the Virgin Mother his birth his conversation with men his passion death resurrection ascention so that the meaning is that Moses viz. the Mosaical people should in after times see God when God should be incarnate So Athanisius expounds it posteriores Ath. ad Antio quaest 23. n. 28. dei partes carnen intellige quam assum sit ex Virgine per quam conspectus est i by the back-parts of God you must vnderstand his flesh taken of the Virginâ— Marie in which flesh he was seen and this also is the exposition of Origen on Psal 36. hom 4. and Austin giues a reason why the incarnation is callâ—d the after parts of God Propter posteritaâ—em mortalitatis vel Aug. de Trin. l. 2. 17. quia poster ùs â—arnem assumpturus erat i. because his mortal or humane nature was to be assumed long after Moses time and later then his divine nature which had bin from all Eternitie Neither doth this Doctrine by asserting the incarnation of God any way countenance the heresie of the Anthropomorphites who ascribed corporeal lineaments and parts to God and because it is said Esa 66. 1. heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool they thought the divine nature was a vast body teaching from heaven to earth as Origen relates of them Orig in Gen. ho. 1. and because they read of the hand and arme and eyes of God simple monks as they were they ascribed those parts literally to the divine nature which are spoken of in Scripture but figuratively these were the Andian Enrors as wee read in Epiphanius The odoret Sozomen these men thought a body to be essential to God as if God could not be God except he had a body but wee say the body or humane nature is not essential to God no not to the person of the Son of God but it is an accessarie assumed and not into the essential union with the Son but into personal union with him being now God incarnate for he was God and the Son of God before his incarnation so that although the divine nature in its owne essence or pure Godhead is incorporeal yet the same Godhead now considered in the Person of Christ cannot be said to be without a body for as Theodoret noteth Christus Theod. dial 3. n. 13. significat Deum incorporatum non incorporeum id est Christ signifieth God incarnate and not God incorporeall because the Son of God who is the One and onely true God is now Emmanuel the Godhead and the Manhood in him are inseparably united for ever and in this sence I conceive the first Article of Religion in the Church of England is to be p. Art 1. understood which saith p. God is without Body because albeit God never will be without his assumed Body yet this Body is not of the Essence of God for although the Son of God never had assumed a Body nor ever had been incarnate yet nevertheless he had been and shall be God and the Sonne of God from everlasting to everlasting This I hope is enough concerning the first question of Gods visibility and invisibilitie CHAP. VI. The Second question why the Fathers said that 2 Question onely the Son was seen by the Patriarks and not the Father IT being granted that the Father and the Son are but one onely and the same God allthough distinct in proprieties and Persons it would be inquired why the Fathers before mentioned said that the Son appeared and was seen when the Father did not appear nor was seen for how can one be seen and not the other when both are one Before I enter upon this question I desire the Reader to take notice of two things First that this discourse is intended to be onely concerning such a sight of God as mortall men are capable of in this life because it is not revealed to us how man shall see God in the life to come of which it is said Marth 5. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God and yet also the impure shall see God for every eye shall see him and they also which pierced him Rev. 1. 7. Saint Austine expounding the words Zach. 12. 10. They shall Aug. de Trin lib. 1. c. 13 look upon me whom they pierced saith The wicked shall not see him in thâ— form of God but in the form of a servant because God shall sit in judgement as he is clothed with his humane body that so the judge may be visible to all that shall be judged for even Satan conversed with our God on earth being in his flesh when he tempted him Matt. 4. But the righteous when they once are in the possession of the joyes of Heaven shall see God as he is in his Divine nature which Divines call facialem visionem the beatificall vision seeing God face to face as it is said 1 Cor. 13. 12. and then happily the distinct Person of the Father will be visible to eyes glorified for then the Saints shall be equall to the Angels Luke 20. 36. of whom we shall read Matth. 18. 10. Their Angels do alwayes behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven Secondly that I do not take upon me peremptorily to affirm that the Person of God the Father hath never presented himself in any corporeal or visible shape for how should I know such a Mystery And because I find that Saint Austine saith Nâ—mis temerarium est dicere Aug. de Trin l. 2. c. 17. 18 patrem nunquam visum patâ—ibus credibile est Patrem solitum fuisse apparere mortalibus i. It is too much rashnesse to affirm that the Father was never seen Nay it is credible that he used to appear to the Patriarchs And Atbanasius saith that although God was sometimes seen in the Person of the Son when he was not seen in the Person of the Father yet he saith also that at another time all the three Persons Athan. lib. de Com. essentia n. 24. were seen by Abraham Tres Personae sedebaent apud Abraham i. All the three Persons sate at Abrahams tent For what inconvenience will follow if God shew his presence at the same time both in severall places and also in severall assumed shapes for he that is at all times really present in all places may also manifest his presence where and when and how he pleaseth It is confessed that the Person of the Sonne assumed an humane body and was seen and at the same time the Person of the Holy Ghost descended in the likenesse of a Dove Matthew 3. 17. and then also the voyce of the Person of the Father was heard and again Matthew 17. 5. which Divines say must needs be from the Person of the Father because the Sonne of God is not the Sonne of any other Person but onely of the Father Indeed it is said of
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
writing upon those words Gen 3. 8. They heard the voice of the Lord God walking he saith quomodo ambulatio Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 10. Prosp de vit Cont. l. 1. c. 5. lib. 2. c. 18. latio dei possit intelligi sine humans specie non video i I doe not see how the walking of God can be understood except we suppose that God assumed an humane shape Prosper also the follower of Austin saith Deus non potest hic videri sine assumptione Elementi non sine forma visibilis creaturae i. God can not be seen but by assuming some Elementarie and visible forme of a Creature and this doctrine was so generally received that Austin saith again Deum apparuisse humanis Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 14. Oculis per Creaturam subjectam quis dubitat i who doubteth that God hath indeed appeared to mans sight by assuming some Creature The sum of all is that God hath bin seen but not in his single and pure divine nature but by assuming and involving himself in some Element figure body or shape and those apparitions of God in the old Testament did but accidentally point at the great and principal Appartiion of God described in the new Testament where it is said Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his glorie and Coloss 2. 9. In him dwelleth all the fulnes of the Godhead bodily and 1 Tim. 3. 16. Great was the mysterie of Godlines God manifest in the flesh For indeed all the apparitions of God in the old Testament were but types figures proems preludes preambles praefigurations or as dumb shewes If I may so speak of the incarnation of the same God in the person of Jesus all fore-shewing that the most high only God would in the fulnes of time take upon him men's nature S. Austine saith of that apparition which Ioshua saw when God appeared to him like a man of warr Iosh 5. 13. That it was the Son of Aug de 5 haer c. 4. God 1. Jesus Iesum interrogat figurae veritate i. Ioshua who is also called Jesus Iesus the typespake to Iesus who is the truth and substance of that type for the auncients made this Construction of all the apparitions of God in humane shapes to be but as types of the incarnation of the same God as wil appeare more cleerly hereafter CHAP. V. The Incarnation of God foreshewed in types the heresie of the Anthropomorphites the first article of the Church of England explained GOd began very early to promise and intimate by words and signes the great and profitable Mystery of his owne Incarnation and his gracious work of the redemption of man for he said before he created Man Gen. 1 26. Let us make Man in Our Image and God created Man in his owne image first here is Our Image in the plural number intimating the image of the trinitie to be in the soule of man Consisting in Will Memorie and Understanding as S. Austin expounds it and here is also mention of his owne Aug. comp Ser. Arian to 6. c. 16. Tert. de Resur Gen 1. 27. Tert. adv Prax. Image in the singular number that is as Tertullian expounds it more then once Deus ad imaginem suam fecit hominem Limus iste jam â—unc imaginem Christi induens futuri in carne Christus Cogitabatur homo suturus i. that the image of God was meant of Christ who in after ages would take the same shape of man upon him And againe he saith on those words In the jmage of God Created he him Sc. an Imaginem Filii qui homo suturus Orig. in Gen. ho. 1. i. that the Image of God signifies the image of the Son of God who was to be a man and Origen expounding the same words tels us that the image of God there signifies Imaginem Salvatoris i. That man was made in the same humane image that one day Our saviour would assume and albeit the image of God may have other significations as righteousnes holines c. Yet nothing hindreth this exposition to be one and the jmage thus expounded houldeth when the other is ceased or much defaced and what els is the meaning of that saying The seed of the Woman shall Gen. 3. 15. bruise the serpents head But that the Son of God should take flesh of the Woman and therein prevaile against Satan and why should both Abraham and Jacob require Gen. 24. 47. 29. Aug. cont sec Manichae c. 23. to 6. Amb. de Abrah l 1. c. 9. Hier. cont Jov. l. 1. c. 5. that at the taking of an oath the hand should be put under their thigh a strang booke to Swear on but S. Austin expounds it Abraham prophetabat deum Caeliâ— im eam carnem â—sse venturum quae fuisset exillo femore propagata i. Abraham prophecied that the God of heaven would assume flesh propagated from Abrahams thigh and the very same reason is rendred by S. Ambrose and S. Hieâ—ome but most memorable is the passage with Jaâ—ob which wee read Gen. 32. 22. There wrastled a man with Jacob This man was God to signifie that there would be a contention between the Son of God made man and Jacobs posteritie Jacob seemed stronger then the man and held him and prevailed to signifie that Jacobs posteritie who are called by his name Iacob and Israel should so prevail with God incarnate as to be stronger and to hold him as the Jewes did in bonds and durance and to nail him on the câ—osse Iacob halted that is his posteritie would faile and falter in the faith of the God of Iacob yet Iacob obtained a blessing signifying that the Jews or all true Israelites nothwithstanding all their contentions and injuries done to this incarnate God yet by houlding him in faith should obtaine a blessing and this is the exposition of Tertullian lib de Tâ—in If that book Tert. de Trin. be his And for the same reason I take it did it please the only and most high God to appeare to Abraham in the habit of man Gen. 16. and to converse with him and to be entertained at meat by Abraham as a guest and all this was acted as a prophetical scean or shew that Abraham might with his eyes behould a representation of that great mysterie of God incarnate which one day should be really performed when the same God who now conversed with Abraham but in a temporarie and assumed shape of man should really become a very and perfect man and converse with and be entertained by Abrahams posteritie These and such like passages may further infome us in the true meaning of those hard words which God said to Moses when he could him that he should see his â—◠〈◊〉 but not his face Ex. 33. 23. What the face or forepart of God signifies I have shewed before that it signifies his divine nature the Eternal Godhead but his back parts signifie his later dispensations in assuming our nature of
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
vigilant now at all the ports of thy soul and take some antidote of thy precious Christian faith to corroborate thy heart against the danger of most deadly poyson for now the Serpents nest and Pandora's box are to be opened containing multitudes of evils and deadly blasphemies against the Divine Person of thy dear Saviour and his precious death all which I must now present to thy view and for thy more easie discovery I will draw them out in two files The first containeth such blasphemies which deny the Godhead and Divine nature of Jesus Christ The second containeth such blasphemies as deny the Incarnation of God and the Redemption of man by the Passion bloodshed and death of thy Saviour when he offered himself a full sufficient expiatory sacrifice on the altar of the Crosse and also such as deny the merit of his active obedience in fulfilling the Whole Law and performing the Covenant of God in our stead on our behalf and to our benefit and now they advance Blasphemies against the Godhead of Jesus Christ 1. That Christ was by his Resurrection consequently deiâ—ied Chap. 1 vers 2. pag. 3. it seemes the Commenter doth not believe that Christ was God before his death 2. That the Creation of the world cannot be referred to Christ Chap. 1. vers 10 p. 10. That his making of the world was but the restoring of mankind to a new state pag. 3. yet all things were made by him that were made Joh. 1. 3. 3. That Christ had an immense measure of the Holy Ghost Cap. 1. 9. p. 9. If it were immense how is it a measure and if by measure how is it immenâ—e is not this illogical blasphemy the Scripture saith of him God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him Joh. 3. 34. 4. That Christ had a beginning Cap. 1. 12. p. 13. Yet of Christ it is said His goings forth have been from everlasting Mich. 5. 2. 5. That if the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrewes had taken Christ to be the supream God he had discouâ—sed impertinently C. 1. 10. p. 10. That it is manifest that Christ is not the Supream God C. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ was a divine man C. 7. 22. p. 136. That Christ was opposed to God Cap. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ carried himself as a person diverse from God and that he was so the thing it self declares C. 12. 25. p. 320. p 54. 6. That Christ doth not forgive sins of his own authority Cap. 4. 14. pag. 70. That Christ hath not power of himself to save us C. 9. 24. p. 192. Yet Christ saith The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins Matth 9. 6. and Thou shalt call his Name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins Mâ—â— 1. 21 7. That the Angels are equal to Christ for duration C. 1. 10. p. 10. The â—ngel are creatures Christ is their Creator and therefore before them and of longer duration à parte anâ—e but if he mean that Angels are equal to him for duration à parte â—â—st onely he hath said nothing to his own purpose for so soules of men yea and devils â—â— all endure for ever but the Son of God is from everlasting to everlasting as is shewed out of Mich. 5. 2. 8. That the Lord Christ was not the first Author of the Gospel but God was the first C. 2. 3. p. 19. If the Law had been published by God himself it had been mâ—re excellent then the Gospel c. C. 2. 2. p. 16. This blasphemy is particularly answered before Cap. 7 9. That the Saints in heaven shall noâ—â—e under Christ but besides him C. 2. 6. p. 23. What! Check by soul yet Philip. 2. 1â— God hath puâ— all things under his feet and gave him to be head over all things to the Church and this Supremacy is there said to be in heavenly places verse 20. and The four and twenty Elders fall down and worship the Lamb Rev. 4. 10. 10. That it appears that faith in Christ is not contained in all faith in God Cap. 11 6. p. 251. That he that believes in Christ doth not believe in him finally but in God by him C. 3. 12. p. 54. He would have you believe there is something greater and better then Christ to believe in Ultimatè Terminativè 11. That Christ must not be compared with that Angel who represented God C. 12. 25. p. 321. Yet Christ even in his humane nature exalted is set far above all Principalities and powers and might and dominion and every name that is named not onely in this world but in that which is to come Ephe. 1. 21. Indeed he is said to be made lower then the Angels to suffer death Heb. 2. 9. lower in the humiliation of his humane nature but of his Divine nature alone and of his humane exalted and so of his whole Person as he is Emmanuel it is said Heb. 1. 6. Let all the Angels of God worship him The total summe of all these is Onely this blasphemy That Christ is not God Blasphemies against the Incarnation of the Son of God and his Work of Redemption 1. That Christ the Son of God cannot be said to be Incarnate more then the Saints are Heb. 2. 14. pag. 31. 2. That the Supream God can no way be a Priest C. 5. 5. p. 80. True if you had added this Except he be Incarnate and assume humane nature 3. The expiatory Offering of Christ for our sins was not performed on earth but in heaven C. 7. 1. p. 116. c. 8. 4. p. 146. c. 9. 12. p. 168. That his offering did not consist in his death but by his entrance into heaven after death C. 9. 7. p. 160. his Priesthood began there C. 9. 14. p. 171. 4. That Christ was not the Author of the New Testament but is called the Testator only because he was the main witnesse C. 9 19. p. 182 183 184. 5. That when it is said Jesus made a surety of a better Testament Heb. 7. 22. it is not meant that Christ became our surety to God and took upon him the payment of our debts But was a surety of Gods promise and dyed to assert the truth of the Covenant C. 7. 22. p. 136 319 348 357. 6. That Eusebius would not have the Son of God who appeared to Abraham to be the most high God Cap. 13. 2. p. 331. 7. That the Nicene Fathers hâ—ld not that the Son is that one most high God who is the Father These are the Articles of Infidelity which are affirmed by this Commenteâ— against which consisting of two Heads as is said I will Gods assistance addresse two Books following in the former whereof The Godhead of Christ shall be declared and in the later the Incarnation of the same Jesus who is the true onely and supream God shall be manifested and thereby the Great and gracious Mystery of man's Redemption by our God so Incarnate
open Market-place cured diseases raised spirits presented to their view Magical banquets and seemed to release those that were possessed by devils therefore Celsus said that Jesus performed his miracles by art Orig. Cont. Cels lib. 1. n. 32. magick I say seemed onely for we learn from our Saviour that one devil is not cast out by another and Satan is not divided against himself and although when ignorant people imploy one Witch to help them against another some present ease may seem to be procured yet indeed as Austin observeth Non exit Aug. l. 83. quaest qu. 79 n. 88. Satanas per infimas potestates sed in intima regreditur regnat in voluntale corpori parcens i. Satan is not dispossessed by any infernal power but retireth himself into the more inward parts of the possessed and though he spare the body yet he â—yrannizeth more in the soul and maketh his possession stronger Because this is a dangerous apostasie to seek to or to attribute the work of God to him therefore Christ used divers arguments against it and so did the Ancient Fathers Origen Athan. Euseb Austin and others which having but touched I omit to avoid digressions The greatest difficulty in this question is what our Saviour meant by the words holy Spirit or holy Ghost when he said The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven for the understanding whereof I will lay down a few Considerations to the Reader that from them he may gather the true meaning of that hard saying First That in Christ there are two natures 1. His Godhead or Divine nature by which he is called God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. 2. His humane nature or manhood made of the seed of David according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. The first of these is called Forma Dei the second is called forma Servi both are Philip. 2. 6 7. mentioned Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal to God but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant Secondly Consider that there are two spirits in Christ 1. His soul or humane spirit of which he saith Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. Secondly his Divine Spirit of which it is said If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is noni of his Rom. 8. 9. Thirdly that according to his two natures there are two filiations in Christ for 1. He is called the Son of man the son of David 2. He is called the Son of God Fourthly That according to those two natures two spirits and two sonships the Scripture mentioneth two kinds of blasphemies against Christ thâ— one against him as he is the Son of man and this is pardonable Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him Matth. 12. 32. The other unpardonable But Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost â—t shall not be forgiven him Ibid. Fifthly That the appellation Holy Spirit in Scripture is taken two wayes 1. Pro deitate essentiae omnium personarum Paâ—ris Filii Spiritûs i. For the Godhead or divinity of all the Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost because all are one God as Matth. 12. 28. John 4. 24. 2. It is taken Personaliter i. properly for the third Person alone as Baptizing them in the Nâ—me of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Matth. 28. 19. and this distinction is acknowledged by divers late Divines of the Reformed Churches a Polan l. 3. c 6 Polanus b Bucan l. 3. p â—â— Bucan c Tilen p. 141. Tilenus and d Melan. in loc Com. de Spirit Ph. Melanthon From these plain and confessed Considerations I extract these two Propositions 1. That it is no inconvenience to affirm That those words hoâ—y Spirit or Holy Ghost in that place do signifie the Godhead of the second Person Jesus Christ 2. That to deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ is that blasphemy which in the Gospel is said to be unpardonable And this is my Conclusion which hereafter I hope I shall evidently demonstrate to the Readers satisfaction CHAP. III. That the Godhead of the Son is called Spirit and holy Spirit that the words Ghost and Spirit are of the same signification LEt it not seem strange that the appellation of one person is given to another for as in this place the Godhead of the Son is called the holy Spirit so in another place the Godhead of the Son is called the Everlasting Father Esa 9. 6. For unto us a child is born his Name shall be called wonderfull counsâ—llour the mighty God the everlasting Fâ—ther In that he saith a child is born it must needs be meant of the Son of God and the Son is called the everlasting Father because he is God for the Godhead of every person being but one in all is may be called the everlasting Father and so the holy Ghost is the everlasting Father also because the holy Ghost is God and yet this doth not confound the three persons or their severall and distinct prâ—prieties and personalities for albeit every Person is the everlasting Father in respect of men and of creatures because all concurred in the creation yet onely the first Person hath this Personall proprietie to be the Father of the sâ—cond Person and so the Father of God as the Son is the Father respectu Creaturarum i. in respect of the creatures so the first Person is Father of God and of Man as that in the Poet if it were in the singular number might illustrate Hominum sator atque deorum a Virg. Aene. l. 1. so God the Father is the Father of God the Son that is the Father of the Person of the Son but not the Father of the Godhead of the Son b Pater Personae non essentiae Pater Filii non deitatis We in our Creed confess the Son to be God of God that is God the Son of God the Father but we do not say Deitas de deitate Godhead of Godhead Neither could the Son of God call God the Father his Lord and his God but onely because the Person of the Son assumed the humane nature and form of a servant as St. Augustino hath observed upon that saying Ps 22. 10 Thou art my God from my mothers belly c Pater est Deus Dominus Filio quia in eo est forma servi De ventre matris Deus meus es tu Ps 22. 10. Sed antâ— omnia secula Pater est i. The Father is the Lord and God of the Son because the Son assumed the form af a servant therefore it is said in the Psalme Thou art my God from my mothers belly but the Father may be said to be his Father from eternitie As every Person is called a Father so as is said so also every Person is called Holy because the Godhead is holy
of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Jesus Christ the communication of the properties of each nature the life and death of Nestorius and how Christ is said to be deified FOr the avoyding of the unpardonable sin before mentioned it will not be sufficient to believe and confess that God is in Jesus as a man in a ship or as God was in the Prophets and is now in holy men who are therefore called the Temples of the living God 2 Cor. 6. 16. or as God is every where who filleth heaven and earth Jer. 23. 24. For though God be in an holy Man yet we cannot say that God and that Man are one Person and though God be in Heaven yet he and Heaven are not one hypostasis or subsistence in one Personall union but as our soul and body united and composed are one Man and one Person so the Godhead and Manhood united in Iesus are one Person one Christ Now these two distinct natures to wit the Godhead and Manhood are in Christ so united that they will be for ever inseparable and they are so entwined one with the other that no action or passion can be said of the man Christ which may not be said of God the rule of Divines is Effâ—ctus hypostaticae unionis est Regula Theolog communicatio idiomatum i. The result or effect of the Personall union is a communication of properties which rule is laid and more plainly expressed by St Austine in these words Vnilas Personae Christi sic Aug. to 6. cont Ser. Arian n. 7. constat ex humana divina natura ut quaelibet earum vocabulum impertial alteri i. The unitie of the Person of Christ doth so consist of the Divine and humane natures that each nature imparteth its appellation mutually to the other so that what is properly belonging to the divine nature is ascribed as done also by the humane nature the same is also thus expressed by Theodoret Communia Persona evadunt quae sunt Theod. Dial. impatib n. 13. P. 398. propria naturarum i. By reason of this hypostaricall union those things which are proper to each nature severally become common to the whole person and hence it is that Christ is called the Son of Man and the Son of God eternall and yet born the on of David and yet the Lord of David of him it is said John 3. 13. He that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heauen yet the Manhood did not come from heaven nor was the Manhood at that time in Heaven so again Christ said to the thief Luke 23. 43. To day shalt thou be with me in paradise and yet Christ was not there that day in his body nor by his soul for ought we know but onely by his Godhead which was then in Paradise when his body was on the earth and hence it is that the appellation of God is stamped on the humane and infirm actions and passions of Christ for though he was crucified through weaknesse as it is said 2 Cor. 13. 4. that is as he was man yet because his Divine Nature is for ever inseparable from the humane nature he is truely called Deus crucifixus Hier. ut sup c. 6. Naz. Orat. 51. n. 35. i. God crucified as is shewed before out of Saint Hierome and Nazian saith Si quis crucifixum non adorat anathema sit i. He that doth not worship him that was crucified let him be accursed This great mystery of the hyposiaticall union was prudently discerned by the ancient Fathers Origen saith Judaei Dâ—um crucifixâ—â—unt i. The Jewes crucied Origen hom 5. in Ps 36. Orig. in Luc. hom 38. n. 45. Chrys in synax n. 35. God and the same Father speaking of the tears which Christ shed over Jâ—rusalem calleth them Lacrymas Dei i. the tears of God So St. Chrysostome calleth Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the crucified God The Prophet Esay prophesying of the birth of Christ Esay 9. 6. Vnto us a child is born immediately addeth his name shall be called The mighty God and the Church used the same language Fulgentius saith Maria Fulg. de grat n. 3. est genetrix Dei quia were propriâ— peperit Deum Verbum i. Mary is the Parent of God for she brought forth truly and properly God the Word St. Hierome saith Virgo Deum puerum peperit i. Mary brought Hier. Ep. 30. n. 8. forth a child that is God So Saint Ambrose speaketh i Ambr. in sym n. 20. Deus natus est ex virgine God was born of a Virgine and Athanasius saith k Atha apol 2. n. 15. n. 22. Deus incarnatus Deus passus est God was incarnate and God suffered This doctrine is so true and necessary that otherwise we could not have been redeemed the denying thereof no doubt is within the compass of the unpardonable blasphemy and the Church accounted such as taught the contrary to be in the number of the most dangerous hereticks as may appear by the story of Nestorius thus in brief This Nestorius was by birth a German and was admitted Soc. l. 7. c. 29. Theod. haer fab l. 4. n. 16. to be a Presbyter or Priest in the Church of Antioch from thence he was preferred to be Patriarch of Constantinople and there he was a sore vexer of the Arians Novatians and Macedonian hereticks and so eager therein that he incensed the Emperour against them using this proud speech O Imperator da mihi Soc. l. 7. c. 29. terram purgatam hâ—reâ—icis ego tibi eoelum vetribuam i. If the Emperour would purge his Empire of hereticks he would assure him of Heaven He was a man very cloquent and so proud thereof that he disdained to reade the ancient Writers and so being ignorant of Catholick Doctrine he fell into this Heresie of dividing or separating the two Natures of Christ and particularly teaching that the Virgin Mary ought not to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Parent or Mother of Evag. l. 1. c. 3â— God and because some of his sect would have her called onely ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the mother of a man Nestorius desiring to go in a middle way would have her called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the Mother of Christ but at no hand the Mother of God so his error was in this that he divided and rent and severed the two natures of Christ that which his crucifiers were not permitted to do to his very garments in effect as Vincentius noteth Nestorius duos vult esse Filios Dei duos Christos Vincent Lirin c. 17. n. 53. unum Deum alterum hominem i. Nestorius would have fancied two Sons of God and two Christs whereof one should be God and the other a man and so by denying the unity of his Person he indeed made a quaternity of Persons instead of a Trinitie against the sentence of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his word Men indued with Gods Spirit are Deified because God is in them and as it were mingled with them and worketh in them And Athanasius saith Homines in quibus est Spiritus Deificantur Atha ad Serapion n. 26. vid. 2 Pet. 1. 4. Now in what sense our Saviour may be said to be Deified in the later times of the world who was the supream and onely God from all eternity would next be inquired CHAP. IX More concerning Deification and in what sense Christ may be said to be Deified THe Arians were in this Doctrine something more ingenuous then this Commenter though in them it was also most pernicious for they Ath. Hil. cont Arian n. 7. confessed that Christ was the Son of God because they knew that the Saints were so called and they said Christ was before time began because they believed that Angels and Devils were before the world and they called Christ by the Name of God because the Scriptures call some creature so But they would not confess him to have the same Godhead with the Father for they said that he was Deus factus made a God or Ambros de cil div c. 2. n. 26. deified and that he was the Son of God not by nature but by gift or grace and not by eternall generation but by power given as Kings are called Gods for so Saint Ambrose observeth Deus in Scripturis est Ambr. de fide l. 1. lib. 5. c. 1. n. 22 23. 1 Verus 2 Nuncupativus nam sunt qui dicuntur Dii non sunt 3 Falsus ut Dâ—mones i. In Scripture God signifieth 1 The true God 2 Such as 〈◊〉 but called Gods and â—re not so 3 False gods of 〈…〉 this Commenter when he was argued 〈…〉 learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈…〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessed that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But one of the â—â—â—pany â—â—quired him further to declare how long Christ had been God and whether from Eternity at which question he seemed very angry and for present left the room Now indeed the Fathers do oftentimes apply this word to Christ and say that he was Deified and that in time also and not before his incarnation for he could never have been said to have been deified if he never had been incarnate it is only his humane nature that is said to be deified and not his Spirit or divine nature for the Word cannot otherwise be said to be deified then as he is hominified if I may have leave to use that word for Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh signifieth that God was made man by his incarnation and man was made God by the person I union of the divine and humane natures for so he alcame Theanthâ—opos and Emmanuel The reason is because when God assumed a body by his incarnation that body then became the body of God as is shewed before out of Origen and so that Orig. in Mat. tract 21. n. 41. Father expresseth himself thus Christus deificavit humanam naturam quam suscepit Christ deified that humane nature which he assumed Neither may we think so grosly of this deification as if the flesh of Christ were turned into the Goâ—head but onely because it is joyned to the Godhead and assumed into a personall union with it therefore the Name of God is also stamped upon it so that we may truly say the man Christ is God and yet the body and soul of Christ still are and for ever will be creatures In Aug. Epi. 221. this sense St. Austin saith Homo versus est in Deum nâ—c amisit naturam Man is become God and yet man did not lose his humane nature and thus Athanasius saith Archangeli semper antea adorabanâ— Filium sed nunc Atha Orat. 2. cont 2. Arian n. 5. Jesum adorant incarnatum carne quâ—m deâ—fiâ—averat The Archangels did alwaies before the incarnation worship the Son of God but they worship him now in that flesh which by assuming it he now hath deified For now it is the flesh of God as the Scripture calleth his blood the blood of God Act. 20. 28. and so the same Father useth thâ—s word divers times in the same sense g Atha orat 2. cont Ar. n. 5. h. Id. ser 4. cont Arian n. 7. Non deificatus fuisset homo nisi verbum fuisset incarnatum And h. Christus carnem assumendo hominem deificavit The manhood could not have been deified if the Word had not been incarnate and Christ deified man by assuming flesh St. Austin writing upon those words Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ not of men nor by man Gal. 1. Gal. 1. 1. 1. Aug. exp in Gal. in praefaâ— n. 97. 1. saith 1. Paulus missus est per Christum jam totum Deum quia ex omni parte immortalem That Paul is said not to be called by man because Christ was at that time wholly God because now he was perfectly immortall so he fastned this deification or immortality 2. Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 21. only on his humane nature for his divine nature was the immortall God from all eternity and Theodoret upon those words God hath highly exalted him Phil. 2. 9. saith Est de carne quae deificata est nam dominus Theod. Dial. in confu n. 12. gloriae non dicitur glorificari 'T is meant of the flesh of Christ deified for as he is the Lord of glory he cannot be exalted deified or more glorified So Origen Orig. in Levit. hom 3. saith of a Levitical sacrifice that it signified Carnem Christi in coelis deificandam that the flesh of Christ in heaven was to be deified and this deifying the flesh of Christ is said to be done in heaven because there it was glorified and immortall and on earth he is said to be deified because of the Hypostaticall union of his 3. Pet. Diac. apul Fulg. n. 2. 2 natures whereby his flesh was indeed Caro Dei the flesh of God By thus distinguishing the two natures in Christ the ancient Fathers answered the objections of old hereticks made against the eternall divinity of Christ for in the same sense that the Son of God is said to be Phil. 2. 9. Eph. 1. 20. Mat. 28. 18. Act. 3. 13 15. deified he is also in Scripture said to be exalted to be set far above all Angels and Principalities to be made the head of the Church to sit at the right hand of God to have a name given him above all names that are named That all power is given him in heaven and in earth that God raised him from the dead and that Jesus is made an high Priest for ever all these sayings and many more of this â—ind are to be understood of the humane nature of Christ but cannot be verified of his divine nature Athanasius doth in generall give us this excellent rule m Athan. Ser. 4. cont Ar. n. 7. n. ib. Quae Christus
still worship toward the Temple and our Saviour tells us which is the true Temple indeed Iohn 2. 19 21. Destroy this Temple in 3 dayes I will raise it up But he spake of the Temple of his body For Iesus est Deus Templum Dei saith Nazianzen i. Naz. Orat. 43. Jeius is both the Temple of God and the God of the Temple And so Saint Austine saith Christus est Sacerdos Aug. de dog Eccl. n. 73. Sacrificium est Deus Temâ—lum i. Christ is the sacrificer and the sacrifice he is the God and the Temple And Origen saith Christus est Templum in Orig. in Josh Hom. 17. utero Virginis formatuâ— i. Christ is the Temple built in the Virgins womb And Athanasius more plainly expresseth this Mystery Digni sunt Ariani qui Atha Or. 5. cont Ar. n. 4. â—aepè percant qui prisci populi reverentiam â—rga Templum laudant sed Dâ—minum in carne ut in Templo suo adorare recusant i. The Arians have well deserved perdition who praise the Iewes for their reverence towards the Temple yet themselves refuse to worship the Lord iâ— the Temple of his Body Solomon saith Proverbs 9. 1. Wisedome hath built her an house Who is wisedome but God and what house is it but as Athanasius often expoundes that saying Corpus Christi Atha ser 3. cont Ar. n. 6. est Domus sapienâ—iae i. The house of Wisedome is the Body of Christ The word building in Scripture is applyed to an humane body as well as to an house Gâ—nesis 2. 22. Deus aedificavit costam in muâ—erem i. God builded the woman of Adams rib and Ruâ—h 4. 1. Rachâ—l and Leah did build the house of Israel and in three dayes I will raise it Iohn 2. As if it were the raysing of an house So the Mysticall Body of Christ which is his Church is called Gods building 1. Cor. 3. 9. In brief Iesus Christ in respect of his divine Nature is our God and the Temple wherein our God dwelleth and that which is truely said to be his rest for ever Psalme 132. 14. Is his glorified Body now in Heaven When we compose our selves to Prayer we lift up our mindes to this God in that Temple God Incarnate is the finall and ultimate Object of our adoration there is no way to approach to our God with any hope of obtaining pardon and remission of sins but through the open doores of the Temple of his wounded body therefore our Prayers are all sealed with Through Iesus Christ our Lord. He that maketh any approach to God otherwise then considered in this Temple must expect to finde him onely as a severe and offended Judge but whâ—n he looketh on us through his Sonne his severity is sweetned Filius est dulâ—edo Dâ—i i. The Sonne is Fulg disc object Arian n. 1. the sweetnesse of God When he beholdeth us through Jesus Christ he is pacified and gâ—acious the clouds and tempests of Gods anger are asswaged by the serenity of the Countenance of Jesus Vulâ—u quo Coelum tempestatesque sâ—renat Virg. Aâ—n 1. Are we not therefore called Christians because we worship God in Christ To him Saint Stephen directed his Prayer Acts 7. 57. Lord Iesus receive my spirit And Saint Paul also Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father comfort your hearts for so Christ had given direction before Iohn 14. 13. Whatsoever ye shall aske in my Name that will I doe that the Father may be glorified in the Son By what hath been said I trust the danger of this Commentors bold assertion will be discovered who tells us that Christ is not to be believed P. 54. in finally but God in Christ not believing or not considering that the Godhead is in Christ And therefore Christ in respect of this Gohead is to be believed in and prayed to finally and â—erminaâ—ely as the utmost object of our Faith and the Manhood of Christ so endowed with and united to the same Godhead is to be believed in and prayed to Mediately for by the Incarnation of the Godhead in Jesus he became our Advocate and Mediatour and a Priest which is next to be discoursed CHAP. XV. That the most high God became a Mediatour and a Priest and that Christ is prayed unto and yet is a Mediatour Every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed unto THe Commentor tells us That the supream God P. 80. c. 5. v. 5. can no way be a Priest and therefore Christ is not supream God because he is maâ—e a Priest This assertion is most false and blasphemous he that affirmeth it either never was Christian or else must be an Apostate because to say that the most high and onely God cannot be a Priest is all one as to say This God cannot assume flesh or be Incarnate For in the same manner the supreme God became a Priest in which he became a Mediatour and both by assuming humane nature For if it be demanded how we can pray to Christ seeing he is our Mediatour and Priest who interceedeth and prayeth for us and that by him we approach to God so that we may seem rather to pray by him then to him and if Christ be the finall Object of our Prayer who is our Mediatour To this it may be answered that Christ is a Mediatour in the same sense that he is a Priest and in that sense he prayed Now he became a Priest and a Mediatour by assâ—ming Manhood for Saint Chrysostomâ— Chrys Hom. Ant. 32. n. 12. saith truely Christus orabaâ— ut homo nam Deus non â—rat i. Christ prayed in that he was a Man for God doth not pray And Saint Austine saith Christus Aug. de Civit. â— 20. c. 10. est Sacerdo quatenus est Filius hominis i. Christ is not a Priest but by being the Sonne of Man For although it be said Rom. 8. 26. The Spi it maketh intercâ—ssion for us though the Spirit as it signifieth the third Person was not Incarnate the meaning is onely that the Holy Ghost helpeth our infirmities in prayer as is there said and nos intâ—rpellare facit It enableth and stirreth us up to pray as Saint Austine Aug. expos in Ro. n. 96. expounds it not that the Spirit it self prayeth for us When Eudoxius the Arian was newly placed in the Episcopall seat of â—onstanâ—inople the first sentence that he uttered was this blaâ—phemy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. l. 2. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father is impious the Sonne is pious at which words when the people began to raise a tumult he appeased them by saying that his meaning was that the Father never prayed but the Son did often pray his intent was hereby to insinuate that because Chrâ—st prayed therefore he was not God but was onely a creature which â—s the Argument which our Commenter useth against the Priesthood of God for indeed the pure Godhead
si câ—imen est nimium legi Propâ—eâ—is Apostolis credidisse ignosce Omnipotens Deus quâ—a in his mâ—ri possum Emendâ—ri non possum Id est Lord why hast thou deceived me thy poore creature I believed thine own words concerning thine own self thy servant Moses David Solomon Daniâ—l and thine Apostles have misled me If it be a fault to give too much credence to thy Law thy Prophets and Apostles I beseech thee to have me â—xcused if in this Faith I live and die for I can never recant this Doctrine Finally this was also the constant Profession of that learned Bishop Saint Basil for when Valens the Aâ—ian Emperour had by a messenger threatned him with sequâ—stration of his Church and banishment of his person if he persisted in this Doctrine which he called a foolish doctrine The good Bishop answered uâ—inam sempiter na sit Theod. hist l. 4. c. 10. haec mea insipientia id est And so say I and I pray God I may never be withdrawen from that true and most wholsome Doctrine which I have here delivered and which our new fashion rationall animalls call folly but that I may persevere in the Faith and Confession of the Godhead of Jesus Christ unto my lives end And afterwards I doubt not but I shall so continue with the Angels and Elders Revelation 5. 13. saying Blessing Honour Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lambe for ever and ever Amen L. Deo FINIS THE THIRD BOOK Αâ—θÏωπâ—Ï‚ Θεâ—φόÏος THE Incarnation of GOD And the MYSTERIE Of Mans Redemption unfolded Tentemus animas quae deficiunt in fide naturalibus rationibus adjuvare Ruffin in symb apud Cyp. LONDON Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes Armes in St. Paul's Church-yard 1655. THE PREFACE HAving in the second Book shewed that Jesus Christ is the onely true supream and most high God and that there is no other God but he for that we are assured that Christian Faith cannot Hâ—l de Trin. l 7. admit of two gods And because we have learned the same in the Holy Scriptures Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord. And that the Prophet calls the Son of God Esay 9. 6. The mightty God the everlasting Father and that in the Gospell the Son of God saith John 10. 30. The Father and I are one and that all his are the Fathers and all that the Father hath are his John 17. 10. Which sheweth a perfect communion in one Essence and that the Son in Godhead is no way inferiour to the Father but both are equall and therefore the Scripture with great reason doth promiscuously sometimes name the Father before the Sonne and sometimes the Sonne is put before the Father as John 8. 16. I and the Father that sent me and Gal. 1. 1. By Jesus Christ and God the Father And 2. Thes 2. 16. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father For if Christ were absolutely under and subject to the Father how could this be endured when no Prince will suffer his subject though he be never so high and honourable to write Ego Rex I and my King as Chrysostome Chrys tom 6. ser 4. n. 55. notes In this third Book I am to shew that the same Onely true and most high God was incarnate by assuming humane flesh from the Virgin Mother and in that assumed nature was called Jesus Christ and in that assumed Manhood performed the great work of Mans redemption and therein suffered death on the Cross thereby satisfying the Justice and submitting to the Sentence of God as an expiation for our transgressions and by his most holy life and perfect righteousness in fulfilling the whole Law and so performing the Covenant of God for us and in our stead as our suretie and thereby according to the Covenant Do this and live hath obtained for his whole Mysticall Body the kingdom of Heaven and everlasting life To this discourse I am lead by the pernicious doctrine of this Commenter who denied Jesus to be the supreame God and to colour this blasphemy hath most apparantly misinterpreted and transverted the holy Scriptures and wronged the ancient Nicene Fathers as hath been shewed before and particularly that most learned Bishop and ancient Church-writer Eusebius as is next to be shewed THE INCARNATION of GOD. CHAP. I. The Vindication of Eusebius whom this Comment hath calumniated and falsified VPon those words Heb. 13. 2. Some have P. 331. entertained Angels the Commenter saith Eusebius in his first Book contends that one of the Angels was the Son of God for he will not have him the most high God c. You have not onely all to becommented the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Nicene Father but have written a loud Comment on Eusebius who never wrote or said for ought can appear that Jesus Christ was not the most high God But I am sure divers times in his most learned Books he teacheth true Doctrine quite contrary to yours when he saith Filius erat ante aeterna tempora Euseb de Demonst i. 4. 6. â— the Son of God was from eternity and also particularly condemneth this very Heresie which you have so belaboured under the name of Heresie Artemon Theodotus and Paulus Simosatenus as hath been shewed before Id hist l. 5. c. 28. lib. 7. c. 2. For this Eusebius was one of those renouned Bishops who at the Nâ—â—ene Councel against Arius decreed and subscribed the article Homossion id est that the Father and the Son are of the same essence and Godhead whereas some Arians at that Councel refused to subscribe and thereby insinuated as your selfe have done that there was a greater and a lesser God and so fell into the old heresie of Mercion who said Bas ho. 27. con sabel Soc. l. 2. c. 5. there were two Gods 2â— Saint Basil notes one of the refusers was also named Eusebius who was â—ishop of Nicomedia at that time and afterwards was preferred to the Bishoprick of Constantinople and their lived and dyed an Arian but we have no writings of this Eusebius now extant The Eusebius whom you mean lived and dyed Bishop of Caesaria a man of so great learning and worth that the Emperour Constantine said he was worthy to be the Vniversal Bishop of the Sec. l. 1. c. 18. world this man at first was unwilling to have the word homoâ—sion put into the Creed because it was new but afterwards when he perceived that it was but the expression of that Doctrine which is really contained in Scripture when it is said The Father and I are one he accepted of it and exhibitted his own Church-Creed to the Councel and the Councel confirmed it onely adding the word Homoâ—sion and so published it as Socrates saith so that it seemeth the Soc. l. 1. c. 5. creed which we call the Nicene Creed
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
the Holy Ghost can be seene becase the Godhead of every and all Persons is one and alike invisible for God is a spirit and a spirit cannot be seene and therfor S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa triâ—itâ—s intellâ—giâ—ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist 112. Aug. Epist 111. Tert. cont Prax. Pater i. The whole trinitie is invisible and not only the Father and again he saith The whol trinitie is of a nature invisible and again he saith out of Ambros. and Hierome Neither the Father nor the Son can be seen in their divine nature For so noe Eye can see them and therfore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis i. Patriarks saw God not in the plenitude of his Majestie but according to the capacitie of man and to this both Ahanasius and Atha ad Antio n. 28. Chrys. ho. 48. Antio n. 17. Chrisostome agree Nemo essentiam invisibilis i. The essence of God is to all mortalls invisible The divine nature and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture somtimes calls the face of God of which God said to Mooses Thou canst not see my face and live so Theodoret expounds those words divina natura Theod Dialog immutat Atha quest ad Antioch n. 28. Aug. de Trin. l. 2. sub aspectum non cadit i. the divine nature can not be seen so doth Athanasius 1. Anteriora dei significant divinitatâ—m i. the foreparts of God signifie the Godhead and so S. Austin often tels us that the face of God signifies the form of God and the afterparts signifie the form of a servant which is the humane nature But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spake unto Moses face to face and how could Jacob say I have seene God face to face if the pure Godhead can not be seene And how could Moses tell the Israelites Deut. 5. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount and yet before he had said Deut 4. 15. yee saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb I answer that as in one place of those Scriptures alleaged the face of God signifies his divinitie or Godhead which can not be seen so in the other place it signifieth Gods presence manifested by words or signes wherby God declare th himself present as on mount Horeb by fier and thunder and in the tabernacle by a cloud or by a sound and words so Gods face or presence may be where there is no sight of him and so he spake to the people face to face because they knew for certaine that God was there present But Iacob saw the face of God because he saw the face of that man or that shape which wrastled with him when God appeared to him in the forme of a man although Iacob could not see the pure Godhead and this kind of appearing in an assumed shape is called by Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The appearing of God from hence the Dion Areop Caelest Hier. c. 4. Eus de Dem. l. 5. c l. 14. aforementioned Ensebius argued that because Iacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him in which man was God therfore he said it was the person of the Son and not the Person of the Father because Eusebius was persuaded that the Person of the Father did never shew himself in a visible shape â—nd for this Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons of which more hereafter CHAP. IV. More concerning the first question how God hath bin and may be seen FOr the further explanation of this question it would be inquired how it is said that God is visible and hath bin seene and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible which in their owne Spiritual nature are as invisible as the divine nature is for because a spirit hath nothing in it self which can be an object for mortal Eyes therfore whensoever Spirits or Angels good or bad are seen of men it must be by assuming some shape or body and mingling themselves with it that so they may become a fit visible object because only such things are visible for ever so many invisibles whether they be good or bad spirits Angels or devils cannot make one visible Object and therfore when we read in Scripture that God appeared in an Angel it is not so to be understood as if the invisible God became visible by taking uppon him the invisible nature of an Angel for an Angelâ—â—al nature is of it self as invisible as the divine nature as is said because both are Spirits but when God is seen in an Angel the Angel meant is the corpoâ—â—al visible shape which God assumeth and imployeth and useth for that purpose to be seen and to converse with man by for the word Angel doth not alwayes signifie a spiritual nature but any officer imployed by God as a Messenger so S. Iohn the Bapâ—ist is called Gods Angel Mat. 11. 10. in the Original So that the visible creature which is used as a Medium to present God visible is and may very fitly be called the Angel of God As Moses therfore put a Veile over his shining face which otherwise the people could not behold and as the Sun by our weak Eyes is better seen through the veil of a thâ—n mist then in its Cleer brightnes so in this life God is visible Only as in a glosse â—arkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightneâ— is invisible but the Invisible things of God are seen by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinitie can â—ot be sâ—â—e except it be clothed and allayed with some moâ—e grosse and Material veil and therfore at what time God shewed himself visibly to men he took some corpâ—real Creature and shape unto him that so he who by nature is invisible might in that assumed habit be seen and this was the resolution of the Fathers a Filius Atha de uniâ— Tâ—in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Maâ—â— iâ— Filius vâ—sus est Patriarchis in specie hâ—minis i. The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material and visible shape as â—â— a Man So S. Chrisostome saith The Prophets which saw Chrys ho. 10. Antâ—o Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id Epist 11â— God had not otherwise the expresse sâ—ght oâ— him sed figuras viderund i they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conveâ—sing with man in Paradise saith Deus locutus est cum pâ—imâ—s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali and againe Deus non est visâ—â— nisi assumptione creaturae i God talked with first parents in some bodily shape for God can not be seen but by assuming some Creature and
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