Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	believe_v	infallible_a	scripture_n	2,072	5	7.3203	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20770	A treatise of the true nature and definition of justifying faith together with a defence of the same, against the answere of N. Baxter. By Iohn Downe B. in Divinity, and sometime fellow of Emanuel C. in Cambridge.; Selections	Downe, John, 1570?-1631.; Baxter, Nathaniel, fl. 1606.; Bayly, Mr., fl. 1635.; Muret, Marc-Antoine, 1526-1585. Institutio puerilis. English.	1635 (1635)	STC 7153; ESTC S109816	240,136	421

a true Body like vnto ours but that Body which you fancy to be in the Eucharist is not like vnto our bodies For in this Body there is no distance of one part from another as of eye from eye and head from feet neither hath it any dimensiue quantity and is all both in Heauen and here on earth in the Sacrament at once yet not in the middle region betweene nor separated from himselfe but nothing of this can bee affirmed of our bodies or of any other organicall body And if you say that you conceiue of Christs Body in the Sacrament as of a glorified Body the plaine Scripture is against you that when Christ spake these words This is my Body his Body was yet vncrucified and vnglorified Your exposition therefore crossing the Analogy cannot possibly bee good As for ours thus we shew it The text plainely saith that our blessed Sauiour in his last supper tooke Bread blessed it brake it and gaue it vnto his disciples saying This is my Body What This bread But this Proposition This Bread is my Body literally and properly is not true therefore is it figuratiuely to be vnderstood How so Thus. I looke into plaine Scripture and there I find that as the Euangelists call it Bread before Consecration so Saint Paul cals it Bread after Consecration 1. Cor. 11.26 Ib. v. 27. Ib. v. 28. As often saith he as yee shall eat this Bread and Whosoeuer shall eat this Bread vnworthily and Let a man examine himselfe and so eat of this Bread Whence I conclude that the Bread is not changed but remaineth still Bread Then I consider further that our Sauiour now institutes a Sacrament and that in Sacramentall actions Sacramentall phrases are vsuall and the outward signe is called by the name of the thing signified as in the old Testament Gen. 7.10 Circumcision is called the Couenant and the Lambe the Passeouer and in the new Ex. 12.11 the Cup is called the new Testament or couenant Whereupon I inferre there being no reason to the contrary Luc. 22.20 that these words in like manner are to bee interpreted This is my Body that is This Bread is Sacramentally my Body or the Sacramentall signe of my Body And thus you see by clearing this one passage how other darker places also may receiue light from those that are plainer You will say this is to build vpon Consequences wherein it is possible to bee deceiued Whereunto I answer three things first that whatsoeuer may bee deduced out of the Word of God by euident Consequence is certaine euen by the certainty of Faith Bell. de Iust l. 3. c. 8. and this your owne greatest clarks doe grant Secondly to banish Consequences from Diuinity is to banish the vse of right reason and discourse also and that religion must needs bee driuen to narrow shifts which cannot subsist vnlesse men turne fooles or beasts Thirdly the necessity of a Consequence doth not any way depend vpon the person of him that inferreth it but onely vpon the mutuall relation and strait coniunction betweene the premisses and it so that by him who desires to bee satisfied in the truth not the person of him that deduceth it but the Consequence it selfe is to bee looked too whether it bee rightly deduced or no. But who shall iudge that will you say Indeed if you stand resolued vtterly to renounce all the helps and directions both of reason and art nor will yeeld to any Consequence of Scripture how cleere and euident soeuer but will only rely on the mouth and sentence of your humane externall Iudge I confesse I am at Dulkarnon to vse Chaucers phrase and you are past my skill infallibly to perswade you But if as wee haue shewed nor Scripture nor Fathers acknowledge such a Iudge if all whatsoeuer is necessary to saluation bee so plainely laid downe in Scripture as a man of meane capacity may vnderstand it if what is more obscurely deliuered in one place is more plainely expressed in another if God haue appointed that out of the plainer places wee should with study and industrie picke the meaning of those that are harder if hee haue promised that those that aske shall haue those that seeke shall find and to those that knocke it shall bee opened if finally though wee misse the true meaning of those harder places yet firmely adhering vnto the plainer wee are safe and out of danger then certainely the readiest and surest way to to interpret Scripture is by Scripture and there is no other way to determine controuersies and to satisfy the conscience but onely this If any notwithstanding this list still to bee contentious 1. Cor. 11. Wee saith S. Paul haue no such custome nor the Churches of God The rule it selfe is infallible and al-sufficient if wee either through ignorance cannot or through negligence doe not vse it as we ought the fault is not in God but in our selues neither doth hee faile in his prouidence but wee in our dutie Performe wee our duty obediently and hee will performe his promise faithfully In necessaries hee will neuer faile if in other things all be not of one mind yet let vs still proceed by the same rule and instruct one another in the spirit of meeknesse and God will reueale that also in due time And now M. Bayly you haue what I intended for the present it remaines that you peruse it attentiuely The summe is The Fathers may be Ministers by whom you belieue but their Consent is no ground of Faith Your externall humane Iudge is but a Chimera of mans braine and not an Officer of Gods making The onely al-sufficient infallible outward rule of Faith is Scripture in the plainer places which places also must interpret the difficulter Besides this albeit there may be a iurisdiction in the Church to order and controll the outer man yet to satisfy the Conscience and inner man there is no authority but this Which things being so let me entreat you and that in the bowels of Iesus Christ to remember from whence you are fallen and to cast about yet againe and by this rule to examine your new Faith It is not necessary for a man to be an Euclid or some cunning Mathematician to trie by a straight rule whether a line be straight or no. But you are a Scholler and a Minister and should bee able skilfully to apply the rule your selfe To trust anothers application of it for you and that in the point of saluation is not Christian modestie but meere childishnesse and foolish credulity Remember what Lactantius saith It behoueth a man Div. Instit l. 2. c. 8. specially in that thing wherein the state of our life consisteth to trust himselfe and to rely vpon his own iudgement and vnderstanding for finding out examining the truth rather then belieuing anothers errors to be deceiued as if himselfe were void of reason God hath giuen to all men some portion of wisedome whereby

is conditionall you denyed in your answer to the former argument now also you deny that Belieuing is commanded Whereby you bewray how inexpert you are in the Word of righteousnesse as the Apostle speaketh and that whereas by office you are Heb. 5.12 13. and concerning the time ought to be a teacher yet haue you need your selfe to be taught the very elements of the Christian Religion That therefore the Promise is conditionall I haue in the due place demonstrated now that Belieuing is commanded remaineth to bee poued or rather it is already proued thus No condemnation but for breach of a Commandement Condemnation for vnbeliefe for for vnbeliefe the world shall bee condemned Ergo Beliefe commanded But this reason according to your wont you cunningly suppresse and hauing found out a new Art of disputation thinke it enough to scorne the premisses and with a bold face to deny the Conclusion Yet for your further confusion vnto necessary consequence I adde the expresse words of Scripture This saith Iohn is his commandement that wee belieue in the Name of his Sonne Iesus Christ 1 Ioh. 3.23 And vnto diuine authority I adde the humble consent of holy men of God Beza expoundeth that place of Saint Iohns Gospell Ioh. 6.29 This is the worke of God that yee belieue in me De gra vniuer De Praedest gratia on this wise This is that which God requireth of you that yee belieue in me The Lord commandeth saith Hemingius that we belieue Together with the Promise saith Master Perkins is conioined the Exhortation or Commandement to Belieue which is more generall then the Promise because the promise belongs only to Belieuers but the Cōmandement both to Belieuers vnbelieuers Harm Conf. Sax. of remission of sins iustif Finally the whole Church of Saxony thus confesseth It is the eternall immutable commandment of God that we should belieue in the Son of God according to this saying which is my very ground the Spirit shall conuince the world of sinne because they Belieue not in mee Nay see the lucke of it that which here you affirme to be an vntruth not many lines before you haue auowed to bee a truth saying God commandeth all to Belieue and therefore the Reprobates Yea doe you not in this place vnsay that which you say saying it is vntrue that God commandeth when hee biddeth a Reprobate to Belieue For hee that Biddeth in my vnderstanding commandeth vnlesse you that complaine of nice and subtle Distinctions in others haue learned of late by some new-found nicetie to distinguish there where the letters and syllables onely differing there is otherwise an identie of nature and definition A man would wonder how you could so soone forget your selfe but that it is commonly seene a liar hath seldome or neuer a good memory But to proue that God commands not a Reprobate to belieue you come vpon mee with a most mighty and insoluble Enthymem What is that I beseech you Marie this A Reprobate if he could belieue he should then without doubt bee saued Ergo God doth not command him to Belieue A desperate Demonstration I promise you for by the same reason you may conclude that God commands him not to obey the Precepts of the Morall law neither Because if hee could keepe them he should bee saued What you conceiue may bee the knot and sowlder as it were of this Consequence I cannot well imagine vnlesse it be one of two either this God promiseth the Reprobate hee shall bee saued if hee Belieue Ergo hee commandeth him not to Belieue or this The Reprobate cannot belieue Ergo God commandeth him not to Belieue for your words seeme to bee indifferent either way If you intend the former first you contradict your owne selfe for in your answer to the former argument you deny Iustification and Saluation to bee promised vpon condition of Faith Secondly euery Catechumenus and Nouice in Diuinity knowes that God vnto Commandement vsually annexeth Promise to draw on Obedience as in the Couenant of works first hee Commandeth Doe this and then Promiseth if thou doe it thou shalt liue and in the Couenant of Grace also first hee Commandeth Belieue and then addeth the Promise if thou belieue thou shalt bee saued So that Promise and Commandement exclude not one the other neither doth it follow Faith is the condition of a Promise Ergo it is not commanded If you vnderstand the latter then know that as Augustin and Barnard and all Diuines not infected with Pelagianisme say God commandeth some things which man cannot doe to the end that knowing his owne insufficiency hee may craue of him the helpe of grace that hee may doe them And if God doe command any supernaturall action vnto the Reprobate as without doubt hee doth then doth hee also command some thing aboue his power for being meerely naturall he cannot produce any supernaturall operation Whereupon it followeth euidently that although a Reprobate cannot belieue yet neuerthelesse hee may bee commanded to Belieue Well yet you will proue that a Reprobate cannot Belieue To what end for it is not denied and you should rather strengthen your Consequence and proue that therefore Faith is not commanded Notwithstanding let vs heare your reason for it seemeth to bee very remarkable That hee cannot Belieue say you the reason is Christ hath not washed him If you had said as followeth Christ hath not opened his heart to Belieue or it is to bee imputed to the hardnes of his owne heart and had stopt there I should easily haue yeelded vnto you but now that you say the reason is because Christ hath not washed him I must needs tell you it is vnreasonable reason for it implies that wee are first washed and then Belieue whereas both Scripture and the analogie of Faith teach vs that we first belieue and then afterward are washed Search the booke of God Rom. 3.28 Act. 15.9 Rom. 3.25 and there shall you read that wee are iustified by Faith that the heart is purified by Faith that God hath set forth Iesus Christ to bee a reconciliation through Faith in his Blood Which Blood although it haue in it sufficient vertue and force to cleanse vs from the leprosie of all our sinnes yet doth it not actually wash or purge any vnlesse it bee particularly applied and accepted by Faith Otherwise as Ambrose excellently speaketh if thou belieue not Christ descended not for thee Christ suffered not for thee De fide ad Gratian. Wherby it manifestly appeareth that Remission of sinnes is an effect or consequence of Faith and that therefore the reason of the Reprobates vnbeliefe is not because Christ hath not washt him but rather the reason why Christ hath not washed him is because hee doth not belieue nor hath by Faith applyed the blood of Christ to himselfe for the remission of his sinnes Where you adde negatiuely that the Reprobates vnbeliefe is not to bee imputed to the falsity

righteousnesse Rom. 3.28 Consider moreouer that Faith as a cause goeth before Iustification for wee are iustified by Faith and therefore if the Elect bee wicked before his iustification hee must needs much more bee wicked before the first act of his Belieuing In regard whereof Saint Augustin saith Enar. in Ps 311 Know thou that Faith when it was giuen thee found thee a sinner These things being so as without controuersie they are I then demand of you if Faith bee Assurance what ground hath the Elect for his Assurance in the first Act of his Faith more then the Reprobates and wicked haue Certainly vnlesse you will flye with the Anabaptists vnto I know not what Enthusiasms and sudden reuelations grounded vpon no arguments formerly by the Holy Ghost imprinted in the soule you cannot possibly shew any seeing before Faith they lie together in the same masse of corruption and are alike liable vnto eternall damnation Now vnto this argument thus enlarged and explaned let vs see what answer you returne When I can shew the man that died without Assurance and was saued and how I know at his death hee had no full Perswasion and can proue that there is at the houre of death in the Saints a Doubtfull Faith then you say you will answer mee What M. Baxter and not till then Suppose I cannot satisfy your demands as indeed who knoweth what is in the heart of man at the houre of his death shall my argument therefore for euer stand vnanswered Declar. of Spir. Desert And yet M. Perkins telleth you that When a Professor of the Gospell shall despaire at his end men are to leaue secret iudgements vnto God and charitably iudge the best of him and hee instanceth in one M. Chambers who in his sicknesse grieuously despaired and cried out that hee was damned yet saith hee it is not for any to note him with the blacke marke of a Reprobate The like censure elsewhere giueth he of Francis Spiera Yea further saith hee When a Professor of the Gospell shall make away himselfe though it bee a fearefull case yet still the same opinion must bee carried So that it seemes by this learned mans iudgement who for ought I know is not singular herein but followeth the common opinion of other Diuines that it is possible for a man to die in Faith and so to bee saued and yet to die in Despaire and so without Assurance whence it followeth necessarily that Faith is not Assurance But this answer of yours Antholog l. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 brings mee in minde of a pretie Epigram of Nicarchus which you may read in the Greeke anthologie A deafe man commences sute against another deafe man before a deafe iudge the plaintife pleads that the defendant owes him fiue months rent for his house the defendant answers for himselfe that hee had been grinding at mill all night the Iudge looking vpon them why contend yee thus good fellowes quoth hee is shee not mother to you both then keepe her both hardly Semblable hereunto is your answer for as if you were as blind as they were deafe and had not eyes in your head to read my writing when I speake of onions as it is in the Prouerbe you answer of garlicke and roue the whole heauen wide from the marke you should shoot at I say that the wicked may bee strongly perswaded and therefore Faith is not a Perswasion you like the deafe defendant reply that you haue beene grinding at mill all night telling mee I shall then receiue answer when I shew the man that died without Perswasion and yet was saued by Faith and other such stuffe of the same stampe Verily I am perswaded if old Sibyl or Oedipus or any other that hath anciently been esteemed for reading riddles should reuiue againe yet would they not bee able with all their cunning to deuise how to accommodate and fit this answer to any part of my argument For mine owne part I can make of it nor fish nor flesh nor good red herring and therefore not troubling my selfe with your follies here I leaue it as I found it vnkith vnkist as they say N. B. And in the meane time I will hasten to your Definition of Faith which you call the third kinde of Faith and onely Iustifying Faith I. D. Soft and faire no hast but good you post away so fast vnto the Definition that you leaue something behind you vnanswered which desires and deserues your further consideration For first I proue vnto you that Faith cannot be a full Perswasion certaine Assurance partly because it is not so much as Assurance partly because such Fulnes agrees not to little Faith and so makes the definition narrower and of lesse latitude then the definite and partly because it is a most discomfortable doctrine to weake Christians who finding this strength of Assurance wanting in themselues may doubt whether they haue any Faith at all if Faith bee no other then a full Assurance and firme resolution Againe I answer certaine obiections the chiefest you can haue against mee and that with such generall solutions as will cut off almost any reason you can oppose vnto mee These things being of such importance and consequence should not thus haue beene balked and husht vp in silence for while they stand vnstirred and vntoucht you cannot reasonably bee thought either fully to haue satisfied my arguments or sufficiently to haue maintained your owne cause Out of doubt therefore it would haue been much better for your credit to haue made lesse hast and more good speed for tripping away so fast and leauing matters of such weight vtterly vnanswered all the Schollers in our Countrey to blow backe your owne scoffe into your owne face will thinke the worse of your haste so long as they liue for this tricke To conclude this point whereas there are two many faults as Simplicius saith too vsually committed in the disputation and determination of Questions it appeareth by what I haue now said that you haue hitherto grossely faulted in the former For you doe but reiect and deny my Conclusions without refuting the confirmations I bring for them and so if not altogether alienate from you yet leaue in suspence and doubt the mind euen of those who otherwise might bee of the same opinion with you Now if you offend likewise in the second and doe not in the remainder of your Reply vtterly raze and ouerthrow the foundations of my Doctrine but suffer them to stand vnshaken and vnmoued you shall both leaue the thirst of your readers expectation vnquenched and vnsatisfied and proue your selfe but a bragging and boasting Pyrgopolinices threatning much and performing nothing Let vs therefore take a view hereof and see what you haue to say against the definition which I giue to Iustifying Faith Treatise The third Faith is Faith of Person or Personall Merit and of this Faith I make the Obiect to bee Christ the Mediator meriting the

say that a man cannot rest vpon him for saluation vnlesse hee know that hee is already translated from death to life is a most vnreasonable and senselesse speech as if a man might not trust vnto his friend to doe something for him vntill he were sure it is already done If you be so sandblind in this present case that you cannot see how Rest may goe before Assurance yet I hope your sight is not so much decayed but you may perceiue it through a paire of spectacles Put case then that a skilfull and welknowne Physician should offer freely to cure the diseases of such as are sicke vpon condition they receiue Physicke of no other but put themselues wholly absolutely into his hands doe you thinke it absurd to become his patient or that you cannot repose your selfe vpon his skill to bee cured by him vnlesse you be first assured that the cure is already done Nay rather if you know well that your health is perfectly recouered you cannot rely vpon him for that whereof you are fully possessed Iesus Christ the Arch-physician of our soules as hee is knowne to bee all-sufficient and euery way able to heale our maladies so doth hee louingly inuite all those that are heauy loden to come vnto him promising to refresh them all vpon condition that renouncing themselues and all others they set their whole Affiance on him for the remission of their sinnes And dare you now make question how a man may betake himselfe into the hands of Christ vntill he know that his sinnes bee already pardoned Nay rather when wee know the debt is paid and that according to the old rule sinnes once remitted neuer returne againe we remaine thankefull for that which is past and continue our Affiance on him for discharge of that which is to come For to obserue this by the way wee may not thinke that in the first act of our conuersion and iustification we receiue actuall pardon of all our sinnes past present and to come as some and those of no meane marke haue rashly and vnaduisedly taught for sinnes past only are then actually forgiuen and sinnes to come onely in the destination and purpose of God But neither doth God actually pardon the iustified man nor the iustified man actually receiue pardon for his sinnes vntill hee haue actually committed them and renewed his Faith and Repentance for them Neither let any man thinke that I speake this out of mine owne head and without ground for I am strongly backed herein by the warrant of Scripture the euidence of reason and the testimony of worthy men By the warrant of Scripture for that teacheth onely remission of sinnes past so saith Saint Paul in expresse tearmes Rom. 3.25 God hath set forth Iesus Christ to bee a reconciliation through faith in his bloud to declare his righteousnesse by the forgiuenesse of the sinnes that are passed By the euidence of reason for if future sinnes as well as sinnes past bee actually remitted in our conuersion and first acceptation into grace what need of Repentance what need of Prayer that God would forgiue vs our trespasses To repent and craue p●●●on of that whereof wee are not guilty and which wee neuer committed is palpable folly and as great folly is it by Repentance and prayer to demand that of God which wee say wee are sure hee hath long agoe bestowed vpon vs Finally by the testimony of worthy men for Pardon saith Origen is of sinnes past not future Repentance In ad Rom. 3. De acerbè Iudicantib Miscell lib. 3. pa. 97. saith Gregory Nyssen is the dissolution and destruction of sinnes past It is confessed by all truly godly and learned saith Hierome Zanchie that the Saints to obtaine new remission for a new sinne haue need of a new act of Faith and Repentance according to that saying so rise in Scripture that by Faith men are iustified and haue their sinnes remitted which when it is spoken of them that are come to yeeres of discretion is alwayes to be vnderstood of Actuall Faith that is of the Act of Faith De praedest grat Lastly Master Perkins when a Faithfull man grieuously sinneth the sinne is indeed remitted in the destination of God yet no remission is actually either giuen by God or receiued by man vntill hee repent Nay if hee should neuer repent which yet is impossible hee should as guilty of eternall death euen for this one sin be damned for there is no new remission of any new sinne without a new act of Faith and Repentance But inough of this point in this place though it bee of great importance because it is but by the way only hence I gather that seeing Faith goeth before and Assurance necessarily commeth after remission that Faith is not Assurance N. B. I had rather say Faith were a labour then a Rest for it seeketh continually by sanctification and holy loue to bring both body and soule vnto eternall rest and then Faith ceaseth when eternall pacification and rest is wrought in man I. D. Thus you reason Faith is a labour Rest is not a labour Ergo Faith is not a Rest The Maior you proue thus That which worketh rest is a labour But Faith worketh rest and ceaseth when rest is wrought Ergo Faith is a labour The Minor you leaue naked and without proofe supposing I thinke that no man vnlesse bereft of his fiue wits would deny it and hold that Rest is a labour Let vs therefore briefly examine them both The Maior of your second Syllogisme precisely and literally vnderstood is not true for that which worketh is the Agent or Labourer and the Labourer cannot bee the Action or Labour Whereupon it followeth If that which worketh bee not a labour And Faith as you assume worke that therefore Faith is not a labor which is contradictory vnto the Maior of your first Syllogysme And yet as I grant not vnto you that Faith is a labour so neither dare I peremptorily deny it only I blame you for speaking so confusedly where it was necessary to vse distinction Know therefore that Faith as all other qualities whether acquired or infused may bee considered two wayes either in the first act as Schooles vse to speake or in the second The first act is the very habit of Faith inhering and sticking in the soule the second is the immediate and proper operation and action thereof If then you vnderstand Faith in the first Act and as it is an Habit it is not a labour but is imprinted in vs by the Holy Ghost to the end that when oportunity is offered and duty requireth wee may by vertue thereof more sweetly readily and easily worke and labour And so far is it from being a labor it selfe that oftentimes it lieth as it were idle asleep doing nothing at all vntill it please the Spirit of God to stirre vp our wils and to quicken the sparke hee hath put in vs inabling vs thereby to cooperate

holy Virgin to bee Genitricem Dei the Mother of God let him bee anathema The Councell of Chalcedon confirmed the same Act. 5. ratifying the Acts of the Ephesine Councell And the fift Councell of Constantinople thus defines If any say the glorious Virgin Mary is not truely but abusiuely Genitrix Dei that is the Mother of God let him bee Anathema or accursed Secondly by ancient Fathers both before and since Nestorius In ad Rom. who all stile her Deiparam the Mother of God Origen largely discourses and renders many reasons why shee should bee so called Eusebius Pamphili saith that the Empresse Helena honored Deiparae partum In vita Constantini the birth of the Mother of God Cyrill of Alexandria president in the foresaid Councell of Ephesus in his Anathematismes sent to Nestorius saith that Marie genuit In Conc. Eph. carnally begat him that was made flesh euen the Word of God and anathematizeth them that deny her to bee Genitricem Dei Epist 1. ad Chelid the Mother of God Gregory Nazianzen If any belieue not the Virgin Mary to be Genitricem Dei the Mother of God Ep. 97. ad Leon. Aug. let him bee separated from God Leo Accursed bee Nestorius who belieued not the Blessed Virgin to bee Dei Genitricem the Mother of God Iohn Cassian It is not lawfull to say Christ and not God is borne of Mary L. 2. de Incar Prosper of Aquitani The Virgin Mary bare Christ who is God of Heauen Hesychius L. 1. com in Lev. 2. Therefore to note the Natiuity of Christ the Sacrifice is said to bee baked in an ouen to wit in the Wombe Genitricis Dei of the Mother of God Augustin Mary therefore begat Cont. Faelic c. 12. and begat not the Sonne of God She begat him when Christ was borne of her according to the flesh Shee begat him not when the Sonne without beginning issued from the Father Vincentius Lirinensis Anathema to Nestorius denying God to bee borne of the Virgin Many more Fathers I could easily alledge Ca 21. but I presume one Decade of such witnesses is euidence sufficient Thirdly by latter writers of the reformed Churches Inst l. 2. c. 14. §. 4. who maintaine the same Faith of the Fathers Caluin We are to abhorre the Heresie of Nestorius that was that Mary is not the Mother of God Againe Hee that is the Sonne of God the same is the Sonne of Mary Beza Referr Scr. The Church hath rightly defined against Nestorius In Luc. 1.35 that Mary should be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God Peter Martyr Wee confesse that the Sonne of God is borne of the Blessed Virgin neither doubt wee to call Mary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. de Corp. Christ loc the Mother of God Sadeel Iustly was Nestorius condemned denying the holy Virgin to bee Deiparam the Mother of God seeing our ancestors haue constantly defended that Mary is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God De ver hum nat Christ though not the Mother of the Diuinity Danaeus In Aug. de haer c. 91. Part. l. 1. It is manifest that Mary may and ought to bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God Polanus It is rightly said of Christ that hee is God borne of the Virgin Loco de Christ Bucanus placeth among doctrines repugnant to diuine truth this of Nestorius that Mary is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God Tilenus The Blessed Virgin is truly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God Synt. de Nat. Christ n. 19. Ser. c. 18. On Creed Perkins Hence Mary is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God though shee be not the Mother of the Deity And Shee must bee held to bee the Mother of the whole Christ God and Man and therefore the ancient Church hath called her the Mother of God yet not the Mother of the Godhead Praemonit Finally the great Defendor of the ancient Catholicke and Apostolicke Faith King IAMES I acknowledge her to bee the Mother of God seeing in Iesus Christ the humane nature cannot bee separated from the Deity Fourthly by the Creed of the Apostles so vniuersally receiued of all Churches wherein all true Christians professe that they belieue in Iesus Christ the onely begotten Sonne of the Father and that he was conceiued of the Holy Ghost and borne of the Virgin Mary If the eternall sonne of God were borne of the blessed Virgin then must shee needs bee the Mother of God The Creed therefore of the Councell of Chalcedon thus expoundeth and openeth it Borne of the Blessed Virgin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of God Neither may wee thinke that the holy Church of Christ hath vnaduisedly or rashly beléeued this doctrine but vpon firme and vnmoueable grounds both of Scripture and the analogie of Faith For first Scripture euidently teacheth it That holy thing which shall bee borne of thee shall bee called the Sonne of God saith the Angell Gabriel and Elizabeth whence commeth thus that the Mother of my Lord should come to me By which place saith Beza it is expresly manifest against Nestorius that Mary is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God Againe if Mary bee the Mother of Iesus Christ and Christ be God it followeth of necessity that she must be the Mother of God Nay doth not the Prophet directly say that the child borne vnto us is the mighty God In a word Esa 9.6 it will not I trust be denied but that Mary is the Mother of him that was Crucified that died that shed his bloud that was seene with the eye and felt with the hand 1. Cor. 2.8 Phil. 2.8 Act. 20. 1. Ioh. 1.2 But it was the Lord of glory that was Crucified that was obedient to the death that shed his bloud it was the Lord of life that was both seene and felt And therefore is Mary also the Mother of the Lord of glory the Mother of the Lord of life the Mother of him that is equall with God and consequently God seeing none is equall vnto God but God As Scripture so the Analogie of Faith also confirmeth it For no reason can be rendred why Mary should not be the Mother of God but eyther because Christ is not God or because the humanity was the subject of Conception and Birth before it was assumpted by the Word or lastly because the Humanity was neuer assumpted into the Vnity of the same Person but remayned a distinct person by it selfe all which were the damnable blasphemies and heresies of Arius Photinus and Nestorius the first of Arius the second of Photinus the third of Nestorius Therefore contrarywise I argue thus If Christ bee God and the Humanity were at the first creation thereof preuented from subsisting in it selfe and neuer had subsistence but in the Word so as both Natures constitute one onely Hypostasis or