Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	distinct_a	person_n	property_n	2,539	5	9.4838	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90866	Theos anthrōpophoros. Or, God incarnate. Shewing, that Jesus Christ is the onely, and the most high God· In four books. Wherein also are contained a few animadversions upon a late namelesse and blasphemous commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrewes, published under the capital letters, G.M. anno Dom. 1647. In these four books the great mystery of man's redemption and salvation, and the wayes and means thereof used by God are evidently held out to the capacity of humane reason, even ordinary understandings. The sin against the Holy Ghost is plainly described; with the cases and reasons of the unpardonablenesse, or pardonablenesse thereof. Anabaptisme, is by Scripture, and the judgment of the fathers shewed to be an heinous sin, and exceedingly injurious to the Passion, and blood of Christ. / By Edm. Porter, B.D. sometimes fellow of St. John's Colledge in Cambridge, and prebend of Norwich.	Porter, Edmund, 1595-1670.; Downame, John, d. 1652.	1655 (1655)	Wing P2985; Thomason E1596_1; ESTC R203199	270,338	411

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 Eff●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 D●um crucifix●●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 J●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 propri● 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 h●re●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. 3● 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

and is in every Person and therefore it is said holy Father Joh. 17. 11. And thy holy child Ie●us Acts 4. 27. as well as the third Person is called the holy Spirit and all Persons together are so stiled Holy Holy Holy Esa 6. 3. Revel 4. 8. and yet the third Person hath a property and personality in holiness not communicable But now we must distinguish thus Holyness in God is either the holyness of Nature and so every Person is holy or holyness of Office that is to be a Sanctifier and thus it is the property of the third Person for although the Father and the Son do sanctifie yet they sanctifie mediately by the Spirit but the Spirit sanctifieth immediately by himself so that when sactification is said to be the work of the whole Trinity you must thus understand it Pa●er est fons Filius exemplar Spiri●us impressor Sanct●●a●is i. The Father is the Fountain the Son is the Pattern the Holy Ghost is the Stamper or Communicator of holyness in us and to us as the whole man is said to see but he seeth onely by the eye Next I am to shew that every person is called Spirit for John 4. 24. God is a Spirit and every Person is God and it is not you that speak but the Spirit of my Father which speaketh in you Matth 10 20 and the last Adam was made a quickning Spirit 1 Cor 15 45 We see there is mention of the Spirit of the Father of the spirit of the Son for the last Adam must needs be meant of Christ neither are these observations new but are the old Collections of the Primitive Church writers St. Basil saith d Basil cont Euno l. 3. Spiritus appellatio est communis tribus personis i. The appellation of Spirit is communicable to the three Persons and before him Tertullian saith e Tert. de Orat. c. 1. Iesus Christus est Spiritus Dei i. Jesus Christ is the Spirit of God Athan●sius speaketh more home f Atha de Com. essen 625. to 3. D●●ta●●m verbi Christus inse Spiritum sanctum vocat i. Christ himself calleth his own Godhead the holy Spirit and St. Hi r●me doth also as punctually observe the same g Hier cont Pala. l. 2. c. 6. n. 23. Spiri●us sanctus vocatur Spiritus I●su i. The holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Jesus Neither let the English Translation of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trouble thee because they are in some places translated holy Spirit and in others holy Ghost and sometimes they signifie onely the third Person as Matth. 28. 19. But in another place they signifie the Spirit or Godhead of the second Person as he breathed on them and s●ld Receive the holy Ghost John 20. 22. of which he also saith I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world Matth. 28. 28. which is meant of the comfortable presence of his Godhead by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts for so also the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it signifieth the soul or humane Spirit of Christ it is sometimes translated Spirit and other times Ghost as Luk. 23. 46. Father into thy hands I commend my spirit that is my soul and having said thus he gave up the Ghost that is his soul and life Now for as much as the Godhead of Christ or God in Christ is a Spirit and also is holy it may be truely said without any fallacy both Logica●ly and Theologically not onely disjunctively but compositively and joyntly the Godhead of Christ is an holy Spirit for of him it is said Rom. 1. 4. that he was declared to be the Son of God according to the Spirit of holyness which surely is an holy Spirit by which he is said to sanctifie the Church Ephes 5. 26. Heb. 2. 11. Heb. 13. 12. And to this St. Austine speaketh very pertinently and plainly h Aug. de Trin. l. 5. c. 11. n. 62. Quia Deus est Spiritus potest dici Pater Spiritus Filius Spiritus Pater sanctus Filius sanctus Trinitas potest appellari Spiritus Sanctus i. Because God is a Spirit it may be said the Father is a Spirit and the Son is a Spirit and the Father is holy and the Son is holy and the Son is holy the whole Trinity may be called an holy Spirit CHAP. IV. That the blasphemy against the holy Spirit mentioned Matth. 12. was meant of the denying and blaspheming the Godhead of Iesus Christ FOr the right understanding of this question I desire the Reader to take notice of these few observations following 1. That this Pharisaciall blasphemy was uttered and intended onely against the Person of Christ and therein onely against his Godhead and therefore the answer of Christ must needs be a Vindication of his Person and of his Godhead for otherwise Christ might seem not to have answered punctually to the slander and blasphemy objected if we shall confess that the blasphemy was against the Person of the Son and yet imagine that his answer is onely concerning another Person viz. the Person of the holy Ghost 2. Observe again that Christ doth not there make any mention of the blasphemy against the Person of the Father though there was as much reason that he should as to mention a blasphemy against the third Person But he keeps himself punctually to the second Person himself against whom onely this blasphemie was spoken and intended neither did he at this time go abour to assert and vindicate the honour either of the Person of the Father or of the Person of the holy Ghost against which Persons nothing was expresly said or meant but be did onely declare the power and Truth of his own Godhead in his own Person and therefore he said If I cast out divels by the Spirit of God the k●ngdome of God is come unto you Matth. 17. 28. By the Spirit of God he meaneth the Godhead residing in his own Person 3. Thirdly observe that as in his Arguments he spake onely of his own Person like a good disputant confining himself exactly ad idem to the same thing the Pharisees spake of so in his answer and in denouncing judgement against those blasphemers by the rule of right reason he must still continue his speech of the same Person therefore in effect he saith thus Although a word spoken against me as I am a man and the Son of man may be forgiven yet a blasphemy or word spoken against me as I am very God cannot be forgiven Or thus The villifying depraving blaspheming or speaking against my humane nature may be pardoned but the depraving denying or blaspheming my Godhead my divine Nature my divine and holy Spirit shall not be forgiven 4. Observe again that the Jewes had indeed depraved him in both his Natures 1. In his manhood thus Behold a glutton a wine-bibber a friend of publicans and sinners Matth. 11. 19. and

the Church as it was long before the time of Nestorius recorded by Gregorie of Neo-Cesaria qui Greg. Thaum de 12. cap. fidei n. 2. dicit Christum esse perf●ctu● homin●m divise De●m divise non unum Domi●u● ei a●a●h●ma i. Cursed is he that calleth Christ a perfect man separately and that calleth him God separately so denying him to be one Lord God For this erroneous doctrine is destructive to the work of red●mption if the Person who died for us was not in his very death very God so that he by reason of that Personall union before mentioned might truely be called D●us crucifixus God crucified and therefore our Commenter is also in this errour who will afford Christ no better Title then a Divine Man p. 136. which is no more then ●ay be said of a Prophet an Apostle or any holy man whereas he should acknowledge him to be D●us homo God and Man united So St. Austine in one of his Books had said that Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. Christ was D●mini●us homo but he retracted it Quia D●m●nusest saith he because he is more then a Man of the Lord for this Man is the Lord. For this hypostaticall or Personall union must be in and go through all the great dispensations of our Saviour's Med●atourship both in his active and passive obedience for otherwise his fulfilling the Law had been beneficiall to none but himself and his passion could not have sufficed for the whole world therefore the Personall union was most necessary to that great work and is declared both in the Scriptures and in the Fathers For whereas we now reade 1 Iohn 4. 3. Every spirit that confesse●h not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is Soc. l. 7. c. 32. not of God This place is thought by Socrates to have been corrupted by the Nestorians for indeed the old reading was as we to this day find both in Hierome and Prosper Omnis spiritus qui solvit Je●um Every Prosper de vocat Gent. l. 1. c. 23. Spirit that divideth Iesus that is which separateth his Divine from his humane nature The Scripture joyneth both in a communion of properties as is said before for Elizabeth calleth Mary Luk 1. 43. The Mother of my Lord no doubt but she meant the mother of her Lord God for otherwise how was Christ her Lord but as David calls him Lord and as St. Ambrose noteth upon the words One Lord In Ambr. de Spir. sanct l. 3. c. 17. Dominatione divini●as est in divi●i●ate Dominatus That in the title Lord the Lord God is meant So again Acts 20. 28. Fe●● the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood that is with the blood of God for it cannot otherwise be understood So likewise 1 Cor. 2. 8. They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory Now I ask who is the Lord of glory but onely God Consider now that to have a mother and to have blood and to be crucified though they be such things as properly belong to the humane nature yet you see that these humane infirmities are said of God because the same Person is both God and Man To this Doctrine of the Scripture agreeth the doctrine of the Fathers concerning this communication of propertics for because in Scripture Christ is called the Son of David therefore St. Chrysostome without any scruple saith that David is a Chrys serm de pseudopro n. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because the Scripture calleth Iames the brother of our Lord Gal. 1. 19 the same Father saith that Iames was b Chrys serm de poenit n. 49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that David was the Father of God Iames was the brother of God and also St. Austine saith that David was c Aug. de 5. haeres c. 2. 10. 6. n. 6. Parens Dei the Parent of God and O●igen saith d Orig cont Cels l. 1. n. 33. Corpus Iesu est ●orpus Dei that the Body of Jesus is the body of God This Doctrine was held by the Church to be of such great weight and concernment that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Councill of ●halcedo● added this to the Creed as an Article of Faith e Evangrius l. 2. c. 4. Mary the mother of God and afterwards in another Creed ratified by the edict of Justinus the Emperour f Evag. l. 5. c. 4. The Virgin Mary is again called the Mother of God And the Emperour Justinian built a Church and called it g Evag. l. 5. c. 21. Templum De●pa●ae the Church of the mother of God and Gregory Nazianzen long before in an Epistle written to Cledonius had affirmed h Naz. Orat. seu Epist 51. Si quis Mariam non credi● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that doth not believe Mary to be the mother of God himself is an Atheist and without God Nestorius for denying this Doctrine was summoned to the Councell of Ephesus which was called Soc. l. 7. c. 33 by the authority of the Emperour Theodosius the younger where Cyril of Alexandria sate President the Councell deposed Nestorius out of his Bishoprick and the Emperour banished him In his banishment his blasphemous tongue rotted in his mouth and was eaten out with worms so he died with a mark of Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Evag. ib. Gods vengeance on him as Arius did and the Church History passeth this hard sentence on him Ex his miseriis ad sempiterna supplicia migravit that he departed out of this misery into eternall torments Notwithstanding all this Thal●ia Arii this pretty Ath. cont Arian or 2. n. 5. Commentary tells us that Christ is not the supream God nor ever was a God till he rose from the dead for then he was Consequently Deified so if he be God he must be but of a late Edition This Doctrine harmoniously agreeth with the Heathens Theology which also tells us of Dii superi inferi Medioxumi Magni Minuti Plaut in Cist Patellani i. High and low and middle gods great and small and Pint-pot deities The deifying of heathen Emperours hath as good authority from Scripture I have said ye are Gods Psal 82. And Romulus Mart. l. 5. Ep. 8. Julius Augustus Dominus Deusque noster Domitianus are as well God deified as Christ himself by this Comment And in the Church-Writers Deification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word used by Dionysius is ascribed to mortall men for that Father sheweth that an holy Man indued with the Spirit of God may be said to be Deified that is assimulated to God indued D●ony Areop de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. id epist 2. n. 10 Naz. or 37. n. 29. with sanctified and united to God And in another place he tells us Deificatio est imitatio i. Deification is the imitating of God and to the same purpose Nazianzen saith Spiritus nos deificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉

notes and the grand Heresie of Apollinarius applied this errour to Christ himself in saying that Christ had no reasonable or humane soul as other men have but that his Divine Nature was in steed of an humane soul and supplied all the Offices thereof in the body of Epiph. haer 77. Aug. n. 88. Soc. l. 2. c. 36. Christ as we reade in Epiphanius and in the Ecclesistick Histories and in S. Austine CHAP. XIII Of the Originall of Christs humane soul whether it were derived by Propagation from his Progenitors as his body was THe mention of that Heresie of Apollinarius leads me to a new quaere not yet discoursed but yet as I conceive very usefull and pertinent to the setting forth of this great Mystery of the Incarnation of God and Mans Redemption if it could be clearly determined and this it is That seeing the Christian World Catholick hath ever confessed that the Son of God received his flesh and blood by propagation from the first Adam It would be now inquired whence the same Son of God had his reasonable or humane Soul The reason which moved me to make this inquiry is taken from the Arguments which divers of the Fathers used against some Hereticks particularly against Valentinus and his Gnostick followers and against the Manichees and Eutyches for these taught that Christ did not receive his Body by traduction from the Virgine Mother and so not from Adam but that it was either from heaven or else that it was a mere apparition and a phantasticall body which Heresies are so well known to men learned that I shall not need to send the Reader by Quotations to Fathers to finde them The Arguments which the Father 's used against those Hereticks were to this purpose that they might shew a necessity that the Redeemer must needs take his flesh from Adam First Saint Augustine saith Omnis massa Adami Aug De 〈◊〉 cum Felic l. ●● c. 11. maledicta est Dominus carnem de illa suscepit hinc maledictus dicitur i. Because the whole lump of Adam was accursed therefore the Son of God taking the curse upon himself must needs take flesh from Ad●m for otherwise how could he take the cu●se upon himself to cure mankind And Theo●●●● asketh this question Theod. dial 1. n. 12. Why was not Ch●ists Body made of Earth as Adams was And he returned this answer 〈…〉 Creature servaretur quae perie●a i. That Christ might save the same creature which was lost therefore he took the same creature upon himself and Athanasi●●s Atha Epist ad Epicter n. 3. strictly examining how mans curse could be fastned on our blessed Saviour answereth thus Christus sic pro nobis execratio factus est sicu● factus est ca●o i. He took our curse as he took our flesh and Saint Basil saith expressely that the Heresie of Valentinus did nullifie Mans redemption for if the flesh of Christ were not derived from Adam Non occ●d●sset Basil Epist 65. n. 37. peccatum in carn● i. Christ had not destroyed sin in the flesh and upon this very g●ound Dios●urus the Bishop of Alexandria and Eu●yches the Monk were condemned by the Councill of Chalcedon as Euagrius Euag. l 2. c. 18. writeth The self same kind of Argument doth Naziarz●n use against Apollinarius who taught that Christ had no humane or reasonable soul as is said before Naz. ad Cledon Orat. 51. but that he took onely flesh from Adam Deus assum●sit id quod salute indigebat c. i. God took of Man all that which stood in need of salvation and therefore he took the humane soul also For that fell and needed help as well as the Body For if Christ had taken from Man onely his flesh and not his Soul he had done as if a Man that hath a fore foot and a fore eye should apply a Medicine onely to the foot and neglect the eye besides Christ took the whole and perfect Man upon him but the Godhead with a Body onely is not perfect Man as neither could it be perfect man if it were joyned with an humane Soul without a Body But if you say that God could have saved man though he had never taken an humane soul so may you as well say God could have saved man though he had not assumed a Body Thus far Nazia●zen From this discourse I may upon the same grounds infer That if Christ must needs take his Body from man because otherwise he could not destroy sin in the flesh It will follow by the like Argument that Christ must needs take his humane soul by traduction from man for otherwise how could he destroy sin in the soul and then though the body might be saved yet the soul having no medicine applied to it must needs undergo the sentence Ezech. 18. 4. The soul that sinn●th i● shall di● For the soul and body of man are two distinct natures although joyned in one person just so as the Godhead and Manhood in Christ are Thus for ought I can yet see the same reasons that induce us to believe that the flesh of Christ was propagated from the first man may as well prove that his soul must also be so transmitted throughout all Generations to Christ Furthermore because in Scripture phrase the natural soul of Man goes under the notion of Carnall as well as his Natural body for 1 Cor. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a carnall man the very soul not regenerate is carnall I do not pe●ceive how the Incarnation of God can be compleat but by his assuming both soul and body from man for otherwi●e how can we say that he tooke the whole man upon him the denying whereof was by the Church judged an Heresie in the Apollinarians For they would not confess Christ to Naz. ad Cledon orat 5● be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est A perfect man having God in him but they called Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idest God bearing flesh onely and this because they believed not that Christ took our humane soul but onely that he took our flesh and therefore the Apolinarian is by Nazianzen called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est One that worshipped a God that had assumed nothing but flesh And the Apollinarian in derision said that the Catholick was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. one who worshipped a man Now although the Church of England doth not expresly declare the propagation of the Soule of Christ from the Virgine Mother yet the second Article of Religion something implicite seemeth rather to incline thereunto for it saith First The Word tooke Mans nature in the wombe 1. Artic. 2. of the blessed Virgine of her substance so that two whole and perfect Natures that is to say The Godhead and Manhood were joyned in one Person c. If the meaning be that Christ took perfect Manhood from his Mother it must needs follow that he took both Body and soul

Porphyrian in denying the Godhead of Christ and followeth the Heresies of Cerinthus the Maniches and Arius and acteth for Antichrist and Turcisme The Charactor of Socinus Of the Grand Antichrist and his numerous Corporation which is the Mysticall body of iniquitie and of their preachers Chapter VIII Of the Vnion of the Godhead and Manhood in Page 52 the Person of Christ and that the two Natures once united continue for ever inseparable The difference between the Existence of the Godhead in Christ and its Existence in all creatures Of the mutuall communication of properties between the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ The Heresie of Nestorius his life condemnation banishment and exemplarie death How holy Men are said to be Deified by partaking of Divine Graces and conforming to Gods will Chapter IX The Commenters blasphemous conceit of Christs Page 33 Deification In what sense Christ may be truely said to be Deified in time who was the onely God from all Eternitie The true sense of diverse sayings in Scripture concerning Christs Exaltation How the Sonne of God comes to be called Christ Chapter X. How those Scripturall sayings are to be understood Page 37 which mention the abasing or minoration of Christ the Sonne of God An Exposition of 1 Cor. 15. 24. Concerning Christs delivering up the Kingdome and reigning till judgement and his subjection afterwards Of which see more in the 2 Section of this Chapter Chapter XI Why the unpardonable Sinne is fastned rather Page 52 on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons in the Scriptures Expression Of the form of words used at Baptisme diversly mentioned in Scripture and the reason of that diversitie That Christ mediateth for us in Heaven not verbally as the Commenter would have it but by a reall presenting that Person who in our stead did perform and suffer what was required of his mysticall Bodie Chapter XII The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scriptures Page 55 Propheticall and Evangelicall by the Type of the Tabernacle which was as a visible habitation of God representing the Body of Christ How the Heathens immitated this by setting up visible images wherein they thought their God was resident Chapter XIII Reasons why the Jewish worship was confined to Page 58 the Tabernacle and Temple that these were Types of God to be Incarnate Why the People of God worshipped with their faces towards the Temple That the Church is more Ancient then the Temple That notwithstanding the Commenters cavill the Patriarches belived in the same Sonne of God that that we Christians do though the appellation Christ could not then be used Chapter XIV That the Christian when he prayeth prayeth to Page 61 God whom he considereth to be resident in Jesus Christ as in his Temple As the Israelites considered God resident in the Tabernacle and Temple and so prayed toward that place That God so intabernacled in the Body of Christ is the finall or ultimate Object of The Christians prayer and worship Chapter XV. How the onely and most high God became a Priest Page 65 and a Mediatour That Christ is prayed to and yet is a Mediatour How Christ is said to pray and yet is the supream God That every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed to Chapter XVI The Godhead of Christ shewed from the Adoration Page 68 of his Person that his Godhead is worshipped and not his Body alone considered without the Godhead That the Godhead united with a creature for so is the Body of Christ doth not hinder us from worshipping our God Of the worship of Jesus performed and yet without worshipping a creature Chapter XVII That the custome of bowing when the Name Page 71 Jesus is mentioned was appointed principally to set forth his Godhead and to keep Christians in a continuall Confession and memorie thereof being the main foundation of our Religion Chapter XVIII That Jesus Christ is Jehova Of the Name Page 74 Jesus that it is a proper Name of God No Person in the Trinitie hath any name proper but onely the Sonne Of divers appellative Names of God Chapter XIX An enquirie whether the pure Godhead considered Page 77. as not incarnate hath any proper Name The distinction of Names Proper and Appellative The opinion of Philo the Jew therein and of the Fathers that their judgement is That there is no proper Name of God but onely the Name Jesus The Authours submission hereof to the learned Reader Chapter XX. The Godhead of Christ shewed from his appellation Page 79 Jehova That no meere creature can be called Jehova The signification of that word The reverend esteem of it by the Ancients That by the word Tetragrammaton Jehova is meant both in Jewish and Christian Writers Chapter XXI The Conclusion of this second Booke with the Page 82 Authours resolute Confession of Jesus Christ to be the most High and the Onely Lord God The Table THE THIRD BOOK Containing an Assertion of the Incarnation of the most High and Onely God in the Person of Jesus Christ Chapter I. THe vindication of Eusebius against the Page 1 false aspersion of the Commenter That Eusebius consented to the Eternall Godhead of Christ and to the Article Homo-ousion His judgement con●erning Gods visible appearance to the Patriarches in the Person of the Sonne That the supream God appeared to Abraham in the Person of the Sonne The Vnitie of the Godhead in the Persons of the Father and the Son Chapter II. How in the Scriptures the most high God is said Page 6 to have been seen and yet that no man hath seen God and both very truely Two questions propounded concerning the visibilitie and invisibilitie of God Chapter III. The first question How God is invisible What Page 8 is meant by the Face of God some places of Scripture which seem Opposite are reconciled Chapter IV. More concerning the first question How God Page 10 hath been and may be seen What the word Angel signifieth Of the appearing of God by assuming a corporeall shape Of Gods walking in Paradise That the apparitions of God in corporeall shapes were but Preambles and Prefigurations of his Incarnation Chapter V. That the Incarnation of God was foreshewed in Page 13 words and by promises The meaning of the Image of God wherein Man was made The meaning of the oath under Abrahams thigh The mysterie of Abrahams entertaining God at meat and of Jacobs wrastling with God unfolded What is meant by the Back-parts of God A rejection of the errors of the Anthropomorphites and an Explication of the first Article of Englands Religion Chapter VI. The second question Why the Fathers said Page 16 that onely the Sonne was seen by the Patriarchs and not the Father seeing both persons are but one God An exception of the difference between seeing God in this life and in the other life Whether God in the Person of the Father was ever seen in an assumed shape the judgement of