spouses Id. ibid. own name the same Father saith Pâ—ccaâ— a nostra sumpsit inobedientiam quamdâ—u egâ— inobediens sum Coristus per me inobediens est Cum subjectionem nostram implevâ—rit nosque adduâ—â—râ—t tum ipsâ— subjâ—ctus dicitur Christ hath taken our sins and dâ—sobâ—dience on himself so long as I am inobedient so long Christ by me is said to be inobedient when he hath wholly subdued us and presented us perfect to the Father then the Son himself is said to be subject The answer to this question How the Son himself Answer shall then be subject is this That in Scripture-language the Church or Saints and Members of Christ aâ—e called and really are with their head One whole Christ they are himself and therefore their subjection is his subjection and so long as they are not fully subjected the Son himself is not wholly subject For if the naturall body of Christ be called Christ as it is when we say Christ is buried when onely his body was buried much rather may his great Mystcall and Pâ—liticall Body be called Christ and so it is 1 Cor. 12. 27. The Body of Christ all the Members are but one Body so is Christ and Gal. 3. 2â— All are one in Christ Jesus see 1 Cor. 6. 15. If it were not for this reall union of Christ and his Church how could Christ truely say I was hungry Matth. 25. 30. and ye gave me meat for the meat is meant of that which is given to his poor Members and not to his own proper self and thâ—s is clearly and often explained by S. Austine a Aug. in Jo. Tract 28. Non enim Christus in capite non in corpore sed Christis toâ—us in capite in corpore and again b In Jo tract 108. Vnus est Christus caput corpus ipsi sunt ego and again c In 1 Epist Jo. tract 1. Carni Christi conjungitur Ecclesia fit totus Christas caâ—u corpus and again d Ibid. tract 10. Filâ—i Dei sunt câ—orpus unics Filii Dei â—um ille caput sit nos Membra unus ' est Fâ—lius Dei and more yet e De Verb. Dei Serm. 14. Caput cum corpore suâ— unus est Christus The Apostle saith Eph. 5. 31. We are memberâ— of his Body of his flesh and of his bones upon which words the same Father saith f De Temp. serm 234. Ipse Christus est spensur sponsa sponsus in capiâ—e sponsa in corpore The sum of what he saith is this We are not to imagine Christ to be onely in the head for the whole Christ consisteth of the head and body The head and body are but one Christ his Members are himself so there is but one Son of God for the whole Christ is both Bridegroom and Bride By reason of this Union Christ said Saul Saul why Acts 9. 4. persecutest thou me For Christ is in Heaven as head but his Body is on Earth If one tread upon the foot the head crieth you tread on me g Aug. de Verb. Dei ser 49. Vnitaâ— est à capite ad pedes head and foot are united as one Body and therefore by the Ancients h Prosp Psal 101. Those which are strong in Christ are called his bones The Apostle is the mouth of Christ Saint Ambrose wished would I were Ambr. n. 51 34 but his Foot Others are his Eyes as the Prophets Others his hands as those that do good and the poor are his belly yea the Prophet calls his people the apple Zach. 2. 8. of his Eye So it is said John 3. 13. No man hath ascended into Heaven but he that came down from Heaven For although holy men ascended into Heaven yet this is a Truth because such are included in the plenitude of Christ i Aug. de Verb. Apost ser 14. In Coeâ—um non ascendâ—t nâ—si Christus si vis ascendere â—sto in corpore He that will ascend must first be in Christ It is said Col. 1. 24. I fiâ—l up that which
expâ—cted in this life for against this thorn in the flesh did this Apostle pray â— but it was answered My Gâ—â—ce iâ— sufficient That 2 Cor. 12. 7. is no other deliverance may be had but power by grace to resist this temptation yet not so much power as to annihilate and quite extinguish it in this life If it be here objected that the Holy Scriptures acknowledge Gen. 6. 9. Job 1. 1. Luke 1. 5. some persons just and righteous and perfect ones as Job and Noah and Zecharie the answer is that this perfection doth not imply impeccancie or impeccability for such just men fall seven times Prov. 24. 16. Noah was just but it is said there in his generation such may be called perfect Travellers but not perfect Possessors having not yet finished their course so a child is called perfect which hath all his limbs and lineaments compleat yet is far from a perfect man and a perfect man is yet far short of Angelicall perfection Men are called just who are not Aug. de natura Grat. â— 38. free from sin Justi suâ—runt sine peccato non suerunt That this truth hath been ever acknowledged by the Church may appear in that the Apostle saith â—f we say we havë no sin we deceive our selves civitas 1 Joh. 1. 8. Dei oâ—atâ— dimiâ—te nobis debiâ—a the universall Church in the time of prayer saith Forgive us our trespasses Indeed Aug. de Civit l. 19. c. 22. De peccat merito l. 2. c. 6. S. Austin confesseth That a man may sometime live without acting a sin yet that any mortall man can be without sin he denyeth For when the Pelagians urged that the Virgin Mary was without sin he desired to be excused from all accusation of that Blessed Mother of our Lord God yet he was assured that all Saints on earrh would submit to that speech of Ambr. de Jacob l. 1. c. 6. Hier. ad Ctesiphon cap. 5. Id. Cont Pelag l. 2. cap. 8. Saint Iohn If we say we have no sin c. Sainâ— Ambrose saith Non glâ—riâ—r quia justus sum sâ—d quia redemptus not glorying in Justice but in Justification St. Hierom saith men are called just not because they are without sin but because they are endowed with many vertues as Ezechias was a just man though he sinnâ—d and wept he did not lose the repute of a just man for some sins but he retained it because withall he performed many just and worthy actions besides a man is â—steemed righteous when his unâ—ighteousnesse is forgiven as he is â—steemed with God a performer of the Law whose transgrâ—ssions are pardoned Omnia Aug. Retract 1. c. 19. mandata facta deputanâ—ur quando quiâ—quid non fit ignosciâ—ur Now that the rebellion of flesh and blood or concupiscâ—nce doth contâ—nually dwell in all mankind during this life may clearly appear in the Holy Person of Saint Paul by his own words for thus he writes Rom. 7. 19. The goâ—d that I would I do not but the evil which I would not that I do f we inquire what evill it is which the Apostle would not do and yet did it it must needs be answered that evill concupiscences or carnall lusts did arise in him which he desired to be quit of and free from that they might not all be in him but because evill concupiscences will ever be in mortal men therefore his next care is that such desires may be râ—sisted so that they proceed not into action as he saith Rom. 6. 12. Let not sin reign in your mortall body that ye should obey iâ— in the lusts thereof he doth not say let it not be for it will alwaies be in us but let it not rule and pâ—evail over Grace So Gala. 5 16. wâ—lk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh he doth say ye shall not have those lusts but not fulfill and peâ—form them and ver 17. Ye cannot do the thing that ye would that is because ye cannot as you desire be free and quit from evill desires so as no evill desires at all should arise in you yet resist them do not obey them Tene Aug. de Verb. Dei ser 43. manus pedes ocuâ—oâ— c. withhold your members from acting those carnal suggestions Where he saith What I hate that I do We are not Rom. 7. 15. to imagine that the Apostle meaneth that although he hated fornication adultery rapine c. yet he did act these things but he meaneth that he hated evill lusts which yet did continually arise in him he desired they might not all be in him Nolo concupiscere tamen conâ—upisco O â—i tamen Aug. de verbis Apost ser 5. ago quamvis membraâ—â—eneo arma nego So himself adviseth Rom. 6. 13 Yâ—â—ld not your members as iâ—st â—ments of unrighteousness Although sinfull desires arise in Id de Temp. Ser. 45. your carnall heart Rebellant râ—bella pugnant pugna This is the strife betwen the flesh and the spirit he did continually resist those temptations Luctabatur noâ— Id. ibid. subjugâ—baâ—ur alwayes strâ—ving with them but not overcome by them Rom 8. 8. They that are in the flesh cannot please God Though holy men are in the flesh yet because they are not over-ruled by the flesh they do please Id. de verbis Apost Ser. 6. God Carnem portant sed non pâ—rtantur ab â—a Where he saith Rom. 7. 25. With the mind I my self serve the Law of God but with the flesh the Law of sin We are not to think that the naturall mind or intellective faculty of this Apostle was free from carnall concupiscence for by nature our whole man body and soul is carnall but the mind here signifieth his understanding reformed and renued by the Spirit of God for the very naturall spirit or mind of man needeth â— renuing by the Spirit of Grace as himself saith Ephes 4. 23. Bâ— râ—nued in the Spirit of your mind When he saith Rom. 7. 17. It is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me His meaning is not to excuse himself so as if he were without sin and blameless But that his Spirituall part or in ward man did detest that which his carnall part or outward man did suggest Just so doth this Apostle ascribe his holy and spirituall actions not to himself but to the Grace of the Spirit as 1 Cor. 15. 10. I laboured more then they all yet not I but the Grace of God which was with me So 1 Cor. 7. 10. I command yet not I but the Lord. So again Gal. 2. 20. The conclusion is that The Son himself that is to say Christ as he is considered with the plenitude of his Mysticall Body and so is the Whole Christ cannot be perfectly subject and obedient to the Godhead untill this mortall hath put on immortality and our naturall body be raised a Spirituall body when
still worship toward the Temple and our Saviour tells us which is the true Temple indeed Iohn 2. 19 21. Destroy this Temple in 3 dayes I will raise it up But he spake of the Temple of his body For Iesus est Deus Templum Dei saith Nazianzen i. Naz. Orat. 43. Jeius is both the Temple of God and the God of the Temple And so Saint Austine saith Christus est Sacerdos Aug. de dog Eccl. n. 73. Sacrificium est Deus Temâ—lum i. Christ is the sacrificer and the sacrifice he is the God and the Temple And Origen saith Christus est Templum in Orig. in Josh Hom. 17. utero Virginis formatuâ— i. Christ is the Temple built in the Virgins womb And Athanasius more plainly expresseth this Mystery Digni sunt Ariani qui Atha Or. 5. cont Ar. n. 4. â—aepè percant qui prisci populi reverentiam â—rga Templum laudant sed Dâ—minum in carne ut in Templo suo adorare recusant i. The Arians have well deserved perdition who praise the Iewes for their reverence towards the Temple yet themselves refuse to worship the Lord iâ— the Temple of his Body Solomon saith Proverbs 9. 1. Wisedome hath built her an house Who is wisedome but God and what house is it but as Athanasius often expoundes that saying Corpus Christi Atha ser 3. cont Ar. n. 6. est Domus sapienâ—iae i. The house of Wisedome is the Body of Christ The word building in Scripture is applyed to an humane body as well as to an house Gâ—nesis 2. 22. Deus aedificavit costam in muâ—erem i. God builded the woman of Adams rib and Ruâ—h 4. 1. Rachâ—l and Leah did build the house of Israel and in three dayes I will raise it Iohn 2. As if it were the raysing of an house So the Mysticall Body of Christ which is his Church is called Gods building 1. Cor. 3. 9. In brief Iesus Christ in respect of his divine Nature is our God and the Temple wherein our God dwelleth and that which is truely said to be his rest for ever Psalme 132. 14. Is his glorified Body now in Heaven When we compose our selves to Prayer we lift up our mindes to this God in that Temple God Incarnate is the finall and ultimate Object of our adoration there is no way to approach to our God with any hope of obtaining pardon and remission of sins but through the open doores of the Temple of his wounded body therefore our Prayers are all sealed with Through Iesus Christ our Lord. He that maketh any approach to God otherwise then considered in this Temple must expect to finde him onely as a severe and offended Judge but whâ—n he looketh on us through his Sonne his severity is sweetned Filius est dulâ—edo Dâ—i i. The Sonne is Fulg disc object Arian n. 1. the sweetnesse of God When he beholdeth us through Jesus Christ he is pacified and gâ—acious the clouds and tempests of Gods anger are asswaged by the serenity of the Countenance of Jesus Vulâ—u quo Coelum tempestatesque sâ—renat Virg. Aâ—n 1. Are we not therefore called Christians because we worship God in Christ To him Saint Stephen directed his Prayer Acts 7. 57. Lord Iesus receive my spirit And Saint Paul also Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father comfort your hearts for so Christ had given direction before Iohn 14. 13. Whatsoever ye shall aske in my Name that will I doe that the Father may be glorified in the Son By what hath been said I trust the danger of this Commentors bold assertion will be discovered who tells us that Christ is not to be believed P. 54. in finally but God in Christ not believing or not considering that the Godhead is in Christ And therefore Christ in respect of this Gohead is to be believed in and prayed to finally and â—erminaâ—ely as the utmost object of our Faith and the Manhood of Christ so endowed with and united to the same Godhead is to be believed in and prayed to Mediately for by the Incarnation of the Godhead in Jesus he became our Advocate and Mediatour and a Priest which is next to be discoursed CHAP. XV. That the most high God became a Mediatour and a Priest and that Christ is prayed unto and yet is a Mediatour Every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed unto THe Commentor tells us That the supream God P. 80. c. 5. v. 5. can no way be a Priest and therefore Christ is not supream God because he is maâ—e a Priest This assertion is most false and blasphemous he that affirmeth it either never was Christian or else must be an Apostate because to say that the most high and onely God cannot be a Priest is all one as to say This God cannot assume flesh or be Incarnate For in the same manner the supreme God became a Priest in which he became a Mediatour and both by assuming humane nature For if it be demanded how we can pray to Christ seeing he is our Mediatour and Priest who interceedeth and prayeth for us and that by him we approach to God so that we may seem rather to pray by him then to him and if Christ be the finall Object of our Prayer who is our Mediatour To this it may be answered that Christ is a Mediatour in the same sense that he is a Priest and in that sense he prayed Now he became a Priest and a Mediatour by assâ—ming Manhood for Saint Chrysostomâ— Chrys Hom. Ant. 32. n. 12. saith truely Christus orabaâ— ut homo nam Deus non â—rat i. Christ prayed in that he was a Man for God doth not pray And Saint Austine saith Christus Aug. de Civit. â— 20. c. 10. est Sacerdo quatenus est Filius hominis i. Christ is not a Priest but by being the Sonne of Man For although it be said Rom. 8. 26. The Spi it maketh intercâ—ssion for us though the Spirit as it signifieth the third Person was not Incarnate the meaning is onely that the Holy Ghost helpeth our infirmities in prayer as is there said and nos intâ—rpellare facit It enableth and stirreth us up to pray as Saint Austine Aug. expos in Ro. n. 96. expounds it not that the Spirit it self prayeth for us When Eudoxius the Arian was newly placed in the Episcopall seat of â—onstanâ—inople the first sentence that he uttered was this blaâ—phemy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. l. 2. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father is impious the Sonne is pious at which words when the people began to raise a tumult he appeased them by saying that his meaning was that the Father never prayed but the Son did often pray his intent was hereby to insinuate that because Chrâ—st prayed therefore he was not God but was onely a creature which â—s the Argument which our Commenter useth against the Priesthood of God for indeed the pure Godhead
cannot be said to pray because there is none greater to be prayed unto therefore God must be incarnate before he can be a Priest or pray but as he was a perfect Man so might he pray for us and as he was perfect God so we may and must pray to him For all Prayer is directed to God onely but not to the Father onely and because the Godhead is in every Person so that every Person is God therefore Prayer may be made to any Person and Christ will yet still continue our Mediatour both to the Father and to the Holy Ghost and to himself also for he that prayeth to one Person prayeth to all three Persons for they are all inseparately involvd one in another The Father is in me I am in him Joh. 14. 11. and the Father and I are one Joh. 10. 30. But this is warily thus to be understood That the Godhead or Essence of the Father is in the Son whereby the Son is called God but the Pâ—rsonality or Propriety of the Father is not in the Son for the Father cannot be called the Son nor the Son the Father otherwise then as is shewed before that the Godhead in any Person is the Eternall Father Divines have observ'd upon that place Io. 16. 23 Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my Name He saith the Father not my Father for if he had said My Father then the asking had been confined to one Person for onely one is the Father of the Son of God but in that he saith The Father he doth not debar us from praying to the other Persons because as hath been shewed out of Esay 9. 6. every Person is the eternall Father because every one is one God There is but one God in the three Persons and that one God the second Person being God Incarnate is our Mediatour and though he be Mediatour because Incarnate yet neither his Mediatourship nor his Incarnation do nullifie his Godhead so that our Saviour is Mediatour for us to himself to his own Godhead so that we may pray to the Son to hear us for his own sake For Iohn 14. 14. Where it is said If ye aske any thing in my Name The old reading was as may be yet seen in Sâ— Hieromâ— If you aske me any thing in my Name and Beza confesseth as much though he imagined that it was taken out of the Margin into the Text. So Christ is prayed to as he is God and he is Mediatour as he is Emmanuel Every Person is God therefore every Person is to be prayed unto and he that nameth but one Person in Prayer doth not exclude the rest because all are but one God This was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church delivered singularly and profoundly by Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine Vnus Deus in tribus haec tria Amb. in symb n. 20. unus Dâ—us One God is in three Persons and three Persons are but one God And Vnus est Ommipotens Tripotens Deus Paâ—er Filius Spiritus There is but one Omnipotent and Tripotent God the Father Son and Holy Ghost And again Singulus horum Deus simul Id. de Doct. Chr. l. 1. c. 5. omnes unus Deus singulus horum plena substantia simul omnes una substantia Every Person is God and all are one God Every one is perfect God and all together are but one God And again Singula sunt in singulis omnia in singulis singula in omnibus Id. de Trin. lib. 6. c. 10. omnia in omnibus unum omnia Every one is in every one and all in every one and every one in all and all in all and One is all Hence it is that every Person may be prayed unto and glorified as in Scripture the Seraphims crie Holy Holy Holy Esay 6. 3. Rev. 4. 8. and the Christian Church both ancient and modern in her Doxologies used to glorifie the three Persons alike Gloria Patri Filio Spiritui and in her prayers invoked all and in her Creeds confessed all CHAP. XVI The Godhead of Christ shewed from the adoration of his Person and how God is to be worshipped being incarnate IF it be again demanded how we can perform Divine adoration to Jesus in the Temple of his Body being now God Incarnate except at the same time we adore a creature because his Body still is a creature for though it be indeed the Body of God yet nevertheless it is a body and therefore a creature Or shall we therefore adore his Body because it is the Temple wherein God dwelleth If so then as Athanasius Ath. de incar n. 22. objecteth Adora quoque Sanctos ob Deum inhabitantem By that reason you may worship the Saints on earth because their Bodies are the Temple of God and God is in them and then why should we not worship the Sun and Moon and other creatures as well for God is in them because he is every where The Manichees worshipped the Sun because they thought the Aug. Cont. Faust l 20. c. 2. Son of God was there For answer hereunto we are to understand that God is in another manner existent in holy men and other creatures then he is existent in the humane nature of Christ as is shewed before chap 8 For the Godhead and Manhood in Christ are one Person but not so in other creatures God dwelleth in a Saint 1 Iohn 4. 16. yet you cannot say that God and the Saint are one person for if so then that Saint must be called God and should be worshipped as God but we profess Hier. cont Vigil n. 17. with Saint Hierome that we are so far from worshipping a Saint or a martyr that we will not worship an Angell or an archangel nor Cherubim nor Seraphim but neither do we refuse to worship God though he be invested with his humane nature his humiliation by taking the form of a servant upon him doth not ungod him neither can we separate his Godhead from his manhood that so we might worship the pure Godhead alone Fidelis veneratur Domiâ—um in corpore latentem saith Athanasius the faithfull worship Ath. 26. n. Theod dial in conf n. 12. God though veiled in his body as we may perform civil worship to our King though he be clad in vulgar apparell yet not worship his apparel and No man will say to the King First put off thy Robe and Crown Epiph. in Anc. n. 27. o King and then I will do obeysance to thee and if the King should put off his Robe yet none would worship the Robe So no man can say to Christ Lay aside thy Body and then I will adore thee but we adore God in Christ although God be there united unseparably with his body and if we could separate his body really from his Godhead we should not worship it alone because it is a creature and this also is the determination of Athanasius Quis
tam vecors est ut ita loquatur Absiste à corpore ut te adorem oec who is so foolish Ath. cont Arian or 5. n. 4. as to say to God lay aside thy Body that I may worship thee or who can shew us his body emptied of his Godhead Therefore albeit we do not adore his Body as the Vtimate and uttermost object of our adoration yet we resuse not to worship our God with his body Concomitant for St. Thomas when he saw Christs body and touched his wounds yet he said My Lord and my God Ioh. 20. 28. The women held him by the feet yet worshipped him Maith 28. 9. The Psalmist saith Exalt the Lord our God and worship at his Footstool Psalme 99. 5. What is meant by his Foostoole St. Chrysostome tells us The earth is his Footstoole Isa 66. 1. Because the Body of Christ was Chrys ser de Trin. n. 57. from Adam and Adam from the earth and this body is united to God therefore our God though in it is to be adored Some men are offended when they see a man worship his God if his face betowards the East or Communion-table suspecting that the worship is done to the Table or to the East though they are told it is done to God onely as also if in time of divine service a man bow his knee to Jesus when that name is named some will say the bowing is done to a sound a word or letters just so the heathens said that the Christians worshipped the Sun because they assembled on the Sunday and because they used to adore God with their faces turned toward the East as Tertullian saith and some also said that Christians worshipped Tert. apol c. 16. n. 4. Bacchus and Ceres that is Bread and Wine because at receiving of the Sacrament they used a reverend adoration of God as we read in St. Austin yet these slanders did not deter the Christians from their Aug. cont Faust l. 20. c. 13. usuall discipline But these Brethren would think as I suppose that themselves were much wronged if a man should tell them that they worship a Chaire a Form or Table because when they pray they kneel before some of these When God appeared to Abraham Abraham bowed himself toward the ground Gen. 18. 2. Will any man say that Abraham worshipped the earth No saith St. Ambrose Non terram sed Iesum nascitu um è terra resurrecturum he worshipped Amb. de Abrah l. 2. n. 13. not the earth but Jesus who afterwards was to be incarnate and to rise again out of the earth The worship of Jesns is the adoration of his divine person in heaven and not of a name or word and this adoration and genuflection is of a higher consequence and greater weight then some Christians are aware of as will appear by that which followes CHAP. XVII That genuflection to our Lord Jesus was apointed onely to be as an acknowledgment of his God-Head Because the great work of mans redemption is founded upon the Godhead of Jesus and that the denying or disbelieving that doctrine is a certain mark and character of unpardonablenesse therefore good Christian Reader consider with thy self what a charitable and prudent care this Church of England had of thy soules health when to keep thee in a perpetuall memorie thereof and a continuall confession of this great and weighty truth she required that when the Lord Iesus shall be mentioned in time of divine service lowly reverenâ—e be done the reason alleadged by that Canon is of the greatest concernment that can Canon 18. be imagined Testifying their due acknowledgment that the Lord Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 and eternall Son of God is the only Saviour of the world in whom alone all the Mercies Graces and promises of God to mankind for this life and the life to come are fully and wholly comprised by which words it is apparent that the principall intent of that Canon was for the acknowledgment of the Lord Jesus to be the true and eternall Son of God and thy redeemer which is that necessary doctrine which I have endeavoured all this while to set forth and this is the very same reason that is alleadged on those Scriptures where the bowing to Jesus Christ is mentioned For when it is said of Christ Rom. 14. 10 11. Every knee shall bow to me the reason followes immediately Every tongue shall confesse to God that is that every one shall acknowledge adoration due to this our God And so again where it is said Phil. 2. 10. At the name of Iesus every knee should bow the reason followes verse 11. That every â—ongue should confesse that I sus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father to signifie that therefore bowing to Jesus Christ is required that by it he might be acknowledged to be the Lord and certainly therefore onely did the Church of England require this adoâ—ation adoâ—atâ—on of Jesus to have a perpetuall and solemne confession thereby of his Godhead yet our Commenter will not confesse Jesus to be God though he do confesse that Divine râ—verence is commanded â—o be given to Christ by bowiug c. in the sâ—mâ— manner Page 7. that is due to God himself in this the Commenter doth fully agâ—e with the practice of the old Arians who were therefore blame by Athâ—nâ—sius because they performed religious adoration to Jesus as the Catholick Atha cont Arian Or 1. n. 4. Church did but yet â—hey would not confesse him to be God and so in effect they did serve him whom they thought to be but a creature and therein differed not from Heathens and so St. Basil a gueth both agaâ—â—st the Sahellians and Arians out of the Church Câ—â—ed to â—f the Son and the Holy Ghost be but creatures Cur Basil cont Sabel Ar. ho. 27 n. 17. non dicimus â—redo in Deum in univâ—râ—am creaâ—uram Nam si pium est â—n porâ—ionâ—m creâ—tuâ—ae crâ—dâ—re multò magis in â—â—tam Why do we not say in our Creed I believe in God and the woâ—ld for if the Son be but a part of the world and a câ—â—atuâ—e it is far better to believe in the whole creature thâ—n in one part of it And this also was obseâ—ved in the Arians Amb. de fil divin c. 3. n. 26. by St Ambrose that they did not adore Jesus because they thought him to be God but Virâ—ute praeâ—epti only because they belâ—eved that such an adoration was injoyned Philip. 2. 10. their colour for it was because the honour of genuflection is there said to be given to Iesus by Gâ—d veâ—se 9. and so they would Amb. Hexam l. 6. c. 9. have it due to him onely by gift and not by nature indeed Saint Ambrose saith that the honour of genuflection was the gift of the Father to the on just as the Scâ—ipture saith but Saint Bâ—sil doth fully shew the meaning of that Scripture God
the Holy Ghost can be seene becase the Godhead of every and all Persons is one and alike invisible for God is a spirit and a spirit cannot be seene and therfor S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa triâ—itâ—s intellâ—giâ—ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist 112. Aug. Epist 111. Tert. cont Prax. Pater i. The whole trinitie is invisible and not only the Father and again he saith The whol trinitie is of a nature invisible and again he saith out of Ambros. and Hierome Neither the Father nor the Son can be seen in their divine nature For so noe Eye can see them and therfore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis i. Patriarks saw God not in the plenitude of his Majestie but according to the capacitie of man and to this both Ahanasius and Atha ad Antio n. 28. Chrys. ho. 48. Antio n. 17. Chrisostome agree Nemo essentiam invisibilis i. The essence of God is to all mortalls invisible The divine nature and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture somtimes calls the face of God of which God said to Mooses Thou canst not see my face and live so Theodoret expounds those words divina natura Theod Dialog immutat Atha quest ad Antioch n. 28. Aug. de Trin. l. 2. sub aspectum non cadit i. the divine nature can not be seen so doth Athanasius 1. Anteriora dei significant divinitatâ—m i. the foreparts of God signifie the Godhead and so S. Austin often tels us that the face of God signifies the form of God and the afterparts signifie the form of a servant which is the humane nature But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spake unto Moses face to face and how could Jacob say I have seene God face to face if the pure Godhead can not be seene And how could Moses tell the Israelites Deut. 5. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount and yet before he had said Deut 4. 15. yee saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb I answer that as in one place of those Scriptures alleaged the face of God signifies his divinitie or Godhead which can not be seen so in the other place it signifieth Gods presence manifested by words or signes wherby God declare th himself present as on mount Horeb by fier and thunder and in the tabernacle by a cloud or by a sound and words so Gods face or presence may be where there is no sight of him and so he spake to the people face to face because they knew for certaine that God was there present But Iacob saw the face of God because he saw the face of that man or that shape which wrastled with him when God appeared to him in the forme of a man although Iacob could not see the pure Godhead and this kind of appearing in an assumed shape is called by Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The appearing of God from hence the Dion Areop Caelest Hier. c. 4. Eus de Dem. l. 5. c l. 14. aforementioned Ensebius argued that because Iacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him in which man was God therfore he said it was the person of the Son and not the Person of the Father because Eusebius was persuaded that the Person of the Father did never shew himself in a visible shape â—nd for this Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons of which more hereafter CHAP. IV. More concerning the first question how God hath bin and may be seen FOr the further explanation of this question it would be inquired how it is said that God is visible and hath bin seene and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible which in their owne Spiritual nature are as invisible as the divine nature is for because a spirit hath nothing in it self which can be an object for mortal Eyes therfore whensoever Spirits or Angels good or bad are seen of men it must be by assuming some shape or body and mingling themselves with it that so they may become a fit visible object because only such things are visible for ever so many invisibles whether they be good or bad spirits Angels or devils cannot make one visible Object and therfore when we read in Scripture that God appeared in an Angel it is not so to be understood as if the invisible God became visible by taking uppon him the invisible nature of an Angel for an Angelâ—â—al nature is of it self as invisible as the divine nature as is said because both are Spirits but when God is seen in an Angel the Angel meant is the corpoâ—â—al visible shape which God assumeth and imployeth and useth for that purpose to be seen and to converse with man by for the word Angel doth not alwayes signifie a spiritual nature but any officer imployed by God as a Messenger so S. Iohn the Bapâ—ist is called Gods Angel Mat. 11. 10. in the Original So that the visible creature which is used as a Medium to present God visible is and may very fitly be called the Angel of God As Moses therfore put a Veile over his shining face which otherwise the people could not behold and as the Sun by our weak Eyes is better seen through the veil of a thâ—n mist then in its Cleer brightnes so in this life God is visible Only as in a glosse â—arkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightneâ— is invisible but the Invisible things of God are seen by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinitie can â—ot be sâ—â—e except it be clothed and allayed with some moâ—e grosse and Material veil and therfore at what time God shewed himself visibly to men he took some corpâ—real Creature and shape unto him that so he who by nature is invisible might in that assumed habit be seen and this was the resolution of the Fathers a Filius Atha de uniâ— Tâ—in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Maâ—â— iâ— Filius vâ—sus est Patriarchis in specie hâ—minis i. The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material and visible shape as â—â— a Man So S. Chrisostome saith The Prophets which saw Chrys ho. 10. Antâ—o Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id Epist 11â— God had not otherwise the expresse sâ—ght oâ— him sed figuras viderund i they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conveâ—sing with man in Paradise saith Deus locutus est cum pâ—imâ—s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali and againe Deus non est visâ—â— nisi assumptione creaturae i God talked with first parents in some bodily shape for God can not be seen but by assuming some Creature and
writing upon those words Gen 3. 8. They heard the voice of the Lord God walking he saith quomodo ambulatio Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 10. Prosp de vit Cont. l. 1. c. 5. lib. 2. c. 18. latio dei possit intelligi sine humans specie non video i I doe not see how the walking of God can be understood except we suppose that God assumed an humane shape Prosper also the follower of Austin saith Deus non potest hic videri sine assumptione Elementi non sine forma visibilis creaturae i. God can not be seen but by assuming some Elementarie and visible forme of a Creature and this doctrine was so generally received that Austin saith again Deum apparuisse humanis Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 14. Oculis per Creaturam subjectam quis dubitat i who doubteth that God hath indeed appeared to mans sight by assuming some Creature The sum of all is that God hath bin seen but not in his single and pure divine nature but by assuming and involving himself in some Element figure body or shape and those apparitions of God in the old Testament did but accidentally point at the great and principal Appartiion of God described in the new Testament where it is said Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his glorie and Coloss 2. 9. In him dwelleth all the fulnes of the Godhead bodily and 1 Tim. 3. 16. Great was the mysterie of Godlines God manifest in the flesh For indeed all the apparitions of God in the old Testament were but types figures proems preludes preambles praefigurations or as dumb shewes If I may so speak of the incarnation of the same God in the person of Jesus all fore-shewing that the most high only God would in the fulnes of time take upon him men's nature S. Austine saith of that apparition which Ioshua saw when God appeared to him like a man of warr Iosh 5. 13. That it was the Son of Aug de 5 haer c. 4. God 1. Jesus Iesum interrogat figurae veritate i. Ioshua who is also called Jesus Iesus the typespake to Iesus who is the truth and substance of that type for the auncients made this Construction of all the apparitions of God in humane shapes to be but as types of the incarnation of the same God as wil appeare more cleerly hereafter CHAP. V. The Incarnation of God foreshewed in types the heresie of the Anthropomorphites the first article of the Church of England explained GOd began very early to promise and intimate by words and signes the great and profitable Mystery of his owne Incarnation and his gracious work of the redemption of man for he said before he created Man Gen. 1 26. Let us make Man in Our Image and God created Man in his owne image first here is Our Image in the plural number intimating the image of the trinitie to be in the soule of man Consisting in Will Memorie and Understanding as S. Austin expounds it and here is also mention of his owne Aug. comp Ser. Arian to 6. c. 16. Tert. de Resur Gen 1. 27. Tert. adv Prax. Image in the singular number that is as Tertullian expounds it more then once Deus ad imaginem suam fecit hominem Limus iste jam â—unc imaginem Christi induens futuri in carne Christus Cogitabatur homo suturus i. that the image of God was meant of Christ who in after ages would take the same shape of man upon him And againe he saith on those words In the jmage of God Created he him Sc. an Imaginem Filii qui homo suturus Orig. in Gen. ho. 1. i. that the Image of God signifies the image of the Son of God who was to be a man and Origen expounding the same words tels us that the image of God there signifies Imaginem Salvatoris i. That man was made in the same humane image that one day Our saviour would assume and albeit the image of God may have other significations as righteousnes holines c. Yet nothing hindreth this exposition to be one and the jmage thus expounded houldeth when the other is ceased or much defaced and what els is the meaning of that saying The seed of the Woman shall Gen. 3. 15. bruise the serpents head But that the Son of God should take flesh of the Woman and therein prevaile against Satan and why should both Abraham and Jacob require Gen. 24. 47. 29. Aug. cont sec Manichae c. 23. to 6. Amb. de Abrah l 1. c. 9. Hier. cont Jov. l. 1. c. 5. that at the taking of an oath the hand should be put under their thigh a strang booke to Swear on but S. Austin expounds it Abraham prophetabat deum Caeliâ— im eam carnem â—sse venturum quae fuisset exillo femore propagata i. Abraham prophecied that the God of heaven would assume flesh propagated from Abrahams thigh and the very same reason is rendred by S. Ambrose and S. Hieâ—ome but most memorable is the passage with Jaâ—ob which wee read Gen. 32. 22. There wrastled a man with Jacob This man was God to signifie that there would be a contention between the Son of God made man and Jacobs posteritie Jacob seemed stronger then the man and held him and prevailed to signifie that Jacobs posteritie who are called by his name Iacob and Israel should so prevail with God incarnate as to be stronger and to hold him as the Jewes did in bonds and durance and to nail him on the câ—osse Iacob halted that is his posteritie would faile and falter in the faith of the God of Iacob yet Iacob obtained a blessing signifying that the Jews or all true Israelites nothwithstanding all their contentions and injuries done to this incarnate God yet by houlding him in faith should obtaine a blessing and this is the exposition of Tertullian lib de Tâ—in If that book Tert. de Trin. be his And for the same reason I take it did it please the only and most high God to appeare to Abraham in the habit of man Gen. 16. and to converse with him and to be entertained at meat by Abraham as a guest and all this was acted as a prophetical scean or shew that Abraham might with his eyes behould a representation of that great mysterie of God incarnate which one day should be really performed when the same God who now conversed with Abraham but in a temporarie and assumed shape of man should really become a very and perfect man and converse with and be entertained by Abrahams posteritie These and such like passages may further infome us in the true meaning of those hard words which God said to Moses when he could him that he should see his â—◠〈◊〉 but not his face Ex. 33. 23. What the face or forepart of God signifies I have shewed before that it signifies his divine nature the Eternal Godhead but
his back parts signifie his later dispensations in assuming our nature of the Virgin Mother his birth his conversation with men his passion death resurrection ascention so that the meaning is that Moses viz. the Mosaical people should in after times see God when God should be incarnate So Athanisius expounds it posteriores Ath. ad Antio quaest 23. n. 28. dei partes carnen intellige quam assum sit ex Virgine per quam conspectus est i by the back-parts of God you must vnderstand his flesh taken of the Virginâ— Marie in which flesh he was seen and this also is the exposition of Origen on Psal 36. hom 4. and Austin giues a reason why the incarnation is callâ—d the after parts of God Propter posteritaâ—em mortalitatis vel Aug. de Trin. l. 2. 17. quia poster ùs â—arnem assumpturus erat i. because his mortal or humane nature was to be assumed long after Moses time and later then his divine nature which had bin from all Eternitie Neither doth this Doctrine by asserting the incarnation of God any way countenance the heresie of the Anthropomorphites who ascribed corporeal lineaments and parts to God and because it is said Esa 66. 1. heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool they thought the divine nature was a vast body teaching from heaven to earth as Origen relates of them Orig in Gen. ho. 1. and because they read of the hand and arme and eyes of God simple monks as they were they ascribed those parts literally to the divine nature which are spoken of in Scripture but figuratively these were the Andian Enrors as wee read in Epiphanius The odoret Sozomen these men thought a body to be essential to God as if God could not be God except he had a body but wee say the body or humane nature is not essential to God no not to the person of the Son of God but it is an accessarie assumed and not into the essential union with the Son but into personal union with him being now God incarnate for he was God and the Son of God before his incarnation so that although the divine nature in its owne essence or pure Godhead is incorporeal yet the same Godhead now considered in the Person of Christ cannot be said to be without a body for as Theodoret noteth Christus Theod. dial 3. n. 13. significat Deum incorporatum non incorporeum id est Christ signifieth God incarnate and not God incorporeall because the Son of God who is the One and onely true God is now Emmanuel the Godhead and the Manhood in him are inseparably united for ever and in this sence I conceive the first Article of Religion in the Church of England is to be p. Art 1. understood which saith p. God is without Body because albeit God never will be without his assumed Body yet this Body is not of the Essence of God for although the Son of God never had assumed a Body nor ever had been incarnate yet nevertheless he had been and shall be God and the Sonne of God from everlasting to everlasting This I hope is enough concerning the first question of Gods visibility and invisibilitie CHAP. VI. The Second question why the Fathers said that 2 Question onely the Son was seen by the Patriarks and not the Father IT being granted that the Father and the Son are but one onely and the same God allthough distinct in proprieties and Persons it would be inquired why the Fathers before mentioned said that the Son appeared and was seen when the Father did not appear nor was seen for how can one be seen and not the other when both are one Before I enter upon this question I desire the Reader to take notice of two things First that this discourse is intended to be onely concerning such a sight of God as mortall men are capable of in this life because it is not revealed to us how man shall see God in the life to come of which it is said Marth 5. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God and yet also the impure shall see God for every eye shall see him and they also which pierced him Rev. 1. 7. Saint Austine expounding the words Zach. 12. 10. They shall Aug. de Trin lib. 1. c. 13 look upon me whom they pierced saith The wicked shall not see him in thâ— form of God but in the form of a servant because God shall sit in judgement as he is clothed with his humane body that so the judge may be visible to all that shall be judged for even Satan conversed with our God on earth being in his flesh when he tempted him Matt. 4. But the righteous when they once are in the possession of the joyes of Heaven shall see God as he is in his Divine nature which Divines call facialem visionem the beatificall vision seeing God face to face as it is said 1 Cor. 13. 12. and then happily the distinct Person of the Father will be visible to eyes glorified for then the Saints shall be equall to the Angels Luke 20. 36. of whom we shall read Matth. 18. 10. Their Angels do alwayes behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven Secondly that I do not take upon me peremptorily to affirm that the Person of God the Father hath never presented himself in any corporeal or visible shape for how should I know such a Mystery And because I find that Saint Austine saith Nâ—mis temerarium est dicere Aug. de Trin l. 2. c. 17. 18 patrem nunquam visum patâ—ibus credibile est Patrem solitum fuisse apparere mortalibus i. It is too much rashnesse to affirm that the Father was never seen Nay it is credible that he used to appear to the Patriarchs And Atbanasius saith that although God was sometimes seen in the Person of the Son when he was not seen in the Person of the Father yet he saith also that at another time all the three Persons Athan. lib. de Com. essentia n. 24. were seen by Abraham Tres Personae sedebaent apud Abraham i. All the three Persons sate at Abrahams tent For what inconvenience will follow if God shew his presence at the same time both in severall places and also in severall assumed shapes for he that is at all times really present in all places may also manifest his presence where and when and how he pleaseth It is confessed that the Person of the Sonne assumed an humane body and was seen and at the same time the Person of the Holy Ghost descended in the likenesse of a Dove Matthew 3. 17. and then also the voyce of the Person of the Father was heard and again Matthew 17. 5. which Divines say must needs be from the Person of the Father because the Sonne of God is not the Sonne of any other Person but onely of the Father Indeed it is said of
and againe he saith Tota civitas dei est unus homo in Capite Corpore i Id. in Psal 131. The whole Citie of God is one man in the head and in the bodie being as one corporation And concerning Christs Prayers and the Churches Prayers the same Father saith Ad deum clamaâ— Caput in Corpore Id. in Psal 142. Corpus in Capite i Christ prayeth in his Church and his Church prayeth in him for otherwise how could wee say to God Abba Father and this neareness and intire unitie betweene God and man in Christ is principallie from this ground that because there is but one God and that one God is in all men therfore doth he make al to be one and also men with Christ are Commembers Aug. cont mendacium c. 2. n 77. Chrys in S. Theophaniam to 6. n. 59. as S. Austin cals them i. fellow members of his bodie because wee with him were made of one blood as we read Act. 17. 26. for as S. Chrysostome noteth Deus ideo incarnatus ut ingeret opus cum opifice i God was therfore Incarnate that therby he might unite the Creature with the Creator all communicating both in flesh and in Spirit hence all Christians are called one anothers brethren and sisters because all have the same Spirit of one heavenlie Father Anima fratris est Hier. n. 41. soror tua S. Hierom saith i Thy brothers soule is thine owne sister a sister but it is only in Christ because the same Spirit of Christ is in both upon the same grounds it is that Christ becomes so neare of kindred to us men that he takes upon himself the names of other Men to implie an â—dentity with Man for 1 Cor. 15. 45. he is called Adam and the Prophets call him David Jer. 30. 9. Ezech. 34 23. Ose 3. 5. And this long after Adam and David were dead and is therfore meant of Christ for when David is called a Man after Gods owne heart 1 Sam. 13. 14. Act. 13 22. which is very hard to be said or understood of any sinfull man but de Aug de Dule quaest q 6. n. 89. Christo intellige and nullus nodus erit i if you will understand it to be spoken of Christ there will be no difficultie at all So also I think that saying Num. 23. 21. He hath not beheld iniquitie in Jacob is meant of Christ who is called Jacob with as greate reason as the other posteritie are called by the name of their patriarch Israel and Iacob very frequently in Scripture and namely Psal 41. 7. Because the Creator at the first intended this union to be a ground and preparative of mans redemption therefore he extracted all mankind even the woman also out of one Man that so all might come into the unitie of Christ which is the reason that is alleaged by Prosper and that theâ—eby christs obedience active and Prosper De Provid n. 39. passive might be in stead of all Adâ—m and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not believe there were any 〈◊〉 although he knew the earth was scated in the midst of the woâ—â—d Aug. de Civ l. 16 c 9. l aâ—â— de fal Rel. l. 3. c. 24. but it was least he should grant that the e was any one man in the whole world which came not out of the loins of Adam Now as all Mankind hath its interest in Christ so more especially hath the Church whâ—ch is joyned to her head in a more sweet and loving matâ—imonâ—all bond Matth. 22. 2. The Kingdome of Heaven is like unto a Certain King which made a marriage for his son and this is set forth more Emphatically Eph. 5. 30. For wâ— are member of his body â—f his flâ—sh and of his â—ones this is a great Mystery but I spâ—ak conâ—â—â—ning Christ and his Church For the union of Christ and his Church doth not onely consist in this that Christ assumed the flesh of his holy ones for so he did of all nor in that he communicates hi Spiâ—it to his Elect â—nd holyenâ—s for so also he doth to all But in that he gives to his Church his Divine Spirit with all the sweetnesse of his love and goodnesse and with such high graces as make her lovely acceptable and gracious in the eyes of her Lord and head This great mystery of Mans Redemption by the Incarnation of God was imitated early at the Creation of the woman It is observed by S. Ambrose that at Ambr. de Paradiâ—o n 9. the Creation of the Man it is not said God saw that it was good but when it is said Male and Female created he them Gen. 1. 27. Immediately it followes God blessed them and verse 31. It was verâ— good and this because from the Womans fruitfulness the Redeemer was to come and this is the meaning of St. Paul 1 Tim. 2. 15. She shall be saved in child-bearing That is by the Son of God now born of a woman if she continue in the Faith and for the comfort of all sorts of men unto whom the benefit of the Gospell and with it the inestimable benefit of Christs death is offered the Gospell hath set forth our Saviour descending from the first man and extracted through holy and unholy Ancestors through Jews and Gentiles by noble and ignoblâ— births as appeareth in the Genealogâ—â—s of S Luke and of â— Matthew where there is mention of â—amar and of 〈◊〉 a Moabiâ—â— and Gentile to shew that all sorts of men have an interest in Christ for all men in the world were united with Christ himselâ— also in the loyns of Adam Before I clâ—se this Book I think it very pertinent to the business in hand to explain that place Heb. 7. 9. which our Commenter hath most slightly passed over yet warily because if he had rightly expounded it it had clâ—aâ—ly made against his blasphemy the words are these Levi 〈◊〉 Tithes in Abraham For he was in 〈◊〉 of his Fatâ—â—r when Melchiâ—edech met him The collection from these words is that therefore Meâ—chisâ—aechs and so Christs Priesthood is greater then Leviâ—â— Pâ—iâ—stâ—ond But against this Argument it may be objected that Christ was also in the loins of Abraham at that time as well as Levi for thâ—n 〈◊〉 was not begot and therefâ—re in this respect both Levi and Christ paid tithes in Abraham and neither are to be for this cause preferred before the other except we can shew that Christ was not then in the loins of Abraham Secundum aliquem modum in some manner as Levi was For answer hereunto S. Austine thought it sufficient to say that the difference between â—â—vies and Christs being in the loins of Abraham was this Christus Aug. de Gen. ad lit l. 10. c. 19 non 〈◊〉 secundum animam seâ— Levi ficit i That Christs Soul was not derived by propagation from Abrâ—haâ— as Lâ—viâ—s soul was But this answer will not satisfie because it is uncertain to us
13. 13. and 1 Corinthians 14. 47. The second man is the Lord from Heaven Thus did some of the old Hereticks believe as the l Basil n. 37. Valentinians and m Naz. n. 34. Apollinarius n Aug. to 6. n. 9 the Manichees and o Epiph haer Apelles said that Christ made himselfe a body of the Elements and did not take it from Marie And this they professed in a pretended honour 44. of Christ p Aug. to 6. n. 10. Iusipienti honorificentia as Saint Augustine calleth it id est foolishly thinking thereby to honour Christ and this was also one of the Tenents of the late Anabaptists as we finde in the sixteenth Centurie Now to affirme these things is to gainsay the Doctrine and promise of Redemption by the seed of the woman and the promised seed of Abraham and the sonne of David for Christ is not from their loyns if his body came from Heaven and although a simple well meaning soul should live and die in this errour who hath alwayes adhered to the main principall Doctrine viz. God in Christ and God incaruate believing Vide supra lib. 3. cap. 10. 11. that Christ performed the Law actively for him and also suffered death on the Crosse for him in a body howbeit not in such a body as descended from Adam shall we affirm that such a misbeliever must necessarily perish I answer that I dare not so pronounce because this sinfull and erroneous conceit of the incarnation is at most but one of these sinnes which our Saviour called A word spoken against the Sonne of Man Matthew 12. 32. For it is onely against this humane nature and no blasphemy against his Holy and Divine Spirit or Godhead and of such sinnes he saith It shall be forgiven him viz. If such a sinner with an humble heart make an acknowledgement and general confession of his secret and unknown sinnes wherein this will be included so as is before said with a resolution to decline any thing that he knowes to be sinfull so much as by assistance of Gods Grace he can still holding himself close to the main foundation which the forenamed old Hereticks did not but vented many blasphemies against the Divine Nature and also polluted themselves with many fowle Morall vices I say when Jesus Christ hath said It shall be forgiven how dare any Man presume to say It shall never be forgiven For although the Erroneous conceits of Christs Body comming down from Heaven doe disturb the Order of Gods dispensation and the congruitie of the work of Redemption and correspondence thereof with the words of the Covenant yet it doth not take away and root up the foundation This doth not un-God our Redeemer nor deny utterly the gracious work of Mans Redemption So as this most blasphemous Commentarie hath none which I now together with my weak endeavours in opening the dangerous Doctrines thereof leave and submit to the censure of the learned and to the namelesse Anthor thereof I say of both our Writings as Saint Cyprian did Cyp. lib. 4. Epist 9. to Paptanus In die judicii ante Tribunal Christi utrumque recitabitur To God the Father God the Son God the Holy Ghost three Persons one onely God be ascribed all honour and glory for ever and ever Amen Qualitèr haeretici pro falsae opinione in die judicii puniendi sunt nullus potest scire nisi Judex patiens est Deus quia affectis piae opinionis errant Salvian degub l. 5. p. 163. FINIS THE TABLE Of the Contents of each several CHAPTER THE FIRST BOOK Containing General Animadversions upon the Commentarie and Commenter and the assertion of the Souls Immortalitie Chapter I. CErinthus Artemon Theodotus and Page 1. Natalis Authors and spreaders of the blasphemie of the denying Christ's Godhead The Divine warning of Natalis That after these Paulus Samosatenus and Arius were maintainers of the same Heresie The spreading of it in severall parts of the known world even in our Britain That it was here discovered in Queen Maries dayes And punished by fire in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and of King James That the same is now revived by this Commenter the qualitie of G. M. who negotiated in the Printing and publishing this Commentary Chapter II. That the Commenter though he carefully concealed Page 4 his own name yet caused this his Book to be presented to divers persons of quality That this Commenter is the first that ever published this Heresie in our English Print Three reasons conceived why he concealeth his own name Chapter III. Of the licensing of this Comment the Licensers Page 7 censure of it and an Apologie for him in that he called this Commentarie a Comment and in his letter to an honourable Person declared it to be erroneous The copy of the Letter a parallel passage of Libanius concerning Julian and the Manichees concerning their Founder Manes the ancient practice of burning such hereticall books Chapter IV. The Commenters compliance in unsainting the Page 10 Apostles The reason why the Title of Saint was of old withdrawn from Churches by the decree of a Council That the abuse of images occasioned it and yet that the Title of Saint was not denied to the persons of Holy men Of his condemning Tombes Something concerning Hypocrisie in long hair and short Of the reason of the Nazarites long hair and the hypocrisie of their imitators Chapter V. The Commenters compliance with the old Arians Page 15 The judgement of the Ancients concerning the Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrewes A Vindication of Eusebius concerning the words Homo ousion and Homoi ousion and also of the Nicene Fathers falsly charged by the Commenter as if they favoured his own Heresie How the Father and the Sonne are said to be Opposite and yet both are but one God The Commenters Errour in the Logicall Doctrine of Relatives Chapter VI. That this Commenters principall designe was by Page 16 his pretended Commentarie to darken and extenuate or confute the clear Evidences of this Divine Epistle onely because therein are many great Testimonies of Christ's Godhead That herein he imitateth the practices of the old Hereticks Marcion Valentinus and the Manichees The Commenters misexpounding Hebrewes 1. 6. in allowing Divine Adoration to Christ and yet will not acknowledge him to be more then a creature and in applying the appellation Jehova to one whom he denieth to be the Supream God contrarie to Psalme 83. 18. what prostration signifieth Chapter VII That this Commenter mis-expoundeth Hebrewes Page 21 2. 2 3. That the Gospel is therefore preferred before the Law in that the Gospel was delivered by God himself immediately for it was delivered by Christ himself who is the Supream and onely God whereas the Law was delivered indeed by the same God but mediately by the Ministery of Angels or Creatures A true Exposition of Acts 7. 53. and of Gal. 3. 19. and Exodus 20. 21. Moses and Paul reconciled That
Porphyrian in denying the Godhead of Christ and followeth the Heresies of Cerinthus the Maniches and Arius and acteth for Antichrist and Turcisme The Charactor of Socinus Of the Grand Antichrist and his numerous Corporation which is the Mysticall body of iniquitie and of their preachers Chapter VIII Of the Vnion of the Godhead and Manhood in Page 52 the Person of Christ and that the two Natures once united continue for ever inseparable The difference between the Existence of the Godhead in Christ and its Existence in all creatures Of the mutuall communication of properties between the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ The Heresie of Nestorius his life condemnation banishment and exemplarie death How holy Men are said to be Deified by partaking of Divine Graces and conforming to Gods will Chapter IX The Commenters blasphemous conceit of Christs Page 33 Deification In what sense Christ may be truely said to be Deified in time who was the onely God from all Eternitie The true sense of diverse sayings in Scripture concerning Christs Exaltation How the Sonne of God comes to be called Christ Chapter X. How those Scripturall sayings are to be understood Page 37 which mention the abasing or minoration of Christ the Sonne of God An Exposition of 1 Cor. 15. 24. Concerning Christs delivering up the Kingdome and reigning till judgement and his subjection afterwards Of which see more in the 2 Section of this Chapter Chapter XI Why the unpardonable Sinne is fastned rather Page 52 on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons in the Scriptures Expression Of the form of words used at Baptisme diversly mentioned in Scripture and the reason of that diversitie That Christ mediateth for us in Heaven not verbally as the Commenter would have it but by a reall presenting that Person who in our stead did perform and suffer what was required of his mysticall Bodie Chapter XII The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scriptures Page 55 Propheticall and Evangelicall by the Type of the Tabernacle which was as a visible habitation of God representing the Body of Christ How the Heathens immitated this by setting up visible images wherein they thought their God was resident Chapter XIII Reasons why the Jewish worship was confined to Page 58 the Tabernacle and Temple that these were Types of God to be Incarnate Why the People of God worshipped with their faces towards the Temple That the Church is more Ancient then the Temple That notwithstanding the Commenters cavill the Patriarches belived in the same Sonne of God that that we Christians do though the appellation Christ could not then be used Chapter XIV That the Christian when he prayeth prayeth to Page 61 God whom he considereth to be resident in Jesus Christ as in his Temple As the Israelites considered God resident in the Tabernacle and Temple and so prayed toward that place That God so intabernacled in the Body of Christ is the finall or ultimate Object of The Christians prayer and worship Chapter XV. How the onely and most high God became a Priest Page 65 and a Mediatour That Christ is prayed to and yet is a Mediatour How Christ is said to pray and yet is the supream God That every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed to Chapter XVI The Godhead of Christ shewed from the Adoration Page 68 of his Person that his Godhead is worshipped and not his Body alone considered without the Godhead That the Godhead united with a creature for so is the Body of Christ doth not hinder us from worshipping our God Of the worship of Jesus performed and yet without worshipping a creature Chapter XVII That the custome of bowing when the Name Page 71 Jesus is mentioned was appointed principally to set forth his Godhead and to keep Christians in a continuall Confession and memorie thereof being the main foundation of our Religion Chapter XVIII That Jesus Christ is Jehova Of the Name Page 74 Jesus that it is a proper Name of God No Person in the Trinitie hath any name proper but onely the Sonne Of divers appellative Names of God Chapter XIX An enquirie whether the pure Godhead considered Page 77. as not incarnate hath any proper Name The distinction of Names Proper and Appellative The opinion of Philo the Jew therein and of the Fathers that their judgement is That there is no proper Name of God but onely the Name Jesus The Authours submission hereof to the learned Reader Chapter XX. The Godhead of Christ shewed from his appellation Page 79 Jehova That no meere creature can be called Jehova The signification of that word The reverend esteem of it by the Ancients That by the word Tetragrammaton Jehova is meant both in Jewish and Christian Writers Chapter XXI The Conclusion of this second Booke with the Page 82 Authours resolute Confession of Jesus Christ to be the most High and the Onely Lord God The Table THE THIRD BOOK Containing an Assertion of the Incarnation of the most High and Onely God in the Person of Jesus Christ Chapter I. THe vindication of Eusebius against the Page 1 false aspersion of the Commenter That Eusebius consented to the Eternall Godhead of Christ and to the Article Homo-ousion His judgement conâ—erning Gods visible appearance to the Patriarches in the Person of the Sonne That the supream God appeared to Abraham in the Person of the Sonne The Vnitie of the Godhead in the Persons of the Father and the Son Chapter II. How in the Scriptures the most high God is said Page 6 to have been seen and yet that no man hath seen God and both very truely Two questions propounded concerning the visibilitie and invisibilitie of God Chapter III. The first question How God is invisible What Page 8 is meant by the Face of God some places of Scripture which seem Opposite are reconciled Chapter IV. More concerning the first question How God Page 10 hath been and may be seen What the word Angel signifieth Of the appearing of God by assuming a corporeall shape Of Gods walking in Paradise That the apparitions of God in corporeall shapes were but Preambles and Prefigurations of his Incarnation Chapter V. That the Incarnation of God was foreshewed in Page 13 words and by promises The meaning of the Image of God wherein Man was made The meaning of the oath under Abrahams thigh The mysterie of Abrahams entertaining God at meat and of Jacobs wrastling with God unfolded What is meant by the Back-parts of God A rejection of the errors of the Anthropomorphites and an Explication of the first Article of Englands Religion Chapter VI. The second question Why the Fathers said Page 16 that onely the Sonne was seen by the Patriarchs and not the Father seeing both persons are but one God An exception of the difference between seeing God in this life and in the other life Whether God in the Person of the Father was ever seen in an assumed shape the judgement of