expâ—cted in this life for against this thorn in the flesh did this Apostle pray â— but it was answered My Gâ—â—ce iâ— sufficient That 2 Cor. 12. 7. is no other deliverance may be had but power by grace to resist this temptation yet not so much power as to annihilate and quite extinguish it in this life If it be here objected that the Holy Scriptures acknowledge Gen. 6. 9. Job 1. 1. Luke 1. 5. some persons just and righteous and perfect ones as Job and Noah and Zecharie the answer is that this perfection doth not imply impeccancie or impeccability for such just men fall seven times Prov. 24. 16. Noah was just but it is said there in his generation such may be called perfect Travellers but not perfect Possessors having not yet finished their course so a child is called perfect which hath all his limbs and lineaments compleat yet is far from a perfect man and a perfect man is yet far short of Angelicall perfection Men are called just who are not Aug. de natura Grat. â— 38. free from sin Justi suâ—runt sine peccato non suerunt That this truth hath been ever acknowledged by the Church may appear in that the Apostle saith â—f we say we havë no sin we deceive our selves civitas 1 Joh. 1. 8. Dei oâ—atâ— dimiâ—te nobis debiâ—a the universall Church in the time of prayer saith Forgive us our trespasses Indeed Aug. de Civit l. 19. c. 22. De peccat merito l. 2. c. 6. S. Austin confesseth That a man may sometime live without acting a sin yet that any mortall man can be without sin he denyeth For when the Pelagians urged that the Virgin Mary was without sin he desired to be excused from all accusation of that Blessed Mother of our Lord God yet he was assured that all Saints on earrh would submit to that speech of Ambr. de Jacob l. 1. c. 6. Hier. ad Ctesiphon cap. 5. Id. Cont Pelag l. 2. cap. 8. Saint Iohn If we say we have no sin c. Sainâ— Ambrose saith Non glâ—riâ—r quia justus sum sâ—d quia redemptus not glorying in Justice but in Justification St. Hierom saith men are called just not because they are without sin but because they are endowed with many vertues as Ezechias was a just man though he sinnâ—d and wept he did not lose the repute of a just man for some sins but he retained it because withall he performed many just and worthy actions besides a man is â—steemed righteous when his unâ—ighteousnesse is forgiven as he is â—steemed with God a performer of the Law whose transgrâ—ssions are pardoned Omnia Aug. Retract 1. c. 19. mandata facta deputanâ—ur quando quiâ—quid non fit ignosciâ—ur Now that the rebellion of flesh and blood or concupiscâ—nce doth contâ—nually dwell in all mankind during this life may clearly appear in the Holy Person of Saint Paul by his own words for thus he writes Rom. 7. 19. The goâ—d that I would I do not but the evil which I would not that I do f we inquire what evill it is which the Apostle would not do and yet did it it must needs be answered that evill concupiscences or carnall lusts did arise in him which he desired to be quit of and free from that they might not all be in him but because evill concupiscences will ever be in mortal men therefore his next care is that such desires may be râ—sisted so that they proceed not into action as he saith Rom. 6. 12. Let not sin reign in your mortall body that ye should obey iâ— in the lusts thereof he doth not say let it not be for it will alwaies be in us but let it not rule and pâ—evail over Grace So Gala. 5 16. wâ—lk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh he doth say ye shall not have those lusts but not fulfill and peâ—form them and ver 17. Ye cannot do the thing that ye would that is because ye cannot as you desire be free and quit from evill desires so as no evill desires at all should arise in you yet resist them do not obey them Tene Aug. de Verb. Dei ser 43. manus pedes ocuâ—oâ— c. withhold your members from acting those carnal suggestions Where he saith What I hate that I do We are not Rom. 7. 15. to imagine that the Apostle meaneth that although he hated fornication adultery rapine c. yet he did act these things but he meaneth that he hated evill lusts which yet did continually arise in him he desired they might not all be in him Nolo concupiscere tamen conâ—upisco O â—i tamen Aug. de verbis Apost ser 5. ago quamvis membraâ—â—eneo arma nego So himself adviseth Rom. 6. 13 Yâ—â—ld not your members as iâ—st â—ments of unrighteousness Although sinfull desires arise in Id de Temp. Ser. 45. your carnall heart Rebellant râ—bella pugnant pugna This is the strife betwen the flesh and the spirit he did continually resist those temptations Luctabatur noâ— Id. ibid. subjugâ—baâ—ur alwayes strâ—ving with them but not overcome by them Rom 8. 8. They that are in the flesh cannot please God Though holy men are in the flesh yet because they are not over-ruled by the flesh they do please Id. de verbis Apost Ser. 6. God Carnem portant sed non pâ—rtantur ab â—a Where he saith Rom. 7. 25. With the mind I my self serve the Law of God but with the flesh the Law of sin We are not to think that the naturall mind or intellective faculty of this Apostle was free from carnall concupiscence for by nature our whole man body and soul is carnall but the mind here signifieth his understanding reformed and renued by the Spirit of God for the very naturall spirit or mind of man needeth â— renuing by the Spirit of Grace as himself saith Ephes 4. 23. Bâ— râ—nued in the Spirit of your mind When he saith Rom. 7. 17. It is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me His meaning is not to excuse himself so as if he were without sin and blameless But that his Spirituall part or in ward man did detest that which his carnall part or outward man did suggest Just so doth this Apostle ascribe his holy and spirituall actions not to himself but to the Grace of the Spirit as 1 Cor. 15. 10. I laboured more then they all yet not I but the Grace of God which was with me So 1 Cor. 7. 10. I command yet not I but the Lord. So again Gal. 2. 20. The conclusion is that The Son himself that is to say Christ as he is considered with the plenitude of his Mysticall Body and so is the Whole Christ cannot be perfectly subject and obedient to the Godhead untill this mortall hath put on immortality and our naturall body be raised a Spirituall body when
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
so said to be in the body of his flesh Col. 1. 22. And after his incarnation the time is called the dayes of his flesh Heb. 5 7. And he is said to be sent in the likenes of sinfull flesh Rom. 8. 3. not that his flesh was not real or but a meer similitude or phantasme as the Manichees said but it was real and pure without sin yet like unto our flesh which is sinfull surely S. Peterâ— thought Christ to be incarnate when he said Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh 1 Pet. 4. 1. I desire this Commenter who denieth this to consider Soberlie what the divine Apostle S. John hath said to this point more then once 1 Ioh. 4. 3. Every Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist wherof you have heard that it should come and even now already it is in the world Thus is this place now read and againe he saith 2 Ioh. 7. Many deceivers are entred into the world who confess not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh this is a deceiver and an Antichrist The fathers spake in the same manner of the Godhead to be Incarnate in the flesh of Christ as they spak of the incarnation of an humane soule in an humane bodie Corpus Domini est vestis regia Chrys to 5. ser 65. Atha Disp in Nic. Concil n. 27. Aug. de Civit. l. 18. c. 35. Euseb Emiss n. 32. i. the bodie of the Lord his garment royal Corpus Domini est amiculum dei Caro est amictus verbi i. the flesh of the Lord is the garment of God and upon those words Mal. 3. 1. The Lord shall suddenly come to hisâ— Temple S. Austin expounds thus In Templum id est in Carnem i. by coming into his temple is meant his coming in the flesh and â—hristi vestimentum humanitas est qua divinitas induta videri non poterat i. The garment of Christ is his humane nature which covered his divinitie as garments doe our bodies The reason why our Commenter denieth the Incarnation of an humane soule is as I imagine because he thinketh the soule dieth wiih the body And shall rise againe at the resurrection of the body and that it hath no existence but only in the body and the reason why he denies the Incarnation of Christ is because he doth not believe Christ to be God from Eternitie but that he hath his beginning from his humane birth and that after his resurrection he was Deified for his fore-runners the Arians said that Christ was but a God made that is all one with Deified that this Son of God was not equall to the Father in Eternitie in his answer I trow he will resolue that question which S. Austin asked the Arians Quot annis precedit Deus Pater Aug. de 5. her to 6. n. 6. filium suum i. how many yeares was God the Father older then God the Son or how long was the Father God before the Son was God in the meane time we will rest satisfied in the sure word of God who saith Esa 43. 10. Before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me wee read that by God the Word all things were made Joh. 1. 3. time is a creature therfore it was made by him and he was before for if time time were before the Son of God then could he not be called The first borne of every creature Coloss 1. 15. The reason why rhe Son of God did take upon him our nature was because he would in our stead as a suretie and undertaker both performe the whole Law and also sustaine all the penaltie of our transgressions of which more hereafter CHAP. VIII More reasons why the Son of God was Incarnate how and when he became our suetrie the Aeternal covenant explained distinction of Persons in the Godhead THe Supream and Eternal â—od in the person of the son did for mans redemption â—â—kâ— man's nature upon him not because God had no other way by which he could have saved us but because he would not save us any other way for wee know that the same God who saveth man by taking man's nature did and still doth preserve the blessed angels in their estate of glorie and from falling by his power and gracious goodnes although he did not take upon him the naâ—ure of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2. 16. The Church never taught thaâ— God could not have saved man without the Incarnation of his Son but the contrarie Athanasius saith a Poterat Deusâ—sine adventu Atha cont Aria ser 3. n. 7. Christi peccatum solvâ—re verbulo suo i. God could have remitted our sins with the least word though Christ had not come in the flesh for if an earthly King can save his subject who hath by the law forfeited his life could not the Omnipotent King have saved mankind by his power for who can resist his will But then why did God give his Son to take our nature on him To this it may be answered that albeit the Son of of God was Originally a meer gift and from the free grace of God to mankind yet accessarily it became a debt and due to man so that God was bound in Justice ro give his Son because God had by his promise and Covenant ingaged and bound himself so to doe for although his meer mercy and goodnes moved him to make such a promise yet when he had once promised his justice and truth required the performance of that promise Deus dignatur promissionibus suis debitor Aug Confes. l. 5. c. 9 fieri i. God vouchsafed to make himself a debtor to or by his owne promises and having so made himself a debtor to man how could he without violating his word and promise forbeare the performance But where doth this promise appeare and how shall wee know that the Son of God became an undertaker and suert â— for us men and when was this Covenant made for the mysterie of man's redemption doth depend upon the Covenaâ—t and by it the Son of God did engage and bind himself out of his free and meer grace to become a suertie for man therfore before I proceede any further this Covenant must be inquired after as the cheife evidence of Christs ingagment It was an old question moved either by some scoffers or curious persons what God did before he made heaven and earth unto which some made answer with a jocular reproof Gâ—hennas parabat alta Scrutâ—ntibus i. he made hel for such seekers but S. Austin liked not Aug. Conf. l. 11. c. 12. this answer but said libentius respondeo nescio quod nescio i. I would rather answere that I know not So in that book of Cicâ—ro which was called Hortensius but is now lost this objection was made against the unitie of God Si Deus unus est
Gosple-Covenant is called the Covenant of Grace I answer that this one Covenant is both for if the Law of God be not actually and perfectly done and performed by man viz either by us our selves or by Christ or surety for us we can have no benefit by the Covenant so in respect of Christ it is a Covenant of works but to us it is a Covenant of Grace But it may be said that the Evangelicall Covenant is called a better Covenant Heb. 8. 6. I answer the same Covenant is called better because it is bettered and better explained and setforth with better evidence of graciousnesse in the Gospel then before when in the time of the Law it was clouded and clogged with shadows types figures and troublesome Ceremonies but now it shineth clearly and is also quitted of that heavy yoak then it outwardly appeared but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. a pact or mutuall Covenant but in the Gospel it appears to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. a Testament and albeit the Law is also called a Testament yet it is but as the Will or Testament of a man which is indeed written and sealed and testified but not in force because the Testater was not actually dead But in the Gospel this Old Testament being the same in substance is newly become to be in full force and vertue because Iesus Christ the Testator died Heb. 9. 17. so it became in force for Christ who was but promised in the time of the Law and died there but in types was really exhibited and really died in the Gospel and although the Evangelicall Testament is set forth with a condition annexed viz of believing yet this condition is also in this New Testament bequeathed for Eph. 2. 8 Faith is the gift of God and yet Faith is that Law of which it is said Jer. 31. 33. I will put my Law in their inward pares and write it in their hearts and the same is repeated Heb. 8. 10. So the new Testament requireth the condition of believing and the Testator in his Will hath given to man what he requireth of man The brief of all is that the same God who in Paradise ingaged himself that the seed of the woman should bruise the Serpents head hath himself taken upon him the seed of the woman and in that seed became our Jesus If after all this the Christian shall yet desire further evidence to inform him more and assure and confirm him in Christs ingagement and suretyship for us men as if his Word Promise and Covenant weee not sufficient to give rest and contentment to our wavering and timerous hearts see how our most compassionate and merciful Redeemer hath yet further condescended not onely to enter a covenant in our behalf but also to seal the said Covenant and thereby openly declare himself to be a debtor with us both for the principall that is the fulfilling of the Law and also for the penalty 1 Upon our default and transgression and this he did by the first seal of his Circumcision whereby he bound himself as a debtor to perform the whole Law and this in behalf of all the circumcised seed of Abraham and this Mystery is clearly set forth by the great Apostle Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtour to doe the whole Law Secondly as by the seal of Circumcision Christ underwent the burthen of all the legall precepts So by the other Seal of his Baptisme he undertook the performance of all the strict Evangelicall Precepts in the behalf of all the Baptized Christians for so himself declared though something covertly for when Iohn Baptist refused to baptize him Christ bade him Matthew 3. 15. adding this reason For thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousnesse Upon which words Saint Hierome observes that he did not say Hier. in loc Justitiam Legis id est the righteousnesse of the Law onely but all that so we may understand that Christ undertook to fulfill both Legall and Evangelicall righteousnesse even in those strict Precepts of Love your enemies blesse them that curse you pray for them that persecute you Deny your selves c. These were the reasons for which our Saviour submitted to the Sacramentall seals of Circumcision and Baptisme thereby to be a surety bound and ingaged for us And so the ancient Expositours understood it Circumcisus Anselm in Gal. 5. 3. est debitor faciendae universae Legis sicut qui Baptismum percipit debitor faciendi praecepti Evangelici id est As the Circumcised is a debtour to doe the whole Law so the baptized is a debtour to perform the Precepts of the Gospell and this also was the judgement of Saint Basil Sicut Circumcisus Basil de Bapt. l. 2. n. 18. est debitor Legis servandae sic Baptizatus totius Evangelii c. And although the Pelagians denied the necessity of Baptisme for taking away Originall sinne yet Coelestius could confesse that Children were redeemed by the Baptisme of Christ and this was onely because by his Baptisme he undertook for us to perform the Evangelicall Covenant Finally all that Christ did undertake to doe for us men that hath he punctually performed partly by his Obedience active in fulfilling all righteousnesse and partly by passive Obedience when he suffered the penalty of our transgressions pouring out his soul and his most precious Blood upon the Crosse there paying the utmost farthing of our debt when our selves were not able to pay one for a thousand This Doctrine understood rightly will reconcile those two sayings of Saint Hierome Maledictus qui dicit Deum impossibilia praecipisse 2 Maledictus qui dixerit legem esse possibilem id est Cursed is he that saith God commanded things impossible and cursed is he that saith the Law of God is possible The meaning is That Law which is impossible to be performed by us or any mere man was performed for us by the Son of Man For our sins were laid upon him and his righteousnesse is imputed to us which Mel. Dav. in vita Luth. p. 164. Luther expresseth in these pithie words Domine Iesu tuâ—e Iustitia mea Ego sum peccatum tuum i. man gave his sins to Christ and Christ gave his righteousnesse to Man CHAP. X. That Man could not be redeemed nor saved but by the Incarnation of the Sonne of God how the curse was executed on Man and how the Law is fulfilled by Man BUt could not our Lord Jesus having thusas a Surety and Mediatour undertaken for us and for our salvation I say could he not have effected our immunitie from punishment and our blessednesse by intreating as an Advocate for us and by that great power and favour which he hath with the Father obtain both remission and pardon of our sins and salvation freely without those bloody and grievous passions which he suffered on the Crosse and this onely by speaking intreating and pleading
3. therefore any sinne which is perceived to be a sinne not unto death may be prayed for and so pardoned Fourthly let it be observed that the Apostle doâ—h 4. in the next verse set down what he means in this place by sinne for verse 17. All unrighteousness is sinne John 3. 4. and he had said before chap. 3. verse 4. Sinne is the transgression of the Law From whence it may be reasonably collected that any unrighteonsnesse or transgression of the Law or any sinne if it be discerned to be not unto death may be prayed for and possibly pardoned A sinne not unto death How any sinne can be said to Beza in loc be a sinne and yet not unto death is hard to be understood seeing we reade Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sinne is death for any sinne ever so little rendereth us liable to death and is affirmed so by Beza Omtria peccata per se lethaliâ— id est All sinnes in their own nature are deadly Our very lapst nature in Adams mass Originall sinne and our minima peccata there is no sinne so small or unconsiderable but draweth after it the weight of eternall wrath and a thousand times meriteth eternall death Thus he and Calvin very truely saith Omne peccatum per se mortale Calv. instit 2. 8. 59. id est Every sinne in it self is deadly but when the sins of holy men are said to be not unto death and veniall it is because by Gods mercy they obtain pardon and not because the sinnes are of themselves veniall for who doubteth but that in the reprobate all sinnes are sinnes unto death but in the Elect no sinne is unto death Saint Chrysostome observeth upon those words Matthew Chrys de compunct n. 18. 5. 22. Whosoever shall say to his brother Thou fool c. De levioribus dat sententiam ut de gravioribus non dubitare debeas id est Christ pronounced sentence of Hell fire against so small a sinne that no man should doubt what greater sinnes deserve Again there are very grand and capitall sinnes which yet in some persons are sinnes not unto death as Galathians 5. 19. Adultery Murther Drunkennesse Seditions Heresies Idolatrie c. of which it is there said They that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdome of God and yet we know that some of the Patriarks and many converted from Heathenisme hath committed these sinnes but obtained pardon and shall inherit the Kingdome of Heaven Noahs excesse Davids adultery the Corinthians incest Peters deniall and the Iewes denying and crucifying the holy One and Pauls persecuting the Church all and every of these sinnes in those penitent and Elect vessels were sinnes not unto death This I think will not be denied Not unto death But why are some mens sinnes called not unto death when the very same speciall sins in other men are indeed sinnes unto death The Poet murmured at such a thing Committunt eadem diverso Crimina fato Juven sat 13. Ille crucem sceleris precium tulit hic Diadema For many sins and very capitall ones are common both to the Reprobates and to the Elect and yet in the Elect and the same sin is not unto death which in the Reprobate is unto death The answer is that our Apostle calls that sin a sin not unto death which is confessed repented forsaken and amended before our death or departure out of this life when a man doth not obdurately continue and persevere in his sin untill his death but forsaketh it in his life-time so that the leaving of his sin and amendment of life may be seen by his brother for how else shall a brother see that the sin is not unto death but by the sinners leaving it desisting from and amending it as by ceasing from adultery rebellion oppression and the like for so the Apostle telleth the Corinthians such as these were some of yee but yee are washed but yee are sanctified 1 Cor. 6. 11. So that sinnes not unto death are not so called from the nature or merit of sin but from the circumstance of the time or person sinning and desisting Fot as is said Every sin is mortall deadly and unto death eternall if we look onely on the merit of sin but every sin though the most grand and capitall sin is not unto death if it be repeated of and left before the departure of the soul from the body So the gloss expoundeth this place Non ad mortem Id est non usque ad mortem i. A sin not unto death is when the sin is not continued in untill the time of death and of David it saith David sinned not unto death for he repented and obtained pardon so that the same sin in one man not repenting produceth damnation when in another it is pardoned upon repentance Neither do we hereby assert any Stoicall f Amb. n. 33. Novatian or g Aug. n. to 6. habes Sardos venales alium alio nequiorem â—ul Epist 125 Iovinian equalitie of sinnes For although no sinne may well be called bettet then another because all are naught yet one is worse then another Of two ill painted pieces one asked uter detâ—rior est i. which is worst and of two evill things in the Comedy it is said h Plaut in Aulular Act. 2. sce â— Alia aliâ pejor est optima nulla est i. one is worse then another neither can be called best i. i Aug. cont mendac c. 8. n. 77. Furum non est ideâ— quisquam bonus quia pejor est unus i One thief is worse then another yet no thief is therefore good Sin in generall is k Bafil n. 5. Proles Diaâ—osi and l Theod. n. 13. mater mortis m Chrys n. 59. grandis Damon peccatum i. the braâ— of the Devil the mother of death and it self is a Devil and so is called in the Gospel yet sins are of severall growths and degrees For therefore are there severall degrees of torments in hell apportioned to the degrees of sins There is a sin as a moâ—e and as a beam and a Camel so there are stripes many stripes weeping wailing gnashing of teeth worm fire and brimstone the damned shall be bound up in bundles according to the likenesse and degrees of their sins and every bundle shall have its just portion as we read of that particular portion of Hypocrites It is a memorable and a terrible observation which Origen makes upon that saying Numb 14. 34. where for one sin in one day a whole year of punishment is apportioned If for every sinne of ours a whole year of Orig. in loc hom 8. punishment shall be allotted I fear that neither the duration of this world nor the eternitie of the next world will be long enough to end ouâ— torments Let us not therefore flatter our selves wâ—th the conceit of a little or a veniall sinne as if such deserved not death for
Optat. lib. 6. Donatists Dum pro vestro arbitrio quaeritis puritatem c. That they sought for purity by scraping breaking and digging up Altars he wisheth them not to digg too deep lest they digg to hell and there find the Grand Patrons of Schisme Korah Dathan Abiram Numb 16. 9. In the last place the Reader is desired to foreknow That in this Book we affirm Jesus Christ to be the Supream or most high God The Jehova and the Only God But with this Caution That albeit we confidently affirm him to be the Only God yet we say not that Only Jesus Christ is God for thereby we should impiously deny the gracious and comfortable Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead We therefore acknowledge that the Father and the Holy Ghost as well as Son are also the most high and Onely God so that not onely the Father nor only the Son nor only the Holy Spirit are the Supream God But that All and every one of them are but One Onely most high God I have no more to premise but to pray that God would give to the Reader the knowledge and love of his truth And to the Author or Translator of that Commentary I tender the advice of St. Austin Aug. De Anima Orig. l. 3. c. 15. To. 7. Considera quam sit horrendum ut Omnes hae Haereses sint in uno homine quae damnabiles sunt in singnlis singulae The most profound Clerks may and have erred It is an honour rather then disparagement to revoke and recant heresies St. Hierom writes thus to Ruffinus Hier. cont Ruff. l. 1. c. 2. Non es tantae authoritatis famae ut te errasse pudeat For by revoking Errors Truth will be advanced and the God of truth glorified and no need will be of hiding your name you will be known by conformity to truth unto those that know not your face and also in the end will be acknowledged by Christ himself and not otherwise as one saith Plaut in Rud. Act. 4. Sâ— 3. Si adhibebit Fidem etsi ignotus est notus est Si non notus ignotissimus est THE PREFACE WEE are informed by a late Writer Mr. Cheynel that the Sâ—ciâ—iâ—â— party would have us to deny Christ to be God for an accommodation and compliance with Jewes and Turks that by such an insinuation we may have opportunity to convert them But we are better taught by the Apostle Not to â—â— evil that good may come of it and also by St. Austin Aug. in Epist ad Gal. to 4. Qui homini de falso bono placere studes de vero malo displices Deo and if by this slight a Socinian should convert a Turk or Jew to his own religion the Turk or Jew would not be thereby a Christian but the Socinian would more declare himself to be of the Turkish or Jewish Religion for whosoever shall professe Christianity and yet un-God the Lord Jesus his Religion shall profit him no more then the Jewish infidelity doth them The devout man St. Bernard was much troubled with the heresies of Petrus Abailardus who I think was a principal Patriarch of the now Socinian tenents and declared them more fully then the more ancient hereticks had done this Abailardus would fain have perswaded men that Plato the Heathen Philosopher was a Christian But St. Bernard sets this mark upon Bern. Epist 190. him Abailardus dum multùm sudat quomodo Platonem faciat Christianum se probat Ethnicum If Jewes and Heathens will be contented to be instructed in Christianity in the Name of God let us teach them the truth without flattering them in their false tenents It is observed by Paulus Orosius That when the heathenish P. Oros l. 7. c. 19. Goths petitioned Valens the Arian Emperour to appoint them Christian Preachers to instruct them in Christianity this Emperor sent Arian Priests who poysoned the poor Goths with their heresie but it came to passe afterwards by the just Judgment of God that those Goths put the said Emperour to flight in battel and pursued him so that they burnt him alive Indeed St. Paul writeth that 1 Cor. 9. 20. To the Jewes he became as a Jew and to the Gentiles as one without Law But this was a compliance Compatiendo non mentiendo Aug. of Compassion onely without any transgression of the Moral Law of God With the Jewes he complied in Act. 16. 3. Gal. 5. 2. Circumcising Timothy onely as it was a national custome but not as a Sacrament for if so himself declared that Christ should profit them nothing so he purified himself he went to their Feasts and ascended into their Temple these were unsinful compliances The like he did with the Gentiles he conversed with them and did eat with them and cited their own Writers but we find not that ever he sacrificed to their Idols In our dayes a Lecture is set up for the Conversion of the Jewes as is said and for an harmlesse compliance with them it is performed on the Jewish Sabbath our Saturday but we are weil perswaded that none of the Lecturers will so far temporize with Jews as to deny the Eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ or teach That the Messiah is not yet come or blaspheme the ever blessed and holy Trinity which is the Character by which Christians are discerned from Jewes and Turks who with us confesse the Vnity of the Godhead but will not believe ae plurality of Persons therein In which unchristian errour the Socinian agreeth with the Jew and this Antitrinitarian doctrine is the Cracovian Leaven wherewith this new Commentary on the Hebrews is Leavened The Reasons why the Church-Catholick hath constantly held fast the doctrine of the most holy Trinity are weighty First For the evidence and authority of holy Scripture which would be too long to insist on here it being clearly declared by very many Theological Writers Secondly To refute the Heathens cavill against the Unity of the Godhead for they could not conceive how there could be but one God from Eternity and yet that this one God should not be solitary which opinion must needs take place except we acknowledge this mysterious doctrine of a Personal plurality in the substantial Vnity of God therefore to avoid this sadnesse of solitude they fansied a plurality of Gods for as God said It is not good that man should be alone so man on his own behalf may truly affirm as Bishop Goodman hath observed It is not good that God should be alone as will appear in the reason following Thirdly Because this doctrine of the Trinity is the main and prime foundation of mans Redemption Justification and Salvation by the Son of God which we believe and hope and expect by vertue of that most gracious Covenant made between God the Father and God the Son and secretly transacted between them before the Creation Which Covenant is called Ephes 3. 11. The eternal purpose of God and Heb. 13. 20.
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
is behind of the afflâ—ctions of Christ in my flâ—sh We may not think that Christ in his own particular Person left his Passion insufficient so as if for our redemption the Apostle should need to supply his defect but his meaning is that something was to be suffered in the Mysticall Body of Christ which is his Church by the holy Martyrs for confirmation of Evangelicall Truth as it is there said For his bodies sake that is for the edification of his Members and these Passions of Martyrs are here called the afflictions of Christ though they were acted onely on the Person of this Apostle If it be here objected that there is a great difference between the Sonship of Christ and our sonship because he is the Son of God by Nature and we onely by the Adoption of Grace This cannot be denied but withall we should understand that although Christ in regard of his Divine Nature is very God of very God yet the same Lord Jesus in respect of his assumed Manhood is also the Son of God onely by Grace by Adoption and Election and therefore it is said in regard of this humane Nature All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth Esay 42. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 4. and therefore Christ is called Gods elect Servant and Saint Peter calls him a stone chosen and precious for indeed it was of meer grace that this Man Jesus was chosen and taken into Unity of Person with the Eternal Word and this is the doctrine of the ancient Church Aug. de Verb. Dei ser 8. De Temp. ser 84. delivered by Saint Austine Susceptio hominis per Verbum erat Gratia nam quid meruit ille Homo qui Christus est and again Susceptio hominis ipsius in Deum tota est gratia quid meruit homo ille â—olle gratiam quid est Christus nisi homo quid nisi quod tu and in his disputes against the â—elâ—gians he thus argues Vnde Christus De Praedest cap. 14. homo meruit ut in unitatem personae cum aeterno verbo assumeretur quid â—nte egit and he answereth himself thus ille grat âest tantus â—â gratiâ fiâ— Christianus quâ ille homo fiâ— Christus That is the taking of the manhood into God was meerly of grace for what did that man Christ deserve What did he before by the same grace that a man is made a Christian this man Jesus was made Christ Finally why should we further doubt that holy men are called Christ and the Son of God seeing the Eph. 3. 17. 1 John 4. 13. Matth. 28. 28. Scripture tells us that Christ dwelleth in their hearts and that they dwell in him and that he is with us to the end of the world Hereupon Saint Hierâ—m writes thus to Saint Austin a Hierom. Ep. 80. Habitantem in teâ—dâ—â—exi Dâ—mâ—num Salvatorâ—m And Paulinus thus writes to him b Aug. epist 58. Audiam quâ—d in â—â— mihi loquatnâ— Deus And Austin himself writes thus to Bishop Aurelius c Id. â—e opere Monach. cap. 1. Jussioni â—â—a oporter me obâ—â—mperaâ—e nam Christus in te habitans ex te jussiâ— This union of Christ and his Church is of so great Concernment that the most high and Holy Sacrament was set up by our Saviour purposely not only to signify but also as an Instrumental meanes to effect this most holy Union which cannot be said of common and ordinary food and therefore is called by Saint Austin Thâ— Sacrament of union as out of many grapes one vessell Ad Frâ—â— in Erem ser 28. Sacramentum unitatis of wine is extracted c â—just so saith he of many men one Body of Christ is composed I here present unto the Learned Readers consideration an exposition of those two difficult sayings of Christ but I do not obtrude this conceit Magisterially He saith Iohn 6. 53. Except ye cat the flesh of the Son of man c. and Matth. 26. 26. Take eat this is my Body This he said when he gave not flesh but bread Vide Theophil in â—oâ— 6. 51. This bread may truly besaid to †Vide Theoophil in John 6. 51. be turned into the Flesh of Christ because it is nutrimentally turned into the flesh of every holy Communicant because such are truly called the Body and members of Christ and are called Christ but in prophane persons it is not so turned because they are not the members of Christ neither doth our Saviour say This is my body till he had first said Take Eat my learned friend Dr. Thomas Brown observeth that every Religio â—â—dici man is a kind of Anthropâ—phaâ—e because the main bulk of his body went in at his mouth by nourishment so this holy Eucharisticall nourishment is therefoie turned into the Body of Christ because it is converted into the flesh and blood of us who are his Body for thus Christ and his servants become incorporate and one body In the vision of Saint Peter it was said Arise Acts 10 13. kill and eat the meaning was that Peter should re ceive the Gentiles as well as the Jewes into the Communion of the Church Quasi escam uâ— incorporentur Ecclesiae saith Austin so he expoundeth that of Saint Iohn Aug. Hom. 45. Except ye eat id est nisi incorporentur Christo So also he expoundeth that saying He that cometh to Jo. 6. 37. me I will not cast him out Quiveniâ— ad Christum incorporatur ei And in that exposition of the Apocalyps which goes under his name Rev 20. 9. where it is said that fire came from God and devoured the persecutors he saith Comeduntur ab ecclesia persecutores id est incorporantur the meaning is that by the fire of the Holy Ghost the very persecutors of the Church shall be converted and incorporated into that mysticall Body of Christ this of the first question The second question is What that is which in the Saints Quest 2. Militant is not yet nor ever will be in this life fully subjected to God but shall be hereafter in the next life To this question this is the answer That in the Answer most holy men living there dwelleth a rebellious sin continually unto their death which is the same that by the Apostle is called Concupisence for the law saith Thou shalt not cover and the Apostle saith The Exod 20. 17. Rom. 7. 7. Gal. 5. 17. Psal 94. 20. flesh lusteth against the Spirit this is that which Divines call Originall sin of which the Apostle saith Rom. 7. 23. I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind Psal 94. 20. he calleth it a law because it hath such power over us as the Edicts of Tyrants have over their Vassals this is that sin which â—weâ—lâ—th in us Rom. 7. 2. of which he saith v. 24. who shall deliâ—er us from this body of death the deliverance mâ—st not be
Christ hath put down all carnall and sinfull rule authority and power for where the Apostle saith 1 John 3. 9. Hâ— that is bâ—rn of God sinâ—eth not He meaneth that the seed and fountain of sinning is not in his regenerating and Spirituall part by which he is born of God but he is also born of flesh and by that onely he sinneth CHAP. XI Why the unpardonable sinne is rather fastened on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons BUt why should the denying of the Godhead of the Son be so especially said to be a blasphemy unpardonable when as the denying of the Godhead of the other Persons is also damnable for first Saint Basil saith expresly more then once Qut Spiritum sanctum Crâ—â—turam vocant incidunt inblasphâ—miam Basil epist 387. n. 17. 43. illam irremissiâ—item He that calleth the Holy Ghost a creature falleth â—nto the unpardonable sinne so that Eunomius the Heretâ—cke who said the Spirit was the Creature of the Son was involved in Basil cont Euno n. 20. this blasphemy as well as Arius who said the Son was but a Creature of the Faâ—herâ— and therefore called him Mâ—ttendarium onely an Emissarie of the Father as Ruffinus reporteth and Saint Cyprian calâ—eth the Devill Ruff. in symb apud Cyp. n. 91. who is under the pressure of eternall unpardonableness both Antichristum Antispiritum an Antichrist and an Antispirit intimating as much danger in the one as in the other For we â—earn in Scripture that without holyness no man shall see God Heb 12 14. Therefore how can that man expect the gift of Holyness who denieth the Author of Holyness which iâ— the Holy Ghost Secondly He that denieth the Godhead of the Father is an Atheist for all sorts of Religions which confess 2. a God do also confess a Fatherhood in that God even the Heathens called their Jupiter a Father but how can an Atheist expect salvation from God who denieth that there is any God For answer hereunto it may be said that although the denying of the Godhead of any Person in the Trinity be destructive to salvation yet this sin is rather fastned on the deniers of Christ then the deniers of the other Persons First because the confession of the Father and the holy Spirit is not salvificall without the Confession of Christ for even Heathens confessed both a Fatherhood and a Divine Spirit of God as appeareth by the confession of Neâ—u hadnezar Dan. 4. 9. but the Confession of Christ is alone salvificall because he is not alone as himselfe saith John 8. 16. I am not alone but I and the Father which sent me for the confession of Christ includeth Basil de 〈◊〉 c. 12. the whole Trinity as Saint Basil affirmeth Christi appâ—llatio est professio totius trinitatis deâ—larans Deum Patrem qui unâ—it Filium qui unctus est Spiâ—itum qui est unctio and Saint mbâ—oâ—e affirmeth the same Amb. de 〈◊〉 c. 3. Christus implicat Paâ—rem unguentem Filium unctum Spiritum unctionem i. The appellation of Christ is the profession of the whole Trinity declaring the Father anointing the Son anointed and the Spirit who is the ointment and therefore albeit the form of Baptisme was precisely set down to be in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost yet because the Name Jesus Christ implyeth all these Saint Peter mentioneth onely this name Acts 2. 38. Be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for remission of sins so doth Saint Paul also Rom. 6. 3. Galatians 3. 27 Secondly the unpardonable sin is fastned on the deniers of the second Person rather then on the deniers of the other Persons because the work of redemption was immediately wrought by the second Person For it was the Person of the Son onely that became a Surety for us and not onely a bare Witness or Testifier as the Commenter affirmeth the Son onely took upon him our nature and therein fulfilled the Law for us and suffered death in our stead for our transgressions he onely was our Surety and Mediatour and he onely was incarnate and died and rose again and carried our flesh into Heaven with him and there still continueth a Mediatour for us not by any verball pleading or intreating for our salvation but by presenting there in the glorious Sanctuary of Heaven that humane body and soul which had actually and perfectly performed the whole Covenant of God and therefore even in the most strict Justice of God shewing that Heaven is due by the said Covenant to all his mysticall Body for which his naturall Body was sacrificed on the Crosse for the expiation of all their sinnes which was prefigured by the High Priests entering into the Sanctum Sanctorum All these dispensations and actions which conduced to our salvation must be ascribed onely to the Person of the Sonne but cannot be said of the Father or of the Holy Ghost For that was the Heresie of the â—oc l. 2. c. 15. Sabellians who were therefore called Patripassiani for these workes are proper to the Sonne alone Filius natus passus resurrâ—xisse ascendâ—sse dicitur non Aug. de Trin. l. 1. c. 5. n. 60. Pater As Augustine saith i. The Father cannot be said to be born or suffer or to rise again or to ascend but onely the Sone Therefore Kisse the Son lest he be angry and ye perish Psalme 2. 12. For the denying of him is the renouncing of salvation CHAP. XII The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scripture and by the type of the Tabernacle BEcause the apprehension and believing of this great Mystery of God Incarnate is a wonderfull consolation to the Christian and the denying thereof pertinaciously a certain note of eternall perdition therefore the Scripture hath very evidently and frequently declared this weighty truth both by express words and otherwise for the child to be born of a Virgin must be called Emmanuel Esay 7. 14. that is God with us or God incarnate and the same Prophet Esay 9. 6. giveth that childe such Titles as cannot be attributed to any meer creature as The mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of Peace This Prophets words do so agree with the Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine as the Word was made flâ—sh and the Word was God John 1. and God manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16 and of whom as concerning the flâ—sh Christ came who is over all God blessed for evermore Rom. 9. 5. that Saint Jerome called this Prophet Hier. proaem in Isai n. 33. Esay Non solum Prophetam sed Evangelistam Apostolum Not onely a Prophet but an Evangelist and an Apostle for as the Prophet before the incarnation bringeth in God saying I have sworn by my self to me every knee shall bow Esay 45. 23. So the Apostle applieth that saying to Christ being the same
Christ was fore ordained before the foundation of the World 1 Pet. 1. 19. 20. But I ask how could the blood of Christ with righteousnes and equitie be so ordained If Christ had not freely and voluntarile thus ingaged himself who could compel him therunto or did not he who is the wisdome of the Father fore see the bloody Passions which such an undertaker must undergoe or what claime could the Sons of men have to chaleng any interest in his actions or Passions but only by this covenant and ingagement and how could it be said Eph. 1. 4. God hath Chosen us in him before the foundation of the World And how can in be said 2 Tim. 1. 9. God hath saved us and called us according to his purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Iesus before the world began Unles man be considered and looked upon in Christ through this Covenant because therby the Son of God did ingage and oblige himself to the Father in man's behalf to performe the whole will of God which should be required of man for therfore is the Son called the Angel or messenger of the covenant Mal. 3. 1. Because he was the Mediator sent interested and imploied both in the undertaking and in the performance of that secret Covenant of whom it is also written Psal 40. 7. In the volume of thy booke it is written of me that I should performe thy will or that I delight to doe thy will Thus because Christ had undertaken for us and therfore was by his promise to performe the will of God for us hence it is that all our salvation is in and by and through him and all the promises of God to man are in him and for this reason it is said Tit. 1. 2. That God promised Eternal life before the world began But to whom could it be promised before any Creature was made except only to the Son of God and why to him but because he only had ingaged himself in this Eternall Covenant and becauâ—e our transgressions were fore seen that they would deserve death and that our suertie in the payment of our debt must needs suffer death therfore this our suertie is called Rev. 13. 8. The Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world see Iohn 17. 5. CHAP. IX The Covenant between God and Man the Legall and Evangelicall Covenant are but one the reasons why Christ was Circumcised and Baptized BY what hath bin said it appeareth that the Son of God was indeed secretly ingaged to the Father for mankind before the world was made and so secretly that it is said Col. 1. 26. That it had bin hâ—d from ages and generaâ—ions But how shall it appear that this Sonne of God ingaged himself to Man Where shall we find his word and promise to be an undertaker and surety for us so that we may faithfully and boldly lay hold on and chalenge his promise I answer that after the Creation God the Son entered into the same Covenant wirh Man that he had ingaged himself in to the Father before the Creation and by this renuing the same Covenant he bound Mankind to himself as himself had bin bound before to the Father and that divers and sundry times For first the words of the Covenant between God and the Son and Mankind before the fall were these Gen. 2. 17. Of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evill thou shalt not eat of it for in the day thou eatest thou shall surely die In this Covenant on Gods part life is promised implicitely and on mans part obedience is reftipulated or covenanted for to this condition Man had submitted and given consent as appeareth Gen. 3. 3. So that this was a perfect Covenant on both sides the Tree of Knowledge standing as a visible figne for mans obedience and the Tree of Life as a Sacramentall sign of Gods promise But after the fall of Man the same God did again more evidently and particularly ingage himself when he said of the seed of the woman Gen. 3. 15. It shall bruise the Serpents head In this promise the Incarnation of God in the seed of the woman was meant and that therein he should take upon him the curse and death formetly denounced by offering himself a sacrifice for sin the outward signs of this Covenant were the sacrifices wherewith the Patriarks did signifie and nourish their faith in that promise 3. After this the same Covenant was again renued to Abraham more particularly Gen. 12. 3. In thee shall all Families of the earth be blessed c. and then came in the Sacrament of Circumcision 4 After this again the same Covenant was more largely given to and published by Moses in the Law Morall containing Mans duty and in the Law Ceremoniall declaring Gods promise of Redemption by the Figures Types signs and shadowes of Tabernacle Priest and sacrifices 5 After this again the same Covenant was more clearly delivered in the Gospel by the same Lord God and most graciously explained and the vail taken off from it for then it was shewed who was that seed of the woman and that seed of Abraham and that sacrifice Lamb of God which should take away the sins of the world and how man should be enabled to perform the Covenant and Law of his God namely in that Christ his surety should perform all in mans behalf with this condition onely required of man to believe in this Jesus his God and Saviour for so the Evangelicall Covenant declareth John 3. 16. God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believed in him should not perish but have everlasting life And again Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be sav'd but he that believeth not shall be damned This is the one and onely and everlasting Covenant of Grace there are not two Covenants but onely this one both before and since the world began Now if any man ask why there is mention of a new Covenant I answer it is called a new Covenant because the old Covenant is renued just as we say there is a new Moon when it is but the old Moon newly enlightned which is but Nova lunatio i. a new illumination Tert. cont Marc. l. 5. Id. cont Marc. l. 4. So the same Father said of Christ O Christum in novis veterem i. Christ in the New Testament is the same with Messiah in the Old Testament We may as well say that the Sun-rising is a new Sunne which being but one and rising dayly and diversly Catul. car 5. Virg. An. 1. is called Soles as if there were many Suns Soles occidere redire possunt Quid tantùm Oceano properent se tingere Soles Hiberni For the same Covenant which before was clouded with obscurity and with Types in the time of the Law shineth brightly in the time of the Gospel But why then do Divines call this Law-Covenant the Covenant of works whereas the
of all this is as Saint Augustine observeth Aug. De Genesi ad lit l. 11 c. 32. Bestialem motum in membris scilicet appetitum concumbendi erubuit And again Quendam pruritum turpem indicant folia id est The Fig-leaves shew that Adam was ashamed of his lust appearing in those parts This is that Originall sinne in Adam which by Generation is transmitted to his Posterity and which the written Law of God forbiddeth in these words Thou shalt not lust or covet So I proceed to the third question 3. How Christ is freed seperated from 3. Question Original sin To this question the answer of Divines both Ancient and modern is That Original sin is not propagated to posteritie by taking our flesh from our parents but by lust and that because Christ was conceived and born of a Virgin without Lustfull copulation therfore he is free from this Original pollution Nulla volupâ—ate carnalis concupiscentiae seminatus est Aug. Enchâ—rid Cap. 4â— De Genesi ad lit l. 10. c. 18. Christus id ò nullum peccatum originaliter trahit And againe Corpus Christi non seminatum est per eam legem in membris quae repugnat legi mentis Ergo non erat caro peccaâ—i i The body of Christ was not generated in the pleasure of lust by the law in our members warring against the law of our mind therfore his flesh was not sinfull The same reason is rendred by Fulgentius and also by Isychius Christi Christi humanitas munda erat quia non Fulg. de Incarn c. 4. Isych in Levit. c. 14. Calv. instit l. 2. c. 13. S. 4. Aug. cont Pel. l. 2. c. 25. geniâ—a erat ex viri immunditie i. The humane nature of Christ is clean because he was conceived without unclean copulation Indeed Calvin is of opinion that it is not sufficient to acquit Christ from this originall pollution in that he was born of a virgin but because he was also Sanctified by the holy Ghost that his conception might be pure before him S. Austin had written somthing to that purpose Christus carnem ilâ—am aut suscipiendam mundaâ—it â—ut suscipiende mundavit i That Christ before â—e took that flesh or in taking of it did purifie it But the former opinion and this compared with the Scripturall words will amount but to one and the same for what can be meant by Calvin's Sanctified but that the flesh of Christ was separated from the polluted way of other mens flesh And what seperation can be meant but only that Christ was conceived in a way different and Seperate from ordinarie Conceptions And that is miraculously by the operation of the Holy ghost without man and this I take to be the meaning of the Apostle before alleaged Heb. 7. 26 That our high-Preist must be seperate from sinners For to Imagine that the Holy ghost did take away carnal pollution from that part of the Virgin mother of which Christ was made flesh and yet left the said Original pollution remaining in the other parts of her to me it seemes both an unprobable and a needless refuge to this question And whether God doth any time take away the pollution of Original sin from any person in whom it once was during this mortal life I have at large shewed before in my second book and tenth Chapter and that the taking See before l. 2. c. 10. sect 2. 2 Cor. 12. 8. away of Original sin was that very thing which S. Paul prayed for so earnestly and had only this answer My grace is sufficient for thee Finally because the first man was made of earth and the first woman was made of man and both before lust was hatched therfore both were at first free from this Original pollution upon which consideration Aquinas Aquin. l. 2. q. 81. art 4. moveth this pertinent question If now a man should be miraculously made of another man's flesh whether he should contract Original sin His answere is no. upon good reason for such a creature is not procreated by way of carnal copulation I suppose no man will affirm that worms which are bred in humane bodies doe contract any sin from man although they take flesh from man The same reason is appliable to Christ and therfoâ—e Origen upon S. Luke and Austin very often Orig in lu ho. 14. Aug. in ps 22. and De mirab script l. 3. c. 2. applie that saying of the psalmist Psal 22. 6. I am a wâ—â—m and no man as being spoken of Christ because as a worm so Christ was bred in the virgin's wombe without any copulation for therfore some birds bees and worms are so bred that Christ might not be without example who in the Psal is called a worm This I trust is enough to the three questions Now for answer to those Scriptural sayings which seem to charg Christ with sin As He hath made him to 2 Cor. â— 21. Aug. cont Max. l. 2. c. 2. be sin for us which place was by Maximinus the Arrian thus perverted Christus pro nobis peccatum fecit as S. Austin noteth i Christ did sin for us If we should understand this of any personal sin in Christ then should we charg God with being the author of sin But the meaning is only that God made Christ a Sacrifice for sin for sacrifices are called sins Hose 4. 8. They eat up the sin of my people That is the preists did eat the sin offerings That which wee now read Levit. 3. 2. He shall lay his hand upon the head of the Sacrifice The Septuagint read He shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin So from hence no more can be inferred but that Christ Aug. in Psal 68. was Peccatorum Susceptor non commissor as S. Austin expresseth it Christ is thus factus peccatum non natus he is only made sin as a sacrifice but all wee are sin-born to him sin is only imputed but in us it is inherent To that of Rom. 5. 12. Death passed on all for that all have sinned The answer is that all who by way of natural generation proceeded from Adam have sinned as is shewed before indeed death is the wages of sin Either of our owne proper and personal sin for which wee are mortall or els of Imputed sin by which Christ was subject to mortalitie To that of Levi. Heb. 7. 9. who is said to pay tithes to Mâ—lchisedech because he was in the loins of braham And that therfore Christ being in the loins of Adam when he fell may seem lyable to that transgression of Adam wee say if this objection were formed in words which signified propagation of sin which is now our question the solution would appear more evidently as thus Levi was in the loins of Abraham when Jsaac was begotten therfore Levi sinned in Abraham's loins this cannot be denied So Christ was in the loins of Adam when Seth was begotten Seth was Christs
must be given but once and cannot be repeated Indeed daily sinning hath need of daily purging by humiliation confession repentance prayer and continuall labour in quitting our selves from the over-ruling of sin there is that corruption in us that requireth daily spiritual physick to expell it or rather a daily dying unto sin more and more as we are exhorted Eph. 4. 22. and Colos. 3. 5. To put off the old man and to mortifie our earthly members but yet not by a new baptism for there is but one baptisme and that cannot be iterated Because it is said that this one and only baptism is Prosp Resp ad Capit. Gallo n. 28 26. cap. 2. for the taking away of sin and that not only actuall sin but Original also It would be inquired whether we may truly affirm that a man that hath been baptized with all the efficacies of true Christian Baptisme is void of original sin Prospeâ— saith very home Baptismo delentu peccata originalia in â—is qui non sunt predâ—stinati ad vitam i That by baptisme the sins even of such who are not predestinated to life are blotted out and yet we find St. Paul complaining Rom. 7. 23. I see a Law in my members warring against the law of my mind Captivating me to the law of sin which surely he meant of original Corruption To this the answer is that by baptism and baptismal grace all sins past whether original or actual are remitted so as our Divines say Quoad reatum seâ— imputâ—tionem i we shall not be charged with them in judgment they shall not be imputed to us they are forgiven but yet they still ramain in us they are not extinguished or extirpated our nature still remaineth corrupt and the soure leaven of sin yet worketh the Serpent continueth in our bosom though the sting be taken out so that it shall not sting us to death and this truth doâ—h evidently appear by the effects of our originall corruption producing daily actual sins both in Parents and their children as the same father observeth Circumcisus gignit Prosp Sentent 298. n. 37. prâ—putium sic baptizatus trajicit peccatum originale in prolem i as he that was circumcised begat an uncircumeised son so he that is baptized propagateth originall sin to his child which could not be if originall sin did not still remain in the baptized but I return to my purpose I am next to shew that the ancient Expositors delivered the same exposition which I have done St. Ambrose upon those words To â—enue to repentance saith Quid ergo exclusa est paenitentia absit sed renovatio per Ambr. in loc sacri baptismatis lavacrum secunda vice fieri non potest i shall we say that the Apostle here quite excludeth repentance No but he only denieth it to be possible by a second baptism So doth Theodoret expound the same words Apostolus non probibet meâ—icamentum paenitentiae Theod. in loc sed Divini baptismi definitionem doceâ— i the Apostle doth not deny the second remedy of repentance only he sâ—eweth that we are confined and limitted to one only baptism and Theophilact upon the same place saith Non si segniter vivamus aut ex fide excidamus Theoph. in loc rebaptizari nobis dabiâ—ur non oâ—orâ—et iterare baptismum sed in priore persever are i If after baptisme we live carelessely or fall from the faith no second baptism can be given but we must hold us to our first and Anselm in loc to one baptisme St. Anselâ— upon this very place reads the words verse 2. not as we now do conjunctively Doctrine of baptismes but severally of baptismes of doctrines which Erasmus approveth of and he thus expounds it Nâ—c rursum jacentes sundamentum baptismatum ut quaeratis itâ—rum baptismali undâ lavari i not laying again the foundation of baptâ—smes so as to defire a second baptism Lastly Epiphanius describing the Novaâ—ian heresie who urged this place against receiving those into the Church upon repentance who had faln after baptisme tells us that the meaning of the words impossible to be renued to repentance is Nemo 1. Epiph. haer 59. potest secundum lavacrum accipere i No man may be twice baptized which he illustrateth by this example As she that hath once parted with here Virginity can never corporally recover it again but yet she may attain unto the grace of continency so they that fall after baptism can never be again baptized but yet they are not excluded from a second grace even the medicine of repentance and this exposition is also asserted by Eusibius Emiss occasionally touching this Scripture Post baptismum sola paenitentia sanat non iterum per baptisma Euseb n. 24. sanari possunt i after baptisme there is no salve for sin but only repentance for men can not be healed by any new Baptisme now I proceed to the next words wherby a reason is given why second Baptismes cannot be admitted CHAP. VI. How a Second Baptism is said to be a new crucifying of Christ that it is ignominious to the all sufficient sacrifice of Christ and that it not only doth no good to a sinner but much harme by aggravating his sins as raine maketh weedes to increase SEeing they crucifie to themselves tee Son of God afresh 1. Reason They that will be a second time Baptized in expectation of remissions of sins committed after their former Baptisme doe in a manner crucifie Christ a second time not as if Christ could be actually and reallie re Crucified but yet such re Baptized ones doe it to themselves that is by their meane and base estimation of that one allsufficient and only sacrifice for sin For as Christ died but once for sin because his once 〈◊〉 dying is a plentifull and sufficient expiation for all our sins through our whole life and ought to be accounted a continual sacrifice and because we are but once to be admitted to the benefit of his one death by one only Baptisme answering to his once dying of which it is said Rom. 6. 3. So many of us as were Baptized Pareus in loc into Christ were Baptized into his death That is admitted to the benefit of his death as is confessed by Pâ—râ—s Therfore whosoever shall be a second time baptized for remission and expiation of his sins doth therby shew that in his false apprehension and misbelief Christs once dying which was once applyed to him by one Baptisme is not by him accounted sufficient to satisfie for his former sins committed before Baptisme and his later sins after Baptisme and therfore he will be againe Baptized and therby a second time admitted to the benefit of Christs death and therby applying a second crucifying of Christ to himself as if that one former application were nullified or insufficient for as there is but one death of Christ so there is but one Baptisme by which that one death
Godhead is there called the Holiâ— Spirit or Holie ghost as hath bin shewed before in my Second book and this blasphemio consisteth in the denial of the Godhead of Iesus Christ wherby his allsufficient Sacrifice is undervalued and the Son of God is troden underfoot as being esteemed but a creature and a meer man and therby becometh contemptible and his Blood even the blood of the Covenant is esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i But common ordinarie unholie blood no better then the blood of another ordinarie common man and not Sanctified and ordaineth for that great and high mysterie to be offered as a full and sufficient expiatorie sacrifice for the sins of the world according to the Covenant of God For he that denyeth the Godhead of Christ must needs think that his blood is but common blood as other mens blood is and therfore not of sufficient worth and value to redeem the world more then another mans blood is and indeed if his blood be no better then the blood of another man and if it be not the royal blood of God Act. 20. 28. It hath not it can not redeeme us Now whether the sin mentioned in this place be absolutely unpardonable and altogether remediless will better apeare by a diligent exposition of that text as it stands in relation to the context both before and after it For if we sin c If everie sin which is committed after we knew and professed the Christian religion should be unpardonable what man could be saved seeing the most righteous men fall and therfore doe daylie pray forgive us our trespasses therfore this saying can not be understood of every sin but suerlie here is one special grand and capital sin meant and what that is the words going before and following doe declare For verse 5. it is said in the Person of the Son of God Sacrifice and Offerings thou wouldst not but a Vide. Psal 40. bodie hast thou prepared for me That is because the Legal sacrifices or the blood of bulls and goates could not redeem man therfore an humane bodie was prepared for the Son of God that in that assumed humane nature he might in man's stead beare the curse and suffer death which man had merited And because we who are but meer men weak and sinfull can not by our selves performe the will and law of God without performance wherof no man can be saved therfore the Son of God came in our stead to performe the whole law so as was required and willed of God as it is said vers 9. Then said I loe I come to doe thy will o God So that both the active obedience of Christ in doing the law and his passive obedience in suffering the punishment of our transgressions are here set forth in these words vers 10. By the which will we are sanctified through the Offering of the body of â—esu Christ once for all That is by Christs performing the will or commandments of God in our stead and through the Sacrifice of himself on the Altar of the Cross for our sins his mystical bodie or Church is Sanctified for it is said vers 12. This man Christ Offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever and again vers 14. hâ— one offering he hath perfiâ—ted for ever them that are Sanctified and then we are exhorted vers 22. Let us draw neer with a true heart in full assurance of faith and vers 23. Let us hold fast the Proâ—ession of our faith without wavering If we sin there remaineth no more sacrifice c Having shewed what the foundation of our Christian religion is namely Jesus the Son of God God Incarnate and in his humane nature performing the covenant law and will of God both actively and passively for us and in our stead and requiring that we should have a full assurance of faith of the truth of that Doctrine without which faith Christ will not profit us he now shewes the sad consequences of rejecting this doctrine by Apostacie or falling away from our Christian religion in these words There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certaine fearfull looking for of judgement So that the sin here meant is Apostasie that is forsaking Christianitie as Julian did esteeming of Christ but as of an ordinarie Coman man and therfore distrusting the sufficiencie of his blood and death as not an equivalent price and ransome for man's redemption The truth of this Exposition will better appear by the words following wherein this particular sin is evidently expressed and is called verse 29. Treading under foot the Sonne of God counting the blood of the Canant unholy or as it is in the Originall a common thing and doing despight unto the Spirit of Grace Now to tread under foot is to vilipend and undervalue Christ as esteeming him not sufficient to take away or satisfie for our sinnes to count the blood of the Covenant unholy or Common is to esteem of the death and blood shedding of Christ to be of no more vertue and power then the death and blood of another Common man and they that so basely undervalue Christ as to think and to account him but a meer man do despight unto the Spirit of Grace What is the Spirit of Grace in the Sonne of God but his Divine Spirit and Godhead even that Spirit from which all Graces flow which are called the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ So they who have no higher estimation of Christ then of a meere man do despight unto his Divine Nature his God-head for what greater spite can be then to un-God him the word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despite in effect is all one with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Matthew and the Spirit of Grace here is the same which is there called the Holy Spirit which doth signifie the God-head of Christ as hath been shewed before For if he that despised Moses Law died without mercy verse 28. Yet Moses was but a mere man and so but a Theod. in loc fervant to this our God Quanâ—ò morte dignior est qui Mosis Deum habâ—t despicatui i. What shall become of him that despiseth the God of Moses and the saving Doctrine of Christ who is the Onely Eternall God Moses propounded life as a reward to them that should perform the Law Christ did perform that Law in mans stead to mans behoof and benefit and offereth to men the benefit of that performance and with it life eternall onely with this condition of believing on him Therefore that man which will not give credit to this joyfull-Evangelicall offer must expect to perish eternally for if Christ be rejected absolutely and salvation through him despised and not hoped for or expected There is no other sacrifice for our sins possibly to be found nor any other Name by which we can be saved By what hath been said it appeareth that these words If we sinne in this place signifie the sinning of the