another and yet is not transferred or changed into the nature of the other as a Souldier putting on his armour is made an armed man or a man wearing on his garments is no more a naked but a cloathed man And so the Word is now cloathed with our flesh tâ—e same Word but after another manner before onely subsisting of the Deity now of both natures being made flesh not as water is made wine but as Aaron was made Priest and Dauid King not by changing him into a Priest or King but by beginning to be what they were not and not leauing to bee what they were or because this doth not so fully shew it the Priestly or Kingly dignity being but an accidentall title conferred vpon these persons as a naked man is cloathed and made an apparelled man or a Souldier harnessed and made an armed man when all his harnesse is put vpon him as Theodoret Theodoret in Dialog Saint Augustine and others doe declare And so you see that in our Sauiour Christ the two natures doe still remaine intire inconfused CHAP. II. Of the vnion of these two natures of Christ in one and the selfe-same person and some obiections answered SEcondly touching the vnion of these two natures the Deitie and the Humanity wee must know that although this eternall Word the Sonne of God was so made flesh i. e. a perfect man of the seed of Dauid as that still each nature remaineth intire and inconfused yet we must not imagine that he is therefore two sonnes or two persons as Nestorius thought but that he is one onely person consisting of both these natures And because this point of the vnion of these two natures is not of small moment but is a point full of comfort much opposed and of great difficulty I will diuide all that I meane to say concerning the same vnto these three principall heads First The truth hereof shall be confirmed Three things handled concerning the vnion of both natures in Christ and the obiections of our aduersaries shall be answered Secondly The manner of this vnion wherein it consisteth shal be shewed Thirdly The chiefe benefits and effects thereof shall be declared First for the vnion of these two natures A very good simily of Justin Martyr to expresse the manner of the vnion of the two natures in Christ the Word and the Flesh Iustin Martyr saith Sicut post vnitionem primigenij luminis cum solari corpore c. as after the collection and the vnition of the light with the body of the Sunne no man can plucke them asunder neither doth any man call the one a part the Sunne and the other the light but both of them ioyntly together we terme the Sunne euen so after the vnition of our flesh with this true light the Word No man will call the Word apart to be one Sonne of God and the Sonne of man to be another but he will vnderstand both these together to be one and the selfe-same Christ as by the name of Sunne we vnderstand both the light and the body which containeth the light and as the light and body of the Sunne are two seuerall natures so there be in our Sauiour Christ two distinct and seuerall natures Altera nostra altera nobis superior The one is ours the other is Gods and as the light is actually in the Sunne so that none can seperate it from that body wherein it is fixed and contained Hoc exemplo diuinae vnitionis adducto nos ad magis cognitionem confugimus si non omnino ipsá veritatem assequuti certe quandam similitudinem quae pâ—escrutantibus sufficiat Iustin Martyr de recta confess siue de coessent trinit yet we may easily discerne the nature and the proprietie of each one from the other Sic in vno filio dei vniuersam vim nemo seperauerit ab vnica filietate naturae tameÌ„ eius proprietatem ratione quiuis discreuerit So in that one Sonne of God no man can seperate his whole vertue i. e. of the Word and Flesh from that onely Sonneship and yet in our vnderstandings we may discerne the different proprietie of each nature And so saith the Father By this example we flie vnto the more holy cogitation of the diuine vnion of these two natures and if hereby we be not altogether able to attaine vnto the truth thereof as what can be fully sufficient to expresse so great a mystery yet certainly we haue herein a most excellent similitude which will greatly helpe and contentedly suffice the godly and moderate searchers of this truth The vnity of Christ his person most cleerly proued from Scriptures But indeed the holy Scriptures doe of all other writings most fully and cleerely shew that these two natures doe make but one person in our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ for when Christ asked his Apostles whom doe men say that I the Sonne of man am Saint Peter answered that he was Christ the Sonne of the liuing God Matth. 16.13 therefore he is but one person because Saint Peter confesseth the Sonne of man to be the Sonne of the liuing God Verse 16. And the Angel said vnto the Virgin that holy thing which shall be borne of thee Luke 1.35 shall be called the Sonne of God therefore hee is but one person because he which was born of the Virgin was is none other but he that is truly called and is the true Sonne of God And Saint Paul speaking of Christ as he was the eternall Sonne of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2.3 in respect of his Godhead and as he was the sonne of Dauid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of his Manhood yet doth he not say of his Sonnes as of two but of his Sonne made and declared to be his Sonne to shew vnto vs that as before his making so now after his making he is still but one Sonne one person of the two distinct natures subsisting Iohn 20.31 And Saint Iohn more plainely saith that these things are written that you might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ the Sonne of God that is that Iesus the Sonne of Mary is that same Christ which is the Sonne of God And in his first Epistle he doth almost nothing but confirme this truth that is 1 Iohn 1.1 that there is but one person in the God and man Christ Iesus For Chap. 1. he saith that which was from the beginning which we haue heard which wee haue seene with our eyes therefore he must needs be but one person for to see with their eyes that word which was from the beginning could no wayes be but onely in respect of the vnitie of the person So Chap. 2. he saith Chap. 2. v. 22. Who is a lyar but he that denyeth Iesus to be the Christ So Chap. 3. he saith Chap. 3. v. 16. In this we perceiue the loue of God that he laid downe his life for vs. So Chap.
other by creation then is the second a creature and therefore but one God vncreated and if one bee from the other by generation then the first gaue the second either a part or his whole substance if a part then is God partible may be diuided which cannot be said of such spirituall indiuidible substance and if the first gaue the rest his whole Essence then haue all the same Dietie and so all must be the same Godhead And so Anâ—isthenes saith it was the opinion of the best Philosophers Plures esse Deos populares vnum naturalem That although the people worshipped many Gods yet indeed there was but one onely God by Nature And therefore against the Valentinians thirty couple of gods Jrenaeus contra Valentin and all others that professe many gods it must needes follow euen from reason it selfe that there can be no more gods but one not specificall but numericall i. e. so absolutely one Tertul. l. contra Hermog e. 17. that he is one alone besides whom there can be none other and is therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely one for we deny all number in the Deitie vnlesse you meane in the personall proprieties and therefore Gregory Nissen saith well Quod in multitudinem extendere numerum Deitatum eorum duntaxat est Nyssen ad Eustach l. de trin qui laborant multitudinis deorum errore That to extend the number of the Deities into a multitude belongs onely vnto them which doe erroniously maintaine a multitude of gods for the Catholicke faith is this that wee should worship the Trinity in Vnity and the Vnity in Trinity that is Basilius Ep. 141. ad Caesarium the trinity of Persons and the vnity of Essence because all number is to be reiected from the Essence of God saith Saint Basil For the Diuine Essence is so simple and so numerically one that no diuersitie can be giuen whereby the very persons doe differ in regard of the Essence and therefore in respect of this identitie and vnitie of Essence in the three persons of the Godhead our Sauiour saith I am in the Father and the Father in me Iohn 14.10 Wherupon Saint Cyril addeth further for the explanation of the same that we may not say that the Father is from the Sonne nor contained in the Sonne nor the Sonne to be in the Father as we are said to be and to liue in God for that we are onely by the effects of his grace he in the vnitie of his essence i. e. wee are one with God by grace but the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost are one by Nature so that whatsoeuer the Father essentially is the Sonne is the same and the holy Spirit is the same That the Essence of God is distinguished into three persons Gen. 1. And yet we must know that this one onely one indiuisible Essence is distinguished into three persons which we call the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost for so the Scriptures plainely teach vs as Let vs make man in our image and behold the man is become like one of vs saith the Lord himselfe to shew that in this vnity of Essence there is a plurality of persons and againe the Lord rained vpon Sodom and vpon Gomorrha from the Lord out of Heauen Gen. 19. that is the Sonne rained from the Father as Iustin Martyr Tertullian Epiphanius Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius Cyrill Sozomen the Councell of Smyrna held in the yeare of Christ 336. Socrates Eccl. hist l. 2. c. 30. wherein Marcus Arethusius against the heresie of Photinus and many others doe so expound that place And so the three men that appeared vnto Abraham and that Heauenly harmony of Cherubims saying Holy holy holy Lord God of Sabboth Esay 6. doe sufficiently declare the Trinitie of persons in the Vnity of Gods Essence Ob. But then it may bee some will say these and the like places are too obscure to confirme the truth of so great a point Sol. Why God did not fully and plainely reueile the mysteries of the Trinitie at the first I answere that God at first would not shew this great mystery vnto all lest that being so prone as they were in the infancie of the Church to fal into Idolatry they should shake off the seruice of the true God therby be drawn to worship many Gods but the more his Church did increase in abilitie to vnderstand the more did God reueile vnto it both this mystery of the Trinitie and also many other mysteries of the Incarnation Passion Resurrection and Ascention of Iesus Christ And therefore what hee obscurely shadowed in the time of the Patriarchs hee did more cleerely shew vnto his Prophets and most plainely in the time of the Apostles proclaime the same vnto all people For Christ bad them goe and baptize all men Matth. 28. in the name of the Father and of the Sonne 1. Iohn 5. and of the Holy Ghost And so Saint Iohn saith there be three that beare witnesse in Heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit And yet these three be but one saith the Apostle For as in one Sunne there are the body of the Sunne the Sunne beames and the heate Aug. de Trinit the beames are begotten of the Sunne and the heate doth proceed both from the Sunne and the Sunne beames but the Sunne it selfe proceeds from none Euen so in the one Essence of God there are the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost the sonne is begotten of the Father the Holy Ghost proceeds from both but the Father is of himselfe alone and as the fountaine begets the brooke Jdem de verbis Domim and both the fountaine and brooke doe make the Poole and yet all three is the same water so the father is the Fountaine which begets the Sonne and from the Father and Sonne proceeds the Holy Ghost That there are certaine similitudes of the Trinity to be seene in the creatures and yet is the Deity of all three the same in like manner the fire hath motion light and heate and yet but one fire and in the soule of man there are three faculties the vegetatiue the sensitiue and the rationall and yet but one soule and in all other creatures wee may behold certaine glimpes and similitudes that doe after a sort adumbrate and shadow out this ineffable and inexpressable mysterie for by their greatnesse we may consider the power of the Father by their beauty we may see the wisedome of the Sonne and by their vtilitie we may note the goodnesse of the Holy Ghost God left not himselfe without witnesse no not wholly of the manner of his subsistence if not to proue this blessed mysterie yet at least to illustrate it Thom. p. 1. q 32. art 1. and to proue as Aquinas saith Non esse impossibile quod fides praedicat That those things are not impossible which faith preacheth But it may be some
will aske touching my former illustration why is power ascribed to the Father Wisedome to the Son Quest and goodnesse to the Holy Ghost whereas all and each of the three persons haue the same power wisedome and goodnesse Saint Augustine answereth that amongst the creatures Resp it is wont to be obserued that in a Father is found a defect of power by reason of his antiquitie in a Sonne is seene ignorance by reason of his youth and inexperience of things and in the name of a Spirit there seemeth to be a kinde of fearefull vehemency Esay 52. as Quicscite ab homine cuius spiritus in naribus eius Whose Spirit is in his nostrils and therefore least the like might be thought to be in these Diuine persons we find power ascribed to the Father wisedome vnto the sonne and goodnesse vnto the Holy Ghost whereas indeed each one of them is of the same power wisedome and goodnesse as the others bee And although the Essence of God can neither be diuided nor distinguished yet the three subsistences or the three diuers manner of being in the Diuine Essence which we call the three persons The three persons are distinguished one from another two waies Father Sonne and Holy Spirit may be distinguished two wayes 1. By their personall actions 2. By their nominall relations First the actions of the persons are either 1. Outward or 2. Inward The outward workes of God are common to each person of the Trinity First all outward actions are called communicable because although after a sort they are appropriated to each person as the Father to send the Son and to create the world the Son to be sent to be Incarnate to redeeme mankind and the Holy Ghost to appeare in the form of a Doue like clouen tongues of fire to worke in our hearts for our consolation and sanctification yet Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indiuisa these outward workes of the Trinitie are so indiuisible that we cannot so properly ascribe them to any one but we finde that they may be likewise ascribed to any other for as Nazianzen truly affirmeth of the three persons themselues Non possuÌ„tria discernere quin subito ad vnum referar nec possum vnum cogitare quin trium fulgore confundar So may we say of their outward operations that although they be affirmed of one yet may they presently be referred to all three and so we finde them in many passages of the holy Scriptures as redemption and sanctification to the Father Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 1.2 Creation and Sanctification to the Sonne Iohn 1.3 1 Cor. 1.2 And creation and redemption to the Holy Ghost Psal 33.6 Ephes 4.30 And besides these outward operations are transient voluntary for that God in these things is Liberrimus Agens A free Agent so that he might haue chosen whâ—ther to doe them or not doe them and therefore in all these workes Election Creation Gubernation Redemption Sanctification Glorification there can be ascribed none other cause but quia voluit because he would for whatsoeuer pleased the Lord that did he in Heauen and in Earth in the Sea and in all deepe places And therefore these outward actions and so likewise those names which are giuen vnto these persons in regard of these actions as Creator vnto the Father Redeemer vnto the Sonne Comforter and sanctifier vnto the holy Ghost are not altogether sufficient to expresse the differences of these persons Secondly the inward actions of these persons are 1. Permanent 2. Necessarie 3. Incommunicable First they are so permanent The inward actions of God are euer in doing that as the Sunne doth alwayes beget his beames and both Sunne and beames doe send forth the heate so the Father from all eternity euer did and now doth and euer will beget his Sonne and both Father and Sonne doe spire and breath forth the Holy Ghost and therefore Origen saith excellent well Origen hom 6. in Ierem. Saluator noster splendor est gloriae splendor autem non semel nascitur deinceps desinit nasci c. Our blessed Sauiour is the brightnesse of Gods glory Sed quotiescunque ortum fuerit lumen ex quo splendor oritur toties oritur splendor gloriae Luke 12. but the brightnesse of glory is not once begotten and then afterwards leaues to be begotten but as often as the light riseth from whence the brightnesse springeth so often doth the brightnes of glory arise And our Sauiour saith he is the wisedome of God but the wisedome of God is the brightnesse of that eternall light Et ideo saluator semper nascitur The Father doth euer beget the Sonne And therefore as the Scripture saith Ante colles generat me Before the Mountaines were laid he begetteth me and not as some doe erroniously read it Generauit me He hath begotten me So the truth is that the Sonne of God is euer begotten and the holy Spirit euer proceeding Secondly these inward actions are no voluntary operations The inward actions are necessary I meane such as that the Father might either beget the Sonne or not beget him and the Father and the Sonne might either spire forth the Holy Ghost or not spire him forth but they be so absolutely necessary that they cannot otherwise be Cyrillus l. 1. c 3. thesauri because it is the property of the nature of God the Father to beget God the Sonne as it is for him to be a God so that he can no more relinquish or leaue to beget the Sonne then hee can leaue to be a God as Saint Cyril sheweth And Thirdly these inward actions are so incommunicable The inward actions are incommunicable that whatsoeuer is proper to the one can no wayes be ascribed to the other Quia hoc est proprium patris quod solus est pater quod ab alio non est nisidse For this is the property of the Father that he alone is the Father Et hoc est proprium filij quod à patre genitus est solus à solo hoc est proprium spiritus sancti quod nec genitus nec ingenitus est sed à patre filio aequaliter procedeus and that he is not from any other but onely of himselfe and this is the property of the Son that he alone is begotten of the Father alone coequall vnto him and coessentiall and this is the propertie of the Holy Ghost to be not made not begotten but from the Father and the Sonne equally proceeding And therefore we say that these incommunicable and proper operations of the persons doe so make the true and reall distinction of the persons that the Father cannot be the Sonne nor the Holy Ghost that the Sonne cannot be the Father nor the holy Ghost and that the Holy Ghost cannot be the Father nor the Son so that in a word all three is the same Essence and yet neither of the three can
Sol. But to this Danaeus briefely answereth that these men say he shall be called after the manner of the Hebrewes pro vere manifestabitur Danaeus Jsagog he shall bee truely manifested and declared to bee the Sonne of God Christ was a God from eternitie but he began to be a God existing in the humanitie when he was made flesh so that he shall be called doth not signifie that he should then begin to be but that then he should begin to bee manifested what he was before Besides wee may yeeld that then he should begin to bee and to bee called a God subsisting in the humane nature for this may apparantly bee collected out of the words both of the Prophet and Euangelist for in that the Prophet sayth vnto vs a Childe is borne this is to bee vnderstood of his humane nature and in that he sayth vnto vs a Sonne is giuen it is to be vnderstood of his Diuine nature Quia natus ex humanitate datus ex diuinitate datus qui nesciret exordium natus qui sentiret occasum datus quo nec Pater esset antiquior natus qui matre esset iunior sic qui erat datus est qui non erat natus est Because he is borne in respect of his humanity and giuen in respect of his Dietie for hee was giuen which had no beginning and he was borne which should haue ending hee was giuen which was as auncient as his father and hee was borne that was younger then his mother so hee that was was giuen vnto vs and he that was not was borne vnto vs as Eusebius Emissenus sayth and therefore this Sonne that euer was a God in respect of his Diuine nature could not bee called nor sayd to bee a God existing in the humane nature vntill this Sonne was giuen to bee in carnate and till this Childe was borne vnto vs and so I say of the words of Saint Luke that hee which was euer the Sonne of God in respect of his Godhead should now bee called the Sonne of God existing in the Manhood Secondly They obiect that Saint Iohn calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob. 2 The Word of God but God spake no words before the Creation when first he said Fiat lux Let there be light and therefore this word before then could not be To this I answere first Sol. that they doe exceedingly corrupt the Text in calling him The Word of God for Saint Iohn doth not call him The Word of God but simply the Word to shew the difference betwixt that Word of the Lord which came vnto the Prophets and Apostles and is left vnto vs in the Scriptures or that was at any time spoken by God at the Creation or since the Creation vnto the Patriarchs or any other seruant of God and this euerlasting Word which euer was and is an eternall God And therefore Saint Cyril saith Cyrillus l. 1. Thesauri That Christ is no accidentall but an eternall essentiall word That he is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Any sound of the Ayre which is breathed out of the mouth of God and is vttered by the helpe of the tongue because God hath neither mouth lippes nor tongue neither is he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any inward or inbred word or significatiue voyce of any such conceiued words because none of these is any subsistent thing but as it were an accident in the subiect which cannot be said to be in God but hee is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The essentiall substantiall and subsistent word as hereafter I shall more amply and plainely shew vnto you when I come to discusse the reasons why he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word Thirdly they doe obiect that the wisedome of God saith Ob. 3 Dominus creauit me initium viarum suarum ante secula fundauit me Which according to the words is thus in English Prou. 8.22 God created me the beginning of his wayes before the Worlds he established me Sol. I answere that concerning this place of Salomon I finde diuers sorts of expositions First the Iewes say that by this Wisedome is vnderstood the Law which was created to be the beginning of Gods wayes and as they say two thousand yeeres before the World was made because in the thirtieth verse they finde two iom that is two dayes which they interpret of two thousand yeeres because a day with God is as a thousand yeeres Psal 90.4 Secondly the Samosatenian Heretickes say that this place is to be vnderstood not of Christ but of that vertue of God whereby he hath wisely created and discreetly gouerneth all those things that are created Thirdly the Arians yeelding that it was spoken of the Sonne of God doe say that it proueth him to be made and created by the Father and therefore not eternally begotten of the Father That the Law was not created But against the Iewes I say that it cannot be spoken of the Law because the Law is not created but promulgated and shewed vnto vs to teach vs to know what is good and acceptable vnto God for if it were created then it must be created of nothing and must be either a substance or an accident and the breach thereof would proue to be the offending of a creature and not the Creator which is most absurd and if it were created yet that it should be created two thousand yeeres before the World was made is more absurd for that it should be then created before any time because time beganne when the World was made as Moses sheweth And therefore if the Law were created two thousand yeeres before the World was made then Moses doth not well to make Time to haue his beginning when the World beganne and therefore the meaning of those words I was Deliciae eius die die which is an Hebraisme signifying Quotidie daily or alwayes is this that Christ before all Worlds was euer and alwayes the onely ioy and delight of God in whom as he saith himselfe he was well pleased hee was fully satisfied and contented Secondly Against the Somosatenians I say that whatsoeuer is spoken of any vertue or any wisedome of God must needes be spoken of Christ Luc. 11.49 because hee is the vertue and wisedome of God as Saint Luke sheweth And therefore the same things that are here ascribed vnto that wisedome of God are else-where ascribed vnto Christ the Sonne of God as you may see Iohn 1.1 Heb. 1.2 Colos 1.17 And so Iustin Martyr Justinus in Dialog cum Tryph. and Clemens Alexandrinus doe expound this place of Salomon of the Sonne of GOD. Thirdly Against the Arians I finde diuers answeres Whether the Arians corrupted the Text. First Some thinke the Arians as they vsed to doe in other places corrupted the Text and writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Created me in stead of possessed me but I thinke this could not be because Iust Martyr that liued before the Arians were hatched and Athanasius himselfe doth reade it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created me and therefore Secondly Epiphanius Saint Basil Saint Hierome and others Epiphan heres 69 Basil l. 2. contr Eunom Hieron in ep ad Cypr. doe thinke that the vulgar Edition is not well translated for that the Hebrew word which Salomon vseth should not be translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a iota but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middest of the word The first is He created me and the other is he possessed me and therefore Aquila translates it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Tremellius Whether the Hebrew word bee rightly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 created Iehoua possidebat me principio viae suae or ab initio operum suorum as others will haue it And so is the vulgar Latine and our owne last English Translation The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way And if this be true then those ancient Fathers Saint Athanasius Saint Basil Saint Cyril and others that were much troubled about this place might haue easily answered vnto this obiection of the Arians if they had corrected the Greeke Translation out of the Hebrew Text. But the Iewes contend that the word in the Originall doth aswell signifie to create as to possesse as Rabbi Shelomo Iarchi vpon Genesis 14.19 doth declare for there Moses vseth the same word which Salomon vseth here and although our last English Translation reades it Possessor of Heauen and Earth yet the vulgar Latine and the Septuagint reades it Creator of Heauen and Earth and therefore Thirdly Fulgentius answereth Fulgent in resp ad hanc ob Arrian that although Salomon should say The Lord created me yet could that make nothing against the eternall being of the Sonne of God for that we may easily see Salomon speaketh here of a two-fold generation of the Sonne of GOD. That Salomon speaketh of a two-fold generation of Christ First Of his Incarnation in these words The Lord created me the beginning of his wayes and then Secondly Least we should with Arians imagine that he was not before he was incarnate He sheweth that Ante colles genitus erat Before the mountaines he was begotten and brought forth i. e. In respect of his Diuinity First of his incarnation to be made man That in the first place he speaketh of his incarnation and this making of him to be flesh there followeth none absurdity for though hee speaketh in the present tense or preterperfect tense after the Latines yet is it set downe for the future tense after the manner of the Hebrewes who doe oftentimes especially in things pertaining to God set downe the future tense for the present because they are as certaine to bee done as if they were already done as Tertullian obserueth And the words immediately following To be the beginning of his wayes doth make this exposition the more apparantly true for what is it to be the beginning of his wayes Nisi quod ipse via nobis est factus but that hee was made to be the way for vs to walke in for hee was not made that hee should create new Creatures but that hee might renue those that were lost And therefore Saint Iames vseth the like speech of the godly James 1.18 saying Of his owne will begate he vs with the Word of Truth that wee might be as the first fruites of his Creatures And the Prophet Dauid vseth the like speech of himselfe Psal 51.10 when he saith Create a new heart in me O God And therefore to be the beginning of the wayes of God is to be the first fruites of those that are renued and not of those that are created for if you looke into the workes of Creation you shall heare him say Before the mountaines were setled and before the hills was I begotten Secondly of his eternall generation as he is God That in the second place hee speaketh of his eternall generation it is most manifest for hee changeth his phrase and saith Ante colles genita eram Before the mountaines was I begotten as the Chalde paraphrase hath it or Filiata eram I was sonned his sonne as some translate it for wee must note that created and begotten in the person of the Sonne of God are to bee distinguished or otherwise if we make created and begotten to be the same wee may say that the World was begotten which is most absurd And therefore seeing hee saith that this wisedome of GOD was both created and begotten and that these two words doe signifie two distinct and speciall things wee should consider in what respect hee is said to be created and in what respect he is said to be begotten and then we should plainely see that he is said to be created as he is the Sonne of man and that he is said to be begotten as hee is the eternall Sonne of God for here Salomon sheweth that he is said to be created in respect of that nature wherin he calleth his Father Lord for the Lord saith hee created me But hee calleth his Father Lord in respect of his humane nature and neuer calleth him Lord in respect of his diuine nature for he that is borne a seruant of his Fathers handmaide according to the saying of the Psalmist Psal 116.14 O Lord I am thy seruant and the sonne of thine hand-maide is also begotten of his Fathers Essence according to the saying of Christ Iohn 8. I and my Father are one And therefore though he calleth his Father Lord in respect of his humanity yet doth he neuer call him so but alwayes Father in respect of his Diuinity as I came from the Father and wee saw his glory John 1. as the glory of the onely begotten Sonne of the Father And so you see that these words of Salomon Naz. or 4. de theolog Athan. ser 3. cont Arr. Cyril l. 5. c. 4. 5. 6. 7. Thesauri Aug. l. 1. c. 12. de trinit The Lord created me are to be vnderstood of his incarnation and therefore can proue nothing against his eternall generation And this exposition of Fulgentius is confirmed by Nazianzen Athanasius Saint Cyril Saint Augustine and others And yet Fourthly Saint Hillary in l. de Synodis Aquinas l. 4. c. 8. contra gentes and Bellarmine l. 1. c. 18. de Christo doe answere that the eternall generation of the Sonne of God is sometimes called generation and sometimes creation because it is so ineffable that it cannot be fully expressed by any one word for generation signifieth a production in the same substance but with a certaine mutation of the begetter How the Word may be said to be both begotten created but creation signifieth a production of another substance but without any mutation of the
it were of the like nature with God Fourthly they affirme that although the word it selfe is not found in the Scriptures yet that the full sense and meaning of the word is plainely found Aug. tract 79. In Joh. Cyrillus l. 1. de trinit as Saint Augustine doth most excellently proue out of those words of our Sauiour I and my Father are one Iohn 10. And that it is deriued from the Scripture for it is deriued of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is deriued of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Lord saith of himselfe Ego sum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am he that is or I am that I am Exod. 3. And therefore seeing this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their verball winde shakes no corne nor cannot derogate any thing from the coessentiality of this word with his Father they proceed against the matter And so Secondly they doe obiect against the truth of the matter declared by this Word And First they argue thus Whose wils are diuers their natures Ob. 1 and essences are diuers but the will of the Father and of the Sonne are diuers for the Sonne saith vnto his Father Father if it be possible Matth. 26.39 let this cup passe from me neuerthelesse not as I will but as thou wilt therefore their Essence must needes be diuers Sol. That Christ as he hath two Natures so he hath a two-fold Will. I answere that the proposition is to be distinguished for whose wils are diuers hauing the same natures their natures must be diuers but in Christ there are two natures diuine and humane and therefore that his will is diuers or not the same will as his fathers is in respect of his humane nature though it be alwayes subiect and agreeable to the same we easily grant but that his will in respect of his diuine nature is any wayes different or diuers from his Fathers will we vtterly deny and we say not that the whole person of Christ but that Christ in respect of his diuine nature as he is the second person of the Trinitie is co-essentiall vnto his Father and therefore though the will of Christ as he is the Sonne of man be not the same as his Fathers will is yet that doth not proue the will of Christ as hee is the Sonne of God to be not the same as his Fathers will is because Christ hath a two-fold will the one as he is the eternall Word and the other as he is made Flesh Ob. 2 Secondly they say he that is mediator betwixt God and men is not of the same essence with God but Christ is the Mediator betwixt God and men 1 Tim. 2.5 saith the Apostle therefore he cannot be of the same essence with God Sol. That there are two sorts of Mediators I answere that the proposition is to be distinguished for it is true of such a mediator as Moses was the Messenger of God to men but it is false of such a Mediator as reconcileth wicked men to God by appeasing his wrath and making satisfaction for their sinnes for that no man can do so but he that is God by nature Now Saint Paul sheweth Christ to be such a Mediator as doth appease the wrath of God and therefore he sheweth euen thereby that Christ must needes be a God by nature and of the same Essence with his Father Ob. 3 Thirdly they say Christ is a Mediator and an Aduocate with God but he is no Mediator nor Aduocate with himselfe therefore himselfe is not of the same Essence with God Sol. I answere that the Name of God is to be taken two wayes First Essentially and so Christ is a Mediator with God Secondly Hipostatically for any person of the God-head and so Christ also is Mediator with God if you vnderstand God for the person of the Father not excluding the Sonne or the Holy Ghost for otherwise it is false because he is not onely Mediator with the person of the Father but also with himselfe and the Holy Ghost So likewise in the conclusion if you take God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the person of the Father we yeeld Christ is not God because God the Sonne is not nor cannot be God the Father And to the minor I say That Christ reconcileth vs to himselfe that Christ may bee said to bee a Mediator with himselfe if we consider the office of mediation Nam sacrificij modum non sicut vnus quidam ex nobis sacerdotibus affert seruiliter For he doth not seruilely like some of vs or any vnder the Law bring the substance of our sacrifice vnto the Priests which should first offer for themselues and then for the sinnes of their people because he hath nothing herein common with vs that he should receiue it at our hands to offer it for vs but as he is our sacrifice himselfe Cyrillus l. de recta fide ad reginas Sic sibi ipsi conciliat per ipsum in ipso patri So he reconcileth vs vnto himselfe and through himselfe and in himselfe vnto his Father as Saint Cyrill saith Fourthly they say If he be of the same essence with the Father Ob. 4 then is he essentially in the Father but he is not essentially in the Father for the Word was with God and not in God John 1.1 saith the Euangelist but to be with God signifieth not to be in God but without him as a booke held in my hand is with me though it be not in me therefore Christ is not essentially in the Father consequently not of the same essence with the Father To this Fulgentius answereth diuers wayes Sol. 1. If all that is sayd to be with God be without God Fulgent in resp ad obiect Arrianorum and all that is sayd to bee in God bee within him then are wee neerer vnto God then the Sonne of God for here you see he is sayd but to be with God and we are sayd to be in God 1 Cor. 8. for there is but one God the Father by whom are all things and wee in him sayth the Apostle but this is most absurd to say that wee are neerer vnto God then the Sonne of God and therefore it is as absurd to say that all which is with God is without God and all that are sayd to be in him to be within him Secondly Hee proueth that to be with God or with man doth not alwayes signifie to bee without God or without man for it is sayd that the vngodly reasoned with themselues Wisd 2.1 but when a man reasoneth he doth it within himselfe and not without himselfe C. 4.1 and it is sayd that the memoriall of Vertue is immortall because it is knowne with God and with men but it cannot be knowne with men vnlesse the memorie thereof be within men John 14.15 and so our Sauiour Christ sayth If any man loue mee and will
a God for so hee is alwayes with the Father but he goeth to the Father as he is a man and therefore he is inferior to the Father as hee is a man and thus Saint Cyrill Saint Chrysost Saint Aug. and Gaudentius doe expound it Thirdly they doe obiect that our Sauiour sayth I came Ob. 3 downe from Heauen not to doe mine owne will John 6.38 but to doe the will of him that sent mee therefore hee that sent him is greater then hee that is sent I answere first that Christ hath two wills the one as man Sol. That Christ hath two wils the other as God and hee came downe not to doe his owne will which he had as hee was man but to doe the will of his Father that sent him which was also his owne will as he was God for hauing the same essence hee must needs haue the same will with his Father and therefore as hee was inferior to his Father in respect of his humane will so he was equall to his Father in respect of his diuine will And secondly I say that he was not sent Per modum imperij That the Father sent not the Sonne by way of command or superioritie In respect of any superiority that the Father had to command him but by way of consent the Father being willing to let his Sonne goe as the Sonne was to be gone so that misit is no more then emisit they were both willing that the Word should be made Flesh But they vrge that he descended to doe the will of his Father Ob. but he descended not as Man but as God therefore he was inferiour to the Father not onely as Man but also as God I answere that the descending of Christ Sol. That the descending of of Christ is the assuming of â—ur flesh is nothing else but his exinination his incarnation and assuming the forme of a seruant for otherwise the Godhead can neither be said to ascend nor descend and so his son thus humbled thus incarnate did obay his Father and performe the Will of his Father but not in respect of the forme which he had in Heauen with his Father but in respect of the forme of a seruant which hee humbling himselfe assumed in earth And Fourthly they doe obiect that S. Paul sayth that when Christ Ob. 4 hath subdued all things yet then 1 Cor. 15.27.28 the sonne shall be subiect vnto his Father which hath subdued all things vnder him and therefore the sonne is inferior to the Father To this some doe answere Sol. that then the humane nature of Christ shall bee swallowed vp and wholly conuerted into the Dietie but this cannot bee for that Saint Paul in this very place sheweth the contrarie because the subiection argueth a distinction whereas if it were quite swallowed vp there could bee no distinction and therefore seeing there must be still a subiection there must be still that nature remaining which shall bee subiect to the other Nyssenus Chrysost Cyril and others Others will haue this saying of the Apostle to be spoken of the whole Church of Christ or of Christ as hee is in his members so that the sence should bee this then the whole body of Christ shall be so subiect vnto God that not any one member of the same shall in any thing bee contumacious or rebellious against the will of God But although this may passe without absurditie as being true in respect of the matter yet I doe not finde that it agreeth with the Apostles meaning in this place for hee speaketh of him to whom all things are subdued but all things are subdued vnto the person of Christ considered in himselfe anâ— not vnto the whole body of Christ or vnto Christ considered in his members as both the Prophecie of Dauid and this place of the Apostle make it playne and therefore Saint Ambrose Oecumenius and Theophilact doe expound it of the Sonne of God absolutely considered and that it signifieth not a seruile subiection any wayes betokening an inferioritie but an vnanimous agreement of the sonne with the Father which sheweth their vnitie and equalitie That Christ in glory for euer and euer as man shall be still inferiour and subiect vnto the God-head But I like best of Saint Augustines and Primasius expositions which doe interpret it of the humane nature of Christ which then shall bee truely subiect vnto God not because it was not subiect before then but with a more emphasis the Apostle would giue them to vnderstand that as euer before it was subiect vnto God so then also in that excellent glorie when all things are subdued vnto it it shall be subiect vnto God and the reason hereof is as some of the Greeke Fathers haue obserued because he writ vnto the Corinthians which were but verie lately conuerted vnto the Christian Faith from the vaine fables of the Gentiles which taught that the Gods did contest and striue amonst themselues And therefore least they should thinke that Christ subduing all things and putting all things vnder his feete would doe vnto his father as they sayd Iupiter did to his father Saturne adibus sedibus effugari to driue him out of house and home hee sayth all things shall be subiected vnto Christ excepting him which hath subdued all things vnto him and not onely this that all things shall be subiect vnto Christ but the Father but also that as now it is so it shall be then in that glory and triumph after all things shall bee subdued vnto the Man Christ Iesus yet then shall his humane nature that is Christ himselfe as he is man be still subiect vnto God his father so that hee which is and euer was equall to his father as touching his Godhead is and euer shall be inferior and subiect to his father as touching his Manhood Many other obiections they haue against the Dietie coessentialitie and coequalitie of the Sonne of God with his father but they are all so triuiall that they deserue no answere and are all deduced from those places that are spoken of Christ as hee is a man and misapplyed by them to denie his excellencie as hee is a God and therefore I neede not proceede any further in this point but onely to desire you from hence to obserue these few branches of instructions that doe most naturally spring from this roote as 1. The greatnesse of Gods loue This doctrine that the word Incarnate was a true God teacheth vs foure speciall things 2. The craftinesse of Satans dealing 3. The peruersenesse of Heretickes 4. The vnthankefulnesse of men First wee see this Word this Sonne of God was not made flesh to dignifie or to better himselfe for hee was before as I shewed you before a God in the best and highest degree from euerlasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a God of himselfe How greatly God loued vs that God would be made man for our good A loue like
himself incomprehensible coessentiall and coequall vnto his father what therefore should hee merit or wherein could he be dignified by his Incarnation more then he was before his Incarnation Gloria eius augeri non potuit nothing could be added vnto his glorie or if it could his loue to vs could not be so great for then it might bee sayd hee did it not onely for our sake but also for his owne sake that himselfe might thereby be the more dignified and exalted but seeing he was so high before that he could not bee higher so great that hee could not greater and so good that he could not be better it is most certainly apparant that he descended from the height of his dignitie vnto the very depth of humilitie to be made flesh onely for our sake and therefore wee may well say that greater loue then this cannot be that he which is the highest chiefest euerlasting God should descend and be made the Sonne of Man that wee might be made the sonnes of the immortall GOD through him How Satan hath euer laboured more to obscure the truth concerning the person of Christ then any other point of doctrine whatsoeuer Secondly we may from hence see both the subtiltie and the cruelty of Satans dealing for he knoweth that this is the greatest benefit that euer man receiued from God the giuing of this Word to be made Flesh this his eternall Sonne to be made man Quia in creatione dedit te tibi Deus Because in thy creation hee did but giue thy being vnto thee but in this his Incarnation hee gaue himselfe vnto thee and therefore Satan would faine obscure this benefit either by debasing the person and perswading vs to beleeue that he was not so excellent as hee was i. e. not a God or if a God not so high not so excellent as his Father was or else by corrupting the action and suggesting vnto vs that hee did not all for our sakes onely but chiefly for his owne merit as if he were ambitious of vaine-glory which is blasphemy to thinke that he might thereby get him a name aboue all other names And this is his vsuall practise to seeke alwayes at the chiefest to corrupt the greatest points and to ouerthrow the strongest pillars of Christian religion Math. 4.3 for he tempted Christ himselfe and would faine haue ouercome him for hee knew that if the Captaine were once conquered then all the Souldiers would soone be vanquished if the Shepheard were once smitten then all the sheepe would be scattered and so since the comming of Christ he stirred vp more and greater heresies concerning Christ either his person or his offices then he did concerning any other point of Christian Religion for as there is no point so great so waighty no point more comfortable then this concerning the person of our Redeemer because this is eternall life to know him to be the true and eternall God Iohn 17.3 So Satan did neuer bestow more paines about any point to ouer-throw it and corrupt it then he did about this same as they that are but meanely read in the Ecclesiasticall stories and counsels may easily perceiue And therefore I haue euer thought no paines too great no discourses too long no time mispent that is spent to discusse this truth and to dispell those cloudes of errours that doe seeke to obscure the dignity and excellency of the person of the Sonne of God Quia bonum est esse hic For it is good to dwell on this Rocke and here to build vs Tabernacles as Peter saith Iuvat vsque morari Thirdly How maliciously Hereticks haue denyed the Godhead of Christ we may from hence see the peruersnesse of wicked Heretickes for that it is not enough for them to offend God but they will deny him to be a God and as the Athiests will be wicked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the highest degree by serching so farre into God as to say at last there is no God so will they search so farre into the nature of the Sonne of God that they deny him to be a God vntill the vengeance of God doth make them see their abhominable sinnes and therefore we should all take heed that the God of this world doe not so blinde our eyes as to make vs to deny God our Sauiour Fourthly How thankefull we ought to be vnto God for the giuing of the Word to be made flesh wee may from hence consider how thankefull wee ought to be and yet how vnthankefull we are to God for here wee see that more then this he could not doe for man for the highest God to be made man yea a man of sorrowes as I shall by his helpe in my Treatise of his Passion shew vnto you that we might be made the sonnes of God and the heires of ioy and yet we seldome or neuer set this great benefit before our eyes to be thankefull to God for the same for if we did how could we finde in our hearts with the sight of this goodnesse to heape vp such horrible wickednesse as we doe against his Maiestie to blaspheme his name to abuse his Word to dispise his seruants and to be to euery good worke reprobate O beloued remember what our Sauiour saith If you loue me keepe my Commandements Iohn 14.15 and if you be thankefull to God for this his great loue to you to be vilified and made flesh and made of no reputation for you offend not his Maiestie and render not vnto him euill for good and hatred for his good will And so much touching the excellency of the person that was made flesh he that was the true and eternall God co-essentiall and co-equall vnto his Father CHAP. VI. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word here shewed by the Euangelist to expresse the person that was incarnate and what it signifieth and why the Euangelist vseth it SEcondly hauing seene the excellency of the person that was made flesh we are now to consider the Word here vsed to declare that person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word touching which I will onely discusse these three points 1. What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth 2. Why Christ is tearmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Why the Euangelist saith here The Word was made flesh rather then the Sonne of God was made flesh What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth First some say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth reason and that the Sonne is therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason because as reason is most inward with vs so is the Sonne with the Father as Saint Basil and Nazianzen say or because he maketh vs obedient to yeeld vnto reason as Origen saith others will haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie definition because Christ defineth and expresseth the whole nature of his Father Heb 1.3 he being the brightnesse of his glory and the ingrauen forme of his person as Nazianzen and
God to communicate himselfe vnto all creatures by his presence and it was a greater kindnesse to communicate himselfe to all the godly by his grace but it is the greatest of all to vnite himselfe hypostatically by his spirit vnto our flesh And therefore this could not be done without infinite goodnesse and so in this respect we find this worke of the incarnation ascribed to each person for the Father sent me saith our Sauiour and I came into the world saith he of himselfe and the Holy Ghost shall come vpon thee and the power of the most high shall ouer shadow thee whereby thou mayst conceiue saith Gabriel vnto the blessed Virgin And therefore seeing the whole Trinitie was the Maker of this Word flesh how can it be but that the whole Trinitie should be incarnate and made flesh Sol. That the Son onely assumed our Flesh I answere that this worke of the words incarnation is to bee considered 1. Inchoatiue 2. Consummatiue As it was inchoated and begun As it is consummated and finished In the first sense it is common to all the three persons of the Trinitie for it was made by them all three but in the second sense it was proper onely vnto the Word because it was assumed onely by the Word Aug. in Enchyrid C. 38. as Saint Augustine sheweth for as if three Maides should spinne and make a garment and then put it vpon one of them to weare all three should be the makers yet but one should be the wearer of the same Euen so though the Father did appoint Christ a body and this body was conceiued by the Holy Ghost yet neither the Father nor the Spirit did assume that body but only the person of the Sonne of God and therefore Saint Augustine saith truly Idem Ser. 3. de temp that Impleuet carnem Christi pater spiritus sanctus sed maiestate non susceptione The flesh of Christ was filled with the Maiestie of the Father and of the Holy Ghost but it was onely vnited to the person of the Word Ob. But then againe it may be obiected that seeing the nature of the Father and the nature of the Sonne be the very same for they be both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the very selfe-same essence as I haue sufficiently shewed vnto you before and the whole diuine essence is in euery one of them therefore how can it be but the Sonne being incarnate the Father should be incarnate also Sol. To this we answere briefly that although the nature of the Father and the nature of the Sonne be the very same yet Aliter est in patre aliter est in filio This very selfe-same essence is otherwise or after another manner in the Father The diuine nature limited in the person of the Sonne was made Flesh and after another manner in the Sonne and therefore we say that the Diuine nature simply considered cannot be said to be incarnate Sed natura diuina determinata limitata in persona filij But the diuine nature limited and determined in the person of the Son And this Saint Augustine doth most excellently expresse against the Iewes saying O Iudae Cytharam respice c. Behold O Iew the Harpe when it yeelds sweet and pleasant tune there be three things that seeme to concurre alike the skill the hand and the string and yet there is but one sound heard Ars dictat manus tangit chorda resonat The Art or skill directeth the hand toucheth and the string onely soundeth Tria pariter operantur they doe all three worke alike and yet neither the skill nor the hand doe yeeld the sound but onely the string Sic nec pater Operatio in tribus constat sed quemadmodum ad solam chordam soni redditio sic pertinet ad solum Christum carnis humanae susceptio nec spiritus sanctus susceperunt carnem tamen cum filio pariter operantur So neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit did assume the flesh and yet they did all agree in the working and making of this flesh but as the string alone doth yeeld the musicall harmony so the word alone did assume the flesh the worke is seene in all three but as the sound of the musicke pertaineth vnto the string alone so the assumption of our flesh pertayneth to the word alone and if any incredulous Iew with Nichodemus demaunds how this Word should be made flesh of a Virgin without the helpe of man let him tell me how Aarons rod Aug. de incarnat Dom. cont Iudaeos being a drie sticke could blossome and beare ripe Almonds and I will tell him how the Virgin did conceiue and beare a Sonne but he cannot tell the former though the lesser miracle and therefore no wonder that I cannot expresse the latter which is so ineffable a mysterie saith Saint Augustine And so you see the first Branch of this Text touching the person who was made the Word the Sonne the second person of the blessed Trinity fully discussed BRANCH II. CHAP. I. Of Christ his apparition before his incarnation and of the conception of Christ the manner of it and the reasons why hee was so conceiued 2. Branch Tres misturas fecit omnipotens illa maiestas in assumptione carnis nostrae ita mirabiliter singularia singulariter mirabilia vt talia nec facta nec facienda sint amplius super terram SEcondly We are to consider what hee was made Flesh for the Word was made Flesh Saint Bernard saith God did three workes three mixtures as hee calleth them in the assumption of our flesh so singularly wonderfull and so wonderfully singular that the like were neuer made before nor shall be made hereafter vpon the face of the Earth Coniunct à quippe sunt ad invicem Deus homo mater virgo fides cor humanum For now are ioyned together God and our Flesh a Mother and a Virgin a diuine Faith and a humane Heart for the Word and Soule and Flesh haue met and made but one Person These three are one and this one is three not by the confusion of substance but in the vnity of person This is the first and most super-excellent mixture or coniunction The second is a Virgin and a Mother a thing so admirable so singular that since the World beganne it was neuer heard that shee which brings forth a Childe should be a Maide and that shee should be a Mother which still remaines a Virgin The third is Faith and Mans Heart Inferior quidem sed non minus forsitan fortis an inferior copulation but perhaps not deseruing much lesse admiration For it is a wonder to see how the Heart of Man can yeeld Faith and beliefe vnto these two and to beleeue that God should be made Man that shee should remain a Virgin which had borne a Sonne for as Iron and a Gally-cup can neuer be coupled together Bernard Ser. 3.
Iesus Christ First because the Apostle saith Verse 7. that he was greater then Abraham which is said to be the Father of the faithfull Secondly Heb. c. 5. v. 11. because the Apostle going to speake of this Melchisedecke saith that he had many things to say concerning him which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hard to be explained which certainly he would neuer haue said had he not vnderstood this Melchisedeck to haue beene some excellent and ineffable person Thirdly because the Apostle saith not Verse 8. whose death is not mentioned by Moses for so he might be dead though his death is not spoken of but he saith that Dauid testifieth of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he liueth to shew the difference betwixt this Priest and those Leuiticall Priests which dyed Heb. 7 3. Fourthly because the Apostle saith that this Melchisedeck was like vnto the Sonne of God euen as Nebuchadnezzer saith that the fourth man which walked with the three children in the fiery furnace was like vnto the Sonne of God So here the Apostle saying that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dan. 3.25 like the Sonne of God meaneth no doubt that he assumed a body of the same likenesse and habite and countenance as afterward he meant to vnite personally vnto himselfe for that it is an vsuall thing in Scripture to say that he which is is like vnto himselfe as where the Apostle saith Phil. 2.7.8 that he was found in shape as a man and tooke vpon him the forme of a seruant and was made in the likenesse of men that is he was made indeed a true and a naturall man Fiftly because Abraham did giue vnto him Tythe of all as perceiuing vnder that visible forme and shape of man an inuisible Diety to subsist to whom Tythe is only due and euerlastingly due because he is an euerlasting Priest And therefore I say that this Melchisedeck was no mortall man but the immortall Sonne of God which assuming this visible shape did appeare vnto Abraham and offered as a type of our blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper Bread and Wine vnto him after his victory ouer his enemies And it may be that our Sauiour had respect hereunto Iohn 8.56 when he said that Abraham saw his dayes and reioyced i. e. not onely with the eyes of faith as all the rest of the Patriarchs and Prophets did but also in a visible shape which he assumed like vnto that whereunto he was afterward to be vnited So that man which wrestled with Iacob was none other but the man Christ Iesus for himselfe said that Iacob should be called Israel Gen. 32.28.30 a wrestler and preuailer with God and Iacob called the name of the place Peniel because he had seene God face to face And so that man which appeared vnto Iosua and came as a Captaine of the heast of the Lord Josua 5.14 was none other then Iesus Christ as Peter Martyr doth most excellently by many arguments confirme Whereby you see Christ did heretofore assume vnto himselfe humane formes wherein he appeared vnto the Fathers to be as a praeludium of his Incarnation but in none of these apparitions and assumptions of such formes was he euer said to be made the thing that he assumed or to vnite himselfe hypostatically vnto any of the said formes for those bodies he formed of the ayre or of nothing and when he had finished the worke for which he had assumed them Tum redit in nihilum quod fuit ante nihil Then it returned into that out of which it was framed But now the Euangelist saith The conception of the Word that this word did not onely appeare or assume vnto himselfe our flesh for a time to discharge some speciall offices and then to depose and to lay aside the same againe but that he was made flesh that is really made man like one of vs sinne onely excepted and eternally to remaine man for euer and euer And therefore that we may truely vnderstand this point how this word was made flesh we must well consider these two especiall things 1. The manner of his conception Two things to be considered for the vnderstanding of Christs conception 2. The matter or substance from which he was formed First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made here vsed doth plainly shew vnto vs as both Saint Chrysostome and Tolet doe obserue Mirabilem eius conceptionem non virili virtute sed diuina potentia eum esse conceptum His wonderfull conception that he was made not by any vertue of mans seede but by the power of Gods Spirit who without any seede of man did frame and make the man Christ in the wombe of his Mother and therefore we are to obserue Of this wonderfull and diuine conception 1. The reason 2. The manner 3. The end First Neuer any one was made as Christ was made we reade that mankinde before Christ his comming was made three manner of wayes First without any man to be his father or any woman to be his mother as Adam Secondly of a man without a woman as Euah Thirdly of man and woman as all the off-spring of Adam but Christ after a fourth a more wonderfull manner was made of a woman without the helpe of a man and so we neuer reade of any other before him nor of any other after him for as the Flowers saith Protagoras Solummodo habent in coelo patrem in terra solummodo matrem Haue onely a Father in Heauen that is the Sunne by whose heate and vertue they grow and a mother onely in earth i. e. the ground from whence they spring so Christ the flower of the roote of Iesse hath onely a Father in Heauen without a mother and a mother onely in earth without a father and yet he is not another from his father and another from his mother Sed aliter est a patre aliter est ex matre But he is otherwise from his father and otherwise from his mother that is a true God of God his father and a true man of the Virgin his mother of two natures subsisting in one and the selfe-same person And the reason why he was borne of a woman Ambros in Luc. 24. Why Christ was borne of a Woman as Saint Ambrose saith was Ne perpetui reatus apud viros opprobrium sustinerent mulieres Lest women should still suffer the reproach of perpetuall guiltinesse and blame in the sight of men for their first transgression for her yeelding vnto the Serpent and the seducing of her Husband made her and all her Sexe to bee deseruedly subiect vnto much reproach and therefore though because the mankinde is more noble Christ would be made a Man yet because women should not be contemned he was contented to be borne of a woman Et sic formam viri assumendo Aug. cont faust de foemina nascendo vtrumque sexum hoc modo honorandum
manner and the matter wherein the true vnion of these natures chiefly consisteth it will easily appeare if we doe but obserue that all this may and doth agree with all the Saints and faithfull seruants of God for First God dwelleth in his Saints as in his Temples for We are the Temples of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 3.16 1 Cor. 6.19 and the Spirit of God dwelleth in vs saith the Apostle Secondly The Saints are one with God by will and affection 1 Cor. 6.17 Math. 6.10 for the Apostle sheweth vs plainely that he which is ioyned vnto the Lord is one spirit and wisheth rather that Gods will may be done then his owne as they doe daily in their prayers Thy will be done Thirdly That the Saints are Gods Instruments as be many times the wicked also whereby God worketh many excellent things the same Apostle sheweth where he saith That although there be diuersities of operations 1 Cor. 12.6 Rom. 15.19 yet it is the same God which worketh all in all Fourthly That the Saints are called The Sonnes of God and some of them also said to be Gods 1 Iohn 3.1 by the participation of many graces and titles which God hath giuen vnto them it is most plaine Psal 82.6 for I said you are Gods and the Children of the most High And so the Apostle sheweth Gal. 4.6.7 Gal. 4.6.7 and so in many other places And therefore seeing all the faithfull seruants of God may be truly said to be vnited vnto God in respect of the cohabitation of God in them and of their will and affection agreeable to the will of God and of the working of God in them and the bestowing of his names titles dignities and graces vpon them and that the vnion of this Word with our Flesh i. e. of the Diuine Nature with the humanity is farre otherwise then the vnion of the Saints with God it must needes follow that although it be true that there is a most perfect vnity of cohabitation affection operation and participation betwixt the two Natures of Christ yet this is not all but the vnion of them consisteth in a farre more excellent respect then any and all of these And therefore Secondly Brentius Smidelinus What the Lutherans teach concerning the vnion of the two natures of Christ and the rest of their Lutheran followers doe affirme this vnion of both these Natures to consist in the communication of the properties of the Deity to the humanity of Christ so as they are really transferred and the humanity inuested with the diuine properties And therefore they doe conclude that in respect of this reall communicating and transferring of attributes the manhood of Christ is omniscient omnipotent omnipresent and so forth But how grâ—sse this error is and how derogatory to the truth of Christian Doctrine it will easily appeare if we doe but consider those intollerable absurdities that of necessity must needes follow the same for First The absurdities that must needes follow the Lutheran Doctrine The Father and the Sonne should be hypostatically vnited one to the other and so be made one person for that it is most certaine as themselues must and doe confesse that the Father hath and doth communicate all his essentiall attributes and properties vnto the Sonne and therefore if the vnion of these two Natures consisteth in the communicating of properties the Father and the Sonne must be vnited into one person but this is most horribly absurd Therefore the other Secondly The whole Trinity should be incarnate because all the essentiall attributes of the Deity are common to the whole Trinity and to each person of the Trinity Thirdly The two natures of Christ could not be hypostatically vnited because there are certaine diuine properties which cannot be said to be communicated to the humanity of Christ as to be increated to be infinite to want beginning of time to be Ens independens an independant being and certaine things which Christ in respect of his Flesh had not before his passion and resurrection as to bee impassible immortall and such like Fourthly If this vnion consisted in the communicating of the properties then this transfusion of them must be reciprocall that is as the diuine properties are transfused into the humanity so the humane properties must bee likewise transfused into the Deity And then it must needes follow that as Omnipresency Omnisciency Vbiquity and such like are transfused into the humanity so passibility mortality and such like should be really transfused into the Deity but it were most absurd to say that the God-head is capable of humane fraileties And therefore it is as absurd to say that the Manhood was inuested with diuine Excellencies as they are Diuine And Fiftly If this were true then the humanity should be no humanity at all because freed from humane fraileties and inuested with diuine properties And therefore to expresse truly wherein this vnion consisteth Wherein the vnion of the two natures truly consisteth is shewed Thirdly We say that the vnion of these two Natures consisteth in the communicating of the subsistence of the Word with the humane nature that it assumed i. e. of the very being of the Word with the being of our Flesh so that it is an hypostaticall or personall vnion that is such an vnion as that both natures doe make but one person of Christ euen as the soule and body doe make but one person of man Jn Ep. Alex. Concilij anathem 2. for so saith the Councell of Calcedon the Councell of Lateran the Councell of Toledo Saint Cyril and all the Oxthodoxe Fathers that writ thereof Si quis non confitetur carni secundum subsistentiam vnitum Dei patris verbum anathema sit Whosoeuer confesseth not the eternall Word of the Father to be vnited vnto our flesh according to his subsistence let him be accursed And further wee say that the vnion of these two natures i. e. the God-head as it is limited to the second person of the Trinitie and the Manhood of Christ is 1. Inconuertible 2. Indiuisible 3. Inconfused 4. Inseperable Sixe speciall things obseruable in the vnion of the two natures of Christ 5. Substantiall 6. Ineffable First Inconuertible because neither the Diuine Nature is turned into the humanity nor the humanity into the Deity Secondly Indiuisible because the Natures are so vnited into one person that they can neuer be separated vnlesse we diuide the person of Christ which is most hereticall Thirdly Inconfused because the Natures remaine still intire without confounding either their Essence or their properties or their willes or any other operations whatsoeuer and therefore excepting onely his subsistence which is one that we make him not two persons with Nestorius we do affirme that in Christ there are two natures two willes two naturall proprieties and operations intire and vnmixed that we may not confound them with Eutyches for sith the natures are neither confused How the properties
it is 344 Angels for three things most excellent 535 Angels appeared like men but were neuer made men 534 Alwayes serued Christ 535 How they punish the wicked 536 How they comfort the women 537 Testifie of the resurrection of Christ 566 The birth of Christ 411. 411 Angell a name of office and Christ often called an Angell 330 Angels how they are said to ascend 609 Anger what euill it doth 229 That it is two-fold 355 Angell cannot beget another 4 Anselmus what he said 66 Christ why hee would not answere Pilate 477 AP. Approbation of sinne how euill it is 15 Apuleius his Asse what she said 92 Appearance and shew of truth how vaine it is 213 Apollinaris and some Arrians heresie 348 343 Apostles words He is the first borne of euery creature how vnderstood 290 Apelles his heresie 343 Application of Christs Resurrection is that onely thing which helpeth vs. 586 Apostacy what a fearefull sinne 595 Apostles onely filled with the holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost 658 To approue sinne in others what a great sinne 25 Appollodorus what he dreamed 55 Christ appeared ofen in the shape of man before he was made man 329 Christ appeared like a man vnto Adam 329 To Abraham 330. to Iacob and Ioshua 322 Christ appeared to the Patriarches in a true body 345 Chrâ—st appeared like a sinnefull man but without sinne 346 Christ how he appeared to Saint Paul going to Damascus 388 Apparitions of Christ after his Resurrection twelue times at least 505 Why he appeared first to Mary Magdalene 565 Why he appeared first to Saint Peter among the men 570 Why he appeared to Saint Iames. 574 AR. Arrius his heresie and obiections answered 248 c. 299 Arrians whether they corrupted the Text of Salomon God created c. 287 Armour of a Christian of two kindes 730 Arrogancy of Iudas seene 461 To argue from Gods power without testimony of his will not good 172 AS God made man to ascend 561 Christ ascended three times 615 Time place and manner of Christ his ascention 620. 621 Christ ascended aboue all heauens 624 Our ascention to Heauen depends vpon our vnion with Christ 626 Doctrine of Christs Ascention to what end it serueth 618 That we should alwayes ascend to heauen 630 Our wings to ascend what they be 631 Christ ascended for foure speciall ends 639 Christ before his ascention would not bestow the gifts of the Holy Ghost and why 640 That there be foure sorts of ascenders 609 Angels how said to ascend 609 Christ whether wholly destitute of all assistance from the Godhead 447 That Christ assumed our flesh 369 AT Athiests deny the power of God 136 AV First Author of our conuersion to God is God 529 Saint Augustine reading the death of Dido what he said 51 Christ borne in the raigne of Augustus and why 494 Desparagement to Augustus his worth to ioyne any other with him 504 What the Author thinketh of transubstantiation 549 BA BAcke-parts of God what it signifieth 117 Balaam prophesied of Christ 412 BE. Being of God not safe to search too farre into it 124 God giueth being to all creatures 125 Wee beleeue not the assertions of the Iesuites not because we know not how they may be done but because wee know they cannot be done 177 Beauty of God incomprehensible 191 We are begotten to God by the truth 215 Saint Bernards preaching two kindes of Sermons 266 The father alwaies begetteth the sonne 275 Christ made the beginning of our wayes 288 Benefits of Christs Incarnation 359 Benefits of the vnion of the two natures of Christ in respect of Christ 382 In respect of vs. 390 Gods benefits recommended to our memories 60 Benefits how many Christ bestowed on Iudas 458 Euery benefit requires a dutie 542 To beleeue in Christ is to eate and drinke him 681 Best men most hated in the world 435 Bethelem the place where Christ was borne 407 c. Christ why betrayed by Iudas 459 BJ Birds flying hardly catched 13 Birth of Christ how meane it was why 409 Why first reueiled to the Shepheards 412 BL How blinde sinners be 58 Our blindnesse seene and confessed by the Philosophers 59 A fable of a blinde widdow 58 Bloud of Christ shed fixe speciall times 164 Bloud of Christ the price that paid for all men 501 Blasphemy against the truth what a heauy sin 240 Shedding of mans bloud what a fearefull sinne 240 BO Bodies cannot beget soules 4 That Christ had a true body proued 341. 342 c. All the obiections to the contrary answered 344. 345. c. A naturall body must be locall 155 Body of Christ cannot be euery where 157 How it may be said to be euery where 169 To be a true body and to be euery where is meerely contradictory 170 Bodies glorified haue their dimensions 170 c. Body of Christ glorified from the first moment of his conception 171 Still a physicall body 172 For a body to be in one place and in many places at the same time is vnpossible 175 We may not referre that to the body which is truely spoken of the whole person of Christ 344 Christ appeared to the Patriarches in a true body 345 Body of Christ how said to doe diuine operations 38 Body of Christ how it may be truely said to bee in the Sacraments 549 Bodies raised at the resurrection of Christ testified of the resurection of Christ 579 Bodies in heauen shall be still quantatiue 171 What a bondage it is to serue sinne 99 Christ why borne in the raigne of Augustus and Herod 404 Why borne in December 405 Why vpon the Sabbath day ibid. And why presently after midnight 406. Why borne of a woman 334 And why of a Virgin ibid. A bountifull man is gracious 190 God most bountifull vnto all people 192 God not bound to giue power to the wicked to serue him 210 BR Brethren how variously taken 689 Brotherhood in respect of the Spirit greater then that in respect of flesh and bloud 689 Gentile brethren how they loued one another 690 CA. GIuing Canaan to the Israelites a type of giuing heauen to vs. 127 God calleth effectually none but the elect 203 God not the cause why the wicked serue not God 210 Causes of Christs sufferings 493 Instrumentally manifold 494 c. Efficient God himselfe and why 496 Finall 590 CE. Cerinthus his heresie 374 CH. Substance changed cannot be what it was and what it is both at once 173 God can change any substance into another 173 Charity most requisite for Preachers 642 Charity what it is 652 The surest signe of saluation ibid. Children liable to death 9 Tainted with sinne before they are borne 9 Childhood the miseries therof described 69 Our children to be married to the godliest men 109 The wicked shall bee punished in their children 245 How it stands with Gods iustice to punish the fathers sinnes vpon the children 245 ChildreÌ„ very apt to imitate their Parents 246 All
goodnesse teaching vs 1. To be afraid to sinne 2. Neuer to desp of Gods goodn 3. To imitate God in each one of the seauen forenamed points 3. By his iustice and that 1. Negatiuely not making the wicked innocent 2. Positiuely by visiting of the sins of the wicked 1. Vpon themselues 2. Vpon their children where is distinguished of 1. Parents 2. Sinnes 3. Children 4. Punishments This Treatise containeth 1. An Introduction of the excellency of the knowledge of Iesus C. wher is shewed that 1. his life is our chiefest direct 2. himselfe our onely consolatiō 2. An explication of that great mystery of the Incarnation of the Word where is handled 1. Who was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where is shewed 1. That there can be but one God and yet that there are three persons in the vnity of that one essence how these three persons are distinguished 1. By their personal actions 1. outward which are 1. Communic 2. Transcient 3. Voluntary 2. Inward which are 1. Permanent 2. Necessary 3. Incommunicable 2. By their nominall relation Father Son and Holy Ghost And that the person made is the second person of the blessed Trinitie To his father 1. Co-eternall 2. Co-essentiall 3. Co-equall And this is fully proued all obict plainely answered and from thence shewed 1. The greatnesse of Gods loue 2. The craftinesse of Satan 3. The peruersnes of hereticks 4. The vnthankfulnes of men 2. Three especiall things touching the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. 1. What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth i. e. the Word 2. Why Christ is tearmed the Word 3. Why the Euangelist vseth this word 1. Because this name of Christ was best knowne to the Iewes and to the Gentiles 2. Because it was the fit st word that he could vse to make way for his subsequent discourse 3. The impulsiue and the finall causes of the Words incarnation and the reasons why the Word rather then the Father or the holy Ghost was to be incarnate 2. What he was made flesh where is shewed 1. The manner of his conception the reasons and the end thereof 2. The matter that hee assumed 1. All our humane nature i. e. body and soule 2. All our humane frailties both of body and soule sinne onely excepted And here is shewed many excellent lessons that we ought to learne in respect 1. Of God 2. Of Christ 3. Of our selues 3. How the Word was made flesh or how the two natures diuine and humane doe make but one person in Christ where is shewed 1. The distinction of the two natures diuine and humane that they doe still remaine intire and inconfused is fully proued and the chiefest obiections made to the contrary are plainly answered 2. The vnion of the two natures in one personis explained and 1. The confirmatiō of the truth of this point is shewed and the greatest obie made against it are sufficiently answered 2. The manner of this vnion wherein it consisteth is expressed viz. 1. Not as the Arrians say onely in respect of 1. Cohabitation 2. Will and affection 3. Co-operation 4. Participation of his names and dignities vnto the manhood 2. But in the communicating of the subsistence of the Word with the subsistence of the manhood where is shewed that this vnion is 1. Inconuertible 2. Indiuisible 3. Inconfused 4. Inseperable 5. Substantiall 6. Ineffable 3. The chiefest benefits effects of the said vnion is shewed and that 1. In respect of Christ which are 1. An exēpt from all sin 2. A collation of ineffable graces into the manhood of Christ 3. A communication of the properties of each nature to the person of Ch. Where the obiection of the vbiquit indeuouring to proue the manhood inuested with Diuine properties are fully answered 2. In resp of vs viz our vnion and reconciliation with God all the happinesse we haue in this life or doe looke for in the life to come This Treatise containeth 1 An introduction of the meditation of Christ his death which is 1. Acceptable vnto God 2. Profitable for vs. 1. To hinder sinne 2. To kindle our charity 3. To erect our hope 2. A declaration of the passion of Christ wherein is handled 4. 1. The person suffering which was 1. A Man 2. A iust Man 3. A good Man 4. A King 5. A Priest 6. A Prophet 7. A God whereis shewed who are subiect to most affliction 2. The sufferings of Christ 1. In the garden of Gethsemane 1. Alone where is shewed 1. How the affections of Christ differ from ours in respect of the 1. Obiect 2. Maner 3. Effects 2. The cause of his agony in respect of 1. obiect 2. subiect where is †Explained 1. What might grieue Christ 1. In respect of himselfe 1. The greatnesse of his paine and shame 2. The deferring of his death and punishment 2. In respect of others 1. Small account he saw they would make of his death 2. The greatnesse of their punishment which hee knew they must suffer for that their neglect 2. What Christ might feare 1. The waight of sinne 2 The malice of Satan 3 The wrath of God 2 By others where is shewed 1. The treason of Iudas where is shewed 1. what Christ had done for Iudas 2. why Iudas betrayed Christ 3. how Iudas betrayed him 2. The flight of all the followers of Christ 3. The taking and binding of Iesus Christ 2. Before his Iudges viz. 1. Before Annas where 1. He is examined 1. Of his Disciples 2. Of his Doctrine 2. he is strucken by the hie P. ser 3. he is denied by his stoutest Ap. 2. Before Pilate the first time where hee is accused 1. Of impiety against God 2. Of treaso against Caesar 3. Before Herod where the mystery of cloathing Christ in white is explained 4. Before Pilate the 2. time where his scourging crowning with thorns c. is expressed 3. In Golgotha where is expressed 1. Those things that he suffered on the Cros 1. An accursed 2. A shamefull 3. A painefull 4. a lingring D where also is shewed the generality of his suffering 2. The 7. gracious words that he vttered many other speciall obseruat full of comfort 3. The necessity of Christ his sufferings in respect of the causes viz. 1. Instrumentall 1. The enuy of Satan 2. The malice of the Iewes 3. The couetousnesse of Iudas 4. The desire of the multitude 2. Efficient God himselfe for our sinnes out of the loue he bare to man 3. Finall 1. In resp of men 1 To saue the Elect by the vertue of his death 2. To make the wicked without excuse for neglecting his death 2. In resp of God for the glory of his blessed N. where is shewed that this should teach vs 1. To compassionate his death 2. To make vs thankefull for so great a benefit 3. To cause vs to loue him aboue all things in the world 4. To make vs ready to suffer any thing with him and for his sake 4. The
is traduced from the Parents into the Children 1. On the one side they say the childe receiueth from his Parents not his soule but onely his body for if the soule were ex traduce begotten by naturall generation then it must needs be traduced either from the body or from the soule of the Parents Whether the soule is begotten by the Parents If from the soule then is the soule subiect to deuision to corruption and then we might as well say an Angell may beget an Angell as to say one soule may beget another but to say that the body being an elementarie substance subiect to corruption should beget a spirituall soule that is incorruptible is more absurd as Aristotle doth most truely declare And therefore they say that the soule creando infunditur infundendo creatur is infused as it is created and created as it is infused and then as cleane water powred into a foule Cisterne must needes bee presently corrupted so the pure soule infused into a polluted flesh must needes be instantly defiled for he that toucheth pitch shall be defiled with pitch And to confirme this supposition they alledge that testimony of Scripture Heb. 12.9 where the Apostle calleth our naturall Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fathers of our flesh and God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father of Spirits 2. On the other side they say if the soule should not proceed from the Parents then not onely God might seeme to deale vniustly 1. In not performing his law when he saith Ezech. 18.20 the soule which sinneth the same shall dye and not the soule which neuer sinned 2. In the composing and ioyning together of two substances so vnequall to be vnited a pure soule that neuer offended infused into a most vnpure substance wholly corrupted but also the flesh must needes be yeelded to be the primarie seat of sinne and though it be a corporall grosse composition wanting life yet must it needes proue to be not onely the taynter and defiler but also to predominate and to be the guider and ruler of that spirituall substance which giues vs life which is euery way most absurd And so you see that as Saint Augustine saith of this traducta culpa the traduction of this sinne nihil ad predicandum notiu◠Aug. de moribus Ecclesiae c. 22. nihil ad intelligendum secretius nothing is better knowne to bee published for experience wofull experience shewes it that in Adam and through Adam all the race of mankinde is corrupted but how this corruption is traduced in the propagation of the posteritie nothing is harder to be expressed For as the Prophet Dauid saith we are fearefully and wonderfully made Psal 139.13 and ver 5. and the knowledge thereof is so excellent that we may well wonder at it but no wayes well attayne vnto it And therefore as a fellow fallen into a dungeon and crying vnto his companion for helpe that his life might be preserued his friend wondring how hee came there began to question with him which way he had fallen and how long he had continued but he replied Tu cogita quomodo hinc me liberes Aug. de moribus Eclesiae c. 26. non quomodo huc ceciderim quaeras I pray thee rather thinke thou how I may be deliuered then stand questioning how I came indangered so should we rather earnestly seeke the meanes how this originall corruption may be remoued from vs then curiously to search how it is traduced vnto vs. But because as it seemed vnto Festus to bee vnreasonable to send a prisoner Acts 25.27 and not withall to signifie the crimes laide against him so this seemes to me very vnfit to propose the doubts and not to doe our best to expresse the truth therefore I will set downe mine opinion touching this question that is full of contradiction That God created all soules at once as he did the Angels in the beginning and then infuseth them into the bodyes as they are still begotten of their Parents though it was an opinion much patronized by the Origenists yet hath it beene long exploded and truely confuted by the learned and that God still ex nihilo of nothing createth the soules as hee infuseth them into the bodies I see as little shew of reason as nothing yet alledged In what sence God is called the Father of spirits whereby the said thesis may be confirmed For the Apostle in the place aboue cited doth not meane that God is more properly a Father vnto our spirits i. e. our soules as if they were more immediately proceeding from God then of our bodies or that our naturall Parents are more properly the Fathers of our flesh then of our spirits for though the soule in regard of its spirituall being is neerer and more agreeable to the nature of God then the body yet in regard of its being God is the author the framer and the principall Father as well of the body as of the soule Psal 139.12 for my raynes are thine and thou hast couered me in my Mothers wombe saith the Psalmist And our naturall Parents may be truely said to be the instrumentall authors and begetters of the soule as well as of the body for Gen. 5.3 when it is said that Adam begat a childe in his image wee must not referre this image onely to the similitude of the body but also to the like qualities and properties of the soule and so wholly like him both in body and soule and the Apostle by the Fathers of our flesh doth vnderstand Fathers of our corruptible being such as make vs naturall men and no more and by Father of spirits he vnderstandeth the Father of our spirituall birth which makes vs spirituall men and so the meaning of the Apostle is no more but this viz. That euery godly man hath a double being If we doe so reuerently and so contentedly suffer the correction of those Fathers which giue vs our naturall being quae nascimur ad laborem nascimur ad mortem whereby we are borne to miseries born to die how much more contentedly should we receiue the chastisements of that Father which giues vs our spirituall being qua nascimur ad salutem nascimur ad vitam whereby we are borne vnto Sanctification and brought vnto eternall saluation For all men may easily see from the context of the place it selfe that the Apostle speaketh thus not of the naturall and carnall men that are borne only of flesh and blood but of these spirituall and regenerate men which are also borne of water and of the Spirit And therefore seeing the Apostle here by Spirit vnderstandeth the fruits of the Spirit that is the spirituall graces of regeneration whereby we liue sayth the Apostle that is eternally as the coherence of the place and the maine scope of the Apostle makes it playne and not the Soules or Spirits of our naturall generation I say that the parents begetting a childe doe beget
an haire of their head so absolute is his Power that what he will and as he will he can easily bring to passe Secondly his Power is said to be absolute Quia est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly he can hinder what he will not Gen. 11.8 because hee is subiect to no hinderance he can easily hinder whatsoeuer is intended against his will as he did to build the Tower of Babel and Saul to persecute his poore Church but none can hinder him to doe whatsoeuer he will for as the Prophet Esay saith There is none that can deliuer out of his hands Esay 43.13 and if hee will worke who shall hinder it no counsell no strength no indeuour of any created thing can any thing preuaile against God and therefore Daniel saith that the Throne of God was like a fiery flame and his wheeles like burning fire to shew that against God there is no resistance saith Amandus Polanus Polan tom 1. p. 513. And Saint Augustine saith that in this respect God is said to be omnipotent Quod faciat quae vult non patiatur quae non vult Because he doth what he will and suffereth nothing to be done that he will not None can hinder him to doe what he will but he can hinder any thing that he will not and therefore Salomon saith Many deuices are in a mans heart Prou. 19.21 but the counsell of the Lord shall stand that is let men plot what they will nothing shall be effected that God will not Gods Power to bâ— considered two wayes Thirdly his Power is said to be absolute because he can dâ—e more then either he doth or will doe for we must vnderstand that the Power of God is to be considered either 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely or 2. Ex hypothesi relatiuely as it hath respect and relation vnto the will and Wisedome of God Goclen disquit Plot os p. 133. In the first sence the absolute Power of God is that whereby God can simply doe whatsoeuer hath the possibility of being and therefore by this Power God could and can doe many infinite things more then he doth and more then he hath reueiled vnto vs that he wil do as by and by I shal declare vnto you That the will and decree of God is the rule and measure of the ordinary Power of God In the second sence the hypotheticall or conditionall Power of God which is called the Actuall Power of God and vnto which pertaineth the ordinary Power of God whereof Scaliger speaketh Exercitatione 365. Sect. 8. is that whereby God can doe onely what he will and not those things which he will not and so his Power extenâ—s it selfe no further then his will nor his will any further then his Power but as Saint Ambrose saith Voluntas eius potestas cius his will and his Power are both alike And therefore it is apparant that God by his absolute Power can doe a great deale more then he doth or can doe by his ordinary Power because by that hee can doe all things that are possible to be done but by this he can doe but onely those things which he willeth and hath decreed to bee done To make it more plaine God could of these stones raise vp children vnto Abraham Matth. 3.9 saith Iohn Baptist that is by his absolute Power but hee could not doe it by his ordinary Power because he would not So the Father could haue beene incarnate and made man by his absolute Power because this doth neither destroy his nature nor imply a contradiction but he could not doe this by his hypotheticall or conditionall Power because it repugneth with the decree of Gods will so he could and can create a thousand worlds by his absolute Power but he cannot doe it by his ordinary Power because he willeth no more and to say all in a word God can doe onely these things which out of his goodnesse and wiseddme which is the rule by which the ordinary Power of God is guided he hath from all eternity decreed that he would doe by his limited and ordinary actuall Power but hee can doe not onely this but also all things else that he can will and many thousand times more then either he doth or willeth to be done by his absolute and illimited power This is the truth you shall heare the proofe For First Our Sauiour Christ himselfe saith vnto Peter That God by his absolute power can doe more then he doth or euer did Matth. 26.53 Put vp thy sword into his place Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father and he shall presently giue me more then twelue legions of Angels And therefore it is apparant that both he could haue asked his Father that his Father could haue supplyed him yet neither of them would do that which they were able to doe Secondly the Fathers doe thus explaine this Truth for Saint Augustine saith Consequens est vt quod est esse potuerit c. Aug in Enchirid ad Laurent c. 95. in l. de nat grat c. 7. It is consequent that that which is might be but it is not consequent that that which might be is for because the Lord raised Lazarus from the graue it is without doubt that hee could doe it and because he did not raise Iudas i. e. spiritually from sinne shall we say that he could not doe it therefore he could but hee would not for if hee would haue done it hee might with the same power haue raised him from sinne as hee did the other from his graue because Iohn 5.21 the Sonne quickneth whom he will So Tertullian in his booke against Praxeas saith Tertul. contra Prax. Non quia non potest facere ideo credendum est illum non fecisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum We must not therefore beleeue that God hath not done those things which hee hath not nor will not doe because he cannot doe them but we must enquire what he hath done or will doe for assuredly he could if he would haue giuen vnto man wings to flie withall as he did vnto the birds of the ayre he could presently destroy Praxeas and all other Heretickes whatsoeuer and yet he doth not doe it because he can doe it 1 Cor. 11.19 Luk. 24.46 for there must be Heretickes and it behooued Christ to haue suffered In this respect may any thing be said to be hard for God to doe that is whatsoeuer hee will not doe not because hee cannot doe it but because hee is not willing to doe it Quia Dei posse velle est non posse nolle est because that to bee able with GOD is to be willing and not to be able is to be vnwilling because hee can doe whatsoeuer hee will doe Damasc ad Calcem l. 1. And so Damascen saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He can doe whatsoeuer
he will but willeth not whatsoeuer he can for he can consume the world but hee willeth it not And so we see that God can both will and doe much more things then he did or doth or will doe by his absolute and illimited Power Anselm in l. qui dr cur deus homo The saying of diuers Authors reconciled by this distinction of Gods ordinary and absolute power And this distinction well obserued doth make way to reconcile the writings and the opinions of diuers both ancient and moderne Writers in many points concerning the power of God for whereas Anselmus thinketh it was so needfull for humane kinde to be repayred by the passion of Christ as that otherwise it could not possibly haue beene redeemed because no meere or bare creature could possiby effect so great a repairation It is most true of the ordinary Power of God and in respect of the necessity of conueniency and the appointed ordinance of the Diuine wisedome because God had decreed it so to be and therefore it could not otherwise be And whereas Scotus saith Aliter potuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri That the ransome of mans redemption might haue beene otherwise paid Quam per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortem then by death of him that was both God and Man so that which Saint Augustine saith Alium modum redimendi hominem Deo non defuisse that God could otherwise haue redeemed man if it had pleased him it is most true if we vnderstand it of his absolute Power to which all things are subiect as Saint Augustine speaketh Aug. l. 13. de Trinitate And so in like manner that saying of Damascen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is vnpossible for nature to subsist if you take away the naturall proprieties therof is true if we vnderstand it of Gods ordinary Power but it is false if we vnderstand it of Gods absolute Power because that whatsoeuer is created is so created that any thing may be made of any thing by the absolute power of God as blood may be made water Psal 78.45 Iohn 2.9 Dan. 3.25 and water wine the fire not to burne and the water not to quench for though the ordinary power of God is limited and guided by his will to doe all things according to his prescribed rule yet is his absolute power so free and so large that as his will can will any thing that is willible so can this power doe any thing that is possible or hath the possibility of being But now we are come into the greatest depth of this Doctrine to know how farre this absolute power of God extendeth Of the extent of Gods absolute Power or to know what are those things which by this absolute and vnlimited power of God may be effected for Some affirme or rather faigne that by this absolute power of God all things simply may be done which can be either spoken or imagined yea euen those things which are impossible in their owne nature to be done and do imply the greatest contradictions as they which do contend striue to proue that God can make a humane and a naturall body to be euery where The erronious conceits of many men about the absolute Power of God and that bread should be bread and yet transubstantiated into flesh and that accidents should subsist without their subiects and so the greatest part of the vulgar sort which thinke that God is therefore called Almighty because he can doe all things that can be imagined Nam qui dicit omnia excludit nihil for hee which saith all things excepteth nothing and if there be any thing which he doth not do that this happeneth because he wil not and not because he cannot But such fictions are to be reiected and the blasphemies of them which attribute such an absolute power vnto God as that he can sinne and lie and doe all things else without order without reason without truth and without Iustice are to be execrated and accursed because the Apostle saith himselfe there be some things which God cannot doe as God which cannot lye Titus 1.2 which cannot deny himselfe 2 Tim. 2.13 and therefore others of a sounder iudgement for the more fully expressing the truth of this point haue vsed diuers formes of answeres but they all fall at last to the same end as First some say that God can do all those things which neither signifie imperfection nor imply a contradiction To sinne to sleep to walke and such like doe argue imperfection in them that doe them and to cause those things which haue been done not to haue been done or the things that are not to be doth imply a contradiction How diuers men haue explained this point Secondly others say that God can doe all those things wich are nothing derogatory to the Power of God but all those things which denotate a priuation of power Et quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potius quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significant and which shew an impotency rather then omnipotency must needs be derogatorie to the Power of God So to sinne is a signe of weaknesse because it signifieth a priuation of rectitude in any action So to moue because the mouer cannot be euery where and to suffer because the sufferer cannot resist and to die because we cannot liue and such like they doe all shew impotency and weakenesse in the doers and therefore Gods not being able to doe these things doth sufficiently argue the infinitenesse of his Power Aug. l. 1. c. 1. de Symbolo Jdem de Trinitate l 15. c. 15. for if he could sinne or die â—eceiue or be deceiued then could he not be omnipotent saith Saint Augustine Ideo magna Dei potentia mentiri non posse And therefore it is from the greatnesse of Gods Power that he cannot lye that he cannot deny himselfe saith Saint Augustine Thirdly Others doe more briefly say that God can doe all those things which are not repugnant to the nature of God and this answere they doe collect out of Saint Augustine Idem in l. de spiritu litera where he saith that God cannot doe any iniustice because he is Iustice it selâ—e neither can he deny himselfe because he is faithfull as the Apostle speaketh nor die because he is life nor he because he is Truth nor sinne because he is the chiefest goodnesse nor doe any corporall acts such as are to walke to moue to eate and the like because he is an immoueable Spirit and the purest act with whose nature no corporall act can square to fall on him And so as Saint Augustine saith in another case Alij atque alij alijs atque alijs loquendi formulis vsi sunt Diuers men haue framed diuers answeres vnto this point and I out of them all doe with the most learned Zanchius say Zanch. de natura Dei that God can doe all those things Quae neque apud deum
neque sua natura simpliciter sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which are neither contrary to the Nature of God nor yet of their owne Nature simply impossible to be done What things are repugnant to the Nature of God First of the first kinde are all those actions which though they may be done of the creatures yet haue they no place with God and such are to sinne to moue to die to walke to eate and all other humane acts and so whatsoeuer doth repugne the nature of God or be any wayes contrary to his essentiall or personall properties because to be able to doe these things were to euert and destroy the nature and properties of God And therefore God cannot imagine any folly because this doth contradict his Wisedome August ser 119. de temp he cannot suffer any sinne to goe vnpunished because that is contrary to his Iustice neither can he lye because that is contrary to his Truth neither can he doe but he must be iust good wise pure inuisible incorporeall so forth not onely because that to be able to doe this would argue a defect of power but especially because the denyall and sublation or taking away of these properties is the negation and destruction of the Essence of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the taking away of the essentiall properties Theodor. Dialog 3. is the abolishing of the nature saith Theodoret And therefore these and the like things which doe repugne with the essentiall or personall properties of God cannot be done on Gods part nor by God though they may be done by the creatures because in very deede he cannot by any meanes will to doe these things for none can naturally will That God cannot will those things that are contrary to his nature to bee contrary to that which naturally he willeth to be as no man can naturally will himselfe to be miserable because euery man naturally willeth felicitie and therefore seeing God is naturally Wise True and Good it is most absolutely necessarie that hee should alwayes Will Wisedome Trueth and Goodnesse and cannot possibly Will the contrary as Theodoret doth most excellently say Dominus Deus nihil vult eorum quae non sibi suapte natura insunt potest quaecunque vult vult quae naturae suae apta conuenientia sunt God cannot will any of those things which are not naturally agreeable vnto him he can doe what he will Jdem quo supra and he can will whatsoeuer is apt and agreeable to his nature Secondly Of the second kinde are all those things How contradictories doe destroy each other which implie a contradiction as for a thing to bee and not to bee together because all such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are simply and absolutely impossible as contradictorily repugning and so destroying one another and therefore can no wayes be done Quia res talis non potest habere rationem factibilis Because such a thing hath not the reason nor way nor possibilitie of being done as Thomas sayth and therefore wee doe say that God can neither doe nor will contraries as good and euill which in a nature absolutely and euery way simple cannot subsist Trelcatius in thesi de Deo Amand Polan in Synt nor yet contradictories as to make a thing to be and not to be which in the essence of God voide and cleere from all falsehood and most perfect in all trueth can haue no place sayth Trelcatius And so we doe affirme that God cannot make that a triangle should be a triangle and yet not to haue three angles or corners or that a triangle should haue three angles and not three angles that that which is while it is should not be that those things which haue beene made How all antiquitie teacheth that God cannot doe contradictories Mark 10.27 should not haue beene made that a body should be a true naturall body and yet destitute and free from all those naturall proprieties which doe as it were constitute the very being of the thing and without which the very diffinition of the thing is taken away and all other such things which doe simplie implie a contradiction And we finde all Men in all ages to haue confest and to haue taught the same trueth for venerable Bede expounding those words of Marke All things are possible with God sayth it is not so to bee vnderstood that the couetous proud men can with their pride and couetousnesse enter into the kingdome of Heauen because this is impossible vnto God because neither the Couetous nor the Proud as God himselfe doth testifie by the mouth of his Apostle 1 Cor. 6.9.10 shall inherite the kingdome of God but that it is possible for God as often it hath beene done and we daily see it to bee done so to worke in the hearts of these wicked and vngodly Men that by the preaching of his Word and the working of his spirit they should be conuerted and weaned from the loue of worldly things and be inflamed with the longing desire of Heauenly things Venera Bede in Marc. C. 11. Et à perniciosa superbia ad humilitatem saluberrimam reducantur And bee reduced from their aspiring and pernicious pride vnto that most wholesome practise of humilitie in which words hee plainely sheweth that God cannot doe those things which doe implie a contradiction So S. Augustine against Faustus the Manachie and in many other places and so Aquinas The most horrible impieties of them which say God can worke all contradictories and all Schoole-Diuinitie doe all of them teach the same trueth And they that say otherwise doe but mocke both God and Man and take away all trueth from Diuine and Humane things and lay open a most vnsufferable and vnrepairable gappe for all wicked Hereticks for God which is immutably and infallibly true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the verie trueth it selfe can neither will nor suffer that an affirmation should bee a negation that an yea should bee a nay or that trueth and falshood should bee mixed together in the very selfe-same simplest subiect as this is fire and not water and this very selfe-same thing is water and not fire at the same time and in the same respect or this is bread and not flesh and this is flesh and not bread that is one thing to bee two distinct things at the selfe-same time and in the selfe-same respect I say it is vnpossible for the trueth of God to doe Aug. cont Faustum l. 26. c. 81 as Saint Augustine doth most excellently and largely shew against Faustus Manichaeus And therefore I cannot sufficiently wonder who hath bewitched our Vbiquitaries which doe so stiffely contend that the Body of Christ remayning a true body and yet notwithstanding may bee and is euery where illocall inuisible and so forth for if these things be not meerely contradictorie
Creator and the Sonne of God is so produced as that hee receiued the substance of the begetter And therefore in that respect he is said to be begotten but he receiueth it without any mutation or alteration of the begetter and therefore in that respect he may be saide to be created And so he is sometimes said to be begotten and sometimes said to bee created not that any man should thereby denie his eternity and thinke him to be a creature but that from both these words wee might receiue what is fitting and reiect what seemeth to be vnfit for the declaration of this ineffable and inexplicable mystery Ob. 4 Fourthly They doe obiect the words of Dauid Thou art my sonne this day haue I begotten thee And therefore before that day wherein hee was begotten his sonne hee was not his sonne Sol. The words of Dauid are spoken of Christ in respect of his manhood I answere That the words Inquire of me and I will giue thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance and the vttermost parts of the Earth for thy possessions doe sufficiently proue that these words are spoken of his incarnation and not of his eternall generation for how should he according to his Diuinity demand the ends of the Earth for his possessions when as hee giueth the Kingdome of Heauen which is a thousand times more then the Earth to them that loue him And therefore he which according to his God-head possesseth all things with his Father according to the forme of a seruant which hee assumed for our saluation he requireth of his Father that hee might haue The Gentiles for his inheritance and the vttermost parts of the Earth for his possessions Act. 13. And thus the Apostle doth expound this place in the 13. Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles Ob. 5 Fiftly They doe obiect the words of the Apostle that he is The first-borne of euery Creature Coloss â— 15 and therefore created in the number of the Creatures Sol. That the words of the Apostle are to be vnderstood of the humanity of Christ Rom. 8.29 I answere That this is also meant of his humanity for that the Apostle speaketh here of the Creatures restored and not created because he is said to be Primogenitus ex mortuis The first fruites of the dead for if he were called The first fruites of euery Creature according to his Deity by what testimonies can it be shewed that he is The first-borne of the dead before all Creatures when as they could not be said to be dead which were not yet created And therefore the Apostle saith That whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of his Sonne Iohn 1. that he might be the first-borne among many brethren To shew that he which according to his Deity is the onely begotten Sonne of God without brethren is according to his humanitie c. 3. the first-borne among many brethren for we must vnderstand this difference betwixt the first-begotten Sonne of God and the onely begotten Sonne of God that the first sheweth his humanity whereby he became man the first and chiefest among many brethren and the second his Diuinitie Iohn 1. whereby hee is the eternall Sonne of God without any brethren or otherwise it were in vaine to call him the onely begotten Sonne of God for that hee gaue power vnto others euen as many as beleeue in him to bee made the Sonnes of God and therefore if hee be not his Sonne by nature then without doubt he lost the name and the truth of being the onely begotten Sonne of God after he began to haue many brethren But because none of his sonnes by adoption Fulgen. in resp ad ob Arrian can be said to be the onely begotten sonne of God nor to be the Son of God â—ather then the rest be because the same name of sonnes is acommodated vnto them all although diuers rewards of retribution is promised vnto them according to the diuersitie of â—heir labours therefore is Christ still said to be the onely begotten Sonne of God because though there be many sonnes of God by grace yet there is none but he alone his Sonne by Nature And this difference doth our Sauiour Christ himselfe shew vnto vs when he saith I goe to my Father and to your Father Iohn 20.17 to my God and to your God because he is otherwise my Father and my God then he is your Father and your God for he is my Father eternally by nature and he is yours in time by grace and therefore hee that is first begotten in respect of his man-hood among many brethren is likewise still the onely begotten Sonne of God in respect of his God-head without any brethren And so you see that maugre all the spite of Hell it is most apparantly true that this Word is the true God for time coeternall vnto his Father CHAP. IIII. Of the coessentiality of the word with the Father and the obiections that are made against the same sufficiently answered SEcondly you haue heard of the eternall Godhead of this Word it followeth that I should shew vnto you how for nature he is coessentiall vnto his Father touching which point Athanasius saith Non res quaepiam extrinsecus adinuenta est filij substantia neque ex nihilo inducta est sed ex patris essentia nata est The substance of the Sonne is no outward thing either found or created but begotten of the very Essence of his Father euen as you see the brightnesse springing from the light or the vapour from the water Neque enim splendor neque vapor est ipsa aqua aut ipse sol neque res aliena For neither the light is the Sunne it selfe nor the vapour the water it selfe and yet they are none other things of another kind then be the substances from whence they spring euen so the Sonne issueth from the substance of his Father Et tamen patris sustantia non perpessa est partitionem And yet the substance of the father aâ—mits no partition for as the Sunne remaineth still the same Athanas in ep cont Eusebium and is no way lessened or diminished in respect of those beames that flow from him so the Father suffereth no mutation by hauing begetting Suam ipsius imaginem filium This his Son and eternall image but remaining still the same he begetteth his Son of the same Essence and we find not only all the Orthodox fathers but also the Scriptures plain enough to confirm the same truth for our Sauiour saith I and my Father are one And so S. Iohn hauing spoken of the Father Iohn 10 3â— the Word and the Spirit 1 Iohn 5.7 saith That these three are one And reason it selfe must needs confirme the same for seeing the Diuine Essence is most simple impartible and indiuisible and that the Father is God as none denyeth and that the Sonne is God as I haue already
proued and that the Holy Ghost is God as all the holy Fathers haue as sufficiently confirmed yet that there are not three Gods but one God Athan. in Sym. as Athanasius sheweth therefore it must needs follow that all three haue but one and the selfe-same Essence and consequently that the Sonne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patri Consubstantiall or co-essentiall vnto his Father and therefore also hence it must needs follow that as Caluin saith our Sauiour Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A God of himselfe independent as absolute as the Father is And yet for the better vnderstanding of this point how Christ may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe Thom. p. 1. q. 33. we must consider that Aliud est habere essentiam Diuinam à seipso How Christ is God of himselfe aliud habere essentiam diuinam à seipsa existentem It is one thing to haue his Diuine Essence from himselfe and another to haue his Diuine Essence existing of it selfe To say that the person of the Sonne hath his Diuine Essence that is his personall being from himselfe we cannot because it is from the Father the Father communicating his whole Essence vnto the Sonne and therefore we say that the Sonne Ratione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of his personall being is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe but God of God and Light of Light as the Nicen Councell hath it because the person of the Sonne existeth from the person of the Father but to say that the Sonne hath his Diuine Essence existing of it selfe Idem ibid. is most certaine Quia remota relatione ad patrem sola restat essentia qua est à seipsa for taking away the relation of the Sonne vnto the Father there remaineth but the Essence which is of it sâ—lfe and therefore we say that the Sonne Quoad essentiam absolutam In respect of his absolute Essence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A God of himselfe because the Essence of the Sonne is the very same that the Essence of the Father is And so to this truth set downe by Caluine Bellarmine himselfe subscribeth Bellar. de Christo But the old and new Arrians cannot endure to yeeld him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Essence with his Father but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some other such like Essence but not of the same substance as Athanasius sheweth Athan. in l. de expositione fidej And therefore they doe obiect First against the Word here vsed by the Fathers to expresse this truth Secondly against the truth and true meaning of the matter contained and declared by this Word Ob. Idem in l. de decret Con. Nicen. First for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though first found out by themselues yet of all others the Arrians could not indure it as Athanasius witnesseth because as they said neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 essence nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same essence can be found any where in all the Scriptures Sol. That the word Essence is plainely deriued out of Scriptures Rom 1.20 To this Epiphanius answereth that although the name of essence in plain tearme is not found either in the Old or New Testament yet the sense and signification thereof the Synonomie and aequiualencie of the same is obuiously found in many places for the Apostle speaketh of his eternall power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Godhead and what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Godhead but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Essence of God Philip. 2. and so he speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the forme of God but the forme of any thing is no lesse Philosophicall then the Essence of that thing and Saint Peter saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That wee might bee made partakers of the Diuine Nature 2 Pet. 1.4 but the nature of God and the Essence of God are both the same Besides Essence is deriued of esse to be and it is the abstract of the name or Word which in the concrete is called ens being but God is said to be both ens esse Exod. 3.14 the chiefest being and to be in the Scriptures as ego sum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am that I am and hee that is hath sent me vnto you and therefore if the Scriptures call him ens the being why may not we call him essence for though it cannot be well said That abstract names are most agreeable to God that man is humanitie in the abstract yet because God is most simple by nature we may as well speake of him in the abstract as in the concrete nay the abstract names are more properly agreeable vnto him then the concrete as to say that he is Truth rather then true Wisdome rather then wise iustice Dionys de Diuin nominibus rather then iust and so essence or being rather then to be as Dionysius saith And further we finde the word Essence vsed in the Scripture for where the prodigal Child saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 15.12 Father giue me the portion of thy substance which pertaineth to me he vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to expresse his fathers substance and what is the riches or the substance of God but his Diuinitie and therefore the word Essence is not improper nor altogether inuented without Scripture to expresse the Nature of GOD. And for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coessentiall or of the same essence That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Essence was not first vsed by the Fathers of Athanasius time the fathers answere that it was not first inuented by the fathers of the Nicen Councell as the Arrians falsely affirmed for one of themselues denying the Deitie of Christ said that if they should yeeld Christ to be a true God then must it follow that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same essence with God whereupon Hosius and the rest of the Orthodox fathers concluded that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same essence with God and it was vsed long before that time though not controuerted by Dionysius Romanus Dionysius Alexandrinus Origen Theognostus and others as Athanasius affirmeth Secondly they say that it was not so far fetcht as the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of another essence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the like essence which themselues vsed to deny the coessentiality of the Sonne of God with his Father so free were they to deuise what they would to maintaine errours and so strict against the defenders of the truth Thirdly Luk 6. Deut 7.6.14.2.26 Ambros l. 3. c. 7. de fide they alleadge that the Scriptures vsed the like words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Moses calleth the children of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate a speciall people or a peculiar chosen people vnto himselfe a people as
keepe my saying my Father will loue him and wee will come vnto him and make our abode with him but to abide with vs doth not signifie to remaine without vs but to dwell within vs as the Apostle sheweth Ephes 3.16 17. when hee prayeth that the Saints might bee strengthened with might by the Spirit in the inner man and that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith That to bee with God and to be in God is the same Thirdly He proueth that to be with God and to bee in God is aequiualent and the very same in many things for Moses sayth God is faithfull in whom there is no iniquitie and Dauid sayth the Lord is righteous and there is no iniquitie in him and yet Saint Paul sayth numquid iniquitas apud Deum is their iniquitie with God God forbid and Saint Iames sayth with whom there is no variablenesse nor shadow of turning i. e. in whom there is no mutabilitie and therefore as the Euangelist sayth eere The Word was with GOD so our Sauiour sayth else-where Iohn 10.38 I am in the Father and the Father is in mee And therefore it appeareth plainely that Christ is not with God as one man is with another as Saint Paul sayth that hee remained with Saint Peter fifteene dayes for so to be with one is to be without him as a guest by the affection of charitie and not to be substantially in him as the same by the law of equity but Christ is with God as the word is within the minde or the councell is within the heart or life it selfe within the soule so that as the soule cannot bee without life no more can God bee without this Word And therefore also wee must obserue a great difference That we are not in God as Christ is in God betwixt our being with God and in God and Christ his being with God and in God for when it is spoken of vs our naturall vnion with God is no wayes meant but either the power of the Creator or the pietie of the redeemer is alwayes vnderstood and therefore it is sayd that hee gaue vs power to be the sonnes of God but this Word is not made but naturally and eternally begotten the Sonne of God and therefore though we be called sonnes and hee called Sonne wee called Gods and he called God we sayd to be begotten and hee sayd to bee begotten yet heerein is the difference that hee is so naturally and essentially we so called by grace whereby it is giuen vnto vs to be made the sonnes of God And so much for the co-essentialitie of the Word with his Father CHAP. V. Of the co-equalitie of the Word with his Father and the chiefest obiections made against the same most cleerely and sufficiently answered THirdly You haue seene that this Word is co-eternall and co-essentiall with his Father it followeth that I should speake of his co-equalitie with his Father and this poynt is as cleere as the former because in an essence most simple there cannot be so much as imagined more or lesse and therefore Fulgentius sayth most excellently that seeing Christ is from euerlasting Baruch 3.25 because he is the eternall Wisedome and power of God seeing he is immeasurable because hee is great and hath no end and seeing he is most highest as Zacharias sheweth in his speech of Iohn the Baptist Luke 1.76 that hee should bee called the Prophet of the most Highest that is of Christ he must needs be in all respects equall vnto his Father Nam quid anterius sempiterno quid maius immenso quid superius altissimo For what can be before him that hath beene before all things what can bee greater then that which is immeasurable or what can be higher then that which is highest and so Saint Iohn sayth that the Iewes sought the rather to kill him Iohn 5 1â— because hee did not onely breake the Sabboth but also sayd that God was his Father making himselfe equall to God But the Arrians doe obiect that Christ did not teach himselfe Ob. 1 to bee equall with his Father but that the Iewes mistooke him and thought he did so I answere that this is false for as Saint Cyrill Sol. That the Iewes rightly vnderstood that Christ taught that he was aequall with God Saint Chrysostome Saint Augustine and others doe affirme the Iewes did rightly vnderstand our Sauiour and the Euangelist sheweth as much for if they had either mis-conceiued his meaning or mis-construed his words then surely either Christ or the Euangelist would haue giuen vs some notice thereof that so we might not erre after them especially in so great a matter for so we finde that when the Capernaits vnderstood his words of an Orall eating of his flesh our Sauiour perceiuing their error how they mis-vnderstood his words John 6.62 sayd presently the flesh profiteth nothing and that the words which hee spake were Spirit and Life and so when he sayd John 2.20 Destroy this Temple and I will build it vp againe in three dayes and the Iewes thought that he spake it of their stately Materiall temple v. 21. that was forty sixe yeeres a building the Euangelist presently tells vs that hee spake it of the temple of his Body but neither Christ nor the Euangelist doe here giue vs the least intimation of their mistaking of his meaning but doe rather approue their right apprehension of our Sauiours words and therefore it must needs follow that Christ taught himselfe to be aequall vnto his Father Ob. 2 Secondly They doe obiect that Christ himselfe sayth my Father is greater then I Iohn 14.20 and therefore Christ is not aequall vnto his Father Sol. Basil l. 1. in Eunomium Nazian orat 4. de Theol. Hilar. l. 9. de trinit To this Saint Basill answereth that the Father is greater then the Sonne ratione principij in respect of his beginning for that there is noted a certain kind of authoritie or maioritie in the Father because hee is the beginning of the sonne and doth communicate his whole essence vnto the sonne which the sonne doth not vnto the Father that is that the Father is the beginning of the person of the sonne but not of the essence of the sonne as I sayd before Others would haue the Father to be greater then the sonne ratione nominis onely in respect of the name because the name of a Father seemeth to be greater then the name of a Sonne How the Father is greater then Christ But Athanasius in my iudgement answereth best that Christ is aequall to the Father as touching his Godhead but inferiour to the Father as touching his manhood for Christ sayth I goe to the Father Iohn 4.28 because the Father is greater then I and therefore he is inferiour to the Father in respect of that nature wherin he goeth to the Father but hee cannot bee sayd to goe to the Father as he is
one kinde of flesh of Men another flesh of Beasts another of Fishes 1 Cor. 15.39 another of Birds And therefore to expresse what kinde of flesh hee tooke Gal. 4.4 Saint Paul saith He was made of a Woman that is of the flesh and bloud and substance of his Mother and so he saith That he was made of the seede of Dauid Rom. 1.3 And therefore it must needes follow Heb. 4.15 that hee was made in all things like vnto his brethren sinne onely excepted for the seede of the Parents is the first matter and substance whereof the man is made And if it be true what Aristotle and the Phylosophers doe affirme that Semen patris in substantiam fatus non cadit sed ad menstruum mulieris se habet tanquam artifex ad artificium The seede of the man doth not fall into the substance of the Childe but doth so dispose the seede of the woman as a workeman frameth and disposeth his worke to make the same into the forme of man as this is most probable to be true although Galenus and the Physicians say the contrary then haue we no reason at all to thinke that hee tooke not all the whole nature of man because he had another worker to dispose and to frame the same substance into the forme of man seeing he was made of the same whole substance as all other men are made of and especially seeing hee had a farre more excellent agent to worke the same then any seede of man can be for seeing Ibi potior effectus vbi nobilior est causa The effect is euer better where the cause is more excellent Reason it selfe sheweth that we haue no reason to thinke that he was defectiue in any thing that pertained to the perfection of humane nature or of the naturall properties of the same And therefore seeing he was made of a woman i. e. of the seede and substance of the woman as all other men be differing onely in the manner of his conception or in the agent and worker of his substance which made him free from all sinne because to the same end he was conceiued by the Holy Ghost which all other men could not be because they are conceiued by the helpe of mans seede it is most apparant that he assumed 1. All our humane nature that is a true humane body and a reasonable humane soule 2. All our naturall properties and infirmities sinne onely excepted That Christ was made a perfect man First That he was a perfect man of a reasonable soule and humane flesh subsisting it may be thus confirmed First because he is a perfect Mediator for he cannot be a perfect Mediator except he be a perfect man but the Apostle saith 1 Tim. 2.5 that there is one Mediator i. e. one perfect and absolute Mediator betwixt God and man euen the Man Christ Iesus therefore he must needs be a perfect man Secondly because he is a Priest for euery Priest by the Law was to be perfect in all parts or if he was maimed in any part he was to offer no sacrifice vnto GOD but Christ is a Priest for euer therefore he must needes be a perfect man Psal 110.4 wanting neither soule nor body Thirdly because he is our sacrifice for the Law requireth that euery sacrifice should be perfect and to want no part nor to haue any blemish at all but Christ is our sacrifice and hath offered vp himselfe a sweet smelling sacrifice vnto God for vs and therefore hee must needs bee perfect without defect without blemish Fourthly because the whole nature of man that is both body and soule was to be redeemed for that both body and soule were captiuated vnto Satan Matth. 18.11 but the Sonne of Man came to seeke and to saue that which was lost Therefore hee must consist both of body and soule Fulgent l. 1. de Mysterio redemption ad Trasim That Christ had a true humane body for seeing the diuine pitty was contented to deliuer all it behoued the diuine Maiesty to assume all saith Fulgentius And more particularly that he had a true and a perfect humane body it may be thus proued and shewed vnto vs. First by the Scriptures of the old Testament for the Lord said in Paradise Gen. 3.15 that the seed of the woman should breake the Serpents head and afterward vnto Abraham Gen. 22.18 in thy seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed then to Isaac for in Isaac shall thy seed be called then to Iacob for Iacob haue I loued c. 21.12 and Esau haue I hated then to Iuda for the scepter shall not depart from Iuda vntill Shilo come then to Issay Malach. 1.2 for a rod shall come out of the roote of Issay and then to Dauid Gen. 49.19 for I will cause the branch of Righteousnesse to grow vp vnto Dauid Esay 11.1 and because he was the best and the worthyest of all the Kings of Israel for he was a man according to Gods owne heart Et rex super vniuersum Israel Jer. 23.5 and a King ouer all Israel therefore all the Prophets after him doe still play vpon his Harpe and alwayes inculcate vpon this point that the Messias should come of the seed of Dauid for the Lord had sworne vnto Dauid Psal 132.12 saying Of the fruit of thy body will I set one vpon thy throne and therefore the Prophet Esay saith that there should come forth a rod of the stocke of Issay and a graffe should grow out of his roote and the Prophet Ieremy saith that he would raise vnto Dauid a righteous branch Quo supra As I said before And therfore seeing he is the seed of Abraham the seed of Dauid That Christ was made of the very substance of his Mother the fruit of Dauids bellie the rod of Dauid and the branch of Dauid it is most apparant that he took vpon him the substance of Dauid for who can deny but that the seed the flower and the branch is of the same nature and substance that the tree is of which beareth the flower and the branch why then should we be more cruell against our Sauiour Christ which is the branch of Dauid and the flower of the Virgin his Mother thē we are against the flowers of the field by denying that vnto him which we yeeld vnto them for seeing he is the flower of the Virgin therefore it is apparant that as the flower of a rose cannot spring forth of a Vine-tree so no more can the flesh of Christ take his originall of any other thing then the body of the Virgin Secondly this may be proued by the Scriptures of the New Testament for the Angell Gabriel said vnto Mary that she should conceiue and beare a Sonne and Elizabeth saith of that sonne Blessed is the fruit of thy wombe but what is it to conceiue but to administer part of her substance
that Christ was made man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the flesh and declared mightily to be the Sonne of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Spirit of Sanctification for that according to his humane nature onely he was made of the seede of Dauid which according to his diuine nature was declared still to be the eternall Sonne of God So that here Saint Paul sheweth two natures to be in Christ that is his diuine and his humane nature still remaining entire after his incarnation because as hee was made onely of the seede of Dauid in respect of his manhood for that his God-head was not made of the seede of Dauid so was hee declared onely to be the Sonne of God in respect of his God-head for that his manhood was not the omnipotent and the eternall Son of God But against this place of the Apostle Ob. The most blasphemous subtilties of Heretickes to denie the truth of the two natures of Christ the Somosatenian Heretickes doe affirme that Saint Paul meaneth not hereby to shew a two-fold nature to be in Christ but a two-fold natiuity i. e. a carnall and a spirituall which we finde to be in euery faithfull Christian for to be made of the seede of Dauid say they according to the Flesh doth shew his carnall generation and to be declared to be the Sonne of God according to the Spirit of Sanctification is to shew his spirituall regeneration The first they seeke to confirme out of those places of Scriptures where the Apostle saith The Iewes were his Kinsmen according to the flesh and where hee calleth them Rom. 9.3 Israel according to the flesh for herein say they the Apostle meaneth by these words according to the flesh nothing else 1 Cor. 10.18 but according to the vulgar and common sort of generation And therefore to be made of the seede of Dauid according to the flesh is nothing else but to bee made of him according to his carnall generation And The second they seeke to confirme out of the words of Saint Iohn where he saith That the faithfull are not born of bloud Iohn 1.13 nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God And therefore as these phrases and limitations according to the flesh It is a horrible thing to say that all those phrases which are true of vs ' must be likewise true of Christ in the same sence considered Rom. 1.2 Sol. and according to the spirit doe signifie the double natiuitie of euery faithfull man and doe no wayes proue a double nature to be in any man Euen so in Christ they signifie the same things that is two natiuities but not two natures To this I answere first that this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the flesh neither in the place vrged by me nor in any other place alledged by them doth signifie the common and carnall generation but doth imply a difference and distinction betwixt kindred according to the flesh and kindred according to the spirit for otherwise all Israel was in respect of their common generation kindred according to the flesh And therefore the meaning of the Apostle is to shew that although all of them were the children of Abraham according to the flesh yet that but few of them were the Children of promise Secondly I say that the miraculous and singular birth of Christ is not insinuated so much in the words according to the flesh as it is plainely shewed in the word made for the same being in the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it doth most apparantly shew the extraordinary making of his flesh not after the vsuall and common sort of carnall generation by any humane seede but by a supernaturall generation through the virtuall operation of the Holy Ghost Tertul. l. cont Prax. Iraeneus l. 3. c. 32. Vigilius l. 5. contra Eutychet Aug. l. 1. c. 5. de trinitate as Tertullian Irenaeus Vigilius Saint Augustine and others haue obserued Thirdly I say that there is a great deale of difference betwixt the two-fold generation of the faithfull Saints and the two-fold generation of Christ for when they are said to be borne of the flesh and of the Spitit we confesse that not two natures are thereby signified That Christ was so borne free from all sinne that he needed no further sanctification or regeneration but two beginnings of their diuers births But this cannot be said of Christ because he was so sanctified in the first moment of his conception that he needed not any second regeneration neither is he said to be borne of the spirit in respect of any regeneration as we are but declared to be the Sonne of God according to the Spirit that is manifested to be a true God according or in respect of his owne sanctifying Spirit that is his God-head And therefore though such a limitation might proue a double generation in the rest of Gods Children yet this cannot shew a double generation of him in whom there is no double generation in respect of his manhood but it must needes shew plainely two natures to be in Christ for all other faithfull men are the Sonnes of God by adoption and grace but Christ is the naturall and the essentiall Sonne of God his Father He being the brightnesse of his glory and the engrauen forme of his person Heb. 1.3 And all other men are so borne that except they be borne againe they cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen Iohn 3.5 But Christ was so conceiued and borne that there was neither neede nor any possible way of any further sanctification of his person because that in him dwelled the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily But this truth of the two natures of Christ may be confirmed by most apparant and vnanswerable arguments for the Iewes said that he did not onely breake the Sabboath but also said John 5.18 that God was his Father making himselfe equall vnto God And Christ himselfe said I and my Father are all one Iohn 10.30 And therefore the Pharises did rightly collect that Christ by these words had affirmed himselfe to be a God And yet he saith John 14.28 My Father is greater then I but it cannot possibly be that Christ according to the same nature should be equall nay one with the Father and yet inferior to the Father And therefore it must needes follow that he hath one nature according to which he is equall to his Father and another nature in respect whereof hee is inferior to his Father Besides our Sauiour saith Before Abraham was I am John 8.58 And yet Saint Luke saith He was borne in the dayes of Augustus Caesar Luc. 2.7 but it cannot be that Idem secundum idem The same one in the same respect should be before Abraham and after Abraham All Orthodoxe antiquitie confessed two natures to be in Christ And
therefore hee must needes haue two natures in him according to one whereof he was before Abraham and according to the other he was after Abraham And further Vigilius l. 2. cont Eutych Philip. 2. we finde the same confirmed and confessed by all antiquity for Vigilius writing vpon those words of the Apostle who being in the forme of God tooke vpon him the forme of a seruant saith Mirum est c. It is a wonder to thinke why some are afraide to say that Christ had two natures when as the Apostle saith that he had two formes and the great oecumenicall Councell of Calcedon wherein were 630 Bishops Concil Calced Act. 5. in Symb. fidei left this confession vnto all posterity Confitemur in nouissimis diebus filium Dei vnigenitum in duabus naturis inconfuse immutabiliter indiuise inseparabiliter agnoscendum nunquam sublata differentia propter vnionem We confesse that the onely begotten Sonne of God which came in the last dayes to be incarnate is now to be acknowledged to be and to subsist of two natures i. e. Diuine and humane inconfused immutably inseperably and vndiuidedly vnited together and that the differences or distinction of these natures is neuer to be abolished and taken away by reason of the vnion of the same All the actions of Christ doe manifestly shew the two natures of Christ And so in very deed we finde all the actions of our Sauiour Christ while he liued here on earth to make inanswerable proofe of the same truth for as Saint Augustine saith Iacebat Christus quantum ad carnem mortuus in sepulchro mortuos suscitans in inferno vitam tribuens vniuersis in caelo Christ according to the flesh lay dead in his graue yet did he then in Hell i. e. in respect of his soule according to his Godhead raise the dead here on earth Aug. sup Mat. 5. contra Foelicem and giue life to all them that were in heauen Quia vt nec mundum dimittens ad coelum ascendit ita nec coelum deserens venit ad nos sed vno atque eodem tempore totum totus impleuit Because that as now he hath not left the world though he be ascended into Heauen so then he did not leaue the Heauens when hee came to be made flesh on earth but was wholly at one and the selfe-same time in all places replenishing and filling all things And Gregorie Nazianzen doth most excellently shew how the properties of both his natures concurred together and might be easily discerned in him from the very beginning of his dayes Luc. 2.7 to the last end of his being here on earth for he is borne of his mother and wrapped in swadling clouts as being a man but a starre doth manifest him Matth. 2.11 and the wise men adore him as being a God Matth. 3.16 he is baptized in Iordan as being a man but the Holy Ghost descends vpon him from Heauen as being a God he is tempted of the Deuill Mar. 1.12 as he is a man but he ouercomes and expels the Diuels Iohn 4.6 as he is a God he trauels and is thirstie he is hungry and is weary as he is a man but he refresheth the wearie hee feedeth the hungry Iohn 7. and he giueth drinke vnto the thirstie as hee is a God Matth. 24.26 he sleepes in the ship and his Disciples awake him as he is a man but he rebukes the windes and stilleth the rage of the Seas Matth. 8.20 as he is a God he is poore and needy and hath not an house to put his head in as he is a man but he is rich and mighty and cannot be contained in the heauens as he is a God he his sorrowfull and sad he weepes and he prayes as he is a man but he heareth our prayers and comforteth the sorrowfull Matth. 26. as hee is a God he is subiect to infirmities as he is a man Iohn 14. but he healeth all our infirmitie as he is a God he is whipped and crucified as hee is a man but he renteth the vaile of the Temple Esay 53. and causeth the Sunne to hide his face for shame to see him crucified as hee is a God he saith Eloi Eloi Lamasabachthani My God my God Matth. 27.46 why hast thou forsaken me as he is a man but hee saith vnto the theefe This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise as he is a God Luke 23.43 he dyeth and is buryed and lyeth in his graue as he is a man but he ouercommeth Death and destroyeth the Diuels Matt. 27.50.60 and raiseth himselfe vnto life againe as he is a God and being risen he appeares vnto his Disciples and eates and talkes with them Luke 24. v 15. 31. as he is a man but he vanisheth out of their sight and ascendeth vp vnto Heauen as he is a God and so now the Heauens doe containe him and he sitteth there on the right hand of God Psal 68.4 as he is a man but he sustaineth the Heauens and rideth vpon the same as vpon an horse as he is a God and so Fulgentius saith Fulgent ser de Epiphan Iste puer in praesepi quidem paruulus collocatur sed magnus in coelo mirabiliter operatur permittit se manibus in terra portari sed praecipit sibi coelestia famulari That little child is laid in a cratch i. e. as he is a man but he doth wonderfully worke in heauen i. e. as he is a God and he suffereth himselfe to be carryed in their armes as he is a man but he supporteth all things and commandeth all the hoast of Heauen to doe him seruice as he is a God And therefore it is most apparant that the person of Christ so subsisteth Vt cum in homine Christo videtur veritas hominis Idem de persona Christi l. 2. ad Tamrisi in eodem Deo Christo cognoscatur paternae veritas deitatis as when we see the veritie of the Manhood in the Man Christ Iesus we must know and acknowledge the eternall Deitie in the same God Christ Iesus because he is still a perfect God and a perfect man and of these two natures subsisting in one person inconfused But against this Eutyches and his followers What the Eutychian heretickes say against this truth haue and doe most impiously affirme that in Christ after his Incarnation there is but one onely nature made of the Word and of the flesh by the conuersion of the Deitie into the humanitie because the Euangelist saith that the Word was made flesh euen as when the Water was made Wine it was no more Water but was presently conuerted into Wine Nazian in Ep. ad Clidonium or else by the conuersion of the flesh into the Deitie because Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory Nyssen say that Caro Christi est deificata the flesh of Christ is now deified and to confirme
4. he saith Chap. 4. v. 3. Euery spirit Qui soluit Iesum which looseth or diuideth Iesus i. e. to make two persons of him is not of God and so in many other places hee doth most plainely shew that the eternall word and our humane nature vnited vnto the same word is but one and the selfe-same Christ i. e. one Christ one person And this is confessed by all antiquity All our Creeds and all antiquity confesseth the same truth touching vnity of Christ his person for in the Apostles Creede we say that we beleeue in Iesus Christ his onely Sonne our Lord which was conceiued of the Holy Ghost and borne of the Virgin Mary and therfore he is but one person because he which is said to be the onely Sonne of God is said also to be borne of the Virgin Mary the same is said in the Nicen Creed and in the Creede of Athanasius it is said that although Christ be both God and Man yet is he no more twaine but one Christ and that not by confounding of the substances but by the vnity of person i. e. by the vniting of both natures into one person What should I rehearse any more for the third Councell of Ephesus the great Councell of Chalcedon the Councell of Lateran and all the ancient Orthodoxe Fathers as Iustin Martyr Irenaeus Saint Basil Saint Nazianzen Saint Damascen Saint Hillary Saint Ambrose Saint Hierome Saint Augustine and the rest of them haue most truely confessed and most learnedly confirmed this truth that although Christ hath two natures the Word and the Flesh yet doe these two make but one person one Sonne of God one Sauiour of men What the Hereticks haue conceiued and most impiously thought concerning the person of Christ But against this Cerinthus and certaine of the Pelagian Hereticks and afterwards Nestorius seperating Iesus from Christ or rather Christ from Himselfe haue affirmed that Iesus was but meere man hauing not onely a humane nature but a humane person and afterwards to be made Christ at the time of his baptisme when the Holy Ghost descended vpon him in the forme of a Doue and therefore they conclude that as he consisteth of two natures so he is likewise two persons which notwithstanding may be said to be one in respect of their co-habitation affection operation and participation as hereafter I shall further shew vnto you Ob. 1 And to confirme this damnable errour against the inuiolable truth they doe obiect that our Sauiour said Destroy this Temple when he spake of his humanitie and therefore the God Christ Iohn 2.9 and the man Christ are two seuerall persons for hee doth not say destroy me but destroy this Temple and I will reare it vp in three dayes to shew vnto vs that the Temple and the dweller in the Temple or the raiser vp of the Temple are not the same but diuers persons Sol. To this I answere briefly that this alledged instance may well proue two natures to be in Christ but not two persons for the soule of man is said to dwell in the body as in a tabernacle because the nature of the soule is different from the nature of the body and yet man hath not two but one person which consisteth of both natures i. e. soule and body for Iob saith that men dwell in houses of Clay Iob 4.19 2 Cor. 5.1 and Saint Paul saith if this earthly house of our Tabernable be dissolued And therefore Saint Chrisostome vpon these words of Saint Iohn and he dwelt in vs doth most truely gather that in Christ there are two natures but from these or from any other places it can neuer be proued that in him there are two persons Ob. 2 Againe they doe obiect that the Sonne of Mary had an Angell to comfort him Matth. 27.46 Iohn 12.27 and said My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And againe Father Saluifica me ex hac hora Saue me from this houre and such like speeches which are not consonant and agreeable to the Sonne of God and therefore the Sonne of Mary is one different and another person from the Sonne of GOD. To this I answer with S. Cyrill Sol. that as there are many things which doe agree with him according to the forme of God which cannot be agreeable to him according to the forme of a seruant so there are many things that do agree with him according to the forme of a seruant which doe not agree with the Sonne of God absolutely considered because he is both a true God and a true man so vnited together as that the properties of neither nature are confounded as hereafter shall be shewed Cyrillus deffâ—nt 4. Anath contra Theodor. and therefore all such sayings and allegations which are said of him or be referred vnto him in respect of one nature which are not properly agreeable to the other nature doe onely shew and most rightly proue two natures but not two persons to be in our Sauiour Christ CHAP. III. Of the manner of the vnion of the two natures and wherein this vnion chiefly consisteth SEcondly Wherein the Hereticks haue affirmed the vnion of both natures in Christ to consist for the manner of this vnion of these two natures in one person or wherein chiefly it consisteth herein resteth the greatest difficulty For First the Nestorians and their followers say that both these natures are saide to bee one by the vnitie of 1. Co-habitation 2. Will and affection 3. Operation 4. Participation First by the vnity of Co-habitation because the Word dwelled in the man Christ as in his choicest House and Temple accocding to that saying of the Euangelist and he dwelt in vs. Iohn 1.14 Secondly by the vnity of will and affection because the will of Christ was alwayes agreeable to the will of God and this they doe illustrate by the example of Man and Wife which though they be two persons Math. 19.5 yet are they said to be one flesh in regard of their mariage knot and especially in respect of their vnanimous hearts so the Sonne of God and the Sonne of Mary are two persons say they and yet may be said to be one Christ in regard of that indissoluble spirituall coniunction and affection that is betwixt them Thirdly By the vnity of operation because the man Christ was the Instrument which the Word God vsed for the effecting of all those great workes that he did while hee walked here on Earth Fourthly By the vnity of participation because the Word God did impart vnto the man Christ his name and dignity that hee should be called God and the Sonne of God and should be worshipped of all Creatures not for his owne sake but for his sake to whom hee was thus vnited How falsly the Heretickes affirme the vnion of the two natures to consist in the aforesaid points But how false and fained are all these subtle infernall distinctions to misteach the
sole of his foote vnto the crowne of his head Esay 1.6 there was nothing whole in him but wounds and swellings and soares most full of grieuous paines And in all this his great and grieuous sufferings we must know them to be the sharper in respect of the tendernesse of his body and the senciblenesse of his spirit because as Aristotle saith Quo complexio nobilior quo mens dexterior Aristot l. 2. de anima c. 9. co tenerior esse solet caro The more noble our complexion and the more quicke and nimble is our apprehension the more sencible is our flesh of the least paine and correction but the flesh of Christ of all other men must needes be the most tender The tenderer our flesh and the quicker our spirits the more sensible wee are of paine because as I shewed you before he was soly begotten of a pure Virgin and his minde must needes be most intellectiue and most apprehensiue of all paine because he was of that age which is most sensitiue and therefore the sufferings of Christ in all respects must needes be most insufferable And yet all this was but the least part of his sorrowes not neere the halfe of his sufferings for hee was to wrestle with the wrath of God that was due to vs for our sinnes yea hee was to tread the fiercenesse of the wrath of God Reuel 15.5 And there can be no conflict in the World so great as to grapple with an angry God for the Prophet Dauid speaking hereof Psal 76.7 saith Thou euen thou art to be feared and who can stand in thy sight when thou art angry The Earth trembled and quaked Psal 18. v. 7. 15. the very foundations also of the hilles shooke and were remoued because he was wroth yea the springs of waters were seene and the foundations of the round World were discouered That the sufferings of Christ were a great deale more then are expressed by the Euangelists or then can be conceiued by any man at thy chiding O Lord at the blasting of the breath of thy displeasure And if his anger and displeasure be so great O who can endure the height of his furie who can ouercome by suffering the fiercenesse of his wrath And therefore to shew how vnspeakeable and how dangerous a tâ—ing it is for any man to define what the vnspeakeable sufferings and the incomprehensible feelings of Christ were both in the Garden of Gethsemane before his Iudges and especially vpon the Crosse in Mount Caluarie the Fathers of the Greeke Church in their Lyturgie after they had recounted his bloudy sweate his shamefull crowning his spitefull handling and all the other particular sufferings which are recorded by the Euangelists they doe most excellently conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By thine vnknowne sorrowes and by those infinite sufferings incomprehensible to vs though most sensibly felt by thee Haue mercy vpon vs and saue vs O Lord our God And in all this he truly suffered not imaginarily as some haue imagined Sed vere languores nostros ipse tulit But he truly bare our infirmities and carried our sorrowes Not as the Priests of the Law Leuit. 10.17 which were likewise said to beare the sinnes of the people i. e. typically in the figure but truly in the fact hee bare the punishment of them all and that not in outward appearance as malicious Marcion held it Tertull. contra Marc. l. 4. 8. Aug. de haeresibus ad Quodv heres 46. and afterwards the Manichees maintained it as Saint Augustine saith but as he was a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 physically and truly so hee endured and suffered all these sorrowes Vere sicut verus homo Most truly as being a true naturall man as Aquinas saith He did most sencibly and feelingly suffer them all for it was not with him as it was with the three Children in the third of Daniel Dan. 3 27. who were cast into the fierie Furnace and yet came out not hauing their hayre singed nor their coates changed nor the smell of fire had passed on them but as Plutarch reports of Coriolanus hee can yet shew his wounds that he suffered and make demonstratiue expressions of his sorrowes farre beyond the apprehension of any man to conceiue them But if any man demand how Christ being God could suffer any paine seeing the Deitie is subiect to no passion Heinsius P. 81. Heinsius answereth that Christ suffered not in respect of the diuine nature which he had as God but in respect of his humane nature which he had as he was Man for though the Deity was in the sufferer yet was it not in the suffering How the Godhead suffered not but sustained the manhood that it might suffer though it was in the Body of Christs passion yet was it not in the passion of Christs Body but as I shewed vnto you before Page 438 the humanity onely suffered and the Deity sustained it that it might suffer because the impotency of the one required the omnipotency of the other Christ being a man that he might suffer and being a God that he might be able so to suffer such insufferable things And therefore we say that Christ in respect of his Deity remained still intire vntouched invulnerable impassible and that very then when his humanity suffered and was dead the Deity liued impassibly and rent the vayle of the Temple sealed vp the Sunne-beames vnder a signet of Cimmerian Cloudes caused the Earth to tremble the Centurion to auerre that Christ was the true and essentiall Sonne of God and raysed vp the interred Carkasses from their graues And we say that it was the humane nature of Christ that stood and suffered vpon the Crosse and in the anguish of its passion breathed out that dolefull complaint euen to the Godhead hypostatically vnited vnto it as well as to the Father and to the holy Spirit saying My God my God Math 27.46 why hast thou forsaken me And although the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the distance betwixt these two Natures be so great and the disparity be so euident as that the one was passible and mortall the other impassible and immortall yet are they so combined and vnited in our Sauiour Christ that although he is not one nature yet is he but one person one Christ one Redeemer and when the humanity suffered and was buried yet was it not neither could it be possibly cast off or forsaken by the Deity vnto which the linkes and ligaments of Gods loue had so strictly and eternally obliged it by an hypostaticall and indissoluble vnion Thus Christ though he was God yet as man Dixit multa gessit mira pertulit dura dura verba duriora verbera durissima supplicia He bore and suffered an incredible paine and vnsufferable sorrowes Esay 53. so great and so grieuous that Esayas may well call him virum dolorum No sorrow like the sorrowes of Christ
reproue great men 233 Who most subiect to dangers 433 Daughters of sinne are two 82 In the day of Christs natiuitie three things obseruable 435 DE. Death the fruit of sinne 2 Seauen deadly sinnes 40 By death is contained all that is vnder the curse of God 47 67 Death three-fold 49 Death of the soule three-fold 53 Death what it is 67 How largely it extendeth it selfe 75 How vnresistable it is ibid. How expressed by the Egyptians 76 How it shortens life diuers wayes 77 How it taketh men of all ages 78 How it smiteth in euery place 79 How comfortable it is to the godly 79 How terrible to the wicked 80 How it equalizeth the bodies of all men 81 Death of Christ the sole cause that maketh our death happy vnto vs. 84 Death eternall what it is 86 Death of Christ a sufficient satisfaction for the greatest sinnes 164 Death how little Christ respected it 446 Saints at their death supported by God 447 Death of the crosse grieuous in foure respects 479 480 Death of Christ maketh the wicked without excuse 504 Certainty of Christs death shewed in that her rose not til the third day 556 Deceit of sinne how great 44 Deceits no deceits vnlesse cunningly carried 461 Deformitie of sinne greater then we can comprehend 107 Deferring of Christs suffering grieued Christ 451 Wicked men how they deceiue themselues 517 God a debter to no man 531 To defend the truth with the hazard of all that we haue 217 Why God deferreth to giue vs what we desire 723 Delight in sinne maketh vs exceeding sinfull 15 Our deliuerances from punishments to be ascribed to Gods goodnesse 203 God deliuereth not alwaies his deerest Saints from afflictions 206 Christ deliuered from what he feared 448 To derogate from Gods power how great a sinne 161 God denieth his grace vnto the children for their Fathers sinnes 251. Why. 252 Why God denieth what we aske 725 To descend from the crosse easier then to rise from the graue 562 Descention of Christ into hell handled 580. 581 c. proued by Scripture and by the stimonie of antiquitie 484. 618 That Christ descended before hee could ascend 609 Why Christ descended not from the crosse 481 We ought to despaire of no mans conuersion 533 Descending of Christ signifieth the assuming of our flesh 301 Description of God by way of negation affirmation and super eminencie 121 Desire to sinne is an act done 96 Desperate men thinke God cannot forgiue them 139 We ought neuer to despaire of mercie 226 To despaire what a haynous sinne 228 Saints desired nothihg but Christ 264 Demosthenes his Parable vnto the Athenians of the wolues request vnto the sheepe 644 Of the young man that hired an Asse to Megara 678 DI. Christ whether hee died for all men and how 505 To die to sinne what it is 50 a punishment for sinne ibid. To die in sinne what it is 51 Difference betwixt spirituall and eternall punishment 250 How the word God differeth from our Word 309 A great difference betwixt appearing in the forme of man and to be made man 329 Difference betwixt assuming flesh and to bee made flesh 345 Difference betwixt the two-fold generations of Christ and of the Saints 364 Difference betwixt Law and Gospell 3â—4 Difference betwixt the sinnes of the godly and the wicked three-folde 35 Difference betwixt feare and sorrow 449 Philosophers most diligent to attaine to all kinde of knowledge 315 How diligent we ought to be to know Christ 393 Dirt nothing so foule as sinne 52 Diseases of the soule what they be 63 Discontent with God what a heauie sinne 239 Disobedience to God what a haynous sinne 293 Disobedience to parents what a fearefull sinne 240 To distinguish of Gods power reconcileth diuers Authors 150 Dispertion of the Apostles grieued Christ 453 In distresse how wee ought to seeke vnto God 488 Disciples whether they stole Christ from the graue or not 562 Discretion how needfull for Preachers 696 Diuels know God and Christ and the mysterie of the Trinitie 314 Confest Gods power 162 DO Doctrine touching the person of Christ how alwaies opposed by Satan 304 Doctrine of diuinitie how deepe and difficult 392 Whatsoeuer God doth is no sinne 166 Doores being shut how Christ came in 387 Doubting of Gods goodnesse what a fearefull sinne 239 That we should neuer doubt of Gods promises 130 DR To draw neere to vs how God is said 165 M. Drusus desired all men might see what he did 604 EA EArth accursed for the sinne of man 48 EF. The effects that Christs sufferings should worke in vs. 505 EG Egyptians how they expressed death 76 EL. Electionis of some men not of all 203 The elect onely are effectually called 203 Elizabeth the wife of Zacharias of what Tribe she was 397 EN Enemies that besot the godly 177 Enuie of Satan against Christ 493 and why he enuied him 434 Enemies of Christ ascribe to him in mockery what he was in deed 432 433 Enemies of Christ what they testified of him 578 Enemies of man especially three 582 EP. Epicurus confest the world had beginning and shall haue ending 137 EQ Equalitie of sinnes confuted 37 Equitie of eternall punishment for a temporarie sinne shewed in two respects 97 Christ equall with the Father 299 ER. Error of the Philosophers touching the etertie of the world 136 Error of the Vbiquitaries touching the power of God 141 Error of the Iesuites about the power of God 141 Error of Pellagius about the abilitie of mans nature 63 64 Error of Nouatus about sins after Baptisme 112 Errors of the vulgar about the absolute power of God 151 Errors expelled by truth 215 Errors boulstered with lies 175 Error of Saint Gregorie and Saint Bernard confuted 94. 95 Error of Lactantius and Pellagius confuted 63 Error of the Philosophers Stoicks Arist Seleucus Hermias Hermog confuted 136 137 c. Error of the Vbiquitaries shewed 141 Confuted 155. Their Obiect anws 165 Error of Bellarmine and the Iesuites shewed 141. Their Obiections answered 172 c. Error of Saint Hierom. 330 ES. Essence of God in heauen cannot bee seene but in the face of Iesus Christ 118 Essence of God not safe to search too farre into it 124 Essence of God distinguished into three persons 272 The word essence deriued our of Scripture and vsed in Scripture 294 Christ of the same essence with his Father 292. Vnpossible to escape out of the hands of the Angels 337 ET Eternity of Christ proued and the obiections against the same answered 278 279 280 c. Eternall punishment how inflicted for a temporary sinne 94 EV. Eua beleeueth the Deuill 3 The euill that oppresseth euery sinner two-fold 321 Euangelist why hee saith the Word was made flesh rather then man 349 Eutichian heresie what it was 367 c. EX Excuses of sinners to iustifie themselues 24 Excuses of sinners to lessen sinne 110 Examples of wilfull and spitefull sinners 33 Excellency of God cannot be conceiued
our death what it doth 82 Mediators two sorts 296 Mediator betwixt God and man to bee like God and like man 320 Christ a perfect mediator 341 Theesame measure of effectuall grace must worke the same effect in all men 209 Our meaning is accepted where meanes are wanting 232 Meditation of Christs Passion what it effecteth 421. 422 c. Most acceptable vnto Christ 421 Expelleth sinne 423 Kindleth our loue to God 424 Supporteth our hope 426 The same measure of grace not giuen to all men 602 Meanes to bring vs to our end decreed as well as our end 654 The Apostles receiued not the same measure of grace 667 The same measure of fruits God expecteth not from all men 668 Melchisedech who he was 330 No inhabitant of Canaan 330. 331 That he was Iesus Christ the Son of God in the shape of man proued 331 c. Memnons heresie 343 Merit of Christs suffering how to bee considered 502 All men of note vnder the old Testament types of Christ 258 To hope for mercie and to neglect Gods seruice vaine presumption 717. Mercie and peace how they pleaded for man 319 Mercie in God what it signifieth 180 Mercie of God how it sought Adam and many more when they sinned 180 c. Mercie of God magnified 182 It consisteth chiefly in three things 182 It is euerlasting two waies 184 The best stay to relie vpon 185 How it qualifieth punishments 186 Found in all places and in all creatures 188 Mercie of God two-fold 188 How God is onely mercifull to them that loue him ibid. It proceedeth naturally from God 195 How it pleadeth for sinners ibid. How largely it extendeth it selfe 223 Mercies of God innumerable and immeâ—surable 223 Lasting for euer and euer ibid. Mercie of God teacheth vs to bee affrayd to sinne 225 God more mercifull then we are sinnefull 226 We ought to imitate God in the workes of mercie 228 Mercy how scarce among men ibid. Workes of mercie of two sorts 232 Motiues to perswade vs to be mercifull 223 Mercie makes vs like to God ibid. Scarce amongst vs. ibid. That it is no mercie to spare wicked men 235 Messias expected by the Gentiles 316 MI. Able ministers what a great gift 643 We ought to pray for our ministers 737 Ministers subiect to the greatest miseries 74 The manifold miseries of all Ages 68 Of infancie 68. Of child-hood 68. 69. Of youth 69. Of man-hood 70. Of old age 70 71 The miseries of al estates 71. Of the poore 72. Of the rich 72. Of meane men 73. Of the nobilitie ibid. Of the common people ibid. Of the Magistrates ibid. Of the Ministers 74 How Christ suffered all miseries 260 MO. Christ how mocked vpon the Crosse 481 MV How Christ multiplied the loaues of bread 174 To murmure against God what a haynous sinne 139 MY Mysterie of clothing Christ in white explained 473 Mysterie of the Trinitie why not fully reuealed at first 272 Misteries of faith how farre past the reach of a naturall man 59 NA NAture is wholy defiled 4 Nature can neuer procure the gifts of grace 64 Nature teacheth vs to punish sinne 90 Nature notable to shew the reason how the world should be made 138 The nature of all things good 197 Nature relieueth the part most distressed 451 To the nature of God what things are repugnant 152 Two natures in our Sauiour Christ 363 Confirmed 365. 366. By nature wee are alike indifferent to all sinnes 204 Abstract names of all excellencies most proper vnto God 122. 294 Jehoua the essentiall name of God 123 Name of God taken two waies 296 All names of dignitie in the old Testament types of Christ 258 Christ came from Nathan and not from Salomon 398 NE. Negatiue precepts 365. 230 Necâ—ssitie three-fold 491 How it was necessarie for Christ to suffer 493 Nestorius his heresie 374 Wherein he affirmed the vnion of the two natures of Christ to subsist 375 His heresie confuted 376 How he was deceiued about the person of Christ 619 NI Christ borne in the night time and why 406 NO Nominall relation of the three Persons of the Trinitie maketh a true distinction of the persons 278 Nouatus his heresie 112 Why hee thought sinnes of recidiuation should not be pardoned 593 OB. MAny obseruations about the manner of his crucifying 489 Obstinate sinners how hardly reclaimed 463 Obedience of Christ seene in the incarnation of Christ 358 Obiections of the Arrians against the eternall God-head of Christ answered 284. c. OF We offend God for trifles 105 Officers not to be made but of the best and godliest men 109 Office of the Word to declare the minde of God 312 What we should offer vnto Christ 415 OL. Old age described and the miseries thereof 71 ON One sinne brings death 3â— OM. Omnisciencie cannot be communicated to any creature 156 OP Oppressing the poore what a fearefull sin 240 To oppose the knowne truth what a horrible sinne 240 The euill that oppresseth man is two-fold 321 OR Originall corruption how traduced 4 Hard to be expressed 5 Order obserued by God in all things 324 PA. HOw painefull to walke in the wayes to hell 100 Christ made passible the first degree of his passion 438 Patience and mercy of God shewed by two passages of Scripture 196 Patience necessary to retayne the truth 218 No sinner excluded from hope of pardon 224 Good Parents leaue the best patrimonie vnto their children 224 Christ the perfect patterne of all vertue 260 Meditation of Christs passion what it effecteth 421 422. c. Cause of passions two fold 443 Passions of man how they inuade him will he nill he but not Christ 444 Passions of man how they blinde and distract him but not Christ 445 Our Parents neuer to be forgotten 488 All the particulars of Christ his passions vnpossible to be expressed Patience in suffering more respected of God then our suffering 520 Patience what an excellent gift 655 Patience two-fold 655 Christ set vs downe a perfect patterne of prayer 718 PE. Chiefest perfection of man consisteth in the will of man 53 Perplexities of the wicked at their death-time 80 A most earnest perswasion to forsake sinne 87 God a faithfull performer of all his promises 227 358 Each person of the Trinity a true Iehoua 123 124 Three persons in the one essence of God 272 The three persons of the Trinity distinguished two waies 274 Person of Christ how alwaies abused by Satan and all heretickes 304 What is true of the person of Christ is not alwaies true being restrayned to the body of Christ 344 Christ conceiued a perfect man in the first moment of his conception 337 Christ was in all respects a perfect man 340 Peters infirmities manifold 467 Why suffered to fall 468 How restored by Christ ibid. Persecutors of Christ how plagued 558 Petition of the theefe on the crosse how soone granted 487 People how they desired the death of Christ 495 Person of Christ how excellent he was