Son himself shall 1. Quaest be subject whereas in truth onely hâ—s Church is then to be subjected more then it was before and not his own Person no not his very humanity more I say then it was whilest he walked on the Earth For then he was not onely without sin but moreover he was obedient to death even the death of the cross Philip. 2. 8. For the understanding hereof I premise three considerable observations First the Apostle doth not say the Word shall be subject for then he must mean that the Godhead of Christ should be subject which is impossible but he saith the Son shall be subject Now we know nothing is more frequent in Scripture then that holy men are called the Sons of God as Matth. 5. 9. Luke 6. 35. so that the subjection of the Son of God doth here signifie the perfect subjection of holy men at the resurrection of the just as will more appeare anon Secondly I observe that whereas he saith The Son himself shall be subject and yet cannot mean the naturall and individuall Person of Jesus Christ but onely his Church it must needs declare that the appellation of tâ—e Son of God himself is given and communicated to his elect members who are his Body mysticall as being really united to his body naturall and with him who is the head they are One body so that Christ and his Church are called One Christ which by the Fathers is usually called Plenitudo Christi Christus â—â—tuâ— Christus Vniverisus Tertullian in his sense said Tertul. de Poenit. Aug. â—n Jo. Tract 21. of this mystery Ecclesia est Christus cum ad fratrum gâ—nuate proter dis Christum contractas and so Saint Austine Christi facti sumus non soâ—um Christani Plenitudo Christi est caput membra Câ—â—istus Ecclesi i. The Church is Christ so that when you are prostrate at the knees of the brethren you touch the knees of Christ We are not onely Christians but we are Christ the Fulness of Christ is the head and the members that is Christ and hâ—s Church Thirdly Observe that it is said Then shall the Son 3. be subject by which future expression it may clearly appear that the subjâ—ctâ—on here meant is not yet come to pass and therefore cannot be understood of the naturall proper and individuall Person of Jesus Christ for all manner of subjectâ—on that can be expected from him is already perfect in his own proper humanity because himself never rebelled against the Godhead Nazianzen saith of him Annon nunc subjectus est an Naz. Orat. 36. ut de Deâ— hoste loqueâ—is But though Christ in hâ—s own proper humanity ever was is and will be subject to the Godhead yet of Christ in regard of his â—ody Mysticall which is the Church of Elect â—s called by her Spouses Id. ibid. own name the same Father saith Pâ—ccaâ— a nostra sumpsit inobedientiam quamdâ—u egâ— inobediens sum Coristus per me inobediens est Cum subjectionem nostram implevâ—rit nosque adduâ—â—râ—t tum ipsâ— subjâ—ctus dicitur Christ hath taken our sins and dâ—sobâ—dience on himself so long as I am inobedient so long Christ by me is said to be inobedient when he hath wholly subdued us and presented us perfect to the Father then the Son himself is said to be subject The answer to this question How the Son himself Answer shall then be subject is this That in Scripture-language the Church or Saints and Members of Christ aâ—e called and really are with their head One whole Christ they are himself and therefore their subjection is his subjection and so long as they are not fully subjected the Son himself is not wholly subject For if the naturall body of Christ be called Christ as it is when we say Christ is buried when onely his body was buried much rather may his great Mystcall and Pâ—liticall Body be called Christ and so it is 1 Cor. 12. 27. The Body of Christ all the Members are but one Body so is Christ and Gal. 3. 2â— All are one in Christ Jesus see 1 Cor. 6. 15. If it were not for this reall union of Christ and his Church how could Christ truely say I was hungry Matth. 25. 30. and ye gave me meat for the meat is meant of that which is given to his poor Members and not to his own proper self and thâ—s is clearly and often explained by S. Austine a Aug. in Jo. Tract 28. Non enim Christus in capite non in corpore sed Christis toâ—us in capite in corpore and again b In Jo tract 108. Vnus est Christus caput corpus ipsi sunt ego and again c In 1 Epist Jo. tract 1. Carni Christi conjungitur Ecclesia fit totus Christas caâ—u corpus and again d Ibid. tract 10. Filâ—i Dei sunt câ—orpus unics Filii Dei â—um ille caput sit nos Membra unus ' est Fâ—lius Dei and more yet e De Verb. Dei Serm. 14. Caput cum corpore suâ— unus est Christus The Apostle saith Eph. 5. 31. We are memberâ— of his Body of his flesh and of his bones upon which words the same Father saith f De Temp. serm 234. Ipse Christus est spensur sponsa sponsus in capiâ—e sponsa in corpore The sum of what he saith is this We are not to imagine Christ to be onely in the head for the whole Christ consisteth of the head and body The head and body are but one Christ his Members are himself so there is but one Son of God for the whole Christ is both Bridegroom and Bride By reason of this Union Christ said Saul Saul why Acts 9. 4. persecutest thou me For Christ is in Heaven as head but his Body is on Earth If one tread upon the foot the head crieth you tread on me g Aug. de Verb. Dei ser 49. Vnitaâ— est à capite ad pedes head and foot are united as one Body and therefore by the Ancients h Prosp Psal 101. Those which are strong in Christ are called his bones The Apostle is the mouth of Christ Saint Ambrose wished would I were Ambr. n. 51 34 but his Foot Others are his Eyes as the Prophets Others his hands as those that do good and the poor are his belly yea the Prophet calls his people the apple Zach. 2. 8. of his Eye So it is said John 3. 13. No man hath ascended into Heaven but he that came down from Heaven For although holy men ascended into Heaven yet this is a Truth because such are included in the plenitude of Christ i Aug. de Verb. Apost ser 14. In Coeâ—um non ascendâ—t nâ—si Christus si vis ascendere â—sto in corpore He that will ascend must first be in Christ It is said Col. 1. 24. I fiâ—l up that which
externallie some one act wherby that inward grace was shewed as namely by that one gift of healing mentioned 1 Coâ— 12. 9. Of which I spake in the former chapter I trust it will not be denied to be as it is called v 7. A manifâ—station of the Spirit And for this I shall instance in another heathen Prince who was of no better religion then Cyrus was and that is Vespâ—tian the Roman who in the raigne of Nero and before he was Emperor was imploied in the execution of divine vengeance on the rebellious * vide Paulum Oros lib. 7. c. 1. Iewâ—s and the citie of Ierusalem and for that service it may with great pobabilitie be thought that God gave him the Roman Empiâ—e for his reward as he gave Nebuchaduezzar the Kingdome of Egypt for his service against Tyrâ— as we read Ezâ—ch 29. 18. And that the Empi e was the gift of God to him it seemeth to me probable because it was Prophetically foretold unto him by Iosephus the learned Jew who was then a pâ—â—iâ—t unto whom God had revealed both Vespatian's advancement and also the destruction of the Iewish nation God having appeared to Joseph de bel jud l. 2. lib. 7. him in his sleepe as himself relateth and withall confessed that he feared God was offended with him for labouring to save his nation when he knew God had decreed their 〈◊〉 for this reason I think I may call the said Veâ—â—â—tian Gods anointed as being so cleerly designed by God to that empire and also for that as an effect of his unction Tacâ—us Dion Suetonius doe Tac. hist l. 4. c. 19. Suet. in vesp c. 7. Dion in vesp c. 2. vide Plutarch in vita Pyrrhi p. 384. unanimously report that whilest this Emperor was in Egypt the gift of healing was manifested in him for a blind man was restored to his sight and a lame man was cured by his touch If this prove true in an unregenerate and heathen Prince give me leave good reader a litle to discourse unto thee the like effect of divine unction in a regenerate King the most vertuous and most Christian King this day as I doe firmly beleeve and so doe the greatest number of his subjects in the whole world I meane our owne most gracious King Charles For that the King is Gods anoined was never with us called in question before this sceptick time and God never shewed a greater manifestation of any Kings unction in this nation since the dayes of King Edward the Confessor who was the first of our Kings that by his royal touch cured the disease called the Kings Evil then he hath lately shewed in the person of our most pious and most mercifull King Charles for never were so many in so short a time restored to their health and soundnes as of late by him many hundreds were touched by his sacred hand and as many returned home with health in their bodies and blessings in their soules to their royal physician to the great admiration of many witnesses where of my self am one for to his majesties court at Newmarket Jnue 18. Anno 1647. did I â—end one of my Children a child of 11. yeares old who immediatly before had bin extreamly afflicted and indeed tortured with that disease but having bin there and then touched the next day following he returned home perfectly cured and sound and hath so continued ever since for the space of more then 5 Moneths Blessed be the Lord Jesus who is the author of every good gift and blessed be his anoinred servant in whom his goodnes was so cleerly manifested These things might stop the mouthes of his Majesties most implacable enemies who in print have endeavoured to make the people beleeve that the King is not Gods anointed and might particularly shame them who most unchristianly have called this Gift of healing witchcraft although there is an expresse warrant 1 Cor. 12. 9. for it in the word of God these men without doubt except they repent shall one day be accountable for the sinne of blaspheming God and the King for ascribing that worke to witchcraft and so to Satan which is done both by the Kings hand and with the finger of God assisting his anointed just so did the Pharisees blaspheme Christ when he cast out Satan by the finger of God for they said he cast him out by Belzebub Neither wil it be sufficient to say that the gift of healing was a temporâ—rie grace and now quite expired for it can not be so pâ—oved Gods arme is not shortned for although the ordinarie and frequent use of such divine cures is now abated yet no man can for certaine affirme that the gift is utteriie ceased and for our owne particular case in this kingdome why should we not rather thinke that our merciful God now in these needful times to stop the mouthes of al the enemies of his anointed or at least to leave the obstinate without excuâ—e hath so manifestly shewed and declared him to be indeed his anointed and that these multitudes of Royal cures are as so many lampes manifesting the divine Oile of his unction for so the Royal Pâ—almist bringeth in God â—aying Psal 132. 17. I have ordained a Lamp soâ— mine anointed his enemies will I clothe with shâ—â—â— but upon himself shall his Crowne florish Even so Amen Deus dâ—fendat Opt. lib. 2. Oleum suum Upon himself and his royal posteritie Lord let this Crowne florish as long as the Sun and moone endure CHAP. XVII The Vnion of Christ and his Church further shewed why Christ is called by the names Adam Jacob David Why all mankind was extracted out of One man why S. Austin denied the Antipodes wherin this Vnion consisteth An Explication of Heb. 7. 9. Which was slubbered over by the Commenter touching Melchisedech and Levi. BY what hath bin said the Christian reader I trust doth by this time perceive that our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ with great love justice and equitie did sustaine our person and in our steed and to our behalf did both beare the punishment of our transgressions and also fulfilled the whole law of God for us as our suretie because he was as an Vniversall man in whom all mankind was united The sower leaven of the first Adam had â—owred the whol lump of mankind but the divine Spirit of the second Adam sweetned his whole mystical body for a Spirit us est genitoris Aug. de Trin. l. 6. genitiqae Suavitas i The Spirit is the sweetnes of the Father and the Son and because our true and only God hath assumed both our flesh and our soule also on himself and hath put his Spirit into us therefore he is become one with us mystically and we with him hence it is that Prosper saith Tota ecclesia cum Christo Pâ—osp in I sal 102. capite est unus homo i The whol bodie of the Church with Christ the head is one man
and againe he saith Tota civitas dei est unus homo in Capite Corpore i Id. in Psal 131. The whole Citie of God is one man in the head and in the bodie being as one corporation And concerning Christs Prayers and the Churches Prayers the same Father saith Ad deum clamaâ— Caput in Corpore Id. in Psal 142. Corpus in Capite i Christ prayeth in his Church and his Church prayeth in him for otherwise how could wee say to God Abba Father and this neareness and intire unitie betweene God and man in Christ is principallie from this ground that because there is but one God and that one God is in all men therfore doth he make al to be one and also men with Christ are Commembers Aug. cont mendacium c. 2. n 77. Chrys in S. Theophaniam to 6. n. 59. as S. Austin cals them i. fellow members of his bodie because wee with him were made of one blood as we read Act. 17. 26. for as S. Chrysostome noteth Deus ideo incarnatus ut ingeret opus cum opifice i God was therfore Incarnate that therby he might unite the Creature with the Creator all communicating both in flesh and in Spirit hence all Christians are called one anothers brethren and sisters because all have the same Spirit of one heavenlie Father Anima fratris est Hier. n. 41. soror tua S. Hierom saith i Thy brothers soule is thine owne sister a sister but it is only in Christ because the same Spirit of Christ is in both upon the same grounds it is that Christ becomes so neare of kindred to us men that he takes upon himself the names of other Men to implie an â—dentity with Man for 1 Cor. 15. 45. he is called Adam and the Prophets call him David Jer. 30. 9. Ezech. 34 23. Ose 3. 5. And this long after Adam and David were dead and is therfore meant of Christ for when David is called a Man after Gods owne heart 1 Sam. 13. 14. Act. 13 22. which is very hard to be said or understood of any sinfull man but de Aug de Dule quaest q 6. n. 89. Christo intellige and nullus nodus erit i if you will understand it to be spoken of Christ there will be no difficultie at all So also I think that saying Num. 23. 21. He hath not beheld iniquitie in Jacob is meant of Christ who is called Jacob with as greate reason as the other posteritie are called by the name of their patriarch Israel and Iacob very frequently in Scripture and namely Psal 41. 7. Because the Creator at the first intended this union to be a ground and preparative of mans redemption therefore he extracted all mankind even the woman also out of one Man that so all might come into the unitie of Christ which is the reason that is alleaged by Prosper and that theâ—eby christs obedience active and Prosper De Provid n. 39. passive might be in stead of all Adâ—m and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not believe there were any 〈◊〉 although he knew the earth was scated in the midst of the woâ—â—d Aug. de Civ l. 16 c 9. l aâ—â— de fal Rel. l. 3. c. 24. but it was least he should grant that the e was any one man in the whole world which came not out of the loins of Adam Now as all Mankind hath its interest in Christ so more especially hath the Church whâ—ch is joyned to her head in a more sweet and loving matâ—imonâ—all bond Matth. 22. 2. The Kingdome of Heaven is like unto a Certain King which made a marriage for his son and this is set forth more Emphatically Eph. 5. 30. For wâ— are member of his body â—f his flâ—sh and of his â—ones this is a great Mystery but I spâ—ak conâ—â—â—ning Christ and his Church For the union of Christ and his Church doth not onely consist in this that Christ assumed the flesh of his holy ones for so he did of all nor in that he communicates hi Spiâ—it to his Elect â—nd holyenâ—s for so also he doth to all But in that he gives to his Church his Divine Spirit with all the sweetnesse of his love and goodnesse and with such high graces as make her lovely acceptable and gracious in the eyes of her Lord and head This great mystery of Mans Redemption by the Incarnation of God was imitated early at the Creation of the woman It is observed by S. Ambrose that at Ambr. de Paradiâ—o n 9. the Creation of the Man it is not said God saw that it was good but when it is said Male and Female created he them Gen. 1. 27. Immediately it followes God blessed them and verse 31. It was verâ— good and this because from the Womans fruitfulness the Redeemer was to come and this is the meaning of St. Paul 1 Tim. 2. 15. She shall be saved in child-bearing That is by the Son of God now born of a woman if she continue in the Faith and for the comfort of all sorts of men unto whom the benefit of the Gospell and with it the inestimable benefit of Christs death is offered the Gospell hath set forth our Saviour descending from the first man and extracted through holy and unholy Ancestors through Jews and Gentiles by noble and ignoblâ— births as appeareth in the Genealogâ—â—s of S Luke and of â— Matthew where there is mention of â—amar and of 〈◊〉 a Moabiâ—â— and Gentile to shew that all sorts of men have an interest in Christ for all men in the world were united with Christ himselâ— also in the loyns of Adam Before I clâ—se this Book I think it very pertinent to the business in hand to explain that place Heb. 7. 9. which our Commenter hath most slightly passed over yet warily because if he had rightly expounded it it had clâ—aâ—ly made against his blasphemy the words are these Levi 〈◊〉 Tithes in Abraham For he was in 〈◊〉 of his Fatâ—â—r when Melchiâ—edech met him The collection from these words is that therefore Meâ—chisâ—aechs and so Christs Priesthood is greater then Leviâ—â— Pâ—iâ—stâ—ond But against this Argument it may be objected that Christ was also in the loins of Abraham at that time as well as Levi for thâ—n 〈◊〉 was not begot and therefâ—re in this respect both Levi and Christ paid tithes in Abraham and neither are to be for this cause preferred before the other except we can shew that Christ was not then in the loins of Abraham Secundum aliquem modum in some manner as Levi was For answer hereunto S. Austine thought it sufficient to say that the difference between â—â—vies and Christs being in the loins of Abraham was this Christus Aug. de Gen. ad lit l. 10. c. 19 non 〈◊〉 secundum animam seâ— Levi ficit i That Christs Soul was not derived by propagation from Abrâ—haâ— as Lâ—viâ—s soul was But this answer will not satisfie because it is uncertain to us
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
Emmanuel as being one with us Let us next see what the Ancient Doctors conceived of this Union to avoid prolixity I will instance onely in St. Austin who saith Aug. in Psal 17. Christus Ecclesia est totum Christi caput corpus And upon those words My God my God why hast thou forsaken me and I cry in the day time and thou hearest not and Let this Cup passe from me and Not my will but thy will be done he saith In Psal 21. Christus dicit de te de me de illo corpus suum gerebat scilicet Ecclesiam membrorum vox erat non timebat mori sed pro his dixit qui mortem timent And again he saith in Ps 26. Omnes in illo Christi Christus sumus totus Christus caput corpus And upon those words Saul Saul why persecutest thou me he saith in Ps 30. Sic vâ—cem pedis suscipit lingua clamat calcas me in membris Christi Christus est Christus est multa membra unum corpus And in Ps 100. Christum induti Christus sumus cum capite nostro cum Christo capite unus homo sumus And in Ps 103. Omnes nos in Christo credentes unus homo sumue And in Ps 127. Multi Christiani unus Christus unus homo Christus caput corpus And in Ps 119. Omnes Sancti sunt unus homo in Christo The summe of all is That Christ and his Members are united so that they are one body and as one person for as the head and inferiour parts in one man are but one body so Christ and his members are but one Christ which the same Father calleth in Ps 36. Ser. 2. Ps 37. Christum plenum And Corpus Christi diffusnm Neither is the Church of England silent in this great mystery of our union with Christ for to shew that the grand reason and the intent and purpose for which Christ ordained the holy Supper was especially to set forth this Union of himself and members to be such as our food is to and with our bodies bread and wine unite themselves to us they grow into one body with us So she saith to faithful Communicants The Exhortat at the Commun That we dwell in Christ and Christ in us We be one with Christ and Christ with us And this also was the reason of instituting Baptisme as St. Paul expresseth it to be baptized Rom. 6. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one body Baptisme is the mysterious sign of our entrance into Christ But the Eucharist is the mystery of Christs entring into us for so St. John maketh the like distinction 1 Joh. 4. 13. Hereby we know that we dwell in him and he in us and after him St. Austin Aug. in Joh. Tract 48. Si benè cogitemus Deus in nobis est Si benè vivamus nos in Deo sumus and indeed this union is principally meant in the Article of the Communion of Saints which in our Creed we professe to believe This Union in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Communion The great Sacrament thereof is therefore called by St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Communion of the body and blood of Christ and because our union with Christ doth unite us with the whole Trinity the Apostle tells us 1 Joh. 1. 3. 1 Cor. 1. 9. Our fellowship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and this is also called 2 Cor. 13. 13. Philip. 2. 1. The fellowship of the Holy Ghost the fellowship of the Spirit But there is a great difference between our common or general union with the whole Trinity and our speciall and particular union with Christ alone for with all the three Persons we are united only by the Spirit because to us is given the Holy Ghost which is the Spirit of the Father and the Son But with the Son we are joyned and united in a threefold bond 1. Spiritu 2. Carne 3. Vadimonio Not onely by his Spirit in us but also in Nature for he assumed flesh with us from the self-same lump of the first man and moreover he is joyned to us in the strong bond of Vadimonie or Suretiship in that everlasting Covenant of Grace before mentioned Concerning the manner of our union with Christ one scruple is to be removed for if we say that we are really and substantially one body with him this doctrine may seem to affirm a personal or hypostatical union of us men with God such as is the union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ so we should make our body the body of God as Christs natural body is and so we make our selves God as Christ is God but this must be confessed to be intolerable blasphemy Our answer is That though Christ and his Church are indeed one body yet they are not one body natural and consubstantial but a body mystically Political as a Corporation a Society a Fraternity not Corpus continuum but Collectivum or aggregativum thus thousands of Souldiers are One Army many graines of corn are but One heap Unae quinque Minae Plaut in Pseud many pieces of money are One summe many letters and lines in one Epistle we call Vnas literas Tully calls one suit of apparel consisting of many parcels Cic. Orat. pro L. Flacco Vna vestimenta and we read Plaut in Trinum Vnos sex dies in Plautus Just so St. Austin expresseth this mystery of Christs body upon those words Psal 11. 1. Salvum me fac Domine Aug. de Unitate Eccles Cap. 13. To. 7. Sic est unus homo qui ait salvum me fac ut ex multis constet for though Christ and his members are many Ones and many Severals which are not united by any internal or natural form yet because they all have one and the same Spirit of Christ in them they are united and made one body or mystical corporation by that one Spirit of Christ of which it is said 1 Cor. 12. 13. By one Spirit ye are all baptized into one body and of these many severals it is said Ro. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ So a body Politick consisting of a multitude of individuals is made one Corporation by the Charter of the Prince and their own agreement but if upon dissension they be tumultuously gathered we rather call them a tumult then a Corporation Aug. De verb. Domini Ser. 26. Da unum populus est tolle unum turba est Touching the last clause of this first Proposition That the same that offended the same is punished whereby our sins seem to be charged upon Christ as if Christ himself had committed sin in whom we are assured no sin was either original or actual as is fully declared in my third Book Chap. 11. Sect. 2. Yet that this is true I am to shew in the explication of
the second Proposition which is this The sins of the Elect Members of Christ are 2. Proposition not to be accounted onoly the sins of the Elect but are justly charged on the score of Jesus Christ being their Surety and Redeemer To charge Christ with sin may seem very harsh and some Divines in high reverence of his most holy and innocent Person are afraid to affirm that Christ suffered for his own sins But when the Spirit of God hath said that 2 Cor. 5. 21. He was made sin who knew no sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manifest that both these sayings are true First 1 Joh. 3. 5. In Christ is no sin Secondly Christ was made sin Bishop Andrewes who knew what he wrote and said as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubted not to affirm that Bish And. de â—at Serm. 9. The 〈◊〉 was with us not onely in nature as 〈…〉 in sin also factus peccatum pro nobis And this not onely he but others also both ancient and later Doctors have assered for besides what I shewed out of St. Bernard before Gregory Nazianzen saith Naz. Orat. 36. Quamdiù ego inobediens sum Christus per me inobediens est after him St. Austin saith Aug. in Psal 37. Christus peccaeta nostra sua vocat propter corpus â—â—um and Luther also perceived the great consequences of this union when he said Lutheri Epist Tu Domine Jesu es justitia mea Ego sum peccatum tuum for if but one member of the body commit an offence the whole man is chargeable with it This truth is of great concernment to be known for if Christ cannot be truly charged with sin how can we possibly justifie the proceedings of the Godhead when it is said Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just both are abominable to the Lord So then Christ must be charged with sin and man must be discharged of sin or else neither Christ can justly suffer punishment nor can man with Justice be saved The neglect or ignorance of this weighty truth occasioned the Socinian party to exclaim against us as if we charged God with tyranny in laying the punishment due to us offenders upon our innocent Saviour which also drew from Brentius a Lutheran this blasphemy Deus Brent Exeges in Joh. 19. Pater in cruce Tyrannum egit erga Filium and in the margin this note is set Deus aliquando Tyrannus an assertion false and blasphemous The difficulty of this doctrine consisteth in two Points 1. How Christ can be justly charged with sin in whom all Christians confesse there was no sin 2. How man can justly be acquitted of sin who without doubt never lived one minute without sin The truth of both the Christian Reader may thus apprehend In Christ there is a double capacity or twofold consideration First as he is in himself a natural body a private man or particular person without any relation to us and so no actions of his concern us or ours him Secondly as he is a part of a corporation Political or body mystical before mentioned for the head is but a part of the body in this consideration his and our actions concern us joyntly for if the hand be wounded the head will say You hurt me so we read 1 Cor. 12. 26. If one member suffer all the members suffer with it if one member be honoured all the members rejoyce with it now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular If one member of a Corporation do an injury in the name of the whole the whole or any one of them shall be liable to answer for it If a corporation be indebted any one member paying the debt satisfieth for the whole and for every particular member Posthumius a Roman Consul professing himself to be a Citizen of the Samnites and intending to pick a quarrel with that Common-Wealth openly in the assembly of the Samnites kickt the Roman Herald and said Livi. Decad. 1. lib. 9. I being a member of the Common-wealth of the Samnites have done publick injury to the Roman fecial therefore the Romans may justly make war upon the Samnites Just so particular members of this mystical body have done injuries to God and are become debtors so that the whole body is subject to penalty but the whole debt and injury is laid upon and discharged by one even Christ the Head in the name and behoof of the whole body These things being premised let us next consider what extent and operation this Union Conjunction or Communion of Christ and his Members hath and what effects it produceth Which may appear by the Communion of the Primitive Christians twice mentioned in the Acts where it is said Act. 2. 44. and 4. 32. They that believed had all things common And they were of one heart and one soul neither said any of them that ought was his own but they had all things common So this Union or Communion of Christ and his Members doth produce that which Divines call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. a mutual communication of properties which worketh and extendeth it self so far that the perfections and excellencies which are originally proper and peculiar to the individual Person of Jesus Christ are communicated and truly affirmed of holy men So likewise the infirmities yea and the sins also of such men who are members of Christ are communicated to and affirmed of and imputed and ascribed to Christ as may be perceived by these instances following First That Christs proper perfections are communicated to sinful man The Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 1. 30. Christ is made unto us wisdome and righteousnesse and sanctification which is as much as to say the wisdome the righteousnesse and sanctity which originally is onely in Christ and not in us yet it becomes our wisdome righteousnesse and holinesse because we are One with him The same Apostle tells us again that 2 Cor. 5. 21. We are made the righteousnesse of God in him So that man is righteous onely because Christ is so with whom man is united in one body Thus every true member of Christ is called 1 Pet. 2. 9. Rev. 1. 6. a King and a Priest this is onely because Christ is both and because his members are one with him therefore they are so denominated by his perfections Upon this ground it is that St. Hierome calleth Baptisme Hier. ad Damas Epist 58. cont Luciferian Sacerdotium Laicum i. a Lay-mans Priesthood because baptisme is the Sacrament of our entrance and ingrafting into Christ and so of our union with him which union doth work a communication of his regality and Priesthood to us So Origen saith Orig. in Levit cap. 16. hom 9. Sacerdotium tibi toti populo credentium datum est and so Austin Aug. de Civit. l. 20. c. 10. also Omnes Christiani sunt sacerdotes quia membra unius Sacerdotis Secondly That our actions and passions our infirmities yea and our sins also are communicated to Christ and
Christians in all ages even to his own time But because he thinks his soul shall dye with his body as soules of other Animals do let him for my part provide such a burial for himself as they have of which we read Jer. 22. 19. Also the hair of your head for the greater conformity is as we hear shorn most affectedly close but the wickednesse of your doctrine may well make men fear that you have made a fishing-line of your cut hair with a dangerous hook at the end of it In Aug. de oper Mon. n. 71. Viros fuge â—â—tenatos quibus fâ—minei crines hircorum barba nigrum pallium haec Omnia argumenta sunt diaboli Hier. Ep. ad Eustoch c. 12. p. 53. Acts Mon. n. 55. former times there was as great hypocrisie in long hair as is now in short St. Austin found fault with Monks in his time for wearing long hair in hypocrisie So did St. Jeromâ— and afterwards when in a Synod where St. Anselm sate President it was decreed that the hair of Clergy-men should be rounded short yet because of their hypocrisie and wickednesse it grew to a proverb Quà m primum Clericus suscipit rasuram statim intrat in eum diabous as Mr. Fox hath noted Long hair in Sampson and in Nazraites was honourable it was Propheticum velamen as Austin calls it Instead of a Mosâ—ical veil to signifie that there was some holy mystery covered in their typical persons but yet when hypocrites masked themselves with it then King * Josephus Ant. l. 19. Agrippa caused those Pharisaical Nazarites Aug. de Oper. Mon. n 71. to be shorn and now also that we perceive that the very shortest hair is degenerated into hypocrisie and that this Tonsa Sanctiâ—as as St. Austin's word is doth not prove much more holinesse then hair I shall advise Aug. de Opere Monach. c. 31 â— 71. the Reader with merry Martial's words Brevibus nec crede 〈◊〉 lib. 5. ep 49. Neither is this intended to deride short hair but to reprove thâ— hypocrisie of it when 't is made an hair-net to catch men withall which is no new observation but was of old discerned in Heathens as hypocrital Atque supercitio breviâ—r Coma Juv. Sat. 2. Cicero Orat. pro Roscio Comaedo and also suffered to continue written and painted in those very Monasteries where short hair-hypocrisie was then mostly practised witnesse those old riming Verses Quod fueram non sum frater caput aspice â—ousum Poenas profundi fraudes capâ—tisque rotundi Et Judae suavium det Deus ut caveam Upon those words of our Saviour Matth. 10. Th. Matth. 10. 30. Isych in Levit. c. 13. very haires of your bead are numbred Isychâ—us writeth That haires signifie our thoughts and imaginations which are therefore said to be numbred because by them we shall be judged CHAP. V. How the Commenter complieth with the Arians of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews of the Nicene Fathers and how the Father and the Son may be said to be opposites NExt your compliance and correspondence with the old Arian Hereticks is to be observed for first you will not acknowledge this Epistle to the Hebrewes to be written by St. Paul but it must be the Authors onely so that both the Author and the Commenter must be alike unknown just so dâ—d the Arians Epiph. hae 69. as Epiphanius observes Ariaâ— Epistolam ad Hebrâ—os rejiciunt 〈◊〉 ipsam Pâ—uli non â—sse .i. The Arians râ—jâ—cted the Epistle to the Hebrews and said that it was not St. Paul's but you go further and tell us that it appears that Nâ—ither Paul nor any Apostle was P. 20. the Author and this because you would make this most Divine Epistle seem invalid as indeed you have great reason because it doth so evidently declare against your heresie your chief argument is drawn from the Postscript because it is there said to be written by Timothy but yet uncertain it is by whom the Postscript was written as is confessed and uncertain again whether it be meant that Timothy was St. Paul's amanuensis or his Messenger the words will bear both neither is it any extraordinary or vain thing as you would have it to send Letters by one of whom mention is made in those Letters witnesse Davids Letter sent by Vriah 2 Sam. 11. 14. 2 Sam. 11. 14. yet such is your frivolous cavil But to the Point This Epistle is by Judicious Divines thought to be asserted for St. Pauls by the testimony of Scripture for St. Peter mentioneth his very name 2 Pet. 3. 15. himself also then writing to the dispersed Jewes so as Beza thought this very Epistle is there meant and St. Hâ—â—rome though he would not conclude for St. Paul Hier. Epist 129. n. 29. yet confesseth that this Epistle was received of the Eastern Churches and generally acknowledged to be St. Paul's which we find to be true for in the Canons called the Apostles which go with the works of Clemens Clem. Can. Apost n. 16. Cyril cat n. 8. Naz. Poem 33 Chrys to 5. Ser. 61. Euseb hist l. 6. c. 11. there are 14 Epistles of St. Paul mentioned therefore this must be one Just so doth St. Cyril of Jerusalem reckon and so also doth Greg. Nazâ—anzâ—n in his Poems and so doth St. Chrysostome and Eusebius tell us that St. Paul writ it in the Jewish Language but that it was translated either by St. Luke or by Clemens for that it agreeth with the stile of the Acts of the Apostles written by St. Luke and that the stile of Clemens agreeth with this Epistle Who doubteth but that * Hier. descript in Petro. St. Peter was the Author of that Gospel which goes under the name of St. Mark or that †Euseb hist l. 3. c. 4. St. Paul was the Authour of that Gospel which goes under the name of St. Luke onely St. Mark and St. Luke were the Scribes that from the Apostles mouthes set the Gospels down in writing Tert. de Pudic. in 25. Aug. de Civ l. 16. c. 22. De doct Christ l. 2. c. 8. Exposit in Rom. P. 321. therefore it is no marvel that some Latines called this Epistle by another mans name just as we call those Gospels by other names and so Tertullian calleth this Epistle to the Hebrews The Epistle of Barnabas But St. Austin doth constantly and often assert it to be St. Paul's and so is it at this day in this Kingdome acknowledged by the best authority by which the translation of the Bible was ratified yet this self-conceiied Commenter will be wiser then all like another Abailardus of whom St. Bernard writes that he would Bern. Epist 190. say Omnes sic Ego non sic â—ll say so yet I say not so Again to shew your conformity with the Arians you reprove Eusebius his Muâ—tiple Error for thinking Christ to be consubstantial with the Father and
the air men riding on white horses and saying Go tell Didymns that Iulian is at this hour slain and bid him signifie the fame to Athanasius Theodoret also reporteth of an holy Theod. hist l. 3. c. 24. man named Saba that as he was earnestly and with tears praying against the tyranny of Iulian suddenly he changed his sad countenance and looking pleasantly said to them that were with him The Boar that rooted up the vineyard of the Lord is now slain This proved true and at the very same time though this Saba was distant 20. dayes march from the place where Iulian Stativis died and because it could nâ—ver appear by what man Iulian was slain men might well think it was done by some extraordinary means for though the Peâ—sian king against whom Iulian made his last war made great inquiry through his whole Army and proposed great honours and rewards by proclamation to him that had Soz. l. 6. c. 1. slain the Roman Emperour yet â—one could be found to take that honour upon him Nay I finde in Socrates Soc. l. 3. c. 18. that one Calisius who was of the train or life-guard of Iulian reported in writing that this Iulian was wounded and slain à Daemone that is by a good or a bad Angel for by Heathens both sorts are called daemones upon these presumptions which to me seem not unprobable the Church-men of those dayes did attribute the destruction of this blasphemer to the extraordinary hand of God and therefore Nazianzâ—n in one of his Orations against this Iulian useth this expression Audiâ—e angeli quorum opera tyrannus extinctus Naz. in Julian Orat. 3. est i. Hear O ye Angels by whose Ministery this Tyrant was destroyed I might here adde the like examples of Gods vengeance shewed upon other Arians as upon Georgius who was put into the sequestered Church of Athansius but in the end the people fell upon him dragged him through the City of Alexandria beat him and slew him and burnt his body to ashes As also how the Arians accounted him after his death for a Martyr as Epiphanius Epiph. haer 76 notes But Olympus an Arian Bishop perished by a more memorable vengeance for having blasphemed the Trinity Pal. ad an 510. Platina in vita Anastaâ—ii 2 di as he was in a Bath three fiery darts were cast at him visibly by an Angel and by them he was presently fired and burnt to death as Palmerius in his Chronicle reporteth But thus much may suffice for the first question This Exposition being admitted upon those places in the 3. Evangelists as I do firmely believe it is the true meaning thereof this question will be clear which by other Expositions hath a long time much perplexed our Expositours and could never give satisfaction to the Reader nor could the Expositours tell us certainly upon what persons they could fasten this sin and therefore Beza in his notes upon 1 Epist of Saint Iohn c. 5. v. 16. tells us it is the sinne of the Devill because indeed as he there states it it could not be found clearly in any man CHAP. VI. The second question why this blasphemy of denying 2. Quest the Godhead of Christ is said to be especially unpardonable THe reason why the denying the Godhead of Christ is said to be the irremissible sin is because AugEpist 105. if Christ be not indeed the true and onely and supream God then he hath not redeemed us and we are and must be for ever Massa dâ—mnationis i. a lump of perdition and fuell for hell-fire for there is no salvation in any other Acts 4. 12. When St. Peter had said Thou art Christ the Son of the living God Matth. 16. 16. Christ told him Vpon this Rock will I build my Church that is upon this Confession that Christ is the Son of God for the Church is the nursery Cyp. de simpl cler n. 76. of Heaven and none can have God for their Father who have not the Church for their mother and the Church is built upon this foundation and other foundation can no man lay then that is laid which is Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. 11. for This is life everlasting that they might know thee the onely true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent John 17. 3. that is as St. Austin expounds Aug. cont ser Arian to 6. n. 17. it to know thee and whom thou hast sent to be one true God There is no redemption and therefore no salvation but in Christ nor can there be any salvation by Christ if he be not God and though Christ be God and so a Saviour yet salvation cannot be from him derived to any that do not believe him to be God The aforenamed Father when he desired vehemently to work upon his Readers he divers times used this expression Per Divinitatem humanitatem Domini obsecro I beseech Aug. Epist 203. you by the Divinity and humanity of our Lord. And both he and other Fathers in their Expositions Chry. 4. hom Antioch Aug. de Doct. ch l. 2. c. 16. of that saying Be wise as Serpents Matthew 10. 16. Tell us that the Serpentine prudence is that when he is aâ—saulted he exposeth his body to blowes that so he may preserve his head To teach us that we also in time of persecution Custodiamus caput Epiph. hae 37. id est Christum in confessione i. though we fail in some inferiour points of Religion yet to be sure to hold to God in Christ for Christ is the head of his Church and the head of Christ is God 1. Cor. 11. 3. In Christo caput Euseb Hist l. 1. c. 1. est Divina naturâ— saith Eusâ—bius and Saint Hierome gives the reason Qâ—oniam Deitas quae in eo erat gubernabat Hier. in loc i. The Godhead in Christ did govern the humane nature for whosoever rejecteth the Godhead of Christ doth thereby disclaim the only sussicient means of Redemption and therefore Fuâ—gentius saith truly i. Christianus esse non potest quiâ—qâ—is Christum Dominum Deum suum esse non dixerit i. He that doth not confess Fulg. de fide P 9. n. 1. that Christ is his Lord God cannot be a Christian For such a mans religion is no better then the religion of Jewes and Turks for both these confess a God but Ariani Jâ—daeorum Judaei Arianorum Ambros de incar c. 2. n. 27 neither of them confess Jesus to be that God And * Carion in Const magno Act. mon. in Hen. 7. n. 52. Atha eont Arian Orat. 2. n. 5. Apolog. 2. n. 16 Apol. de fuga Caâ—ion in his Chronicle saith that the Arian Heresie did open the door to let in Turâ—isme and was Praecursor Mahometis i. that Arius was the forerunner of Mahomet and so of Antichrist and Mr. Fox doubteth not to affirm that the Turk is the principall Antichrist and the Fathers long
as this Câ—rinâ—hus meant and Jesus he manhood or humane nature So his doctrine was hat Jesus when he suffered was but a meere câ—eature ust as our Commenter teacheth and this in â—ffect is all one with the Heresie of the Manichtes who although they did not deny Christ to be God as the Commenter doth yet they would not believe that the Emmanuel or incarnate God was crucified but another in his stead and that a creature too Whereupon St. Austin Aug. de fide cont Man to 6. c. 33. saith to them Miseri non timetis ne dicatur vobis in judicio ego cos liberavi pro quibus pessus sum ite ille vos liberet cui meas ascribitis passiones i. Are ye not afraid ye wretched men that Christ in judgement will say to you Depart from me and go to that meer creature to whom you ascribe my passion for I redeemed those onely for whom I suffered Now if Christs passion on earth did not redeem us to whom shall we go for redemption seeing he redeemed onely those for whom he suffered I wish our Commenter would consider another speech of this renowned Father who whilest he continued in the said Manichean Heresie and then living at Rome he fell into a dangerous sickness and was very near death and because at that time he did not rightly believe the passiou of Christ but erred therein and yet no more phantastically or dangerously then this Commenter doth he said of himself Ibam ad inferos portans omnia mala quae commiseram nam Christus pro eis non solverat cum crediderim crucem ejus phantasticam i. 1 Aug. Confes l. 5. c. 9. was going to hell with the burthen of all my sins lying on my soul for Christ had not satisfied for me because I believed not in the truth of his passion Now he that believeth that Christ is but a meer man and that his death was onely as a witness or Martyr to seal a Truth with his blood and not at all for mans redemption shall be so far from receiving the blessing of Redemption by him that he shall moreover bring and accumulate a curse upon himself For so the ancient Martyr Ignatius understandeth these words Ier. 17. 5. Ig. Epist ad Antioch n. 46. Cursed be the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arm that is Maledictus est qui dicit Christum nudum hominem juxta Prophetam i. According to those words of the Prophet he is accursed who calleth Christ a meer man and yet trusteth in him And Athanasius doubted Atha orat 1. Cont. Arian 3. 4. not to say that the Arians who called Christ a creature and yet did perform religious worship to him as this Commenter requireth were within the compass of the Heathens sin in that they worshipped him whom they thought to be but a creature and therefore he Ath. ad solit vit agentes n. 18. Soc. l. 3. c. 19. calls them Porphyrianos because Porphyrie once had been a professed Christian and had revolted to heathenism as Socrates saith Thus the Reader may perceive that this blasphemous denying Christs Divinity doth dissolve our Religion into Heathenisme and Antichristianisme I have heard from the mouth of an ancient and most learned Doctour that Socinus the Father of our late society of Socinians was the son of such Parents whereof one was by Religion a Turk and the other a Christian and that therefore Socinus laboured to bring Turcisme and Christianisme to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Religion by denying the Eternall Godhead of Christ as Turks also do which grand impiety is so destructive to Christian Religion that it may be fitly called the Devils master-piece and so the ancient Fathers esteemed it Epiphanius called Arius Epiph. haer 69. statuam Diaboli i. An Idoll set up by the Devill and St. Hilary said of it Mihi diabolus erit qui Arianus Hil. Cont. Aux n. 7. i. He that Arianizeth is no better then Satan and Athanasius called it Haeresin totum Diabolum induentem Ath. ad sol vit agentes n. 19. i. An heresie indued with the whole plenitude of Satan For the Devils cannot be saved and such blasphemers as these shall never be forgiven It was the opinion of Theodoret that the grand Antichrist Theod. haer fab l. 5. n. 17. of all shall be the Devill shewing himself in the shape of a man and taking upon him the name of Christ now as Christ is but one and yet hath many members even his whole Church which is called his mysticall body so the grand Antichrist it may be is but one person but shall have and it may be he hath already great multitudes of members acted and indued with his malignant spirit which make up his mysticall Aug. de gen ad lit l. 11. c. 24. n. 68. Aug. de doct Ch. l. 3. c. 37. n. 56. corporations which is the Mystery of iniquity And this was the opinion of St. Austine and by him divers times expressed thus Diaboli corpus sunt impii ipse est corum caput ficut Christus est caput ecclesia i. the wicked are the body of Satan Satan is the head of them as Christ is the head of his Church And again De Gen. l. 11. c. 24. Corpus Diaboli est imptorum multitudo i. The body of the Devill is a multitude setting themselves to work impiety and again speaking of those words 2 Thes 2 4. sitting in the Temple of God he saith Aliqui intelligunt De Civit. l. 20. c. 19. hic non ipsum principem sed multitudinem hominum cum ipso doâ—c fiat magnus populus Antichristi i. Some do not here understand onely the great Antichrist of all but also a great multitude of people with him untill at length Antichrist become as a populous nation and Prosper saith moreover Antichristus Prosp de promis n. 14. praecâ—nes mendacii sui habiturus est i. Antichrist shall have preachers to set forth his lies who will edifie his great body for destruction such as Hil. de Trinit lib. 2. p. 25. n. 1. also St. Hilary calls Novi apostolatus sub Antichristo Praedicatores i. Preachers of a new calling under Antichrist Now if amongst other Hereticks also may be admitted to be members of the body of Antichrist surely none will be more advantagious to him then those who blaspheme Christ in his highest title by denying Iren. l. 5. c. ult n. 124. his Godhead Irenaeus and after him divers old Writers conceived that the grand Antichrist will appear out of the Tribe of Dan because of that saying in Ieremy 8. 16. The sâ—orâ—ing of his horses was heard from Dan and for this reason 〈◊〉 thought that amongst the Tribes of Israel which are sealed Rev 7. the Tribe of Dan is not mentioned to intimate that no limbs of Antichrist shall be sealed to salvation CHAP. VIII Of the hypostaticall union
who is in three distinct persons or properties is one in Godhead and in that one Godhead the three persons are one and as Austins word is Vnissimi this was the judgment of Eusebius touching the apparition and the Godhead of the Son and Eusebius said no more in this point then divers other Fathers said also both before Eusebius and after him as is next to be shewed CHAP. II. That the most high God appeared visibly to the Patriarchs in the Person of the Son and not in the Person of the Father as the Ancients thought THe Fathers in their Expositions of these places in Scripture where it is said No man hath seen God at any time John 1. 18 and yet Iacob said I have seen God face to face Gen. 32. 30. who was therefore called Israel i. Seeing God or prevailing with God and the place Peniel i. the presence of God these seeming contradictions are by them thus reconciled Tertullian Tert. de Trin. n. 28. saith Deus Pater inuisibilis sed Deus Filius visibilis descendere solitus God the Father is invisible but God the Son is visible and used to descend If it be objected that the Book de Trinitate was not Tertullians which is an excellent and learned book Yet that this was Tertullions opinion appeareth in another Id. cont Marc. lib. 3. undoubted book where he saith Christus Abrahamo apparuit in veritate carnis sâ—d nâ—ndum nata i Christ appeared to Abraham in the flesh which flesh or body was not then born of the Virgin Clemens Alex. saith as much of the apparition of God to Iacob Clem. in Paedag l. 1. c. 7. Jacob luctatus est cum Deo Verbo nondum homo facto Iacob wrastled with God the Word before he was Incarnate Now we know that onely the second Person is called the Word and Christ And this was also the opinion of Origen who saith that our Lord Iesus Christ before Orig. in Eze. ho. 6. he assumed our flesh descended to the holy Patriarks and was with Moses And again he saith That Esaias was therefore sawn asunder by the Iews because Id. in Esa ho. 1 he had said I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne Isay 6. 1. Iustin Martyr also saith Deus Pater non dicitur venire Just dial cum Try n. 26. in locum sed Deus Filius the Father is not said to come into a place but God the Son is said and that God the Son was seene by the Patriarks and this was also the Opinion of Irenaeus and he giveth a reason Iren. l 4. c. 37. for it thus God the Son was often seen by men least men should not beleeve that there were any god at all but God in the person of the father was never seen least men by reason of familiaritie should contemne God or think that there could be no God but such an one as is corporeal and visible Thus you see that this opinion was not new in Eusebius time nor was by him first invented or singly mointained for many his Contemporaries were of the same judgment and they also which lived and writ after the death of Eusebius for this was the Doctrine of Athanosius and Atha Orat. Cont. Arion n. 8. Hil. de Trin. l. 4. Epiph. haer 65. Theod. hae f. 6. l. 5. n. 17. Mat. 11. 27. 1. Hilarius who both of them lived at the same time with Eusebius and the same was afterwards delivered by Epiphaâ—ius and Theodoret and the scripture seems to favour this exposition for it is said Ioh. 6. 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God i none have seen the Father but the Son of God but it is no where said that no man hath seen the Son for the Father is not seen but in the Son and God the Son was seen in his assumed manhood and therefore when the disciples desired to see the Father our saviour tould them he that hath seen me hath seen the Father Ioh. 14. â— that is God who is the father can not otherwise be visible but in the Son not in him but by the assuming of humane nature by which God becomes visible who in his pure God head is invisible and he that seeth God the Son in the flesh seeth the self same God who is the Father although the person of the Father was not incarnate yet the same God is incarnate in Christ for Col. 1. 15. Christ is the image of the invisible God that is as Beza noteth Christ is he in whom only the Father doth manifest and shew himself visible so he that sees God the Son sees God the Father for both persons are one God By what hath bin said it may appeare common that opinion of the primitive Christians was that it was the person of God the Son which appeared to the Patriarks not the person of God the Father Now because these ayings are hard to understand I think it will not be amisse to discourse the 2 questions following first how God is said to be invisible and how yet he hath bin and may be seen by mortal men Secondly seing there is but one God how it may be said that the Father hath not bin seen and yet the Son hath bin seen In which discourse I will not promise the reader full Satisfaction but â— doe promise him my indeavour CHAP. III. How God is said to be invisible What is meant by the face and the after parts of God HOw the Invisible God hath bin seen by mortal Eyes and in what sence he is said to be both Invisible 1. Quest and Visible will be worthy of our inquisition because the right understanding therof is pertinent to the doctrine of Man's redemption by the incarnation of God and will serve for reconciliation of some Scritures which at the first hearing may seeme to contradict one another for in the old Testament it is said Ex. 33. 11. The Lord spake unto Moses race to face But presently after in the same Chapter ver 20. God saith Thou canst not see my face for no man shall see me and live and it followes ver 23 thou shalt see my back-parts Yet before this Iacob had said Gen. 32. 30. I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved but in the new Testament it is said No man hath seen God at any time Joh. 1. 18. And againe 1 Joh. 4. 12. And S. Paul cals God invisible Col. 1. 15. and 1 Tim. 1. 17. For explication of these Scriptures it is to be understood that when God is called Invisible it is meant of the pure Godhead because the Essence Nature substance or divinitie is not visible by mortal Eyes in this sence S. Cyprian saith Deus est visu clarior tactu purior i the Majestio of the Godhead dazeleth all mortal Cyp. de idoorum vanitate â— 77. eyes and senses and thus neither the Father nor the Son nor
for us in Heaven and there shewing and offering himself for us As this P. 84. c. 5. v. 7. page 160. c. 9. v. 7. Commenter would have us believe and if he could what need was there that God the Sonne should undergoe such bitter and cruell torments and death also To this I answer that as things then stood God could not otherwise save us but by the Incarnation yea and the death of his Son because as is before shewed God hath limited and bound and confined himself by his own word his Law his Decree and Covenant for by his sentence and determinate judgement he had denounced death and a curse to our first Parents and in them to all their Posteritie Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die and Ezech. 18. 4. The soul that sinneth it shall die and Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sin is death and Deut. 27. 26. cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them and Matt. 5. 19. Whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments shall be called the least in the kingdom of God and James 2. 10. Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point he is guiltie of all We see that here is a curse and death denounced to all transgressors of the Law and this curse and death must needs fall upon Mankind because God is true and just and righteous But suppose the transgressours of the Law could escape the curse and death denounced yet how should they obtain life eternall seeing that is not obtained but by the perfect and exact performance of the Law of God which no mere man of all the sonnes of Adam hath or can perform For the Condition or Covenant for life is Levit. 18. 5. Keep my Statutes which if a man do he shall live in them so Ezech. 20. 11. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 12. and this is confirmed by Christ Matth 19 17. If thou will enter into life keep the Commandments These considerations being premised let us now move the question cannot God assoil men and give them eternall life at the request onely of Jesus Christ although Jesus had never suffered the pain and death of the Crosse I answer That God cannot absolve man from sinne without satisfaction to his Justice his Truth and Righteousness I may say God cannot do this as well as the Scripture saith Tit. 1. 2. God cannot lie And 1 Sam. 15. 19. The strength of Israel will not lie for as Saint Austin hath truly said Diabolus non fuit superandus potentia Dei Aug. de Trin. l. 13. c. 13. sed justitia i. as things then stood The devil was not to be conquered by the power onely but by the Justice of God And therefore before man can be redeemed and absolved the curse and death denounced must fall upon man for transgressing the Law 〈…〉 of his God and before man can enter into 〈…〉 Commandements of God must be perfectly 〈◊〉 by man Now if we can shew that the just sentence of God in the curse and death hath bin fully executed on man and that the Justice of God hath had its full course and if we can shew that the whole Law of God hath bin most exactly performed by man and all this by no other man but onely by the great Son of Mâ—â— Iesus Christ being God Incarnate and for this reason incarnate that he might as an undertaker and suretie for mankind both take upon him the curse and suffer death by obedience passive and also perform everâ— title of the Law by active obedience and this for us and in our stead and that our transgressions were imputed to him and his righteousness in performing the Law is imputed to us and that by vertue of the Covenant most justly and that mans redemption and salvation could not otherwise stand with the truth and righteous judgement of God For as Athanasius saith Verbum Atha Ser. 3. cont Arian 6. nunquam destinatum fuisset fieri homo nisi hominum necessitas requisisset i. the Son of God had never been ordained to be made Man if mans necessity had not so required All this being undeniable I trust the Christian Reader doth apprehend the reason why our true and onely God must needs have been incarnate for the working out of mans redemption Justification and salvation CHAP. XI That Christ was a person able and fitt to performe the law and to suffer for manking and that he did stand in the place and stead of all men VVEe have seen what Christ hath vndertaken for us But it must next be inquired whether Christ were a person able and fitly qualified to performe what he undertook viz. to take away the sins of the world and indeed Iesus Christ the Son of God perfect God perfect man was a person able and every wayfitly qualified for performance of the truth of God both in suffering the punishment and in performing the whole law of God in the behalf of man for as man is a Miâ—rocosme or an abridgment of the great world as Austin saith Omnis creatura in homine est i in man Aug. l. 83. quaest n. 87. Every creature is comprised So Christ is the Epitome of mankind and to be esteemed an Vniversal man in as much as â—â—rist the head and all his mystical members arâ— one mystical body as hath bin shewed before Christus universus est caput cum membris i the whole Idem ibidem quaest 69. Christ is himself the head and his Church the members for if the first Adam be esteemed as all mankind why should not the second Adam be so much rather accounted S. Austin saith of the first man Omnis homo Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 15. Abm. de Obitu Satyri n. 29. Pros resp ad Cap. Gall. c. 9. â—errenus est Adam i All men earthlie are one Adam â—nd of Christ S. Ambrose saith as much in Christo Summa universitatis est portio singulorum i Christ is the â—otal sum of all men and a portion of everie man and Prosper gives this true and excellent reason of it Nullus est hominum Cujus natura non erat suscepta in Christo i There is no man in the world whose nature Christ took not upon him and therfore the Scripture calleth Christ the last Adam as well as the first man is called the first Adam 1 Cor. 15. 45. And yet more expreslie it saith Gal. 3. 28. Yee are all One in Christ Iesus And so againe 1 Cor. 12. 12. And indeed wee are rather nearer of kindred and by a better tie to the Second then wee are to the first Adam not because Christ and wee are the Sons of men which cannot be said of Adam who was Terrae-Filius the Son of the earth and not the Son of man but Omnes nati ad primum renati ad secundum Pros sent 299. pertinent Wee derive ourworse carnal