not the same pâ—rson with his father but he is the Ioh. 10. 30. 1. Ioh. 5. 7. samâ— God The distinction betwixt thâ—m is not in râ—spect of nature essâ—ce or time for so they are one but in respect of their manner of subsisting in that one natâ—re Ob. 8. Eightly Christ is man and if hâ— be God also â—f he haue the nature both of God and Man then he is two distinct persons but this Gods word will not admit therfore he must needs want one of them Ans Indeed Cerinthus maketh Christ and Iesus two distinct persons Nestorius taught that there are two persons in Christ but without warrant from the word For although Eph. 4. 10. Christ haue two distinct natures the Dâ—itie and the Humanitie yet is he but one person For the person of the Son of God existing a true person from all eternitie did assume the humane nature being no person of it selfe into the vnitie of his person did appropriate it vnto himself without coÌ„founding or defacing the properties of either of the two natures so that albeit there be two distinct natures the diuine humane â—et there is but one person as a man is but one true person though two distinct natures concurre in him one of the soule and the other of the body It is true I graunt that the Word is a person but I denie that the soule and body of Christ being vnited to make a perfect man do make a distinct and perfect person For a persoÌ„ must not onely be sâ—me particular and singular thing but it must also subsist and consist by it selfe and must not be susteined of any other But Christs humane nature froÌ„ the first beginning therof was susteined by the person of the Word For it was at once both formed assumed of the Word into the vnity of his person made proper to the Word without this assumption or personal vnion it neither was nor had been nor should be Plin. Histo nat lib. 16. c. 44. A resemblance whereof wee finde in the plant called Misselto which grows not but in a tree of another kinde and thence receiues his sap Neither is this any disgrace but rather an honour to his humanitie because it doth subsist by the person of the Word And albeit all the faithfull be vnited to the Word yet it is onely in a lower degree to wit by communication of grace and not by communication of personall subsistence So theÌ„ we see that though there be two distinct natures in our Lord yet it doth not followe that he is two distinct persons because his manhood is not a person as other men are but Iohn is a person but so is not Chrâ—st as he is man Vse 1. a naâ—urâ— Thus much for the Doctrine the vses â—ollow First the consideration oâ— Christs God-head teacheth vs to respect and honor him with all diuine worship in humilitie and sinceritie of heart He is God therefore we must honour him as God and being God he is omniscient and all-seeing his â—ies are a flame of fiâ—e not more terrible then peircing All things are nâ—â—ed before him and no thâ—â—gâ—â— is hid from his vnderstanding It is not fig-leaues that can couer vs nor the hils that can hide vs from his eye sight Secondly it should terrifie the wicked that dishonour him that reiect his Vse 2 lawes cast off his gouernment and disgrace his seruants For being God he is able with ease to be reuenged of theÌ„ All creatures in heauen and earth are at his becke His authoritie is absolute and his power infinite All power in heauen and earth is giuen him and he Is 〈◊〉 6. Math. 28. 18 shall regine till he hath put all his eneâ—â—â—â— vnder hâ—â— feet Tâ—ose that will not that he reigne ouer theÌ„ shal be brought and 〈◊〉 before him Nâ—â—preces 〈◊〉 〈…〉 m neither price nor praying will perswade him if once he take in hand to iudge them to condemne them It is good for them therefore to take the â—â—â—e and to repent before it be too late Thirdly this doctâ—iâ—e maketh much Vse 3 for our comfort For seeing Christ is God we may assure our selues that he is as wel able as wilâ—â—ng to do vs good and to deliuer vâ— from euill and doth liue euer to defend and protect vs. For beeing God he is immortall and immutable Therefore we which are hiâ— may boldly say I will not feaâ—â— what mâ—◠〈◊〉 what man can do vnto me For he 〈◊〉 is our friend and fâ—uourer is God omnipotent and he will not leaue vs nâ—r forsake vs Art thou assâ—ulted by Satan fâ—ie to Christ thy God he can as easily â—mite him to the ground as Dâ—â—â—d did Golâ—ah Art thou vexed with sinne then go to him for he is able to saue thee from it He can drowne thy sinnes in his bloud as he drowned the Egâ—ptiâ—â—s in the sea Do the terrors of death arrest thee Do the pangs of hell seaze vpon thee Be not dismayd thy Suertie is God he can take away sinne which is the sting of death and can refâ—eâ—h tâ—y soule with the ioyes of 1. Cor. 15. 56. heauen Art thou poore or afflicted with sicknesse Comfort thy selfe and faint not For thy Lord is God he can either release thee from thine afflictioÌ„ or relieue thee in it as he did Daniel in the deâ—â—e of Lyons and the three children in the fierie furnace that thou shalt rather receiue good then susteine harme If he please not to deliuer thee yet he can and will if thou wilt not â—linch but depend vpon him vouch safe to giue thee fortitude patieÌ„ce to endure it And for the thorny crowne in this world he is able to honour thee with a crowne of gold of golden glorie glorious eternitie in the world to come Finally doe thine enemies presâ—e thee and seeke to deâ—oure thee Feare not For thy king is God and therefore able to conuert or subâ—eâ—t them He can either destroy them himselfe or make them to slay one an other as the enemies of good 2. Chro 20. 23. â—ehoshaphat sometimâ—s did Fourthly this doctrine serueth to Vse 4 conâ—ute the opinion of Eunomius who held that Christ was a mere man also the errour of the Monothelites who thought that Christ had one wil only but seeing that he is not only man buâ— God it followeth that he hath both an â—umane and a diuine will according to his two distinct natures which are not confounded in that one person by reason of the personall vnion but do truly â—â—separably and indiuisibly continue without confusion conuersion or transmutation So much for this second doctrine CHAP. IIII. The true members of Christ cannot be cut off and perish this conclusion is proued THirdly in that the Apostle here Doct. 3 saith that Christ hath washed vs in his Bloud we see how little reason there is for any to thinke that any of his true members can be cut off from
neither can this sinner whiles he so coÌ„tinueth without repentaÌ„ce distinguish himself from a Reprobate For when Christ declareth his loue actually and effectually to any man theÌ„ he smites his heart with the sword of his Sâ—irit and worketh such an alteration in his soule that thence-forward hee shall die to sinne and liue to righteousnes When Euilmerodach disclosed his Ier. 52. 31. 33. loue to Iehoiakim he brought him out of prison and changed his prison garments so when Christ doth actually reueale his loue vnto a man then he brings him out of the prison of the diuell he vnlooseth the bolts of sinne he changeth his rayments of wickednes and doth apparell him with the rich robes of his owne righteousnes And as that penitent â—aylour to manifest his good will to Paul and Silas did not Act. 16. 33. onely fetch them out of the prison ut also washed their sâ—â—ipes so Christ when he reuealeth his speciall loue vnto any then doth he wash the wounds of their soules with his blood and batheth them in the waters of his holy Spirit He casteth them as it were into a furnace and consumeth the drosse of â—in with the fire of his grace Therefore Paul saith that those who Gal. 5. 24. are Christs hâ—â—e crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts And saint Iohn saith that whosoeuer is borne of God sinâ—eth 1. Ioh. 3. 9. not meaning with full consent of heart he sinneth not vnto death he liueth not without repentance in his sinnes he drinketh not iniquitie as fishes do water he selleth not himselfe to worke wickednesse as Ahab did 1. King 21 25. Wherefore as wee must not account a man forsaken of Christ because he is ouertaken with some enormitie so againe we must take heed that we do not wilfully giue our selues vnto any manner of sinne because we heare that his loue is constant that sinne cannot make a diuorce betwixt him and vs and an vtter separation if once we were in his fauour and were vnited to him This were transcendent impietie and verie horrible ingratitude CHAP. VIII Christs Loue is the fountaine Primum Mobile indeede immobile of all good things that come to vs. His loue is not merited by vs. Seauenthly in that the Apostle giues the priority of place to Christs loue seating it before the benefits which we receiue by him I gather that his Loue is the scaturidge and foundation of all those works which he wrought for vs. His loue was the Anuill whervpon they were all forged it was the Spring from whence they sprang and the Pipe or Chanell through which they ran to vs who are as Cisternes to receiue them Therfore we must renouÌ„ce and abiuâ—e all opinion of our owne merits or foreâ—eene preparations Oâ—â— best merit which yet is no merit is to confesse freely that we can merit nothing nothing at all that good is For vnto vs belongeth nothing but opâ—â—â—â—ame and confusion of face for euer Dan. 9 8. It is Gods mere mercie and his pitie not our merits or pietie that we perish not in our sinnes And if we either wâ—â— well or worke well we must ascribe it solie to Gods good will who worketh in vs the will and the deed of his good pleasure Phil. 2. 13. Hiâ—vellâ— noÌ„ 〈◊〉 substaÌ„tia voluÌ„tatis sed Why did God honour the World with his onely Sonne Was it not because he loued the World So Christ de 〈◊〉 qualitate accipituÌ„r Ioh. 3. 16. saith for God so loued the world that he hath giuen his onely Sâ—nne to all that lay hold vpon him with the hand of a liuely faith Yea but was not his loue procured by our loue Did not our loue of him drawe his loue to vs as the Load-stone doth yron Verily no for herein saith Iohn is that loue not 1. Ioh. 4. 10. 19. that we loued God but that he loued vs and sent his sonne in loue to be a reconciliation for our sinnes We loue him because he loued vs first Why hath God raysed vs from the graue of sinne and quickened vs in his sonne and saued vs Was it not because he loued vs Paul teacheth vs to thinke so no otherwise and thereâ—ore saith But God who is rich in mercie through 〈◊〉 great loue wherwith he loued Eph. 2. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 when we were dead by sinnes hath quickened vs together in Christ by whoâ—â— grace ye are saued What mooued Christ besides his loue to giue himselfe to death for vs Iust nothing in vs therefore 1. Ioh. 3. 16. Iohn saith hereby we haue perceiued loue that he layed downe his life for vs. By whome saith Paul we haue redemption Eph. 1. 7. through his blood according to his rich Grace Nothing at all but pure loue made him bestowe himselfe vpon the Church it was his grace and not her goodnesse not because she was faire and wâ—rthie but because he was fanourable and gracious Therfore the Apostle saith Christ loued the Church and gaue himselfe for Eâ—h 5. 25. 26. her that hee might sanctifie or make her 〈…〉 e and holy clense her by the washing of water through the word By which we plainly see that his loue is the forge fountaine from whence our holines our happines and all spirituall celestiall and eternall benefits whatsoeuer do proceede and come Thus much concerning the loue of Christ The workes or tokens of his loue come now to be considered in the next words Here endeth the first part ⧠THE SECOND PART REV. 1. 5. And hath washed vs from our sinnes in or by his blood CHAP. I. The sense is giuen diuerse doubts are remoued remission of sins consenteth with regeneration in three things and differs from it in seauen other THe Apostle hauing affirmed that Christ did loue vs he doth immediatly coÌ„firme his affirmation by setting down two notable works performed by him for vs being vndoubted tokens and fruits of his loue vnto vs. The former wherof is expressed in the wordes recited His Blood that is the merit and validitie of his blood And by blood we must vnderstand his whole passion the which was accomplished at the effusion of his blood vpon the crosse For albeit as touching the diuine nâ—â—ure he cannot properly be saide to haue blood in that the Deitie is a most pure simple perfect and incomprehensible Essence void of composition alteration yet as concerning his humanitie he hath blood he shed his blood and died And for that the humane nature is not a person subsisting by it selfe but is receiued into the vniâ—â—e of his person as he is the eternall Sonne of the Father a true distinct person existing from al eternitie therfore by a figure that which is proper to one of his natures is attributed to his whole person Whence it is that Paul saith that God hath purchased the Act. 20. 28. Church by his owne blood that is God incarnate or that person
not to the perfect assurance of it but by degrees Pâ—â— Sanctification is imperfect in this life not accomplished 〈◊〉 the liâ—â— t 〈…〉 me Holines dotâ— not growe vp like Ioâ—â— Ioh. 4. his gourd in one night A vesâ—â—li with a narrow neckeâ—s not filled all at once The C 〈…〉 of God is not at his â—ull growth thâ— first day of his birth God 〈◊〉 not 〈…〉 ne stark dead â—â—th or 〈…〉 did G 〈…〉 〈…〉 wouÌ„d â—s the 1. 〈…〉 1. 〈◊〉 â—e 34. â—o◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 king 〈◊〉 The Moâ—â—â— we see i 〈…〉 at tâ—e 〈◊〉 first day of 〈◊〉 increase 〈◊〉 waxâ—th by little and 〈…〉 is wrought in vs by degâ—â—â—s no man is fully perfect For Who can say I am cleane So long as we Pro. 20. 9. Quamdiu â—â—uis necesse est peccatum eâ—â—e in mâ—brâ—â— tuis August â—â—â—e sin shall not die though it shall not damne vs because it is forgiuen vs. Sixtly remission oâ— sins is a part of iustâ—fication but sanctification is no part therof but rather an effect fruit 〈◊〉 argument thereof Lastly the washing away of sin in Iustification goes in nature before the â—â—olution of sanctification doth next 〈◊〉 nature succeede effectuall vocation For whoÌ„ God calleth them he doth in Rom. 8. 30. 〈◊〉 next place iustifie then sanctifie And I say in nature not 〈◊〉 time if we respect the first degree of saÌ„ctification Fâ—r when God doth actually 〈…〉 a man his sinnes when Christ doth actually bâ—â—h a man in his bloud and proâ—â—â—e the remission of his sins when God doth apply the merit of Christs bloud vnto a man then doth he also begin to refine and melt him then doth he cast him into a new mould and giueth him a new heart And as that woman with a peece of a mâ—â—stoÌ„e did brâ—ak the braine-pan of that vsurping tyrant Iudg. 9. 53. Abimelech euen so when God remits sinne he doth also as it were crack the brain-pan thereof with the milstone of his power and the strength of his Spirit and so in one article of time he doth dismount that vsurping Tyrannesse from her Throne he takes the crowne from her head and her scepter out of her hand and doth so disarme weaken her that she can neither damne vs nor domineâ—e within vs. And this being the sense let vs see what doctrines follow hereeof CHAP. II. The Man-head of Christ is proued Fiue reasons rendered why hee was to bee man FIrst in that the Apostle doth attribute Doct. 1 bloud vnto Christ I conclude that Christ was true man like other men sinne onely excepted This the Hebr. 2. 16. 17. holy scriptures do very plentifully manifest For hee is that Seede of the woman which should break the Serpents Gen. 3. 15. head And he is that Son which a virgin Is 7. 14. should conceiue and bring foorth He is sayd to be borne and circumcised to hunger thirst die and rise again all which do sufficiently proue the truth of his humanity Now it was requisite that Christ should be a man First that the prophecies that went long before of his humane nature might be truly fulfilled Secondly the iustice of God required that that nature should be punished which had offeÌ„ded Thirdly it seemed most equall in Gods eye that satisfaction for the sinne of man should be made in the nature of man Fourthly that he might be a mercifull Heb. 1. 17. high Priest able to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities Lastly that he might be able to suffer and die for vs. For the God head cannot possibly suffer beeing an impassible pure absolute 1. Tim. 6. 16. immortall vnchangeable nature Now as it was fiâ— that he should Iam. 1. 17. bee a man so it was also necessary that he should be sinlesse and holy First that his thoughts words and workes might be holy SecoÌ„dly that he might make vs holie and couer the impurity of our nature with the perfect purity of his Thirdly that he might offer vp a pure and spotlesse sacrifice Fourthly he was to be a preacher of holines a taxer of iniquity therfore it was fittest that he should be holy lest his practise should crosse his preaching and so marre his Ministerie Lastly that his humane nature might be aâ—â—omed into the vnity of the person of the Sonne of God who is most holie euen Holinesse it selfe If it be damanded why the Sonne should rather become man then either the Father or the Holy Ghost I answere it was most beseeming that the world should be redeemed and that all things should be restored by him by Ioh. 1. 〈◊〉 Col. 〈◊〉 16. Hâ—b 1 2. whome all things were created It was most fiâ—ting that he should saue man from death and procure him life who did at first vouch safe him life that as by him we receiued being so we might also by him receâ—â—e our welbeing Of this doctrine thâ—se vses may be made First we may behold the loue of Vse 1 Christ vnto vs who being the image of Col. 1 15. 16. God and the grand Creator of all things in heauen and earth did neuerthelesse for our good assume vnto himselfe the nature of man and not the nature of â—he Angels which notwithstanding is far more excellent far more diuine Heb. 2. 16. noble Secondly seeing Christ who is e 〈…〉 ll Vse 2 Phil. 2. 6. Reâ— 1. 5. to God Prince of all the kings of the earth did so farre debase himselfe for vs base wretches as voluntarily to take vpon him the forme of a Phil. 2. 7. seruant the shape and nature of man let vs arme our selues with the same mind neuer thinking any thing too base for vs to beare or doe which may serue for his glorie and the good of his Church Iâ— the Sonne of God did so humble himselfe why should we be proud and hautie If God thought not skorne to be made man for vs why should we thinke much to performe any seruice vnto him for the honour of his name how base or vile soeuer it maâ— seeme in the eve of man Thirdly seeing Christ is truly man Vse 3 made of the seed of the wo 〈…〉 hence is confuted ouerthrowne the errour of Gal. 44. the Maâ—tchâ—â—s whâ— held that Christs bodie was but imaginaâ—ie A sâ—igned bodie hath blood no more then a painted fire hath heate But Christ had true blood or else our redemption by his blood is a forged fiction and vntrue The errour of Macedonius and Valentinus who taught that Christ brought with him a celesticall bodie out of heauen But the Lord promised Abraham that in his seede all nations should be blessed Gen. 22. 18 The errour of Apelles who said that Christs body was of the ayre and that it passed through the virgin Mary as water through the pipe or chanell Whereas notwithstanding Dauid had a promise made him that his son should 2. Sam. 7. 12. 14.