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
Saint Austine therein and the Authors submission thereof to the Reader That because God was to be Incarnate only in the Person of the Sonne and not in the Person of the Father therefore the ancient Fathers said that God was seen in the Person of the Sonne onely and not in the Person of the Father Chapter VII The Incarnation of the Sonne of God is shewed against Page 22 the Commenter That a meer Man may be said to be Incarnate and so may Christ be truly said and much rather because the soul of Man may exist without a body and the Godhead of Christ really did exist from Eternitie without a Body untill his assumption of a temporary shape and his Incarnation in an ever durable Body That the Scripture calleth him that denieth Christs Incarnation a deceiver and an Antichrist Chapter VIII That the Son of God was to be Incarnate necessarily Page 27 by vertue of the Covenant although God could have saved Man by his Power without the Incarnation Of that curious question viz. What God did before the Creation That God was never solitarie though alwaies but One. Of the Everlasting or Eternall Covenant between the Persons of the Father and the Sonne before the world Chapter IX Of the Covenant between God and Man divers Page 33 times renewed The first words of the Covenant about the Tree of Knowledge before the fall The second words of bruising the Serpents head since the fall The same Covenant with Abraham and afterwards with Moses in more words The outward signes of the Covenant viz. Sacrifices circumcision Tabernacle and Leviticall rites That the Legall and Evangelicall Covenant are but one The words of the Evangelicall Covenant Why it is called a new Covenant the Covenant of Grace and of works a better Covenant and a Testament of Christs suretie ship The reason why Christ was circumcised and Baptized Chapter X. That as our state condition now standeth Page 38 man cannot be redeemed and saved but through the Incarnation Obedience and death of the Sonne of God That our salvation is not wrought by the request and verball intreatie of Christ nor by the power onely of God without satisfaction of his Justice The distinction between Christs satisfaction and his merit How Gods just Sentence was fully executed on man and his Law perfectly performed by man Chapter XI That Christ was a Person fitly qualified to stand Page 41 in stead of all Mankind The mutuall unity of Christ and Mankind in that Christ tâ—oke his flesh from Man and Man received the Spirit from Christ That from this mutuall unity it is that Christs Obedience both Active Passive with great justice and equitie may be imputed to Mankind Chapter XII What interest the unregenerate man hath in Page 54 Christ That the Divine Spirit of Christ is communicated to the unregenerate and therewith some common graces That the Doctrine of the Church declareth the benefit of Christs death to be offered to all men good and bad That God is essentially present in every creature though not commugnicating his sanctifying Grace to every one The Stoicks error concerning the souls of Men. Apollinarius his Heresie concerning the soul of Christ Chapter XIII The Heresie of Valentinus and others concerning Page 59 the Body of Christ compared with the Heresie of Apollinarius concerning Christs Soul That the Arguments proving the derivation of the flesh of Christ from mans body do as well prove the traduction of his soul That the soul of man by nature is Carnall The doctrine of the Church of England doth not clearly determine the originall of Christs soul That if the traduction of souls be granted it will argue a greater nearness and conjunction of God and Man Chapter XIV The question of the propagation of the soul of Page 63 Christ and of other mens souls discoursed the difficultie thereof shewed out of Saint Austine and his inclination and reasons to believe traduction rather then a dayly new creation of souls The judgement of the Western Church herein alledged by Saint Hierome That the opinion of Traduction is not inconsistent with Christian Faith But if it be granted it argues a nearer relation between Christ and us then otherwise the Author leaves it undetermined with submission to the judicious Reader Chapter XV. The Ubiquitie of the Spirit of Christ Of the Page 67 diversitie of the Graces thereof In what degree and measure the Spirit with its common Graces is communicated to men unregeneraâ—e How the one Spirit of God is in Scripture represented as if there were more then one how it is said to be withdrawn or not yet given when it is alwayes present That the union of God and man is hence concluded Chapter XVI That the presence of the Spirit doth not alwayes Page 71 sanctifie is proved from the unction of Heathen Kings How such are called Gods annointed though they were not ceremonially annointed with oyl of Christs Vnction and the appellation of Christians Vespatians touching and curing the infirm thereby The King of Englands cures and unction Of the gift of healing mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 9. Whether it be utterly ceased Chapter XVII The union of Christ and his Church further Page 76 shewed Why Christ is called Adam David and Jacob Why all mankind was extracted out of one man Why Saint Austine denied that there were any Antipodes The difference between Christs union with all mankind and his more speciall union with his Church An Exposition of Heb. 7. 9. Touching the difference of Levi and Christ who were both in the loins of Abraham which place is purposely obscured by the Commenter The Table THE FOURTH BOOK Containing a discussion of this Question Whether the blasphemie of denying Christs Godhead which is the sin against the holy Spirit be absolutely unpardonable with full Expositions of certain Scriptures in the Hebrewes and other places which concern that sin Chapter I. THe question stated The judgement of Page 1 some late Divines therein and their grounds That to affirm it absolutely unpardonable seemeth derogatory to the infinite mercy of God in Christ and the grace of repentance The efficacie of true repentance Chapter II. That this sinne possibly may be pardoned upon Page 5 the sinners repentance That Gods threatnings are not to be understood as absolute but as conditionall That therefore his threatnings are not alwayes executed and yet his Truth not violated That threatnings are intended for provocations to repentance an observation upon Theodosius The judgement of the Fathers concerning those threatnings Chapter III. That the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or Page 8 God-head of Christ is then onely unpardonable when it is accompanied with finall impenitencie a short Exposition of Matth. 12 31. Chapter IV. Whether the grace of repentance be absolutely denied Page 11 to those who have once sinned this sin The judgement of some Divines herein A full Exposition begun of Heb. 6. 4. concerning final impenitencie That the word inlightned is there meant of
ABout four years sithence Christian Reader there was brought unto me a Comment or Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews written by a Namelesse and unknown Author to the end that having perused and allowed it it might be Printed and published the which I also undertook and finding as â— then conceived that for the most part it was Learned and Judicious plain and profitable I did so passe it with my Approbation Yet there were divers passages against which I took as I thought just exceptions as disagreeing with the Scriptures and the received Doctrine of Our and all other Reformed Churches which I would not let passe before by my Letters I had acquainted the Author with them that I might receive satisfaction in those things which I objected from whom I received a sober modest Answer wherein he did not at all maintain those errors but left me to my liberty to expunge what I misliked the which I also accordingly did as I thought fit But the Work being long and my time but short divers other faults and errours escaped unobserved by me they being comprized in few words and short passages and so the more easily passed over without my observation The which Errors I the rather fell into because the Author was wholly unknown unto me who am naturally of this disposition that I neither am nor desire to be more scrupulous and curious in observing other mens errors and faults then I have evidence of truth for it whereas otherwise if knowing the Persons with whom I have to deal to be Heterod and Erronious in their Doctrine I should be more wary and observe their words and works with a more vigilant eye All which I speak not wholly to clear my self from all blame for I ingeniously acknowledge my inadvertency and want of due and serious consideration in so weighty a matter and therefore being convinced of my errour by divers Letters from men of great Eminency both in respect of Place Learning and Piety and by mine own more serious observation but especially by the Labours of this Learned Author chiefly intended to lay open and confute these dangerous Errors and Heresies I could do no lesse and indeed in respect of my old age and infirmities accompanying it I could not do much more then revoke my Approbation of that otherwise Learned Commentary so far as it maintaineth these pernicâ—ous doctrines that detract any thing from the Lord Christs Divinity and his Supream and Eternal Godhead For far be it from me to derogate any thing from my blessed Saviour and Redeemer by not acknowledging him the Supream God Co-essential Co-equal and Co-eternal with the Father seeing the Evangelical Prophet in the Old Testament calleth him the Mighty God Esay 9. 3 and the blessed Apostle St. Paul affirmeth that Christ who took upon him our flesh is over all not Deus factus but God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. and therefore seeing this Learned Book intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asserteth and maintaineth this truth and confuteth the opposite errors I do most willingly approve it and allow it to be Printed and published John Downam Θεὸς ' Αâ—θÏωπâ—φόÏος OR God Incarnate SHEWING That JESVS CHRIST Is the Onely and the most HIGH GOD. In Four BOOKS Wherein also are contained a few Animadversions upon a late namelesse and blasphemous Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrewes published under the Capital Letters G M. Anno Dom. 1647. In these Four Books the great mystery of man's Redemption and Salvation and the wayâ—â—â—â—d means thereof used by God are evidently held out to the Capacity of humane reason 〈◊〉 ordinary understandings The Sin against the Holy Ghost is plainly described with the Cases and Reasons of the Vnpardonablenesse or pardonablenesse thereof Anabaptisme is by Scriptur and the Judgment of the Fathers shewed to be an heinous sin and exceedingly injurious to the Passion and blood of Christ There were false Prophets among the people even as there shall be among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction 2 Pet. 2. 1. Contra rationem nemo Sobrius contra Scripturas nemo Christianus Contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus 〈◊〉 Aug. de Trinit lib. 4. cap. 6. By EDM. PORTER â— D. sometimes Fellow of St. John's 6. Colledge in Cambridge and Prebend of Norwich London Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1655. TO The Right Honourable THOMAS Lord Coventry Bron of Ailesbury Peace and Truth My Lord I Humbly beg leave to use your honourable name in the dedication of this Book thereby to present the expression of a thankful Soul to my deceased Patron your most Honourable and prudent Father who even from my Childhood continued his manifold favours to me and ceased not untill he had planted me in an imployment and probable subsistence in the Church where I continued peaceably during his life and untill the pressures of these unhappy Times dislocated not onely me though too low God wot to be an object of publick wrath but also the strongest bones and principal joynts and nerves of our once most renowned Church To his memory do I owe the first fruits of my publick Labours nor can I offer them at any other shrine so proper as your self my Lord who are his living Image whose Name and Title you worthily bear whose Honour is revived in you and the pious and thankful memory of him during my life will not be obliterated in me seeing the very Heathens fansied their Sen. de Benef l. â— c. 3. Charites which were but the Emblems of gratitude to be Virgins and alwayes Young to teach us that thankfulnesse should not be Corrupted or decayed by time and age and their great Orator although he was one of the most deadly enemies of Caesar who had been newly murthered in the very Senate-house yet he confessed that he could not find fault with the faithfulnesse of Cic. lib. 11. Epist 240. Matius for honouring him that was dead who whilest he lived had been his Friend and Patron The Church hath tâ—â—ght us further that death it self doth not dissolve Christians Communion Hier. in Proaem l. 18. in Esa Viventium Dormientium eadem Charitas est Aug. de Civit l. 20. c. 9. Animae piorum mortuorum non seperantur ab Ecclesia hâc The Church Triumphant and Militant are but one Church and therefore did the Primitive Christians honourably by name Commemorate their pious and worthy Benefactors at the very time of their Sacred Eucharist although they were long before departed out of this life So seeing I have not any other meanes to commemorate my deceased Lord I have maâ—◠〈◊〉 if this to professe hereby Mihi erit nomen 〈◊〉 benedictionibus but to you my Lord do I present the Book because possibly it may do some good to the Living For the subject
called his may appear by these passages Christ saith Matth. 25. I was hungry I was naked I was in prison Act. 9. 4. Saul Saul why persecutest thou me when these things were not meant of his own proper and individual person but only of his servants and members which he calleth himself for so he saith Verily in as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of my brethren ye have done it unto me So the Apostle saith that 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us when in the same breath it is also affirmed that he knew no sin Both are most true because our sins are his sins by reason of this union as the debt of the principal is also the debt of the Surety So Christ is said to be Rev. 13. 8. slain from the beginning of the world even before he was incarnate because of Abel who was both his member and type Lyranus upon that place saith Lyra. in loc Christus fuit in Abel occisus in prophetis exhonoratus for all the holy Patriarchs and Prophets who dyed before the birth of Christ are his members as well as others who novv live or shall hereafter live untill the end of the world even as we read of that birth Gen. 38. 28. where the hand came out of the Womb before the other parts yet it was a member united to the body as well as the other parts Upon that speech of Christ Matth. 23. How often would I have gathered thee as an hen c Orig. in loc Origen saith Christ in Moses and the Prophets would have gathered them in every age before Upon that passage in Psal 61. 2. From the Aug. in Psal 60. ends of the earth will I cry unto thee Austin asketh this question What one man cryeth from the ends of the Earth And answereth That it is meant of Christ for his Members or Church is that one man And upon that saying of the Psalmist Psal 86. 3. I cry unto thee daily or all the day long that is all the time of the world continuance If question be made how this can be true of any one man Austin Aug. in Ps 85. answereth That it is meant of the body of Christ which groaneth under pressures in all ages this one man is extended unto the end of the world in his Members preceding and succeeding Thus he Finally upon these grounds If it be demanded how any man can be saved seeing man daily transgresseth the Law Our answer is That every true member of Christ doth perfectly perform the Law in that Christ hath done it who is one with his members So if we enquire how Christ could with Justice suffer death who never sinned The answer is That his suffering was just because the sins of his Members or body are his sinnes in that himself and his Members are One for it is as easie to conceive our most innocent Saviour to be justly charged with our sins as to conceive sinful man to be justly discharged of all sin and to be truly called righteous even the righteousnesse of God in him Thus much I have thought fit to premise as an Introduction and a needful Preparative for the reading of these Books All which I humbly submit to the Judgment of Superiors and to the serious consideration of the Christian Reader THE Principal Contents of the four Books following In the first Book THe Authors and spreaders of the Arian or Socinian heresie Why the title Saint was of old withdrawn from Churches That the most high God is the Author of the Gospel That the soules of men and women never dye The article of Christs descent into hell is expounded The Original of Creeds and what hath been added to the most ancient of them and why The meaning of the word Hades or hell A full discourse of Ecstasies Raptures Inspirations Revelations and Enthusiasmes Of the apparitions of dead men Of Angels good and bad which conduct the soules of the dead to their receptacles and mansions in the other world A Summary of the blasphemies contained in the said Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrewes In the second Book THat to deny and renounce the Godhead of Christ is the sin against the holy Ghost The sin against the holy Ghost is fully described The eternall Godhead of Jesus Christ is fully proved The deniers of Christ's Godhead are of no better religion then Jewes Turks or Antichrist Of the Deification of Jesus Christ and how it is to be understood The manner how Christ doth intercede and mediate for us in Heaven The Subjection and Minoration of Christ and the delivering up of his Kingdome at the end of the world expounded out of 1 Cor. 15. A plain discovery of Originall sin On what Object the Christian is to fix his mind in prayer How the most high God became a Priest Why the Church of England required adoration when the Lord Jesus is named That Christ is Jehova and what that word signifieth In the Third Book THat the most high God was incarnate How and when the most high God appeared visibly to the Patriarchs and the mystery thereof unfolded The meaning of the face and backparts of God The everlasting Covenant of Grace made before the Creation and after is plainly set forth How the Son of God was necessitated to be incarnate and to suffer death That the Obedience of Christ is with perfect justice and equity imputed to his mysticall Body the Church for the salvation thereof The Originall of the Soul of Christ and of other mens souls is disputed The Omnipresence of the Spirit of God and the diversities of the graces thereof The curing of the Kings Evill by the Kings of England and the Scripturall warrant for the same In the Fourth Book IN what cases the sinne against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable or pardonable is fully shewed The dangerous sin of Anabaptism is shewed by evidence of Scripture with the History of the ancient Anabaptists The reasons why the ancient Christians did defer Baptism till ripe years or old age shewed to be carnall The reason why St. Paul commanded those to be baptized who had been baptized before with St. John Baptists baptism Acts 19. A plain description what true repentance is The meaning of Sins unto death and sins not unto death 1 John 5. 16. The meaning of sins Mortall and Veniall so oft mentioned in the Fathers In what cases sinners must be prayed for and in what not shewed out of 1 John 5. 16. OBSERVATIONS UPON THE COMMENTARY ON The Epistle to the HEBREWES published under the Capital Letters G. M. Anno Dom. 1646. CHAP. I. The Original and growth of the Arian Heresie THe blasphemous heresie of denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ began early and after 〈◊〉 was first broached by one a Euseb hist l. â— â— 28. 〈◊〉 c. 20. 〈◊〉 as Eusebius and Niâ—eph have written and after him 〈◊〉 seconded by his disâ—â—ple â—â—â—odotus who was an 〈◊〉 of
The everlasting Covenant and Rev. 14. 6. The Eternal Gospel and must needs be meant in those places of Scripture where mention is made of Eph. 1. 4. Electing us in Christ before the foundation of the World and of 2 Tim. 1. 9. Calling us according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the World began and of 1 Pet. 1. 20. Christ ordained for our Redemption before the foundation of the World Of which there is a full discourse in my Third Book and eighth Chapter This Covenant doth necessarily imply a plurality of persons in the Godhead One to require and injoyn another to restipulate and which is requisite in all Covenants a third Person distinct from the Contractors as a stander-by and Witnesse thereof So in this Covenant First God the Father requireth obedience upon pain of death Secondly God the Son undertaketh for man's performance or penalty or both Thirdly God the Holy-Ghost is witnesse between the Father and the Son for oftentimes in Scripture we read of the Spirit bearing witnesse For though the Father the Son and the Spirit are all said to bear witnesse for our assurance as Joh. 8. 18. I am one that bear witnesse of my self and my Father that sent me and 1 Joh. 5. 7. There are three that bear witnesse in heaven and Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our Spirit But before the Creation who could be a witnesse between the Father and the Son save onely the Eternal Spirit of the Father and the Son Nor can it be imagined that this Covenant and restipulation could be enacted by One single Person for the Law-giver must be considered as a Soveraign onely and the persons upon whom the Law is imposed are as subjects so it will be dissonant from right reason to fasten the Legislation and subjection upon the self-same person Now supposing the Law made and the penalty determined and set down it cannot be denyed that the Supream Law-giver hath naturally and absolutely a power of relaxation and dispensation so that he may remit the punishment for breach of his own Law and of meer grace without any satisfaction forgive the offender but if the said Law-giver do decree and by his Word bind himself to punish the offender as he did when he said Gen. 2. 17. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye hereby he doth confine and restrain himself from using the Imperial prerogative of free pardon which otherwise he might have granted and hence it is that a Satisfaction must needs be exacted necessitate hypothetica as Divines say upon supposal of the said decree and upon this reason Jesus Christ our Surety becomes liable to his dreadfull Passion and death Touching the Passion of Christ in Satisfaction of Gods Justice for the sins of men the Socinian Writers do utterly deny it as being unjust to punish one for another and especially an innocent for a malefactor and they call this doctrine of Christ's satisfaction as Vossius reporteth Ger. Joh. Vossii Defens Grotii c. 13. Dogma nugatorium frigidum falsum injustum et horribilitèr blasphemum Their reasons are very considerable for they say that God hath by his Prophets and Apostles declared the contrary as Deut. 24. 1◠Every man shall be put to death for his own sin Jer. 31. 30. Every one shall dye for his own sin he that eateth sower grapes his teeth shall be set on edge Eze. 18. 4. The soul that sinneth it shall dye Gal. 6. 5. Every man shall bear his own burthen 1 Pet. 1. 17. God judgeth according to every mans work The Answer hereunto usually given is That because God doth actually punish one for another it must needs be just because God doth it but this answer doth not satisfie the Adversary neither doth it I confesse satisfie me for God doth not so Therefore for the better satisfaction of my self in this weighty question and perhaps of others also I offer to the consideration of the Learned Reader these two Propositions following First The Passion of Christ neither is nor ought to be accounted the punishment of one for another but the same that offended the same is punished Secondly The sins of the elect Members of Christ are not to be accounted onely the sins of the Elect but are justly charged on the score of Jesus Christ being their Surety and Redeemer These two Propositions may perhaps seem at first Paradoxical but I trust I shall prove them to be truly Catholick and Orthodox For the first That Christ's Sufferings are 1. Proposition not the punishment of one for another I have learned from St. Bernard Bernard Epist 190. Omnium peccata unus portavit nec alter jam inveniatur qui forefecit alter qui satisfecit quia caput corpus unus est Christus satisfecit caput pro membris i. One bare the sins of all so that we cannot say One forfeited and another satisfied because the head and body are but one Christ the head satisfied for the members So the Husband and Wife are but one person in Law an action of debt is not brought against the wife but the husband so the principal debtor and the Surety are in Law but one person and either of them are liable to payment or penalty This first Proposition is grounded on the doctrine of Christ's Vnion and conjunction with his members which Vnion is of such weighty concernment that without it it is impossible to salve or unfold the mysterious riddles of Gods operations and words in the businesse of man's Salvation and therefore the holy Scriptures and ancient Doctors have with very great abundance of testimonies asserted this necessary truth See first what the Scriptures say Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ Eph. 5. 30. We are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Gal. 3. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 6. 17. He that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit 1 Cor. 12. 2. By one Spirit ye are all baptized into one body Eph. 4. 4. There is one body and one Spirit This is because the same Spirit that is in Christ is also in his members and because there is but one Spirit uniting the head and members therefore the head and members are but one body having the same Spirit residing in both for so it is said Eph. 3. 17. Christ dwelleth in your hearts and 2 Cor. 13. 5. Jesus Christ is in you 1 Cor. 6. 19. Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost Joh. 15. 1. I am the vine ye are the branches This Union of the members with Christ the Head is called by the Apostle a recapitulation Eph. 1. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Bishop Andrews observeth Andr. de Nativ Serm. 16. A gathering of all to the head for as God is one with Christ as Christ is God so we are one with Christ as Christ is man who is therefore called
〈◊〉 afterwards called 〈◊〉 about the year of our Lord 197. Sâ—vâ—â—us being Emperour and 〈◊〉 Bishop of Rome This Theodâ—â—us was a Currier b 〈◊〉 or Tanneâ— by Trade and in time of Persecution for fear of death had denyed Christ and for very shame left his own City and went to Rome and there being upbraided for his denial answered c Epiphan haer 54. Hominem negavi non Dâ—um i. e. that he denâ—â—d him that was onely a man and not God as Epiphanius wâ—itâ—th and afterwards he gathered a great Sect joyning in this doctrine that Christ was a mâ—eâ— mâ—n These associates made an agâ—eement to set up a Bishop to be the Prelate and head of the faction and so laying their moneys together they hired one Natalis a Priest to take that office upon him and indented to give him monethly 150 dâ—naâ—iâ— for a salaâ—y upon thâ—se terms Natalis set upon the work stoutly and became the Prelate of that doctâ—ine then God warned him in visions and that divers times to forbear not withstanding for Covetousnesse he slighted the viâ—ons and still continued in his wicked course at length God having compassion on him who formerly had bâ—en a Confessor and suffered much for Christ in time of Peâ—secution God sent him a more sharp and terrible warning for he was most grievously scourged by Angels all night lâ—ng so that in the morning he arose and having bâ—sprinkled his body with ashes he went to Zâ—phâ—rinus the then Bishop of that place and fell down flat before him confessing and bewailing his crime and shewing the * Not of the Angâ—ls strâ—pes but of the persecutors pâ—int of the stripes in his body so at length the Church re-admitted him into their Communion and so the heresie ceased for a time Afterward about the Year of our Lord 269. the same heresie was again revived by one Paulus who was Bishop of Aâ—tioâ—â— but because he was born at a place called Samosata therefore he is commonly called Paulus Samosâ—tenus but now the heresie lasted not long for a Council was gathered against this Paulus wherein he was sentenced to be deprived of his Bishoprick and he refusing to to obey the sâ—nâ—ence Auâ—eâ—ia the Emperour though an 〈…〉 at therâ— quest of he Council by fâ—rce expelled hâ—m both from his Church and house thereunto belonging and so this heresie was again for a time consopired Afterwards in the dayes of the Emperour Constantine the Greâ—t and about the Year of our Lord 317. the same heresie was awaked again by one Arius an African and a Priest of the Church of Alexandria and now it spread and grew so vehemently that St. Hierome long after complained that the whole world was turn'd Arian for Arianisme so troubled the Church for some hundreds of yeares and caused so much persecution and blood-â—hed that d Athanal ad solit vitam agentes n. 9. Athanasius called that heresie one of the daughters of the blood-sucking horsleach and e Basil Epist 71. n. 38. St. hasil call'd it Bellum dâ—â—bo icum i. e. a was raised by the Devil against the Church for it filled all places with vexations and deprived many of their estates and bereaved the Church of most of her worthy and learned Pastors and prevailed so much that the most eminent Cities of the World were infested with it as in the East Constantinople in Africk Alexanaria in Europe Millane and Româ— it self insomuch that even Liberius the Bishop of Rome in the dayes of the Emperour Constantius was expelled from his Bishoprick because he refused to subscribe to an Arian Creed as f Socr. l. 2. c. 29. Socrates testifieth yea our own Countrey Britain was amongst the rest in the same Emperours dayes troubled with this heresie as our own Histories report Nor hath it been free since the first Reformation for if we may believe Mr. Fox some that were imprisoned in Q. Marie's dayes for Religion yet there g Act. Mon. n. 93. denied the God-head of Christ In Q. Elizabe h's time two men were burnt in this City of Norwich one whose name was Hemant in the Year 1579. he was burnt for saying that Christ was a meâ—r man and the other whose name was F. Kâ—tt was burnt in the Year 1588. for saying that Christ was not God and this some alive do remember and our Vulgar Chronicles record Also in the Reign of King James one Legaâ—â— was burnt in Smithfield for the same heresie and to the unspeakable sorrow of all well-willers to our Church and Countrey even at this day two Ministers I think of this Kingdom whereof one is of this Diocesse of Norwich have publickly in books printed impugned two persons of the most sacred and glorious Trinity * John Biâ—dle one blaspheming the Holy Ghost and the other the Son of God severally denying them both to be God the one publickly declaring his own name in Print h Juvena Sat. â— Et magis ingenuè Peribomius But the other more subtilly concealing his own name and procuring onely G. M. being the Capital Letters of another mans name to be subscribed to the Preface It is well enough known who this G. M. is and that he is a man of good credit and was ever accounted honest and religious a Citizen and Merchant prudent in his way but yet no man that knowes him will believe that he is the authour either of the Commentary or of the Preface being no way bred to meddle in such high controversies of Religion nor was ever known to be a favourer of any heretical Sect in former times and his friends are yet in good hope that although the Writer hath inveigled him to set out this blasphemous book yet that he was not Conscious of the secret poyson contained in it for so did i Hil. Cont. Arian n. 7. St. Hilary most charitably judge in the like case of the Lâ—â—â—ks who were of the Aâ—ian Congregations Arianâ—s populus rectè credit de Filio quia haec non audivit ab Arianis santiiores sunt aures plâ—bis quam cor sace doâ—is i. e. The Aâ—ian people believed rightly in the Son of God for they did not hear of the heresie of the Arian Priests so that the cares of the people were more religious then the heart of their Priest and yet he may rightly say of you the namelesse Author as St. Basil said of the Arian Priests k Basil de Spir. c. 7. n. 26. Blessed are the cares which never heard you yea blessed is his heart if he never believed you and I doubt not but when by Gods mercy he shall discover in what a damning doctrine you have engaged him he will discharge you as it is reported Cornelius Agrippa did a familiar spirit which attended on him in the shape of a dog saying before his death Abi à me perdita bestia quae me miserum perdiâ—isti i. e. Avoid reprobate beak who hast even destroyed me a miserable man CHAP.
Devil though Arius himself have put an honest man's name to his own detestable writings Just as hereticks in old time put the name of n Evâ—g l. 3. c. 31. Athanasius to the heresies of Apoll na rius Well! if you will not be known I say but as one in o Sen. cont lib. 1. cont 2. Seneca said of a lewd person Discede ignoâ—us â—sâ— discede notus es nâ—mis i. You are of no â—â—te and yet too notoribus CHAP. III. Touching the Preface Licencing and approbation of this Commentary IN your Preface directed to the Christian Reader it should rather be to your dear brethren the Turks for it savoureth more of that then of Christianity as will be shewed hereafter you tell us that one reason which moved you to print this book is Because it hath received a singular approbation from a most learned and reverend Divine the Divine here meant is Mr. John Downam who licenced this book who as I have heard from a right worthy reverend and honourable person is indeed a right honest grave and learned man now one of the singular approbations which Mr. Downam gives of your book is that he calls it a Comment on the Hebrewes whereas you stile it a Commentary now the word Comment or Commentum being equivocal doth most usually signifie a figment an untruth or fiction and the old Logick rule is Analogum per se positum flat pro significato famosiori therefore this learned man well knowing the falsities in your Commentary as will be proved anon did justly change the word and call'd it a Comment Or if it fell from him unawares then there was a providence in it for truth hath so fallen from many unwittingly as St. Austine confesseth of himself a Aug. Conf. l. 9. c. 4. that the Spirit of truth worketh both by men that perceive it and by them that perceive it not Just so doth Socrates observe in the Writings of Libanius the Sophist who was a great admiâ—â—r of Julian the Apostate this 〈◊〉 a most Learned man intending to praise Julian said of him b Socr. l. 3. c. 19. O daemonum discipule daemonum assessor c O disciple of Demons and Companion of Demons Mirum est eum non vitasse verbum ambiguum i. â—marvâ—l saith Socrates that Libanius would not avoid such an ambiguous word which doth more usually signifie Devils then good Angels In like manner the Manichees to avoid the reproach of the name Manes their sounder which in the Greek tongue signified Madnesse of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would needs have him call'd Manichaeus to signifie one that poured out Manna of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but yet they had neglected to double the N so the name Manichaeus still signified but c Aug. Cont. Faust l. 19. c. 22. Insani-fusorem i. a venter of madnesse as St. Austin hath observed So this learned Divine might shew you a cast of his learning and call your book a Comment and knowingly too I say knowingly and I have good reason for it because I am assured that Mr. Downam did find fault with many passages in your Comment as unsound and erroneous and favouring of Socinâ—anisme and gave advertisement thereof to you the namelesse authour as may appear by Mr. Downam's Letter which for the vindication of his integrity I have here inserted verbatim as it was written to a most Learned and Reverend Person the true Copy whereof your self have seen long ago Mr. Downam's Letter concerning this Commentary on the Hebrews RIght Reverend and my much honoured Lord I humbly and heartily thank you for your kind advertisement and good counsel for untill I read your Lordships Letter I knew nothing of the Printing or publishing of this Comment on the Hebrews which makes me not a little to wonder and somewhat to suspect ill dealing in that I should be made by them that have to deal in it so great a stranger to it seeing I Licenced it and live in the Town near unto them But that you may more fully understand the whole carriage of the businesse thus it was The Copy was brought unto me by a Book-seller from an unknown Author and I was desired to peruse it that if I approved of it it might be Licenced unto which I condescended and in reading I liked much of it as being Learned and well couched together with good dependence but withall misliked many passages as very unsound and savouring strongly of Arminianisme and Socinianisme yet having to deal with a Scholar I desired to be ingenuous and did not as I might have done blot out those erroneous lines and leaves but by means of a Gentleman who did mediate and act the businesse between us I wrote a Letter and by his means sent it to the unknown Author wherein I expressed the severall Points which I thought erroneous and whereâ—n I differed from him together with my Reasons which induced me so to judge and after some time I received his answer full of ingenuity yet not subscribed with any name wherein he neither defended nor excused those Points and passages against which I had taken exceptions but was contented that I should take mine own liberty in expunging what I misliked and having this power put into my hands by the Author himself I did accordingly use it and crossed many passages and divers whole folio-pages although I confesse I passed over divers things which I misliked leaving him to â—he liberty of his own judgment in points which I thought not fundamentally erroneous nor much material unlesse pressed by way of consequence Now if the Author or the Gentleman his Agent have annexed a Stet overagaâ—nst my oblâ—terations and the places by me expunged and yet notwithstanding have published the whole with my attestation I must professe that they have dealt ill with me and will do my best to repair my own right and reputation which that I may the better do I will send for the book that I may revize it and so proceed as I shall see occasion And thus have I truly given your Lordship an account of the whole carriage of this busines the which may be further cleared and enlarged if any fitting occasion shall be offered hereafter In the mean while and ever I shall remain Your Lordships in all Christian service to be commanded John Downam May the first 1646. This is all the singular approbation which Mr. Downame gave but what Christian Magistrates and the Church used to do with books which set forth such doctrines as you have done the Ecclesiasticall Histories tell us d Soz. l. 1. c. 20. Soc. l. 1. c. 5. Constantine the Great commanded the books of Arius to be burnt and threatned death to any one that should keep and conceal them Yet Arius set forth but the same doctrine that you do Just so were the books of the Manichees used at Rome in the time of Pope Leo the first about the year of our Lord 447. e Prosp
afterwards Is not this the Carpenters son Matth. 13. 55. disparaging him for his mean parentage this is the Exposition of St. Ambâ—ose a Ambr. de Spirit l. 1. c. 3. In Filium Hominis pâ—ccare est remissius sentire de carne Christi c. To sin against the Son of Man is to conceive too basely of the flesh of Christ and they that so sin are not utterly excluded from pardon 2. The Jewes blasphemed him now in his Godhead by denying it and ascribing the miracle to confederacy with Beelzebub and of this blasphemy which doth take away the very foundation of remission of sins it is said It shall not be forgiven 5. I may adde hereunto that those unbaptized Pharisees in probability did not intend any obloquy or blasphemy against the Person of the holy Spirit as it is the third Person of which they had never been instructed neither had they so much Christianity as those disciples at Ephesus who though they had been baptized unto Iohns baptisme yet they had not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost Act. 19. 2. Thus having shewed that in Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers and later Divines the Godhead of Christ is called a Spirit and holy and also an holy Spirit and that in St. Matthew those words holy Spirit are to be understood of the Godhead of Christ which is for ever united to and residing in the Holy Temple of his most sacrâ—d Body and Soul I now reassume my former Conclusion That the denying Christ to be God is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is there said to be unpardonable Now that in a Doctrine of so great moment and concernment the Reader may understand that I do not obtrude any novell and private opinion of mine own upon him I will heâ—e lay down the judgement of soâ—e of the Fathers in this very question and first of Athanasius one of the most profound and godly Divines that since the Apostles dayes the Church ever had who in his book De Communi essentia Patris c. aith b Arha to 3. p. 625. It is hard to conjecture what our Saviour means by those words He that speaketh against the Sod of Man shall be forgiven but he that speaketh against the holy Ghost shall not be so given So that the Son may seem â—o he infâ—riour to the Spirit and yet the So saith The Father and I are one If he that saith to his brother Thou fool shall be cast into hâ—ll â—n quam gehennà gehennarum conjiriâ—tur is qui â—ssâ—rit Deum creatu am â—sse Into what Hell of Hells will he be cast who calleth him that is God a Creature and a Servant and a Minister onely And a little after he saith Dâ—iâ—atâ—m Vâ—rbi ipse Christus Spiriâ—um Sanctum vocâ—t humanitatem suam Filium Hominis nâ—minavit i. Our Saviour called his own Godhead the holy Ghost and his own Manhood he called the Son of Man and of those that blaspheme his holy Spirit by blaspheming his Godhead is this sentence to be understood It shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come This is the judgement of Athanasius To him I adde the Opinion of St. Hilâ—râ— who was contemporary with Athaâ—asius who in his Exposition of that Text Matth. 12. 32. saith c Hil. in Mat. Can. 12. p. 731. Si negetur Dâ—us in Christo caret omni misâ—ricordia i. If a Man deny God to be in Christ that man shall finde no mercy And again he saith d Hil. ib. Can. 31. p. 426. Blasphemia in Spiritum â—st Christum Deum â—sse negare i The blasphemy against the Spirit is to deny Christ to be God The same Father in the place last quoted speaking of Saint Peters deniall of Christ saith Because to deny Christ to be God is that sinne which shall never be forgiven therefore Peter denied thus I know not the Man because a word spoken against the Son of Man may be forgiven The very same conceit hath Saint Chrysostome also in his Sermon of Peters deniall and upon these words I kâ—ow not the Man e Chrys to 6 p. 631. Non dixit non noâ—i Deum Verbum sic enim peccasset in Spiâ—itum Sanctum i. Peter said not I know him not to be God for so he had sinned against the holy Ghost but I know not the Man Now whether Saint Peter meant so as these two Fathers conjectured I cannot affirm for certain but by this I finde that the judgement of these two great Doctours was that the denying of the Godhead of Christ is indeed that great unpardonable sinne To this I adde the testimony of Saint Basil who deserved to be called the Great He in that excellâ—nt Book De Spiritu Sancto saith f Basil de Spirit c. 7. Testificer omni Homini Christum profiâ—enâ—i sed â—um neganti Deum â—sse quod Christus nihil â—i proderiâ— i. I testifie to every Man who professeth himself to be a Christian and yet deâ—â—ieth Christ to be God Christ shall nothing at all profit that man And if Christ do not profit us in the remission of our sinnes I am sure our sinnes shall never be forgiven in this world or in the world to come CHAP. V. The Opinions of later Divines concerning the unpardonable sin A brief Narration of the life and death of Arius and of Julian the Apostate TO the above-named Ancients I subjoyn the opinions of our later Divines who in their Expositions and Tractats where they inquire what particular sin this is although they do not agree therein yet when they inquire what persons have sinned this sin they do commonly affirm for one that Arius in his Heresie did sâ—n thus and this is the opinion of Polanus and also of Bucanus and others Now the Polan synt p. 340. Bucan Lo. Com. p 174. onely noted heresie of Arius was the denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ saying that he was not from everlasting and that he was but preferred to be a God Just as our Commenter would have him onely exalted and deisied This Arius was born in Africk and was a Presbyter or Priest of the Cathedrall Church of Alexandria in Egypt In that City in the dayes of the Emperour Constantine the Great there were ten Churches besides Epiph. haer 69. the Cathedrall Just such as we now call Paraecial or Parish-Churches wherein ten of the Presbyters of the Cathedrall Church were the incumbents and Preachers of these ten Arius was one and was more esteemed and followed then any of his brethren It fell out that the Bishop of Alexandria died Arius gaped for the place but mist it for one Alexander was elected then Arius raised a faction and revived the former Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus preaching this damnable doctrine that Christ was not God When Bishop Alexander was informed of this he convented Arius and upon examination discovering his
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
Christ was fore ordained before the foundation of the World 1 Pet. 1. 19. 20. But I ask how could the blood of Christ with righteousnes and equitie be so ordained If Christ had not freely and voluntarile thus ingaged himself who could compel him therunto or did not he who is the wisdome of the Father fore see the bloody Passions which such an undertaker must undergoe or what claime could the Sons of men have to chaleng any interest in his actions or Passions but only by this covenant and ingagement and how could it be said Eph. 1. 4. God hath Chosen us in him before the foundation of the World And how can in be said 2 Tim. 1. 9. God hath saved us and called us according to his purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Iesus before the world began Unles man be considered and looked upon in Christ through this Covenant because therby the Son of God did ingage and oblige himself to the Father in man's behalf to performe the whole will of God which should be required of man for therfore is the Son called the Angel or messenger of the covenant Mal. 3. 1. Because he was the Mediator sent interested and imploied both in the undertaking and in the performance of that secret Covenant of whom it is also written Psal 40. 7. In the volume of thy booke it is written of me that I should performe thy will or that I delight to doe thy will Thus because Christ had undertaken for us and therfore was by his promise to performe the will of God for us hence it is that all our salvation is in and by and through him and all the promises of God to man are in him and for this reason it is said Tit. 1. 2. That God promised Eternal life before the world began But to whom could it be promised before any Creature was made except only to the Son of God and why to him but because he only had ingaged himself in this Eternall Covenant and becauâ—e our transgressions were fore seen that they would deserve death and that our suertie in the payment of our debt must needs suffer death therfore this our suertie is called Rev. 13. 8. The Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world see Iohn 17. 5. CHAP. IX The Covenant between God and Man the Legall and Evangelicall Covenant are but one the reasons why Christ was Circumcised and Baptized BY what hath bin said it appeareth that the Son of God was indeed secretly ingaged to the Father for mankind before the world was made and so secretly that it is said Col. 1. 26. That it had bin hâ—d from ages and generaâ—ions But how shall it appear that this Sonne of God ingaged himself to Man Where shall we find his word and promise to be an undertaker and surety for us so that we may faithfully and boldly lay hold on and chalenge his promise I answer that after the Creation God the Son entered into the same Covenant wirh Man that he had ingaged himself in to the Father before the Creation and by this renuing the same Covenant he bound Mankind to himself as himself had bin bound before to the Father and that divers and sundry times For first the words of the Covenant between God and the Son and Mankind before the fall were these Gen. 2. 17. Of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evill thou shalt not eat of it for in the day thou eatest thou shall surely die In this Covenant on Gods part life is promised implicitely and on mans part obedience is reftipulated or covenanted for to this condition Man had submitted and given consent as appeareth Gen. 3. 3. So that this was a perfect Covenant on both sides the Tree of Knowledge standing as a visible figne for mans obedience and the Tree of Life as a Sacramentall sign of Gods promise But after the fall of Man the same God did again more evidently and particularly ingage himself when he said of the seed of the woman Gen. 3. 15. It shall bruise the Serpents head In this promise the Incarnation of God in the seed of the woman was meant and that therein he should take upon him the curse and death formetly denounced by offering himself a sacrifice for sin the outward signs of this Covenant were the sacrifices wherewith the Patriarks did signifie and nourish their faith in that promise 3. After this the same Covenant was again renued to Abraham more particularly Gen. 12. 3. In thee shall all Families of the earth be blessed c. and then came in the Sacrament of Circumcision 4 After this again the same Covenant was more largely given to and published by Moses in the Law Morall containing Mans duty and in the Law Ceremoniall declaring Gods promise of Redemption by the Figures Types signs and shadowes of Tabernacle Priest and sacrifices 5 After this again the same Covenant was more clearly delivered in the Gospel by the same Lord God and most graciously explained and the vail taken off from it for then it was shewed who was that seed of the woman and that seed of Abraham and that sacrifice Lamb of God which should take away the sins of the world and how man should be enabled to perform the Covenant and Law of his God namely in that Christ his surety should perform all in mans behalf with this condition onely required of man to believe in this Jesus his God and Saviour for so the Evangelicall Covenant declareth John 3. 16. God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believed in him should not perish but have everlasting life And again Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be sav'd but he that believeth not shall be damned This is the one and onely and everlasting Covenant of Grace there are not two Covenants but onely this one both before and since the world began Now if any man ask why there is mention of a new Covenant I answer it is called a new Covenant because the old Covenant is renued just as we say there is a new Moon when it is but the old Moon newly enlightned which is but Nova lunatio i. a new illumination Tert. cont Marc. l. 5. Id. cont Marc. l. 4. So the same Father said of Christ O Christum in novis veterem i. Christ in the New Testament is the same with Messiah in the Old Testament We may as well say that the Sun-rising is a new Sunne which being but one and rising dayly and diversly Catul. car 5. Virg. An. 1. is called Soles as if there were many Suns Soles occidere redire possunt Quid tantùm Oceano properent se tingere Soles Hiberni For the same Covenant which before was clouded with obscurity and with Types in the time of the Law shineth brightly in the time of the Gospel But why then do Divines call this Law-Covenant the Covenant of works whereas the
whence either Levi or Châ—â—st had their humane souls and so it was to St. Austine himself as I have shewed before The surer answer therefore is this that it being granted that the humane nature of Châ—ist was every way in the loins of Abraham as well as Levi was yet this grand difference is between them That Christs Divine nature or eternall Godhead was not derived from Abrahams loins Although as Christ was in the form of a servant so he came from Abraham and so he paid tithes in Abraham to his type Mâ—lchisedech just as he paid tribute to Caesar or to the Temple because he was a man and a subject to Caesar as S. Ambrose truely saith Christus est servus quatenus incarnatus i. Ambr. in Epist con Aquil. n. 49. When Christ is called a Subject or Servant it is understood of his Incarnation But as he was in the form of God he neither came from Abraham nor was tithed in him nor owed any tribute to Caesar or the Temple Of this nature it is said John 8. 58 Before Abraham was I am Yet in respect of his humane nature I may truly say that Christ before his birth in the loins of Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech which is all one as to say Christ paid to Christ Christus homo Christo Deo i. The Man Christ to Christ our God This Scripture thus expounded doth clearly set forth the Incarnation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ who for his assumed flesh is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas de Spir. sanct c. 5. by St. Basil i. flesh-bearing God and in Greg. Nazian and Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God Incarnate Thus was he every way as hath been shewed a Person fitted to stand in steed of mankind as an undertaker and surety for performance of the Bond Law and Covenant which was laid upon us Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for he hath visited and redeemed his people and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David Laus Deo FINIS THE FOURTH BOOK Of the Vnpardonable SINNE OR The sinne against the Holy Ghost wherein this question is discussed Whether the sinne against the Holy Ghost be absolutely unpardonable Together with a plain Exposition of those places in Scripture which concern that sin viz. wherein the question of Anabaptisme is clearly discussed Matth. 12. 31. Heb. 6. 4. Heb. 10. 26. Epist 1 John 5. 16. Qui legit haec ubi certus est paritêr pergat mecum ubi haesitat quaerat mecum ubi errorem suum cognoscit redeat ad me Aug. de Trinit l. 1. c. 3. LONDON Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes Armes in St. Paul's Church-yard 1655. THE PREFACE IN my second Book I propounded two questions to be discussed First what sin that 1. is which three of the Evangelists call the sinne against the Holy Ghost and to me it appeared to be the blasphemous denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ For albeit some other sin may be so called yet that this also is that sinne there meant I nothing doubt Secondly Why the denying the Godhead 2. of Christ is said especially to be unpardonable and to me it seemed that the reason is because he that so sinneth doth thereby renounce the sole and onely means of redemption and pardon for Jesus Christ by vertue of his Godhead inseparably united with his Manhood is the onely All-sufficient Expiatory Sacrifice for sinne There is yet a third Question to be discoursed 3. which is very needfull to be rightly understood lest the former Doctrines should lead such men into desperation who have fallen into this sinne and for the comfort of those particularly who have been misled into this most dangerous blasphemy by reading This new Commentary on the Hebrewes I do thus state this third Question Of THE UNPARDONABLE SINNE CHAP. I. Whether those who have once fallen into the blasphemy 3. Question of denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ are absolutely unpardonable and left without all hope of assoilment or remedie and forgiveness so that they must be certainly and eternally damned THe reason which moved me to attempt this question is because I find in many Writers that the sin against the Holy Ghost is discoursed as being absolutely unpardonable and their perswasion thereof is grounded on the words of Christ which seem to be so peremptory and absolute as if they could not admit any limitation or exception or more favourable Exposition For it is said Matth. 12. 31 32. It shall not be forgiven unto mâ—n neither in this 〈◊〉 nor in the world to come and Mar. 3. 29. He hath never forgivenesse but is in danger of eternall damnation And in St. Luke it is said He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the Angels of God unto him that blesphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall no be forgive Of this sin or blasphemie against the Holy Ghost our later Expositors understand that saying Heb â— 4. It is impossible for those who were once enlightned if they fal away to renew them again unto 〈◊〉 So do they expound that place also Heb 10. 26. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the Truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but a certain 〈◊〉 looking for of judgement And that which to some men seemeth to prove the absolute unpardonableness of this sin and to put it out of all doubt is that saying 1 John 5. 16. There is a sin unto death I do not say â—◠〈◊〉 for it For if he that once sinneth this sin be not all to be prayed for it will be a great inducement to perswade us that it is altogether unpardonable There is yet another reason alledged by Expositors why this sin is absolutely unpardonable and that is because as they say this blasphemy being one committed it is ever after accompanied with finall 〈◊〉 according to that saying before alledged out of Heb. 6. 6. If this prove true then such blasphemers must certainly perish according to our Saviours words in another case Luke 13. 3. Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish and so this sinne may fitly be called a sinne unto death But yet to say any sin is so great that in any case it cannot be pardoned will be most harsh and derogatory to the infinite mercy of God in Christ for the sacrifice for sin the Lamb of God is of infinite value and an all-sufficient sacrifice but no sins of the sons of men are infinite either in measure or number but onely in respect of the Object that is God a most mercifull God against whom they are committed Pecca a numerari possunt sed misericordia Dâ—â— nulla mensura comprehendi potest i. Our sins are not numberless but the mercy Basil in Ascet Reg. n. 31. of God is immense and infinite and the Scripture tells us Rom
Godhead is there called the Holiâ— Spirit or Holie ghost as hath bin shewed before in my Second book and this blasphemio consisteth in the denial of the Godhead of Iesus Christ wherby his allsufficient Sacrifice is undervalued and the Son of God is troden underfoot as being esteemed but a creature and a meer man and therby becometh contemptible and his Blood even the blood of the Covenant is esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i But common ordinarie unholie blood no better then the blood of another ordinarie common man and not Sanctified and ordaineth for that great and high mysterie to be offered as a full and sufficient expiatorie sacrifice for the sins of the world according to the Covenant of God For he that denyeth the Godhead of Christ must needs think that his blood is but common blood as other mens blood is and therfore not of sufficient worth and value to redeem the world more then another mans blood is and indeed if his blood be no better then the blood of another man and if it be not the royal blood of God Act. 20. 28. It hath not it can not redeeme us Now whether the sin mentioned in this place be absolutely unpardonable and altogether remediless will better apeare by a diligent exposition of that text as it stands in relation to the context both before and after it For if we sin c If everie sin which is committed after we knew and professed the Christian religion should be unpardonable what man could be saved seeing the most righteous men fall and therfore doe daylie pray forgive us our trespasses therfore this saying can not be understood of every sin but suerlie here is one special grand and capital sin meant and what that is the words going before and following doe declare For verse 5. it is said in the Person of the Son of God Sacrifice and Offerings thou wouldst not but a Vide. Psal 40. bodie hast thou prepared for me That is because the Legal sacrifices or the blood of bulls and goates could not redeem man therfore an humane bodie was prepared for the Son of God that in that assumed humane nature he might in man's stead beare the curse and suffer death which man had merited And because we who are but meer men weak and sinfull can not by our selves performe the will and law of God without performance wherof no man can be saved therfore the Son of God came in our stead to performe the whole law so as was required and willed of God as it is said vers 9. Then said I loe I come to doe thy will o God So that both the active obedience of Christ in doing the law and his passive obedience in suffering the punishment of our transgressions are here set forth in these words vers 10. By the which will we are sanctified through the Offering of the body of â—esu Christ once for all That is by Christs performing the will or commandments of God in our stead and through the Sacrifice of himself on the Altar of the Cross for our sins his mystical bodie or Church is Sanctified for it is said vers 12. This man Christ Offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever and again vers 14. hâ— one offering he hath perfiâ—ted for ever them that are Sanctified and then we are exhorted vers 22. Let us draw neer with a true heart in full assurance of faith and vers 23. Let us hold fast the Proâ—ession of our faith without wavering If we sin there remaineth no more sacrifice c Having shewed what the foundation of our Christian religion is namely Jesus the Son of God God Incarnate and in his humane nature performing the covenant law and will of God both actively and passively for us and in our stead and requiring that we should have a full assurance of faith of the truth of that Doctrine without which faith Christ will not profit us he now shewes the sad consequences of rejecting this doctrine by Apostacie or falling away from our Christian religion in these words There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certaine fearfull looking for of judgement So that the sin here meant is Apostasie that is forsaking Christianitie as Julian did esteeming of Christ but as of an ordinarie Coman man and therfore distrusting the sufficiencie of his blood and death as not an equivalent price and ransome for man's redemption The truth of this Exposition will better appear by the words following wherein this particular sin is evidently expressed and is called verse 29. Treading under foot the Sonne of God counting the blood of the Canant unholy or as it is in the Originall a common thing and doing despight unto the Spirit of Grace Now to tread under foot is to vilipend and undervalue Christ as esteeming him not sufficient to take away or satisfie for our sinnes to count the blood of the Covenant unholy or Common is to esteem of the death and blood shedding of Christ to be of no more vertue and power then the death and blood of another Common man and they that so basely undervalue Christ as to think and to account him but a meer man do despight unto the Spirit of Grace What is the Spirit of Grace in the Sonne of God but his Divine Spirit and Godhead even that Spirit from which all Graces flow which are called the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ So they who have no higher estimation of Christ then of a meere man do despight unto his Divine Nature his God-head for what greater spite can be then to un-God him the word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despite in effect is all one with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Matthew and the Spirit of Grace here is the same which is there called the Holy Spirit which doth signifie the God-head of Christ as hath been shewed before For if he that despised Moses Law died without mercy verse 28. Yet Moses was but a mere man and so but a Theod. in loc fervant to this our God Quanâ—ò morte dignior est qui Mosis Deum habâ—t despicatui i. What shall become of him that despiseth the God of Moses and the saving Doctrine of Christ who is the Onely Eternall God Moses propounded life as a reward to them that should perform the Law Christ did perform that Law in mans stead to mans behoof and benefit and offereth to men the benefit of that performance and with it life eternall onely with this condition of believing on him Therefore that man which will not give credit to this joyfull-Evangelicall offer must expect to perish eternally for if Christ be rejected absolutely and salvation through him despised and not hoped for or expected There is no other sacrifice for our sins possibly to be found nor any other Name by which we can be saved By what hath been said it appeareth that these words If we sinne in this place signifie the sinning of the
Christ is the Authour or Testator of the Evangelicall Testament and not onely a Witnesse or Martyr as the Commenter would have him Chapter VIII The Immortalitie of the Soules of Men asserted against this Commenter from our Saviours Page 23 words Matthew 22. 32. Luke 23. 43. That the Article of Resurrection is therefore expressed to be said of the body onely because the Soul dieth not which is shewed in Saint Pauls Rapture and Saint Stephens Prayer from Church Writers Philosophers and Physicians observations in Anatomie the Souls mortalitie was the old Arabick Heresie Of the immortalitie of Christs humane Soul and consequently of ours That the Doctrine of the Souls immortalitie is now an Article of the Creed and why this Article was then newly added to the old Creed Chapter IX That the Article of Christs descent was added to Page 26 the old Creed principally to set forth the Immortalitie of the Soul of Christ and so of our souls An examination of the tradition oral and the writing of Creeds The summe of the ancient Doctrine of Faith briefly delivered by Irenaeus and the most Ancient Creed thereunto agreeing recorded by Tertullian Chapter X. That divers additions were made to the old Creed Page 29 occasioned by divers Heresies What the Heresies were and what Articles they occasioned and particularly that the Arabick Heresie denying the Souls immortalitie occasioned the Article of Descent is probably shewed for that it was not any Creed generally received before the death of Saint Austine the Nicene hath it not yet the Athanasian at first had it not nor is it in the symbolicall Hymne called Te Deum A modest censure of the Athanasian symbol and an Observation concerning the multitude of Creeds Chapter XI Of the word Hades which is translated Hell Page 32 that it proves the soules immortalitie in that it signifies a being subsistence or permanencie of the souls of dead men separated from their bodies and residing in a Mansion and Condition invisible to us Mortals That the place and state of souls separated is kept secret from us though the knowledge thereof hath been and is much desired Of Saint Hierom's and Curina's visions and the apparition of Irene deceased Chapter XII A censure of those visions of Saint Hierome and Page 35 Curina by comparing them with the Ecstasies of Saint Peter and Saint Paul mentioned Acts 10. 10. and Acts 22. 17. What an Ecstacie Traunce or Vision is In what manner God spake to the Prophets in visions Of Saint Johns Revelation The difference between Divine Inspirations and prophane Enthusiasmes That the one illuminates the other obtenebrates mens understanding and how such raptures or exstacies do argue and prove the Soules seperabilitie and immortalitie Chapter XIII That the Apparitions of the dead do not prove the Page 39 Souls immortalitie For that they are not really the Soules of men deceased but possibly may be the delusions of Satan assuming the shapes of men Why Necromancy is forbidden Deuteronomie 18. 11. Albeit the dead cannot appear to the living at their desire That the state of Soules seperated is concealed Chapter XIV That the Soules immortalitie is confessed by the Page 41 Church Catholick That the Commemoration of the dead in the Church Litnrgies was principally to set forth the Churches belief of the immortalitie of their Soules For that the dead receive no benefit by the prayers of the living The Opinion of some Divines concerning Saint Pauls prayer for Onesiphorus 2 Timothy 1. 18. and of that saying 1 John 5. 16. of which see a full Exposition in my fourth Book Chapter XV. That the Father's did not believe as the Commenter Page 43 doth that Soules departed are insensible as if they were dead or asleep because the Saints departed do pray for the Church Militant as the Fathers thought Chapter XVI Of the departures of mens soules That their conductors Page 48 and leaders to the other World are Angels good or bad That soules seperated are setled in certain Mansions is shewed by Scriptures and Fathers whereby the permanencie and immortalitie of the soul is clearby proved That all those severall mansions go under the generall appellations of Heaven and Hell Chapter XVII A particular detection of the blasphemies contained Page 51 in the Commentarie which are reduced to these two heads The first shewing the blasphemies against the Godhead of Jesus Christ The second shewing the blasphemies against the Incarnation of God and his gracious work of Redemption CHAP. XVIII The dreadfull consequences of the Commenters Page 51 blasphemies in denying the Godhead of Christ and his great works both of Creation and Redemption That it is much better never to have been born or by death to be annihilated or to perish as the beasts doe then to live and die in these sinnes and to rise to judgement The conclusion of the first Book The Table THE SECOND BOOK Containing an assertion of the Godhead of Jesus Christ against the Commentarie Chapter I. AN introductorie discourse concerning Page 1 the sinne against the Holy Spirit as it is described Matth. 12. 31. Mark 3. 29. Luke 12. 10. Divers doubts difficulties and opinions thereof Chapter II. What the word Blasphemie signifies That this Page 4 sinne was the blasphemous denying the Godhead of Christ The spreading of that Pharisaicall blasphemie amongst Jewes and Heathens Of Apollonius of Tyana the Magician compared by Heathens with Christ for miracles Certain considerations premised for clearing doubts concerning this sinne and two conclusions extracted from those consisiderations Chapter III. That the Godhead of the Sonne is called Spirit 7 and Holy Spirit that every Person in the Trinitie is and may be called the Everlasting Father in respect of Creatures and yet how the appellation Father is proper to the first Person That every Person is holy and an Holy Spirit and yet how the appellation Holy Spirit is proper to the third Person That the words Spirit and Ghost signifie the same thing Chapter IV. Diverse Observations of the words of Christ Matthew Page 20 12. The result is that the Pharisee's blasphemie consisted in the deniall of Christ's Godhead The difference between a sinne against the Sonne of Man and against the Holy Spirit The judgement of the Fathers herein Chapter V. The Opinion of later Divines concerning this Page 14 sinne that they affirm Arius and the Emperor Julian the Apostate to have sinned this sinne An examination of the particular sinne of the said Arius and Julian and a breif narration of their lives and deaths Chapter VI. Why the Blasphemy of denying Christs Godhead Page 33 is called the unpardonable Sinne that the Commenters Doctrine in this grand Heresie is no better then Judaisme or Turcisme that it is by the Fathers esteemed and called Antichristianisme To deny Christs Godhead is to renounce redemption and salvation by him wherein the worth and preciousness of the blood of Christ consisteth Chapter VII That the Commenter in Logick sheweth himself Page 37 to be a
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
Baptisme That the principal scope of that place is against the presumption of Anabaptisme or a second Baptisme Chapter V. That the word Renue is to be understood onely of Page 16 renovation by a new Baptisme That sinners after Baptisme may have the remedy of repentance but not by a new Baptisme The distinction of renuing 1 Baptismall 2 Morall or penitentiall Four Propositons by which the meaning of these words is collected In what sense sinnes originall or actuall are said to be taken away in Baptisme Chapter VI. How a second Baptisme is said to be a new crucifying Page 19 of Christ That it is ignominious to the All-sufficient sacrifice of Christ That a second Baptisme doth no good but much harm it aggravates sins even as rain maketh weeds to grow that these words do not prove an impossibilitie of repentance but onely an impossiblitie of renewing by a new Baptisme Chapter VII A review of those words Heb. 6. 4. and some Page 25 doubts cleared That none were anciently called illuminate but onely the Baptized That Catechising was not then called illumination What moved the Apostle to handle the Doctrine of Baptisme and so strictly to forbid Anabaptisme in the Epistle to the Hebrews rather then in other Epistles Chapter VIII The distinction of Baptismes into true and false Page 30 The formes of Pseudobaptismes among Hereticks That after their dipping a true Baptisme may be administred and yet cannot be accounted Anabaptisme The Novatian Baptisme was a true Baptisme Saint Cyprian is in part excused Chapter IX That the Disciples of Ephesus Acts 19. who Page 34 said they had been baptized to Johns Baptisme were notwithstanding then Baptized by Saint Pauls appointment yet that this example doth not warrant Anabaptisme because Johns Baptisme was then out of date and Null Johns too late Baptisme compared with the now Jewish Circumcision and both found unlawfull Chapter X. Of true Christian Baptisme that it may not Page 38 be twice ministred No Heretick maintained two Baptismes but onely Marcion What Marcion was the reason why he multiplied Baptisme The reasons why Novatians Donatists and the late Anabaptists rebaptized answers to their reasons Of baptizing Infants of Saint Cyprians error and Athanasius his ludicrous Baptisme Chapter XI That the ancient Church allowed but one Baptisme Page 46 is shewed by the then frequent deferring it till ripe years or old age That their delaying was mostly for carnall respects The danger of delaying Baptisme The Story of a Jew Anabaptist An example upon an Arian Pseudobaptisme The summarie meaning of that Scripture and the Exposition concluded Chapter XII A full Exposition of Heb. 10. 26. The particular Page 52 sinne against the Holy Spirit is shewed to be the blasphemous denying Christ to be God What is meant by accounting his blood common or unholy The unsufficiencie of legall sacrifices and the sufficiencie of Christs sacrifice Chapter XIII Of severall degrees of this sin of denying and rejecting Page 57 Christ and salvation by him First some deny him outwardly onely by compulsion and terror of torments Secondly Others wilfully uncompelled Thirdly Others both willfully and also after-knowledge as Arius Julian and this Commenter The concurrence of Theophilact and Saint Anselm in the sence of this place Chapter XIV That the remedy of repentance is not absolutely Page 61 taken away from them who have sinned the grand sin of denying and renouncing Christ That such possibly may repent That this sin is then onely unpardonable when it is accompanied with small impenitencie The Conclusion of this Exposition Chapter XV. Whether such blasphemers if they repent may Page 64 possibly find mercy The difference of repentance Legall and Evangelicall The repentance of Judas The difference of Repentance and Rescipiscence The Conclusion that true repentance is never totally rejected Objections out of the Old Testament answered Why temporall pressures are not alwayes removed upon true repentance Chapter XVI A full and large Exposition of 1 John 5. 16. Page 70 That the Fathers called some sins Veniall and some Mortall albeit every sinne in its own nature and merit is mortall or deadly What is meant by a sinne unto death and a sinne not unto death That sins are not equall Chapter XVII The judgement of the Fathers and ancient Expositors Page 74 concerning sinne unto death The Discipline of the Primitive Church correspondent to their judgement That the greatest sinnes may be and actually have been pardoned The true sence of the Fathers in calling some sinnes veniall and some mortall Chapter XVIII The meaning of those words I do not say he shall pray for it That the praying or not Page 79 praying mentioned is to be understood of the living and not of the dead The practice of the Church in praying for penitents The manner of Ecclesiasticall or outward pennance shewed in the pennance of the Lady Fabiola In what case God forbad praying for sinners in the Old Testament Chapter XIX That no condition of any grand sinner is so desperate Pag 83 during life but that he may be prayed for in this sence that he may have the grace of conversion Certain Propositions of Divines concerning the matter now in hand are examined The practice of the Synagogue and Church in praying for all Mankind the concurrence of the Church of England therein praying even for Heathens Idolaters Persecutors and Hereticks Chapter XX. The meaning of those words I do not say he Page 89 shall pray for it set down positively and conclusively The difference between praying for the Person and praying for the sin The different prayers for a sinner penitent and a sinner not yet penitent The practice of this Church in praying for persecutors and yet against them The prayers of Christ and Saint Stephen explained The case of Alexander the Copper-smith Chapter XXI A Recapitulation of the former Expositions of Page 94 those foure places That finall impenitency cannot be called the Grand sinne The difference of repentance required for the inferiour and unknown sins Of the Solifidian doctrine The particular sin of misbelieving the Incarnation of God censured with Charitie The conclusion of this fourth Book FINIS Errors of the Press In the Title page line 12 for 1647 read 1646. In the advertisement to the reader p. 3. l. the last to Joh. Hen. Bistersâ—ldius add and published An. 1639. In the preface p. 12. l. 29 r. only In the 1. Book p. 18 l. 10 r your word is p. 28. l. 7. r. mortuos p. 29 l. 18 r. one Lord p. 30 l. 38 r. Nicetas p. 33 l. 41 r. a dead p. 34 l. 32 r. Sentence p. 47 l. 19 soul r. joul p. 51 l. 29 pro r. per in the margin In the 2 Book p. 3 l. 8 fur r for p. 6 l. 27 Lucan r. Bucan p 8 l. 33 Ehat r. That p. 12 l. 16 aith r. saith l. 18 sod r. Son l 23 conjicietur r. conjicietur p. 17 l. 19 r. how can p 18 l. 37 Olympus r.
si câ—imen est nimium legi Propâ—eâ—is Apostolis credidisse ignosce Omnipotens Deus quâ—a in his mâ—ri possum Emendâ—ri non possum Id est Lord why hast thou deceived me thy poore creature I believed thine own words concerning thine own self thy servant Moses David Solomon Daniâ—l and thine Apostles have misled me If it be a fault to give too much credence to thy Law thy Prophets and Apostles I beseech thee to have me â—xcused if in this Faith I live and die for I can never recant this Doctrine Finally this was also the constant Profession of that learned Bishop Saint Basil for when Valens the Aâ—ian Emperour had by a messenger threatned him with sequâ—stration of his Church and banishment of his person if he persisted in this Doctrine which he called a foolish doctrine The good Bishop answered uâ—inam sempiter na sit Theod. hist l. 4. c. 10. haec mea insipientia id est And so say I and I pray God I may never be withdrawen from that true and most wholsome Doctrine which I have here delivered and which our new fashion rationall animalls call folly but that I may persevere in the Faith and Confession of the Godhead of Jesus Christ unto my lives end And afterwards I doubt not but I shall so continue with the Angels and Elders Revelation 5. 13. saying Blessing Honour Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lambe for ever and ever Amen L. Deo FINIS THE THIRD BOOK Αâ—θÏωπâ—Ï‚ Θεâ—φόÏος THE Incarnation of GOD And the MYSTERIE Of Mans Redemption unfolded Tentemus animas quae deficiunt in fide naturalibus rationibus adjuvare Ruffin in symb apud Cyp. LONDON Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes Armes in St. Paul's Church-yard 1655. THE PREFACE HAving in the second Book shewed that Jesus Christ is the onely true supream and most high God and that there is no other God but he for that we are assured that Christian Faith cannot Hâ—l de Trin. l 7. admit of two gods And because we have learned the same in the Holy Scriptures Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord. And that the Prophet calls the Son of God Esay 9. 6. The mightty God the everlasting Father and that in the Gospell the Son of God saith John 10. 30. The Father and I are one and that all his are the Fathers and all that the Father hath are his John 17. 10. Which sheweth a perfect communion in one Essence and that the Son in Godhead is no way inferiour to the Father but both are equall and therefore the Scripture with great reason doth promiscuously sometimes name the Father before the Sonne and sometimes the Sonne is put before the Father as John 8. 16. I and the Father that sent me and Gal. 1. 1. By Jesus Christ and God the Father And 2. Thes 2. 16. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father For if Christ were absolutely under and subject to the Father how could this be endured when no Prince will suffer his subject though he be never so high and honourable to write Ego Rex I and my King as Chrysostome Chrys tom 6. ser 4. n. 55. notes In this third Book I am to shew that the same Onely true and most high God was incarnate by assuming humane flesh from the Virgin Mother and in that assumed nature was called Jesus Christ and in that assumed Manhood performed the great work of Mans redemption and therein suffered death on the Cross thereby satisfying the Justice and submitting to the Sentence of God as an expiation for our transgressions and by his most holy life and perfect righteousness in fulfilling the whole Law and so performing the Covenant of God for us and in our stead as our suretie and thereby according to the Covenant Do this and live hath obtained for his whole Mysticall Body the kingdom of Heaven and everlasting life To this discourse I am lead by the pernicious doctrine of this Commenter who denied Jesus to be the supreame God and to colour this blasphemy hath most apparantly misinterpreted and transverted the holy Scriptures and wronged the ancient Nicene Fathers as hath been shewed before and particularly that most learned Bishop and ancient Church-writer Eusebius as is next to be shewed THE INCARNATION of GOD. CHAP. I. The Vindication of Eusebius whom this Comment hath calumniated and falsified VPon those words Heb. 13. 2. Some have P. 331. entertained Angels the Commenter saith Eusebius in his first Book contends that one of the Angels was the Son of God for he will not have him the most high God c. You have not onely all to becommented the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Nicene Father but have written a loud Comment on Eusebius who never wrote or said for ought can appear that Jesus Christ was not the most high God But I am sure divers times in his most learned Books he teacheth true Doctrine quite contrary to yours when he saith Filius erat ante aeterna tempora Euseb de Demonst i. 4. 6. â— the Son of God was from eternity and also particularly condemneth this very Heresie which you have so belaboured under the name of Heresie Artemon Theodotus and Paulus Simosatenus as hath been shewed before Id hist l. 5. c. 28. lib. 7. c. 2. For this Eusebius was one of those renouned Bishops who at the Nâ—â—ene Councel against Arius decreed and subscribed the article Homossion id est that the Father and the Son are of the same essence and Godhead whereas some Arians at that Councel refused to subscribe and thereby insinuated as your selfe have done that there was a greater and a lesser God and so fell into the old heresie of Mercion who said Bas ho. 27. con sabel Soc. l. 2. c. 5. there were two Gods 2â— Saint Basil notes one of the refusers was also named Eusebius who was â—ishop of Nicomedia at that time and afterwards was preferred to the Bishoprick of Constantinople and their lived and dyed an Arian but we have no writings of this Eusebius now extant The Eusebius whom you mean lived and dyed Bishop of Caesaria a man of so great learning and worth that the Emperour Constantine said he was worthy to be the Vniversal Bishop of the Sec. l. 1. c. 18. world this man at first was unwilling to have the word homoâ—sion put into the Creed because it was new but afterwards when he perceived that it was but the expression of that Doctrine which is really contained in Scripture when it is said The Father and I are one he accepted of it and exhibitted his own Church-Creed to the Councel and the Councel confirmed it onely adding the word Homoâ—sion and so published it as Socrates saith so that it seemeth the Soc. l. 1. c. 5. creed which we call the Nicene Creed
to Offer or that their white baptismal garment was not made or that they had not sufficient provision to entertaine the baptizers or that they would stay till the Bishop or the Metropolitan came that he might baptize them these were but excuses Naz. Orat. 40. the true cause was as is shewed by Naz. They would not forsake their lusts They feared to ingage them selves to live a strickt Christian life which reason was Tert. deBaptism c. 18. long before intimated by Tertullian when he said Qui intelligunt pondus baptismi magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationâ—m i They that understand the weight of baptisme will more feare to take it upon them then to delay it for in those dayes conscionable men upon their baptisme resolved to live a strickt and austere life being perswaded that sins after baptisme were far more ponderous and displeasing to God then sins before baptisme and that baptisme was an easier remedie for former sins then repentance or pennance was for later sins as Nazianzen also urgeth in his baptismal Naz. Orat. 40. Oration to deter those from sinning who were then to be baptized Post baptismum peccare grave est coâ—rectio per penitentiam est baptismo molestior quantam vim lacrymarum impendemus ut cum baptismo exaequari possit It is a heavie thing to sin after baptisme renuing by repentance is a greater molestation then by baptisme O what an abundance of tears must fall from us before our repentanced can aequalize the water of baptisme Now what necessitie was there that men should so put off and procrastinate their baptismes until old age and their death bed that then they might be acquitted of all their sins and go out of the world cleane and pure but that the Church did by our Apostles words in this place and others understand an Impossibilitie of any new or Second baptisme The Exclâ—siastical Historie in detestation of Re baptization Socrat. l. 7. c. 17. reporteth a memorable storie of a bergerlie vagaband Iew a notorious hypocrite who went to several congregations and sects of Christians counterfitted himself to be converted to Christianitie learned to answeare such Catechistical questions as were required of them that petitioned for baptisme and had bin baptized in the Church of Catholicks at Constantinople and had got much monie which charitable people had bestowed on him in pittie of his povertie and congratulation at his baptisme after this he went to another congregation in the same citie of the Novatiau sect and there presented himself with the like hypocrisie as one newlie converted and petitioned the bishop that he might be baptized concealing his former baptisme Paulus the Bâ—shop commanded that preparation should be made for baptizing this Jew so the font was filled with water and a white baptismal garment was bought for him and when Paulus had proceeded so far in the baptismal office that he was come to the time of dipping him looking into the font he perceived that there was no water in it then he commanded the font to be replenished supposing that the former water was sunck into the bottome hole for want of care in stopping that sinck and caused the sinck and all cranies to be carefully stopp't and so proceeded to dipping but loe the Second time the wather was vanished wherupon Paulus was much amazed and looking upon the Iew with indignation said O homo aut veâ—eâ—ator es aut baptismum accepisti Soc. l. 7. c. 17. i O man either thou art a counterfit or els thou hast bin baptized before hereupon One of the standers by wistly viewing the Jewe declared that he had indeed bin before baptized by Bishop Aâ—ticus who was the successor of Chrysostome this busines happened in the time of Theodosius the yonger Not long after another strang paslage happened in the same citie of Constantinople which was taken as a Nic. l. 16. c. 35. signification of the nullitie of such pseudo baptisme as was ministred by those hereticks who denied the Godhead of Christ For when one Barbas was to be baptized by an Arâ—an Bishop named Deuterius this Arian changed the baptismal words prescribed by Christ and said Baptizaâ—ur Barbas in nomen Patris per filium in Spiâ—itu i Barbas is Baptized in the name of the Father By the Son in the Spirit At these words the font-water presentlie vanished out of sight and Barbas was amazed and fled unbaptized This I trust is sufficient for the clear exposition of that hard place which principallie was intended to assert the unitie of Christian baptisme and not the Impossibilitie of repentance The sum of what hath bin said in this exposition is comprized in the 4 Conclusion following First that the Impossibilitie there mentioned is not to be understood of an Impossibilitie of repentance nor of an Impossibilitie of renuing but onlie of an impossibilitie of being renued by a new or Second baptisme Secondly That baptisme having bin once administred in that form which is prescribed by Christ no Second baptisme may be ministred to the parties so baptized upon any pretence either of non age in the baptized or unworthines and unfitnes in the baptizer Thirdly that such baptismes or rather dippings which are ministred by those hereticks who denie the Trinitie and therfore doe not dâ—p in that baptismal form which is prescribed by Christ are utterlie void and null Fourthly That baptisme rightlie administred to those who have bin heretically dipped before is not to be called a re-baptization but a baptisme By all that hitherto hath bin objected It cannot appear That the blasphemie against the Spirit what soever is meant by that sin is absolutely unpardonable but still there is one remedie left wherby the sinner may find help and that is repentance CHAP. XII An Exposition of Heb. 10. 26. The particular sin against the holie Spirit is shewed to be the denying Christ to be God what is meant by accounting his blood to be Common or unholie The unsufficiencie of legal Sacrifices and the sufficience of Christs sacrifice THere is another place in this Epistle much urged by some divines by which they would infer that if a man once fall into this sin there will be no means or hope of pardon left the words are thus read Heb. 10. 26. 26. For if we sin wilfully after we have received the Knowledg of the truth there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sins 27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgement and sierie indignation c In this Chapter we have an evident discoverie of the grand capital sin which is commonlie called The sin against the holiâ— Spirit or Holie Ghost wherein the obscuritie of it as it is delivered in three of the Evangelists is cleered and by examination of the Apostles words in this chapter it will appeare that the sin which in the Gosple is called the blasphemie against the Holie Ghost is the blasphemous undervaluing of the Person of the Son of God whose