and is in every Person and therefore it is said holy Father Joh. 17. 11. And thy holy child Ieâ—us Acts 4. 27. as well as the third Person is called the holy Spirit and all Persons together are so stiled Holy Holy Holy Esa 6. 3. Revel 4. 8. and yet the third Person hath a property and personality in holiness not communicable But now we must distinguish thus Holyness in God is either the holyness of Nature and so every Person is holy or holyness of Office that is to be a Sanctifier and thus it is the property of the third Person for although the Father and the Son do sanctifie yet they sanctifie mediately by the Spirit but the Spirit sanctifieth immediately by himself so that when sactification is said to be the work of the whole Trinity you must thus understand it Paâ—er est fons Filius exemplar Spiriâ—us impressor Sanctâ—â—aâ—is i. The Father is the Fountain the Son is the Pattern the Holy Ghost is the Stamper or Communicator of holyness in us and to us as the whole man is said to see but he seeth onely by the eye Next I am to shew that every person is called Spirit for John 4. 24. God is a Spirit and every Person is God and it is not you that speak but the Spirit of my Father which speaketh in you Matth 10 20 and the last Adam was made a quickning Spirit 1 Cor 15 45 We see there is mention of the Spirit of the Father of the spirit of the Son for the last Adam must needs be meant of Christ neither are these observations new but are the old Collections of the Primitive Church writers St. Basil saith d Basil cont Euno l. 3. Spiritus appellatio est communis tribus personis i. The appellation of Spirit is communicable to the three Persons and before him Tertullian saith e Tert. de Orat. c. 1. Iesus Christus est Spiritus Dei i. Jesus Christ is the Spirit of God Athanâ—sius speaketh more home f Atha de Com. essen 625. to 3. Dâ—â—taâ—â—m verbi Christus inse Spiritum sanctum vocat i. Christ himself calleth his own Godhead the holy Spirit and St. Hi râ—me doth also as punctually observe the same g Hier cont Pala. l. 2. c. 6. n. 23. Spiriâ—us sanctus vocatur Spiritus Iâ—su i. The holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Jesus Neither let the English Translation of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trouble thee because they are in some places translated holy Spirit and in others holy Ghost and sometimes they signifie onely the third Person as Matth. 28. 19. But in another place they signifie the Spirit or Godhead of the second Person as he breathed on them and sâ—ld Receive the holy Ghost John 20. 22. of which he also saith I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world Matth. 28. 28. which is meant of the comfortable presence of his Godhead by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts for so also the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it signifieth the soul or humane Spirit of Christ it is sometimes translated Spirit and other times Ghost as Luk. 23. 46. Father into thy hands I commend my spirit that is my soul and having said thus he gave up the Ghost that is his soul and life Now for as much as the Godhead of Christ or God in Christ is a Spirit and also is holy it may be truely said without any fallacy both Logicaâ—ly and Theologically not onely disjunctively but compositively and joyntly the Godhead of Christ is an holy Spirit for of him it is said Rom. 1. 4. that he was declared to be the Son of God according to the Spirit of holyness which surely is an holy Spirit by which he is said to sanctifie the Church Ephes 5. 26. Heb. 2. 11. Heb. 13. 12. And to this St. Austine speaketh very pertinently and plainly h Aug. de Trin. l. 5. c. 11. n. 62. Quia Deus est Spiritus potest dici Pater Spiritus Filius Spiritus Pater sanctus Filius sanctus Trinitas potest appellari Spiritus Sanctus i. Because God is a Spirit it may be said the Father is a Spirit and the Son is a Spirit and the Father is holy and the Son is holy and the Son is holy the whole Trinity may be called an holy Spirit CHAP. IV. That the blasphemy against the holy Spirit mentioned Matth. 12. was meant of the denying and blaspheming the Godhead of Iesus Christ FOr the right understanding of this question I desire the Reader to take notice of these few observations following 1. That this Pharisaciall blasphemy was uttered and intended onely against the Person of Christ and therein onely against his Godhead and therefore the answer of Christ must needs be a Vindication of his Person and of his Godhead for otherwise Christ might seem not to have answered punctually to the slander and blasphemy objected if we shall confess that the blasphemy was against the Person of the Son and yet imagine that his answer is onely concerning another Person viz. the Person of the holy Ghost 2. Observe again that Christ doth not there make any mention of the blasphemy against the Person of the Father though there was as much reason that he should as to mention a blasphemy against the third Person But he keeps himself punctually to the second Person himself against whom onely this blasphemie was spoken and intended neither did he at this time go abour to assert and vindicate the honour either of the Person of the Father or of the Person of the holy Ghost against which Persons nothing was expresly said or meant but be did onely declare the power and Truth of his own Godhead in his own Person and therefore he said If I cast out divels by the Spirit of God the kâ—ngdome of God is come unto you Matth. 17. 28. By the Spirit of God he meaneth the Godhead residing in his own Person 3. Thirdly observe that as in his Arguments he spake onely of his own Person like a good disputant confining himself exactly ad idem to the same thing the Pharisees spake of so in his answer and in denouncing judgement against those blasphemers by the rule of right reason he must still continue his speech of the same Person therefore in effect he saith thus Although a word spoken against me as I am a man and the Son of man may be forgiven yet a blasphemy or word spoken against me as I am very God cannot be forgiven Or thus The villifying depraving blaspheming or speaking against my humane nature may be pardoned but the depraving denying or blaspheming my Godhead my divine Nature my divine and holy Spirit shall not be forgiven 4. Observe again that the Jewes had indeed depraved him in both his Natures 1. In his manhood thus Behold a glutton a wine-bibber a friend of publicans and sinners Matth. 11. 19. and
of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Jesus Christ the communication of the properties of each nature the life and death of Nestorius and how Christ is said to be deified FOr the avoyding of the unpardonable sin before mentioned it will not be sufficient to believe and confess that God is in Jesus as a man in a ship or as God was in the Prophets and is now in holy men who are therefore called the Temples of the living God 2 Cor. 6. 16. or as God is every where who filleth heaven and earth Jer. 23. 24. For though God be in an holy Man yet we cannot say that God and that Man are one Person and though God be in Heaven yet he and Heaven are not one hypostasis or subsistence in one Personall union but as our soul and body united and composed are one Man and one Person so the Godhead and Manhood united in Iesus are one Person one Christ Now these two distinct natures to wit the Godhead and Manhood are in Christ so united that they will be for ever inseparable and they are so entwined one with the other that no action or passion can be said of the man Christ which may not be said of God the rule of Divines is Effâ—ctus hypostaticae unionis est Regula Theolog communicatio idiomatum i. The result or effect of the Personall union is a communication of properties which rule is laid and more plainly expressed by St Austine in these words Vnilas Personae Christi sic Aug. to 6. cont Ser. Arian n. 7. constat ex humana divina natura ut quaelibet earum vocabulum impertial alteri i. The unitie of the Person of Christ doth so consist of the Divine and humane natures that each nature imparteth its appellation mutually to the other so that what is properly belonging to the divine nature is ascribed as done also by the humane nature the same is also thus expressed by Theodoret Communia Persona evadunt quae sunt Theod. Dial. impatib n. 13. P. 398. propria naturarum i. By reason of this hypostaricall union those things which are proper to each nature severally become common to the whole person and hence it is that Christ is called the Son of Man and the Son of God eternall and yet born the on of David and yet the Lord of David of him it is said John 3. 13. He that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heauen yet the Manhood did not come from heaven nor was the Manhood at that time in Heaven so again Christ said to the thief Luke 23. 43. To day shalt thou be with me in paradise and yet Christ was not there that day in his body nor by his soul for ought we know but onely by his Godhead which was then in Paradise when his body was on the earth and hence it is that the appellation of God is stamped on the humane and infirm actions and passions of Christ for though he was crucified through weaknesse as it is said 2 Cor. 13. 4. that is as he was man yet because his Divine Nature is for ever inseparable from the humane nature he is truely called Deus crucifixus Hier. ut sup c. 6. Naz. Orat. 51. n. 35. i. God crucified as is shewed before out of Saint Hierome and Nazian saith Si quis crucifixum non adorat anathema sit i. He that doth not worship him that was crucified let him be accursed This great mystery of the hyposiaticall union was prudently discerned by the ancient Fathers Origen saith Judaei Dâ—um crucifixâ—â—unt i. The Jewes crucied Origen hom 5. in Ps 36. Orig. in Luc. hom 38. n. 45. Chrys in synax n. 35. God and the same Father speaking of the tears which Christ shed over Jâ—rusalem calleth them Lacrymas Dei i. the tears of God So St. Chrysostome calleth Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the crucified God The Prophet Esay prophesying of the birth of Christ Esay 9. 6. Vnto us a child is born immediately addeth his name shall be called The mighty God and the Church used the same language Fulgentius saith Maria Fulg. de grat n. 3. est genetrix Dei quia were propriâ— peperit Deum Verbum i. Mary is the Parent of God for she brought forth truly and properly God the Word St. Hierome saith Virgo Deum puerum peperit i. Mary brought Hier. Ep. 30. n. 8. forth a child that is God So Saint Ambrose speaketh i Ambr. in sym n. 20. Deus natus est ex virgine God was born of a Virgine and Athanasius saith k Atha apol 2. n. 15. n. 22. Deus incarnatus Deus passus est God was incarnate and God suffered This doctrine is so true and necessary that otherwise we could not have been redeemed the denying thereof no doubt is within the compass of the unpardonable blasphemy and the Church accounted such as taught the contrary to be in the number of the most dangerous hereticks as may appear by the story of Nestorius thus in brief This Nestorius was by birth a German and was admitted Soc. l. 7. c. 29. Theod. haer fab l. 4. n. 16. to be a Presbyter or Priest in the Church of Antioch from thence he was preferred to be Patriarch of Constantinople and there he was a sore vexer of the Arians Novatians and Macedonian hereticks and so eager therein that he incensed the Emperour against them using this proud speech O Imperator da mihi Soc. l. 7. c. 29. terram purgatam hâ—reâ—icis ego tibi eoelum vetribuam i. If the Emperour would purge his Empire of hereticks he would assure him of Heaven He was a man very cloquent and so proud thereof that he disdained to reade the ancient Writers and so being ignorant of Catholick Doctrine he fell into this Heresie of dividing or separating the two Natures of Christ and particularly teaching that the Virgin Mary ought not to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Parent or Mother of Evag. l. 1. c. 3â— God and because some of his sect would have her called onely ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the mother of a man Nestorius desiring to go in a middle way would have her called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the Mother of Christ but at no hand the Mother of God so his error was in this that he divided and rent and severed the two natures of Christ that which his crucifiers were not permitted to do to his very garments in effect as Vincentius noteth Nestorius duos vult esse Filios Dei duos Christos Vincent Lirin c. 17. n. 53. unum Deum alterum hominem i. Nestorius would have fancied two Sons of God and two Christs whereof one should be God and the other a man and so by denying the unity of his Person he indeed made a quaternity of Persons instead of a Trinitie against the sentence of
Porphyrian in denying the Godhead of Christ and followeth the Heresies of Cerinthus the Maniches and Arius and acteth for Antichrist and Turcisme The Charactor of Socinus Of the Grand Antichrist and his numerous Corporation which is the Mysticall body of iniquitie and of their preachers Chapter VIII Of the Vnion of the Godhead and Manhood in Page 52 the Person of Christ and that the two Natures once united continue for ever inseparable The difference between the Existence of the Godhead in Christ and its Existence in all creatures Of the mutuall communication of properties between the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ The Heresie of Nestorius his life condemnation banishment and exemplarie death How holy Men are said to be Deified by partaking of Divine Graces and conforming to Gods will Chapter IX The Commenters blasphemous conceit of Christs Page 33 Deification In what sense Christ may be truely said to be Deified in time who was the onely God from all Eternitie The true sense of diverse sayings in Scripture concerning Christs Exaltation How the Sonne of God comes to be called Christ Chapter X. How those Scripturall sayings are to be understood Page 37 which mention the abasing or minoration of Christ the Sonne of God An Exposition of 1 Cor. 15. 24. Concerning Christs delivering up the Kingdome and reigning till judgement and his subjection afterwards Of which see more in the 2 Section of this Chapter Chapter XI Why the unpardonable Sinne is fastned rather Page 52 on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons in the Scriptures Expression Of the form of words used at Baptisme diversly mentioned in Scripture and the reason of that diversitie That Christ mediateth for us in Heaven not verbally as the Commenter would have it but by a reall presenting that Person who in our stead did perform and suffer what was required of his mysticall Bodie Chapter XII The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scriptures Page 55 Propheticall and Evangelicall by the Type of the Tabernacle which was as a visible habitation of God representing the Body of Christ How the Heathens immitated this by setting up visible images wherein they thought their God was resident Chapter XIII Reasons why the Jewish worship was confined to Page 58 the Tabernacle and Temple that these were Types of God to be Incarnate Why the People of God worshipped with their faces towards the Temple That the Church is more Ancient then the Temple That notwithstanding the Commenters cavill the Patriarches belived in the same Sonne of God that that we Christians do though the appellation Christ could not then be used Chapter XIV That the Christian when he prayeth prayeth to Page 61 God whom he considereth to be resident in Jesus Christ as in his Temple As the Israelites considered God resident in the Tabernacle and Temple and so prayed toward that place That God so intabernacled in the Body of Christ is the finall or ultimate Object of The Christians prayer and worship Chapter XV. How the onely and most high God became a Priest Page 65 and a Mediatour That Christ is prayed to and yet is a Mediatour How Christ is said to pray and yet is the supream God That every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed to Chapter XVI The Godhead of Christ shewed from the Adoration Page 68 of his Person that his Godhead is worshipped and not his Body alone considered without the Godhead That the Godhead united with a creature for so is the Body of Christ doth not hinder us from worshipping our God Of the worship of Jesus performed and yet without worshipping a creature Chapter XVII That the custome of bowing when the Name Page 71 Jesus is mentioned was appointed principally to set forth his Godhead and to keep Christians in a continuall Confession and memorie thereof being the main foundation of our Religion Chapter XVIII That Jesus Christ is Jehova Of the Name Page 74 Jesus that it is a proper Name of God No Person in the Trinitie hath any name proper but onely the Sonne Of divers appellative Names of God Chapter XIX An enquirie whether the pure Godhead considered Page 77. as not incarnate hath any proper Name The distinction of Names Proper and Appellative The opinion of Philo the Jew therein and of the Fathers that their judgement is That there is no proper Name of God but onely the Name Jesus The Authours submission hereof to the learned Reader Chapter XX. The Godhead of Christ shewed from his appellation Page 79 Jehova That no meere creature can be called Jehova The signification of that word The reverend esteem of it by the Ancients That by the word Tetragrammaton Jehova is meant both in Jewish and Christian Writers Chapter XXI The Conclusion of this second Booke with the Page 82 Authours resolute Confession of Jesus Christ to be the most High and the Onely Lord God The Table THE THIRD BOOK Containing an Assertion of the Incarnation of the most High and Onely God in the Person of Jesus Christ Chapter I. THe vindication of Eusebius against the Page 1 false aspersion of the Commenter That Eusebius consented to the Eternall Godhead of Christ and to the Article Homo-ousion His judgement conâ—erning Gods visible appearance to the Patriarches in the Person of the Sonne That the supream God appeared to Abraham in the Person of the Sonne The Vnitie of the Godhead in the Persons of the Father and the Son Chapter II. How in the Scriptures the most high God is said Page 6 to have been seen and yet that no man hath seen God and both very truely Two questions propounded concerning the visibilitie and invisibilitie of God Chapter III. The first question How God is invisible What Page 8 is meant by the Face of God some places of Scripture which seem Opposite are reconciled Chapter IV. More concerning the first question How God Page 10 hath been and may be seen What the word Angel signifieth Of the appearing of God by assuming a corporeall shape Of Gods walking in Paradise That the apparitions of God in corporeall shapes were but Preambles and Prefigurations of his Incarnation Chapter V. That the Incarnation of God was foreshewed in Page 13 words and by promises The meaning of the Image of God wherein Man was made The meaning of the oath under Abrahams thigh The mysterie of Abrahams entertaining God at meat and of Jacobs wrastling with God unfolded What is meant by the Back-parts of God A rejection of the errors of the Anthropomorphites and an Explication of the first Article of Englands Religion Chapter VI. The second question Why the Fathers said Page 16 that onely the Sonne was seen by the Patriarchs and not the Father seeing both persons are but one God An exception of the difference between seeing God in this life and in the other life Whether God in the Person of the Father was ever seen in an assumed shape the judgement of
vigilant now at all the ports of thy soul and take some antidote of thy precious Christian faith to corroborate thy heart against the danger of most deadly poyson for now the Serpents nest and Pandora's box are to be opened containing multitudes of evils and deadly blasphemies against the Divine Person of thy dear Saviour and his precious death all which I must now present to thy view and for thy more easie discovery I will draw them out in two files The first containeth such blasphemies which deny the Godhead and Divine nature of Jesus Christ The second containeth such blasphemies as deny the Incarnation of God and the Redemption of man by the Passion bloodshed and death of thy Saviour when he offered himself a full sufficient expiatory sacrifice on the altar of the Crosse and also such as deny the merit of his active obedience in fulfilling the Whole Law and performing the Covenant of God in our stead on our behalf and to our benefit and now they advance Blasphemies against the Godhead of Jesus Christ 1. That Christ was by his Resurrection consequently deiâ—ied Chap. 1 vers 2. pag. 3. it seemes the Commenter doth not believe that Christ was God before his death 2. That the Creation of the world cannot be referred to Christ Chap. 1. vers 10 p. 10. That his making of the world was but the restoring of mankind to a new state pag. 3. yet all things were made by him that were made Joh. 1. 3. 3. That Christ had an immense measure of the Holy Ghost Cap. 1. 9. p. 9. If it were immense how is it a measure and if by measure how is it immenâ—e is not this illogical blasphemy the Scripture saith of him God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him Joh. 3. 34. 4. That Christ had a beginning Cap. 1. 12. p. 13. Yet of Christ it is said His goings forth have been from everlasting Mich. 5. 2. 5. That if the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrewes had taken Christ to be the supream God he had discouâ—sed impertinently C. 1. 10. p. 10. That it is manifest that Christ is not the Supream God C. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ was a divine man C. 7. 22. p. 136. That Christ was opposed to God Cap. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ carried himself as a person diverse from God and that he was so the thing it self declares C. 12. 25. p. 320. p 54. 6. That Christ doth not forgive sins of his own authority Cap. 4. 14. pag. 70. That Christ hath not power of himself to save us C. 9. 24. p. 192. Yet Christ saith The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins Matth 9. 6. and Thou shalt call his Name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins Mâ—â— 1. 21 7. That the Angels are equal to Christ for duration C. 1. 10. p. 10. The â—ngel are creatures Christ is their Creator and therefore before them and of longer duration à parte anâ—e but if he mean that Angels are equal to him for duration à parte â—â—st onely he hath said nothing to his own purpose for so soules of men yea and devils â—â— all endure for ever but the Son of God is from everlasting to everlasting as is shewed out of Mich. 5. 2. 8. That the Lord Christ was not the first Author of the Gospel but God was the first C. 2. 3. p. 19. If the Law had been published by God himself it had been mâ—re excellent then the Gospel c. C. 2. 2. p. 16. This blasphemy is particularly answered before Cap. 7 9. That the Saints in heaven shall noâ—â—e under Christ but besides him C. 2. 6. p. 23. What! Check by soul yet Philip. 2. 1â— God hath puâ— all things under his feet and gave him to be head over all things to the Church and this Supremacy is there said to be in heavenly places verse 20. and The four and twenty Elders fall down and worship the Lamb Rev. 4. 10. 10. That it appears that faith in Christ is not contained in all faith in God Cap. 11 6. p. 251. That he that believes in Christ doth not believe in him finally but in God by him C. 3. 12. p. 54. He would have you believe there is something greater and better then Christ to believe in Ultimatè Terminativè 11. That Christ must not be compared with that Angel who represented God C. 12. 25. p. 321. Yet Christ even in his humane nature exalted is set far above all Principalities and powers and might and dominion and every name that is named not onely in this world but in that which is to come Ephe. 1. 21. Indeed he is said to be made lower then the Angels to suffer death Heb. 2. 9. lower in the humiliation of his humane nature but of his Divine nature alone and of his humane exalted and so of his whole Person as he is Emmanuel it is said Heb. 1. 6. Let all the Angels of God worship him The total summe of all these is Onely this blasphemy That Christ is not God Blasphemies against the Incarnation of the Son of God and his Work of Redemption 1. That Christ the Son of God cannot be said to be Incarnate more then the Saints are Heb. 2. 14. pag. 31. 2. That the Supream God can no way be a Priest C. 5. 5. p. 80. True if you had added this Except he be Incarnate and assume humane nature 3. The expiatory Offering of Christ for our sins was not performed on earth but in heaven C. 7. 1. p. 116. c. 8. 4. p. 146. c. 9. 12. p. 168. That his offering did not consist in his death but by his entrance into heaven after death C. 9. 7. p. 160. his Priesthood began there C. 9. 14. p. 171. 4. That Christ was not the Author of the New Testament but is called the Testator only because he was the main witnesse C. 9 19. p. 182 183 184. 5. That when it is said Jesus made a surety of a better Testament Heb. 7. 22. it is not meant that Christ became our surety to God and took upon him the payment of our debts But was a surety of Gods promise and dyed to assert the truth of the Covenant C. 7. 22. p. 136 319 348 357. 6. That Eusebius would not have the Son of God who appeared to Abraham to be the most high God Cap. 13. 2. p. 331. 7. That the Nicene Fathers hâ—ld not that the Son is that one most high God who is the Father These are the Articles of Infidelity which are affirmed by this Commenteâ— against which consisting of two Heads as is said I will Gods assistance addresse two Books following in the former whereof The Godhead of Christ shall be declared and in the later the Incarnation of the same Jesus who is the true onely and supream God shall be manifested and thereby the Great and gracious Mystery of man's Redemption by our God so Incarnate
open Market-place cured diseases raised spirits presented to their view Magical banquets and seemed to release those that were possessed by devils therefore Celsus said that Jesus performed his miracles by art Orig. Cont. Cels lib. 1. n. 32. magick I say seemed onely for we learn from our Saviour that one devil is not cast out by another and Satan is not divided against himself and although when ignorant people imploy one Witch to help them against another some present ease may seem to be procured yet indeed as Austin observeth Non exit Aug. l. 83. quaest qu. 79 n. 88. Satanas per infimas potestates sed in intima regreditur regnat in voluntale corpori parcens i. Satan is not dispossessed by any infernal power but retireth himself into the more inward parts of the possessed and though he spare the body yet he â—yrannizeth more in the soul and maketh his possession stronger Because this is a dangerous apostasie to seek to or to attribute the work of God to him therefore Christ used divers arguments against it and so did the Ancient Fathers Origen Athan. Euseb Austin and others which having but touched I omit to avoid digressions The greatest difficulty in this question is what our Saviour meant by the words holy Spirit or holy Ghost when he said The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven for the understanding whereof I will lay down a few Considerations to the Reader that from them he may gather the true meaning of that hard saying First That in Christ there are two natures 1. His Godhead or Divine nature by which he is called God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. 2. His humane nature or manhood made of the seed of David according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. The first of these is called Forma Dei the second is called forma Servi both are Philip. 2. 6 7. mentioned Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal to God but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant Secondly Consider that there are two spirits in Christ 1. His soul or humane spirit of which he saith Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. Secondly his Divine Spirit of which it is said If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is noni of his Rom. 8. 9. Thirdly that according to his two natures there are two filiations in Christ for 1. He is called the Son of man the son of David 2. He is called the Son of God Fourthly That according to those two natures two spirits and two sonships the Scripture mentioneth two kinds of blasphemies against Christ thâ— one against him as he is the Son of man and this is pardonable Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him Matth. 12. 32. The other unpardonable But Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost â—t shall not be forgiven him Ibid. Fifthly That the appellation Holy Spirit in Scripture is taken two wayes 1. Pro deitate essentiae omnium personarum Paâ—ris Filii Spiritûs i. For the Godhead or divinity of all the Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost because all are one God as Matth. 12. 28. John 4. 24. 2. It is taken Personaliter i. properly for the third Person alone as Baptizing them in the Nâ—me of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Matth. 28. 19. and this distinction is acknowledged by divers late Divines of the Reformed Churches a Polan l. 3. c 6 Polanus b Bucan l. 3. p â—â— Bucan c Tilen p. 141. Tilenus and d Melan. in loc Com. de Spirit Ph. Melanthon From these plain and confessed Considerations I extract these two Propositions 1. That it is no inconvenience to affirm That those words hoâ—y Spirit or Holy Ghost in that place do signifie the Godhead of the second Person Jesus Christ 2. That to deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ is that blasphemy which in the Gospel is said to be unpardonable And this is my Conclusion which hereafter I hope I shall evidently demonstrate to the Readers satisfaction CHAP. III. That the Godhead of the Son is called Spirit and holy Spirit that the words Ghost and Spirit are of the same signification LEt it not seem strange that the appellation of one person is given to another for as in this place the Godhead of the Son is called the holy Spirit so in another place the Godhead of the Son is called the Everlasting Father Esa 9. 6. For unto us a child is born his Name shall be called wonderfull counsâ—llour the mighty God the everlasting Fâ—ther In that he saith a child is born it must needs be meant of the Son of God and the Son is called the everlasting Father because he is God for the Godhead of every person being but one in all is may be called the everlasting Father and so the holy Ghost is the everlasting Father also because the holy Ghost is God and yet this doth not confound the three persons or their severall and distinct prâ—prieties and personalities for albeit every Person is the everlasting Father in respect of men and of creatures because all concurred in the creation yet onely the first Person hath this Personall proprietie to be the Father of the sâ—cond Person and so the Father of God as the Son is the Father respectu Creaturarum i. in respect of the creatures so the first Person is Father of God and of Man as that in the Poet if it were in the singular number might illustrate Hominum sator atque deorum a Virg. Aene. l. 1. so God the Father is the Father of God the Son that is the Father of the Person of the Son but not the Father of the Godhead of the Son b Pater Personae non essentiae Pater Filii non deitatis We in our Creed confess the Son to be God of God that is God the Son of God the Father but we do not say Deitas de deitate Godhead of Godhead Neither could the Son of God call God the Father his Lord and his God but onely because the Person of the Son assumed the humane nature and form of a servant as St. Augustino hath observed upon that saying Ps 22. 10 Thou art my God from my mothers belly c Pater est Deus Dominus Filio quia in eo est forma servi De ventre matris Deus meus es tu Ps 22. 10. Sed antâ— omnia secula Pater est i. The Father is the Lord and God of the Son because the Son assumed the form af a servant therefore it is said in the Psalme Thou art my God from my mothers belly but the Father may be said to be his Father from eternitie As every Person is called a Father so as is said so also every Person is called Holy because the Godhead is holy
of God the Son and the reason and purpose why he was Incarnate THe Mysterie of the Incarnation of God is frequently in Scripture set forth unto us when the Saviour promised is said to be the seed of the woman the seed of Abraham Emmanuel the Son of David the Word made flesh taking the form of a servant and most evidently of all Heb. 2. 14 taking part of the same flesh and blood with us men And yet this commenter tels us that Christ can not be said to be Incarnate 31. c. 2. v. 14. though both of them are confessed to partake of flesh and blood a bould assertion but false and dull untheological unphilosophical for here are two Propositions both false and one of them blasphemous also I. The faithful are not Incarnate Faithfulnes or unfaithfulnes doe not hinder Incarnation the question must be whether a man may be said to be Incarnate if every man prove Incarnate then must Christ also be so for he is a perfect man and more also a very smal matter will give a denomination a man that hath but a gowne on his back is denominated Tâ—gatus and shall not he who hath an immortal soule united with his flesh be called incarnate to be incarnate is to be in Carne i in the flesh I hope you will not denie that the soule of a man whilest it is in the bodie may be said to be Incarnate the soule of a man can exist without the body and is seperable and when it shall be parted from the body then it is Discarnated but when it is joyned with the body who will doubt to say it is incorporated or incarnated now from the Incarnation of this principal and essential part of man the whole man is said to be Incarnate S. Paule knew a man whether in the body or out the body he could not tell 2 Cor. 12. 2. surely a man in the body may be called Incorporate and so Incarnate and Gal. 2. 20. the life which I now live in the flesh S. Paule saith he lived in the flesh in Corne therfore he thought himself incarnate againe Phil. 1. 22. If I live in the flesh abide in the flesh is more needful for you S. Paule is one of the faithfull and he confessed that he lived abode in the flesh therfore he was in Carne incarnate I never read that a beast is called incarnate because the body and soule of a beast cannot both exist if seperated as mans soule and body doe therfore the fathers spake of them as of two distinct men Care anima duo homines exterior interior Amb. de Inst veig l. 2. n. 35. Naz. Epist 94 n. 38. Ath. de Incar n. 23. Tert. de anim c. 9. Mens cujusque is est quisque Tul in Som. Scip. Ro. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 2. 14. i. the soule and the body two men the outward and the inward man Apud nos Philosophus Anima vocantur externus internus homo i. The Philosopher with his soule are called by us the outward and the inward man just so saith Athanasius and Tertullian although he went too far in saying the soul was corporeal If any the soule a man be denominated Animatus shall he not as well from his flesh be called Carnatus I am sure in Scripture a man is called both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carnal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Animalis because he hath some of the natural inclinations of soule and body in him not wholly subdued by the Spirit If wee will speak strictly and properlie Incarnation must principally be said of the Soule because that part of us in its owne nature is incorporeal but being joyned with the flesh becomes Incarnate it seemes by Moses description of the Creation Gen. 2. 7. that the body of man was framed before the soule was insufflated and both Orâ—gen and divers Philosophers before him thought that the soule was more ancient then the bodie and they called the body the sepulcher and Theod. de div decret l. 5. n. 17. Ambr. Epist l. 4. n. 53. id in Hex l. 6. c. 6. Tert. de anim prison of the Soul and the Christian writers said of it to the like purpose one calleth it Tunicam Pelliceam Adami and againe Caro est amictus animae and another cals it Domum animae and another vestimentum animae and saith that the soule is but inquilinus corporis i. the body is the coat of skin the apparel the howse of Chrys ho. 5. Antioc the soule and the soule is but a temporary inmate of the body the departure of the soule is like the putting off the apparrel of the body the 2. souldier-martyrs in id Epist ad Olymp. n. 39. Chrysostome calleth their bodies Indusium ultimum i. the innermost garment of the soule and of the holy woman Olympics he said That she was more ready to put of her body for Christ then others were to put of their apparel wherfore as when our naked bodyes are invested with garments they are said to be apparrelled so our souls clothed with our flesh are said to be Incarnate the Apostle describes the reuniting of our souls and bodies at the resurrection by this phrase of putting on immortalitie then I think no Christian will denie that when our souls after a long discontinuance from our flesh shall be restored and reunited with our bodies they may be said to be Incarnate or re Incarnate and the same kind of reasoning will much more prove the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus against the Commenters second proposition viz. 2. Christ the Captaine of the faithfull is not Incarnate Because the Ingredients of which our Jesus the Emmanuel is Composed are two viz. the divine nature or Godhead and the humane nature or manhood and because one of these ingredients I meane the Godhead had a real and seperate being by it self without flesh and without a body from all Eternitie before the creation of the world and because the same divine nature in the fulnes of time did assume an humane body and so partake of our flesh and blood I may now well say that our God is Incarnate because he is in carne in the flesh so that his Godhead and manhood are as the principles and ingredients of one Compound for they are but one person one Christ one Emmanuel because that divine nature which before had bin entire and single by it self is now joyned with another inferior nature the Scripture expresseth the mysterie in this phrase Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh he saith the word rather then the Son because the word signifieth his pure Godhead but the Son may also signifie his humane nature and that alone too for if Christ were nothing but a mere man yet hee might be called the Son but he could not be called the Word This is that which in Scripture is called God manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16. and Christ is
so said to be in the body of his flesh Col. 1. 22. And after his incarnation the time is called the dayes of his flesh Heb. 5 7. And he is said to be sent in the likenes of sinfull flesh Rom. 8. 3. not that his flesh was not real or but a meer similitude or phantasme as the Manichees said but it was real and pure without sin yet like unto our flesh which is sinfull surely S. Peterâ— thought Christ to be incarnate when he said Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh 1 Pet. 4. 1. I desire this Commenter who denieth this to consider Soberlie what the divine Apostle S. John hath said to this point more then once 1 Ioh. 4. 3. Every Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist wherof you have heard that it should come and even now already it is in the world Thus is this place now read and againe he saith 2 Ioh. 7. Many deceivers are entred into the world who confess not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh this is a deceiver and an Antichrist The fathers spake in the same manner of the Godhead to be Incarnate in the flesh of Christ as they spak of the incarnation of an humane soule in an humane bodie Corpus Domini est vestis regia Chrys to 5. ser 65. Atha Disp in Nic. Concil n. 27. Aug. de Civit. l. 18. c. 35. Euseb Emiss n. 32. i. the bodie of the Lord his garment royal Corpus Domini est amiculum dei Caro est amictus verbi i. the flesh of the Lord is the garment of God and upon those words Mal. 3. 1. The Lord shall suddenly come to hisâ— Temple S. Austin expounds thus In Templum id est in Carnem i. by coming into his temple is meant his coming in the flesh and â—hristi vestimentum humanitas est qua divinitas induta videri non poterat i. The garment of Christ is his humane nature which covered his divinitie as garments doe our bodies The reason why our Commenter denieth the Incarnation of an humane soule is as I imagine because he thinketh the soule dieth wiih the body And shall rise againe at the resurrection of the body and that it hath no existence but only in the body and the reason why he denies the Incarnation of Christ is because he doth not believe Christ to be God from Eternitie but that he hath his beginning from his humane birth and that after his resurrection he was Deified for his fore-runners the Arians said that Christ was but a God made that is all one with Deified that this Son of God was not equall to the Father in Eternitie in his answer I trow he will resolue that question which S. Austin asked the Arians Quot annis precedit Deus Pater Aug. de 5. her to 6. n. 6. filium suum i. how many yeares was God the Father older then God the Son or how long was the Father God before the Son was God in the meane time we will rest satisfied in the sure word of God who saith Esa 43. 10. Before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me wee read that by God the Word all things were made Joh. 1. 3. time is a creature therfore it was made by him and he was before for if time time were before the Son of God then could he not be called The first borne of every creature Coloss 1. 15. The reason why rhe Son of God did take upon him our nature was because he would in our stead as a suretie and undertaker both performe the whole Law and also sustaine all the penaltie of our transgressions of which more hereafter CHAP. VIII More reasons why the Son of God was Incarnate how and when he became our suetrie the Aeternal covenant explained distinction of Persons in the Godhead THe Supream and Eternal â—od in the person of the son did for mans redemption â—â—kâ— man's nature upon him not because God had no other way by which he could have saved us but because he would not save us any other way for wee know that the same God who saveth man by taking man's nature did and still doth preserve the blessed angels in their estate of glorie and from falling by his power and gracious goodnes although he did not take upon him the naâ—ure of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2. 16. The Church never taught thaâ— God could not have saved man without the Incarnation of his Son but the contrarie Athanasius saith a Poterat Deusâ—sine adventu Atha cont Aria ser 3. n. 7. Christi peccatum solvâ—re verbulo suo i. God could have remitted our sins with the least word though Christ had not come in the flesh for if an earthly King can save his subject who hath by the law forfeited his life could not the Omnipotent King have saved mankind by his power for who can resist his will But then why did God give his Son to take our nature on him To this it may be answered that albeit the Son of of God was Originally a meer gift and from the free grace of God to mankind yet accessarily it became a debt and due to man so that God was bound in Justice ro give his Son because God had by his promise and Covenant ingaged and bound himself so to doe for although his meer mercy and goodnes moved him to make such a promise yet when he had once promised his justice and truth required the performance of that promise Deus dignatur promissionibus suis debitor Aug Confes. l. 5. c. 9 fieri i. God vouchsafed to make himself a debtor to or by his owne promises and having so made himself a debtor to man how could he without violating his word and promise forbeare the performance But where doth this promise appeare and how shall wee know that the Son of God became an undertaker and suert â— for us men and when was this Covenant made for the mysterie of man's redemption doth depend upon the Covenaâ—t and by it the Son of God did engage and bind himself out of his free and meer grace to become a suertie for man therfore before I proceede any further this Covenant must be inquired after as the cheife evidence of Christs ingagment It was an old question moved either by some scoffers or curious persons what God did before he made heaven and earth unto which some made answer with a jocular reproof Gâ—hennas parabat alta Scrutâ—ntibus i. he made hel for such seekers but S. Austin liked not Aug. Conf. l. 11. c. 12. this answer but said libentius respondeo nescio quod nescio i. I would rather answere that I know not So in that book of Cicâ—ro which was called Hortensius but is now lost this objection was made against the unitie of God Si Deus unus est
the air men riding on white horses and saying Go tell Didymns that Iulian is at this hour slain and bid him signifie the fame to Athanasius Theodoret also reporteth of an holy Theod. hist l. 3. c. 24. man named Saba that as he was earnestly and with tears praying against the tyranny of Iulian suddenly he changed his sad countenance and looking pleasantly said to them that were with him The Boar that rooted up the vineyard of the Lord is now slain This proved true and at the very same time though this Saba was distant 20. dayes march from the place where Iulian Stativis died and because it could nâ—ver appear by what man Iulian was slain men might well think it was done by some extraordinary means for though the Peâ—sian king against whom Iulian made his last war made great inquiry through his whole Army and proposed great honours and rewards by proclamation to him that had Soz. l. 6. c. 1. slain the Roman Emperour yet â—one could be found to take that honour upon him Nay I finde in Socrates Soc. l. 3. c. 18. that one Calisius who was of the train or life-guard of Iulian reported in writing that this Iulian was wounded and slain à Daemone that is by a good or a bad Angel for by Heathens both sorts are called daemones upon these presumptions which to me seem not unprobable the Church-men of those dayes did attribute the destruction of this blasphemer to the extraordinary hand of God and therefore Nazianzâ—n in one of his Orations against this Iulian useth this expression Audiâ—e angeli quorum opera tyrannus extinctus Naz. in Julian Orat. 3. est i. Hear O ye Angels by whose Ministery this Tyrant was destroyed I might here adde the like examples of Gods vengeance shewed upon other Arians as upon Georgius who was put into the sequestered Church of Athansius but in the end the people fell upon him dragged him through the City of Alexandria beat him and slew him and burnt his body to ashes As also how the Arians accounted him after his death for a Martyr as Epiphanius Epiph. haer 76 notes But Olympus an Arian Bishop perished by a more memorable vengeance for having blasphemed the Trinity Pal. ad an 510. Platina in vita Anastaâ—ii 2 di as he was in a Bath three fiery darts were cast at him visibly by an Angel and by them he was presently fired and burnt to death as Palmerius in his Chronicle reporteth But thus much may suffice for the first question This Exposition being admitted upon those places in the 3. Evangelists as I do firmely believe it is the true meaning thereof this question will be clear which by other Expositions hath a long time much perplexed our Expositours and could never give satisfaction to the Reader nor could the Expositours tell us certainly upon what persons they could fasten this sin and therefore Beza in his notes upon 1 Epist of Saint Iohn c. 5. v. 16. tells us it is the sinne of the Devill because indeed as he there states it it could not be found clearly in any man CHAP. VI. The second question why this blasphemy of denying 2. Quest the Godhead of Christ is said to be especially unpardonable THe reason why the denying the Godhead of Christ is said to be the irremissible sin is because AugEpist 105. if Christ be not indeed the true and onely and supream God then he hath not redeemed us and we are and must be for ever Massa dâ—mnationis i. a lump of perdition and fuell for hell-fire for there is no salvation in any other Acts 4. 12. When St. Peter had said Thou art Christ the Son of the living God Matth. 16. 16. Christ told him Vpon this Rock will I build my Church that is upon this Confession that Christ is the Son of God for the Church is the nursery Cyp. de simpl cler n. 76. of Heaven and none can have God for their Father who have not the Church for their mother and the Church is built upon this foundation and other foundation can no man lay then that is laid which is Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 3. 11. for This is life everlasting that they might know thee the onely true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent John 17. 3. that is as St. Austin expounds Aug. cont ser Arian to 6. n. 17. it to know thee and whom thou hast sent to be one true God There is no redemption and therefore no salvation but in Christ nor can there be any salvation by Christ if he be not God and though Christ be God and so a Saviour yet salvation cannot be from him derived to any that do not believe him to be God The aforenamed Father when he desired vehemently to work upon his Readers he divers times used this expression Per Divinitatem humanitatem Domini obsecro I beseech Aug. Epist 203. you by the Divinity and humanity of our Lord. And both he and other Fathers in their Expositions Chry. 4. hom Antioch Aug. de Doct. ch l. 2. c. 16. of that saying Be wise as Serpents Matthew 10. 16. Tell us that the Serpentine prudence is that when he is aâ—saulted he exposeth his body to blowes that so he may preserve his head To teach us that we also in time of persecution Custodiamus caput Epiph. hae 37. id est Christum in confessione i. though we fail in some inferiour points of Religion yet to be sure to hold to God in Christ for Christ is the head of his Church and the head of Christ is God 1. Cor. 11. 3. In Christo caput Euseb Hist l. 1. c. 1. est Divina naturâ— saith Eusâ—bius and Saint Hierome gives the reason Qâ—oniam Deitas quae in eo erat gubernabat Hier. in loc i. The Godhead in Christ did govern the humane nature for whosoever rejecteth the Godhead of Christ doth thereby disclaim the only sussicient means of Redemption and therefore Fuâ—gentius saith truly i. Christianus esse non potest quiâ—qâ—is Christum Dominum Deum suum esse non dixerit i. He that doth not confess Fulg. de fide P 9. n. 1. that Christ is his Lord God cannot be a Christian For such a mans religion is no better then the religion of Jewes and Turks for both these confess a God but Ariani Jâ—daeorum Judaei Arianorum Ambros de incar c. 2. n. 27 neither of them confess Jesus to be that God And * Carion in Const magno Act. mon. in Hen. 7. n. 52. Atha eont Arian Orat. 2. n. 5. Apolog. 2. n. 16 Apol. de fuga Caâ—ion in his Chronicle saith that the Arian Heresie did open the door to let in Turâ—isme and was Praecursor Mahometis i. that Arius was the forerunner of Mahomet and so of Antichrist and Mr. Fox doubteth not to affirm that the Turk is the principall Antichrist and the Fathers long
the Church as it was long before the time of Nestorius recorded by Gregorie of Neo-Cesaria qui Greg. Thaum de 12. cap. fidei n. 2. dicit Christum esse perfâ—ctuâ— hominâ—m divise Deâ—m divise non unum Domiâ—uâ— ei aâ—aâ—hâ—ma i. Cursed is he that calleth Christ a perfect man separately and that calleth him God separately so denying him to be one Lord God For this erroneous doctrine is destructive to the work of redâ—mption if the Person who died for us was not in his very death very God so that he by reason of that Personall union before mentioned might truely be called Dâ—us crucifixus God crucified and therefore our Commenter is also in this errour who will afford Christ no better Title then a Divine Man p. 136. which is no more then â—ay be said of a Prophet an Apostle or any holy man whereas he should acknowledge him to be Dâ—us homo God and Man united So St. Austine in one of his Books had said that Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. Christ was Dâ—miniâ—us homo but he retracted it Quia Dâ—mâ—nusest saith he because he is more then a Man of the Lord for this Man is the Lord. For this hypostaticall or Personall union must be in and go through all the great dispensations of our Saviour's Medâ—atourship both in his active and passive obedience for otherwise his fulfilling the Law had been beneficiall to none but himself and his passion could not have sufficed for the whole world therefore the Personall union was most necessary to that great work and is declared both in the Scriptures and in the Fathers For whereas we now reade 1 Iohn 4. 3. Every spirit that confesseâ—h not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is Soc. l. 7. c. 32. not of God This place is thought by Socrates to have been corrupted by the Nestorians for indeed the old reading was as we to this day find both in Hierome and Prosper Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jeâ—um Every Prosper de vocat Gent. l. 1. c. 23. Spirit that divideth Iesus that is which separateth his Divine from his humane nature The Scripture joyneth both in a communion of properties as is said before for Elizabeth calleth Mary Luk 1. 43. The Mother of my Lord no doubt but she meant the mother of her Lord God for otherwise how was Christ her Lord but as David calls him Lord and as St. Ambrose noteth upon the words One Lord In Ambr. de Spir. sanct l. 3. c. 17. Dominatione diviniâ—as est in diviâ—iâ—ate Dominatus That in the title Lord the Lord God is meant So again Acts 20. 28. Feâ—â— the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood that is with the blood of God for it cannot otherwise be understood So likewise 1 Cor. 2. 8. They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory Now I ask who is the Lord of glory but onely God Consider now that to have a mother and to have blood and to be crucified though they be such things as properly belong to the humane nature yet you see that these humane infirmities are said of God because the same Person is both God and Man To this Doctrine of the Scripture agreeth the doctrine of the Fathers concerning this communication of propertics for because in Scripture Christ is called the Son of David therefore St. Chrysostome without any scruple saith that David is a Chrys serm de pseudopro n. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because the Scripture calleth Iames the brother of our Lord Gal. 1. 19 the same Father saith that Iames was b Chrys serm de poenit n. 49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that David was the Father of God Iames was the brother of God and also St. Austine saith that David was c Aug. de 5. haeres c. 2. 10. 6. n. 6. Parens Dei the Parent of God and Oâ—igen saith d Orig cont Cels l. 1. n. 33. Corpus Iesu est â—orpus Dei that the Body of Jesus is the body of God This Doctrine was held by the Church to be of such great weight and concernment that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Councill of â—halcedoâ— added this to the Creed as an Article of Faith e Evangrius l. 2. c. 4. Mary the mother of God and afterwards in another Creed ratified by the edict of Justinus the Emperour f Evag. l. 5. c. 4. The Virgin Mary is again called the Mother of God And the Emperour Justinian built a Church and called it g Evag. l. 5. c. 21. Templum Deâ—paâ—ae the Church of the mother of God and Gregory Nazianzen long before in an Epistle written to Cledonius had affirmed h Naz. Orat. seu Epist 51. Si quis Mariam non credi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that doth not believe Mary to be the mother of God himself is an Atheist and without God Nestorius for denying this Doctrine was summoned to the Councell of Ephesus which was called Soc. l. 7. c. 33 by the authority of the Emperour Theodosius the younger where Cyril of Alexandria sate President the Councell deposed Nestorius out of his Bishoprick and the Emperour banished him In his banishment his blasphemous tongue rotted in his mouth and was eaten out with worms so he died with a mark of Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Evag. ib. Gods vengeance on him as Arius did and the Church History passeth this hard sentence on him Ex his miseriis ad sempiterna supplicia migravit that he departed out of this misery into eternall torments Notwithstanding all this Thalâ—ia Arii this pretty Ath. cont Arian or 2. n. 5. Commentary tells us that Christ is not the supream God nor ever was a God till he rose from the dead for then he was Consequently Deified so if he be God he must be but of a late Edition This Doctrine harmoniously agreeth with the Heathens Theology which also tells us of Dii superi inferi Medioxumi Magni Minuti Plaut in Cist Patellani i. High and low and middle gods great and small and Pint-pot deities The deifying of heathen Emperours hath as good authority from Scripture I have said ye are Gods Psal 82. And Romulus Mart. l. 5. Ep. 8. Julius Augustus Dominus Deusque noster Domitianus are as well God deified as Christ himself by this Comment And in the Church-Writers Deification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word used by Dionysius is ascribed to mortall men for that Father sheweth that an holy Man indued with the Spirit of God may be said to be Deified that is assimulated to God indued Dâ—ony Areop de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. id epist 2. n. 10 Naz. or 37. n. 29. with sanctified and united to God And in another place he tells us Deificatio est imitatio i. Deification is the imitating of God and to the same purpose Nazianzen saith Spiritus nos deificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his word Men indued with Gods Spirit are Deified because God is in them and as it were mingled with them and worketh in them And Athanasius saith Homines in quibus est Spiritus Deificantur Atha ad Serapion n. 26. vid. 2 Pet. 1. 4. Now in what sense our Saviour may be said to be Deified in the later times of the world who was the supream and onely God from all eternity would next be inquired CHAP. IX More concerning Deification and in what sense Christ may be said to be Deified THe Arians were in this Doctrine something more ingenuous then this Commenter though in them it was also most pernicious for they Ath. Hil. cont Arian n. 7. confessed that Christ was the Son of God because they knew that the Saints were so called and they said Christ was before time began because they believed that Angels and Devils were before the world and they called Christ by the Name of God because the Scriptures call some creature so But they would not confess him to have the same Godhead with the Father for they said that he was Deus factus made a God or Ambros de cil div c. 2. n. 26. deified and that he was the Son of God not by nature but by gift or grace and not by eternall generation but by power given as Kings are called Gods for so Saint Ambrose observeth Deus in Scripturis est Ambr. de fide l. 1. lib. 5. c. 1. n. 22 23. 1 Verus 2 Nuncupativus nam sunt qui dicuntur Dii non sunt 3 Falsus ut Dâ—mones i. In Scripture God signifieth 1 The true God 2 Such as 〈◊〉 but called Gods and â—re not so 3 False gods of 〈…〉 this Commenter when he was argued 〈…〉 learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈…〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessed that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But one of the â—â—â—pany â—â—quired him further to declare how long Christ had been God and whether from Eternity at which question he seemed very angry and for present left the room Now indeed the Fathers do oftentimes apply this word to Christ and say that he was Deified and that in time also and not before his incarnation for he could never have been said to have been deified if he never had been incarnate it is only his humane nature that is said to be deified and not his Spirit or divine nature for the Word cannot otherwise be said to be deified then as he is hominified if I may have leave to use that word for Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh signifieth that God was made man by his incarnation and man was made God by the person I union of the divine and humane natures for so he alcame Theanthâ—opos and Emmanuel The reason is because when God assumed a body by his incarnation that body then became the body of God as is shewed before out of Origen and so that Orig. in Mat. tract 21. n. 41. Father expresseth himself thus Christus deificavit humanam naturam quam suscepit Christ deified that humane nature which he assumed Neither may we think so grosly of this deification as if the flesh of Christ were turned into the Goâ—head but onely because it is joyned to the Godhead and assumed into a personall union with it therefore the Name of God is also stamped upon it so that we may truly say the man Christ is God and yet the body and soul of Christ still are and for ever will be creatures In Aug. Epi. 221. this sense St. Austin saith Homo versus est in Deum nâ—c amisit naturam Man is become God and yet man did not lose his humane nature and thus Athanasius saith Archangeli semper antea adorabanâ— Filium sed nunc Atha Orat. 2. cont 2. Arian n. 5. Jesum adorant incarnatum carne quâ—m deâ—fiâ—averat The Archangels did alwaies before the incarnation worship the Son of God but they worship him now in that flesh which by assuming it he now hath deified For now it is the flesh of God as the Scripture calleth his blood the blood of God Act. 20. 28. and so the same Father useth thâ—s word divers times in the same sense g Atha orat 2. cont Ar. n. 5. h. Id. ser 4. cont Arian n. 7. Non deificatus fuisset homo nisi verbum fuisset incarnatum And h. Christus carnem assumendo hominem deificavit The manhood could not have been deified if the Word had not been incarnate and Christ deified man by assuming flesh St. Austin writing upon those words Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ not of men nor by man Gal. 1. Gal. 1. 1. 1. Aug. exp in Gal. in praefaâ— n. 97. 1. saith 1. Paulus missus est per Christum jam totum Deum quia ex omni parte immortalem That Paul is said not to be called by man because Christ was at that time wholly God because now he was perfectly immortall so he fastned this deification or immortality 2. Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 21. only on his humane nature for his divine nature was the immortall God from all eternity and Theodoret upon those words God hath highly exalted him Phil. 2. 9. saith Est de carne quae deificata est nam dominus Theod. Dial. in confu n. 12. gloriae non dicitur glorificari 'T is meant of the flesh of Christ deified for as he is the Lord of glory he cannot be exalted deified or more glorified So Origen Orig. in Levit. hom 3. saith of a Levitical sacrifice that it signified Carnem Christi in coelis deificandam that the flesh of Christ in heaven was to be deified and this deifying the flesh of Christ is said to be done in heaven because there it was glorified and immortall and on earth he is said to be deified because of the Hypostaticall union of his 3. Pet. Diac. apul Fulg. n. 2. 2 natures whereby his flesh was indeed Caro Dei the flesh of God By thus distinguishing the two natures in Christ the ancient Fathers answered the objections of old hereticks made against the eternall divinity of Christ for in the same sense that the Son of God is said to be Phil. 2. 9. Eph. 1. 20. Mat. 28. 18. Act. 3. 13 15. deified he is also in Scripture said to be exalted to be set far above all Angels and Principalities to be made the head of the Church to sit at the right hand of God to have a name given him above all names that are named That all power is given him in heaven and in earth that God raised him from the dead and that Jesus is made an high Priest for ever all these sayings and many more of this â—ind are to be understood of the humane nature of Christ but cannot be verified of his divine nature Athanasius doth in generall give us this excellent rule m Athan. Ser. 4. cont Ar. n. 7. n. ib. Quae Christus
Aug. de Trin. l. 1. c. 8. n. 60. I answer with St. Austin Tradere regnum est eredentes perducere ad contemplationem Dei to deliver up the kingdom is to bring his Saints to the vision and fruition of God to present them pure unspotted free and fully delivered from the bonds and the ruling power of sin and of death which before had some power over them and God ruled in them but in part so that the dominion of the flesh had also a share in them but at the last judgment they shall be given up free from those intanglements as it is there said that then Christ shall put down all rule and authority and power ver 24. So that nothing shall have rule over them but God and he alone that God may be all in all ver 28. So that this delivering up is but so as Saint Paul desired 2. Cor. 11. 2. to present them to Christ as chaft Virgins and as a Philosopher said to his disciple reddam te tibi meliorem So Christ shall deliver Seneca de Benef l. 1. c. 8. us up to the Father in better condition then he found us for although God by his Omnipotency ruled over us before yet it was but as a King over stubborn and rebellious subjects but then the same God shall reign over the same subjects amended and wholly and willingly and joyfully submitting themselves to his divine will Secondly where it is said Christ shall reign till he â— hath put all his enemies under his feet This doth not signifie that Christ shall reign no longer but that the Kingdom of Christ shall indure untill then in despite of all the opposition of heresies Persecutors and Tyrants or of the world and the flesh and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it So that Christ shall reign till then as a King whose people are perpetually opposing resisting and rebelling against him but yet the King still holdeth his kingdome so albeit in the Kingdom of Christ and in his servants there is strife between the flesh and the spirit yet still the Spirit of Christ retaineth a kingly power in them for although the flesh lusteth against the spirit Gal. 5. 17. yet the Spirit helpeth our infirmities Rom. 8. 26. and God giveth us the victorie through our Lord Lord Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 15. 57. Christ reigneth during this world as a Warrior as the Lord of Hosts but afterwards he shall reign as a true Melchisedec king of Salâ—m Prince of peace so that his kingdom doth not end with the world but shall be refined and reformed not by any change in our King but in his subjects and this is the meaning of this word till in the judgment of Expositors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not alwaies signifie an utter cesâ—ation b Orig. 39. Donec non est definiens tempus c Cyr. Hiero. 17. Donec non habet finem sed consequens quiddam d Thâ—oph in Mat. Donec non adimit posterius e Naz. 28. Donec sequens tempus non excludit i. this word until doth not so limit us to the time past but that it leaveth open all time to come as Matâ—h 28. 28. I am with you unto the end of the world doth not signifie that Christ shall be with them no longer and so also it is used Psal 112. 8. and in many other places Thirdly where it is said the Son himself shall be subject 3. the meaning is not that the Son of God shall cease to be a King and shall turn subject for we are assured that he shall reign over the house of Iacob for ever and of his kingdom there shall be no end Luk. 1. 33. Now what is it in Christ that is capable of subjection but only his humane nature for no man will say that his Godhead can be subjected and as for his naturall â— body or humane nature it ever was and is and for ever shall be subject to his Godhead for the humane nature is ever ruled by the divine nature Neither shall his humane nature ever be depressed depreciated or subjected lower then that preferment which was conferred on it by his Godhead therefore this subjection cannot be meant of his own naturall body but it is indeed meant of his body mysticall his Church his Saints and Elect which are called his members and his body Your bodies are the members of Christ 1. Cor. 6. 15. and the Church is his body Eph. 1. 23. Eph. 5. 30. this exposition as it is most true so was it also that which the Fathers gave of this hard place Athanasius saith f Atha Cont. Apol. n. 22. Cum omnes nos subjicimur tum ipse dicitur subject When all we are subjected to Christ then Christ is said to be suâ—ject and Saint Ambrose saith g Ambr. de Fid. l. 5. c. â— n. 24. Christus subjicietur in nobis nondum subjectus est Christus quia membra nondum subjâ—cta sunt pro nobis â—â—â—it subjectus non pro se et in nobis subjicietur Christ shall be subject but it is in us as yet Christ is not subject because his members are not yet subjected it is in regard of us that he must be subjected not in regard of himself for so long as hâ—s mystical body is not perfectly subjected to the divine will as is shewed before the whole Body of Christ cannot be said to be fully subject and his mysticall body which consists of men over-ruled by the power and rebellion of flesh and blood never was yet perfectly subjected to God nor ever will be wholly obedient to him untill after the resurrection they shall be thus delivered up to the Father perfectly Sanctified Aug. 83. quaest qu. 69. n. 87. and cleansed and thus doth Saint Austin also expound it Subjectus erit dicitur de Christo et de membris ejus Scil. ecclesiâ cujus est caput sic de universo Christo annumerato corpore membris ejus Omnes vos unum estis in Christo Gal 3. 28. Christus universus est caput cum membris This subjection is said of Christ and of his members the Church of which Christ is the head So there is an universall Christ signifying the head and all the members as we read Gal. 3. 28. Yâ— are all one in Christ By what hath been said I trust the Reader will understand that neither this Deification preferment or exaltation nor this Subjection which is said of Christ doth in the least measure derogate from his Eternall and Supream Godhead SECT II. More concerning the subjection of Christ THis speech of Saint Paul that The Son himself shall be subject would be more throughly examined being one of the grand Arguments used by Aâ—iuâ— and his Sect against the eternall Godhead of the Son Therefore I crave thy patience good Reader whilest I discourse unto thee two questions pertinent First how it can be said that The
who is in three distinct persons or properties is one in Godhead and in that one Godhead the three persons are one and as Austins word is Vnissimi this was the judgment of Eusebius touching the apparition and the Godhead of the Son and Eusebius said no more in this point then divers other Fathers said also both before Eusebius and after him as is next to be shewed CHAP. II. That the most high God appeared visibly to the Patriarchs in the Person of the Son and not in the Person of the Father as the Ancients thought THe Fathers in their Expositions of these places in Scripture where it is said No man hath seen God at any time John 1. 18 and yet Iacob said I have seen God face to face Gen. 32. 30. who was therefore called Israel i. Seeing God or prevailing with God and the place Peniel i. the presence of God these seeming contradictions are by them thus reconciled Tertullian Tert. de Trin. n. 28. saith Deus Pater inuisibilis sed Deus Filius visibilis descendere solitus God the Father is invisible but God the Son is visible and used to descend If it be objected that the Book de Trinitate was not Tertullians which is an excellent and learned book Yet that this was Tertullions opinion appeareth in another Id. cont Marc. lib. 3. undoubted book where he saith Christus Abrahamo apparuit in veritate carnis sâ—d nâ—ndum nata i Christ appeared to Abraham in the flesh which flesh or body was not then born of the Virgin Clemens Alex. saith as much of the apparition of God to Iacob Clem. in Paedag l. 1. c. 7. Jacob luctatus est cum Deo Verbo nondum homo facto Iacob wrastled with God the Word before he was Incarnate Now we know that onely the second Person is called the Word and Christ And this was also the opinion of Origen who saith that our Lord Iesus Christ before Orig. in Eze. ho. 6. he assumed our flesh descended to the holy Patriarks and was with Moses And again he saith That Esaias was therefore sawn asunder by the Iews because Id. in Esa ho. 1 he had said I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne Isay 6. 1. Iustin Martyr also saith Deus Pater non dicitur venire Just dial cum Try n. 26. in locum sed Deus Filius the Father is not said to come into a place but God the Son is said and that God the Son was seene by the Patriarks and this was also the Opinion of Irenaeus and he giveth a reason Iren. l 4. c. 37. for it thus God the Son was often seen by men least men should not beleeve that there were any god at all but God in the person of the father was never seen least men by reason of familiaritie should contemne God or think that there could be no God but such an one as is corporeal and visible Thus you see that this opinion was not new in Eusebius time nor was by him first invented or singly mointained for many his Contemporaries were of the same judgment and they also which lived and writ after the death of Eusebius for this was the Doctrine of Athanosius and Atha Orat. Cont. Arion n. 8. Hil. de Trin. l. 4. Epiph. haer 65. Theod. hae f. 6. l. 5. n. 17. Mat. 11. 27. 1. Hilarius who both of them lived at the same time with Eusebius and the same was afterwards delivered by Epiphaâ—ius and Theodoret and the scripture seems to favour this exposition for it is said Ioh. 6. 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God i none have seen the Father but the Son of God but it is no where said that no man hath seen the Son for the Father is not seen but in the Son and God the Son was seen in his assumed manhood and therefore when the disciples desired to see the Father our saviour tould them he that hath seen me hath seen the Father Ioh. 14. â— that is God who is the father can not otherwise be visible but in the Son not in him but by the assuming of humane nature by which God becomes visible who in his pure God head is invisible and he that seeth God the Son in the flesh seeth the self same God who is the Father although the person of the Father was not incarnate yet the same God is incarnate in Christ for Col. 1. 15. Christ is the image of the invisible God that is as Beza noteth Christ is he in whom only the Father doth manifest and shew himself visible so he that sees God the Son sees God the Father for both persons are one God By what hath bin said it may appeare common that opinion of the primitive Christians was that it was the person of God the Son which appeared to the Patriarks not the person of God the Father Now because these ayings are hard to understand I think it will not be amisse to discourse the 2 questions following first how God is said to be invisible and how yet he hath bin and may be seen by mortal men Secondly seing there is but one God how it may be said that the Father hath not bin seen and yet the Son hath bin seen In which discourse I will not promise the reader full Satisfaction but â— doe promise him my indeavour CHAP. III. How God is said to be invisible What is meant by the face and the after parts of God HOw the Invisible God hath bin seen by mortal Eyes and in what sence he is said to be both Invisible 1. Quest and Visible will be worthy of our inquisition because the right understanding therof is pertinent to the doctrine of Man's redemption by the incarnation of God and will serve for reconciliation of some Scritures which at the first hearing may seeme to contradict one another for in the old Testament it is said Ex. 33. 11. The Lord spake unto Moses race to face But presently after in the same Chapter ver 20. God saith Thou canst not see my face for no man shall see me and live and it followes ver 23 thou shalt see my back-parts Yet before this Iacob had said Gen. 32. 30. I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved but in the new Testament it is said No man hath seen God at any time Joh. 1. 18. And againe 1 Joh. 4. 12. And S. Paul cals God invisible Col. 1. 15. and 1 Tim. 1. 17. For explication of these Scriptures it is to be understood that when God is called Invisible it is meant of the pure Godhead because the Essence Nature substance or divinitie is not visible by mortal Eyes in this sence S. Cyprian saith Deus est visu clarior tactu purior i the Majestio of the Godhead dazeleth all mortal Cyp. de idoorum vanitate â— 77. eyes and senses and thus neither the Father nor the Son nor
the Holy Ghost can be seene becase the Godhead of every and all Persons is one and alike invisible for God is a spirit and a spirit cannot be seene and therfor S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa triâ—itâ—s intellâ—giâ—ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist 112. Aug. Epist 111. Tert. cont Prax. Pater i. The whole trinitie is invisible and not only the Father and again he saith The whol trinitie is of a nature invisible and again he saith out of Ambros. and Hierome Neither the Father nor the Son can be seen in their divine nature For so noe Eye can see them and therfore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis i. Patriarks saw God not in the plenitude of his Majestie but according to the capacitie of man and to this both Ahanasius and Atha ad Antio n. 28. Chrys. ho. 48. Antio n. 17. Chrisostome agree Nemo essentiam invisibilis i. The essence of God is to all mortalls invisible The divine nature and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture somtimes calls the face of God of which God said to Mooses Thou canst not see my face and live so Theodoret expounds those words divina natura Theod Dialog immutat Atha quest ad Antioch n. 28. Aug. de Trin. l. 2. sub aspectum non cadit i. the divine nature can not be seen so doth Athanasius 1. Anteriora dei significant divinitatâ—m i. the foreparts of God signifie the Godhead and so S. Austin often tels us that the face of God signifies the form of God and the afterparts signifie the form of a servant which is the humane nature But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spake unto Moses face to face and how could Jacob say I have seene God face to face if the pure Godhead can not be seene And how could Moses tell the Israelites Deut. 5. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount and yet before he had said Deut 4. 15. yee saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb I answer that as in one place of those Scriptures alleaged the face of God signifies his divinitie or Godhead which can not be seen so in the other place it signifieth Gods presence manifested by words or signes wherby God declare th himself present as on mount Horeb by fier and thunder and in the tabernacle by a cloud or by a sound and words so Gods face or presence may be where there is no sight of him and so he spake to the people face to face because they knew for certaine that God was there present But Iacob saw the face of God because he saw the face of that man or that shape which wrastled with him when God appeared to him in the forme of a man although Iacob could not see the pure Godhead and this kind of appearing in an assumed shape is called by Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The appearing of God from hence the Dion Areop Caelest Hier. c. 4. Eus de Dem. l. 5. c l. 14. aforementioned Ensebius argued that because Iacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him in which man was God therfore he said it was the person of the Son and not the Person of the Father because Eusebius was persuaded that the Person of the Father did never shew himself in a visible shape â—nd for this Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons of which more hereafter CHAP. IV. More concerning the first question how God hath bin and may be seen FOr the further explanation of this question it would be inquired how it is said that God is visible and hath bin seene and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible which in their owne Spiritual nature are as invisible as the divine nature is for because a spirit hath nothing in it self which can be an object for mortal Eyes therfore whensoever Spirits or Angels good or bad are seen of men it must be by assuming some shape or body and mingling themselves with it that so they may become a fit visible object because only such things are visible for ever so many invisibles whether they be good or bad spirits Angels or devils cannot make one visible Object and therfore when we read in Scripture that God appeared in an Angel it is not so to be understood as if the invisible God became visible by taking uppon him the invisible nature of an Angel for an Angelâ—â—al nature is of it self as invisible as the divine nature as is said because both are Spirits but when God is seen in an Angel the Angel meant is the corpoâ—â—al visible shape which God assumeth and imployeth and useth for that purpose to be seen and to converse with man by for the word Angel doth not alwayes signifie a spiritual nature but any officer imployed by God as a Messenger so S. Iohn the Bapâ—ist is called Gods Angel Mat. 11. 10. in the Original So that the visible creature which is used as a Medium to present God visible is and may very fitly be called the Angel of God As Moses therfore put a Veile over his shining face which otherwise the people could not behold and as the Sun by our weak Eyes is better seen through the veil of a thâ—n mist then in its Cleer brightnes so in this life God is visible Only as in a glosse â—arkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightneâ— is invisible but the Invisible things of God are seen by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinitie can â—ot be sâ—â—e except it be clothed and allayed with some moâ—e grosse and Material veil and therfore at what time God shewed himself visibly to men he took some corpâ—real Creature and shape unto him that so he who by nature is invisible might in that assumed habit be seen and this was the resolution of the Fathers a Filius Atha de uniâ— Tâ—in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Maâ—â— iâ— Filius vâ—sus est Patriarchis in specie hâ—minis i. The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material and visible shape as â—â— a Man So S. Chrisostome saith The Prophets which saw Chrys ho. 10. Antâ—o Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id Epist 11â— God had not otherwise the expresse sâ—ght oâ— him sed figuras viderund i they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conveâ—sing with man in Paradise saith Deus locutus est cum pâ—imâ—s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali and againe Deus non est visâ—â— nisi assumptione creaturae i God talked with first parents in some bodily shape for God can not be seen but by assuming some Creature and
Generation from Adam but our better and spiritual regeneration is derived from Christ and as there are no Sons of Men but such as are so from Adam so ther are no Sons of God but those that are so from Christ Now if it be demanded how Christ and wee can be accounted one and what it is which came from Christ and is in man that so he may be said to be in us and so that what he did or suffered should be really accounted as done or suffered by us for although wee know why Adam's sin is imputed to us viz. because wee are of the same Lump propagated carnallie from him but yet why Christs righteousnes oâ— his sufferings should be imputed to us seeing wee are not propagated from Christ nor ever were in his loines as wee were in Adams is now the question To which this is the arswer that as Christ received his flesh and blood from man so man hath received the divine Spirit from Christ and as the natural bodie of Christ is made of the same lump of Adam that our's is so man hath in him the self same spirit that is in Christ though he be in heaven and wee on earth by which spirit wee are called the Sons of God just as Christ by taking our flesh is called the Son of Man Nos homines vocamur filii dei quia filius dei Atha in decret Nic. Conc n. 13. nostrum gestavit corpus quia Spiritus filii in nobis est i Men are called the Son of God because the Sons of God took his bodie of man and put his owne Spirit into man and therfore Christ doth fitly sustaine an Universal person of mankind That the Spirit of Christ is given and put into man the Scriptures doe manifestlie declare First it appeareth evidently in the regenerate Man of sueh S. Paul speaketh when he prayeth Ephe. 3. 17. That Christ may dwell in their harts And how Christ may be sayd to dwell in Man Saint John sheweth 1 John 4. 13. Hereby we know that we dwell â—in him and â—e in us because he hath given us of his Spirit and hence it is that Saint Chrysostome saith Anima sancta est Tabernaculum Chrys ho 2. Antioch Christi id est The soul of an holy Man is Christs Tabernacle For indeed though Christ had not at all assumed flesh from Man yet because the same Spirit which is in Christ is also so put into and communicated to man it is sufficient to make Christ the head of the Saints his Members to be but one mysticall Body with him And this is intimated by Saint Paul when he saith Ephesians 4. 4. There is one body and one Spiriâ— which is as much as if he should say though the Saints on earth are many yet because all are endued with one and the same Spirit of Christ therefore all are but one body with Christ even as in man there are many parts and members yet because all parts have the same soul in them therefore all together are but one body Hence it is that Origen saith Omnes salvandi sunt Orig. in Eze. ho. 9. unum Corpus id est All those which shall be saved are but one body and Saint â—asill giveth this reason of their vnitie Quia unus est Deus si in singulis Bas Epist 141. sit omnes coadunat id est Because there is but one God if this one God be in all he doth thereby Tert. de Trin. n. 28 Christus est ecclesia De Paenit n. 16 unite all and this unitie is also expressed by these odd words in Tertullian Spi itus nos Christo confibulat id est It is the Spirit that doth button us or joyn us to Christ For this reason the Scripture saith Romans 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ And again 1 Corinthians 6. 17. He that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit And again Galathians 3. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus yea such is our conjunction and union with Christ and his with us by reason that his Spirit is in us that Theodoret doubted not to say Si pati possit Theod. in Dâ—alog impatib n. 13. divina natura supervacanea fuisset corporis assumptio id est If the pure Godhead were of a nature passible so that it could have suffered for man God should not have needed to be Incarnate And Saint Augustine puts the case a little plainer and nearer thus Si Christus non assumpta carne à Virgine sed vera tamen apparens nos vera morte redimeret quis eum non potuisse audet dicere Suppose Christ had not taken his flesh from the Virgine and so not from Adam but yet had really taken a body upon him some other way and in that assumed body had really died to redeem man who dares say that he could not and no doubt such a suffering had been sufficient for our redemption if as I said before God had not otherwise determined and limited himself by his sentence of the curse and death upon the seed of Adam And thus we have seen how Christ and the Saints are united and become one body SECT II. More of the same That Jesus Christ was a Person every way fitly qualified to be Man's Redeemer both for that he was free from all sin Originall and Actuall although he took flesh from the loynes of Adam and also in regard of the infinite worth and excellencie of his Person THe qualities required to a redeeming high Priest are set down Heb. 7. 26. For such an high Priest became us who is holy harmless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undefiled seperate from sinners For if Christ were not absolutely without sin in his own Person he could not be a fit sacrifice for our sins the Lamb of God must be answerable to the paschall Lamb his Type A Lambe without blemish and so the Scripture describeth Christ 1 Pet. 1. 19. as a Lambe without blemish or spot and that he knew no sin that he did no sin and that in him 1 John 3. 5. is no sin As for any actuall sinne there will be no question among Christians but the difficulty is in shewing Christ to be without Origâ—â—â—l◠〈◊〉 because he was in the loins of Adam when he fell and is the Son of David of Abraham and of Adam and the Church hath ever acknowledged that the whole lump of Adam is a Prosper Resp ad Genu. Massa corruptionis as Prosper saith and b Aug. Epist 105 157. De Civit. l. 15. c. 1. alibi Massa damnationis Vâ—nculnm damnationis Apostatica radâ—x Massa originaliter tota damnata as S. Austin often confesseth in all these words and many more id est a corrupt lump a lump of damnation an Apostate root totally condemned from the the very Originall The Apostle also seemeth to lay this to the charge of Christ 2 Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to
Godhead is there called the Holiâ— Spirit or Holie ghost as hath bin shewed before in my Second book and this blasphemio consisteth in the denial of the Godhead of Iesus Christ wherby his allsufficient Sacrifice is undervalued and the Son of God is troden underfoot as being esteemed but a creature and a meer man and therby becometh contemptible and his Blood even the blood of the Covenant is esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i But common ordinarie unholie blood no better then the blood of another ordinarie common man and not Sanctified and ordaineth for that great and high mysterie to be offered as a full and sufficient expiatorie sacrifice for the sins of the world according to the Covenant of God For he that denyeth the Godhead of Christ must needs think that his blood is but common blood as other mens blood is and therfore not of sufficient worth and value to redeem the world more then another mans blood is and indeed if his blood be no better then the blood of another man and if it be not the royal blood of God Act. 20. 28. It hath not it can not redeeme us Now whether the sin mentioned in this place be absolutely unpardonable and altogether remediless will better apeare by a diligent exposition of that text as it stands in relation to the context both before and after it For if we sin c If everie sin which is committed after we knew and professed the Christian religion should be unpardonable what man could be saved seeing the most righteous men fall and therfore doe daylie pray forgive us our trespasses therfore this saying can not be understood of every sin but suerlie here is one special grand and capital sin meant and what that is the words going before and following doe declare For verse 5. it is said in the Person of the Son of God Sacrifice and Offerings thou wouldst not but a Vide. Psal 40. bodie hast thou prepared for me That is because the Legal sacrifices or the blood of bulls and goates could not redeem man therfore an humane bodie was prepared for the Son of God that in that assumed humane nature he might in man's stead beare the curse and suffer death which man had merited And because we who are but meer men weak and sinfull can not by our selves performe the will and law of God without performance wherof no man can be saved therfore the Son of God came in our stead to performe the whole law so as was required and willed of God as it is said vers 9. Then said I loe I come to doe thy will o God So that both the active obedience of Christ in doing the law and his passive obedience in suffering the punishment of our transgressions are here set forth in these words vers 10. By the which will we are sanctified through the Offering of the body of â—esu Christ once for all That is by Christs performing the will or commandments of God in our stead and through the Sacrifice of himself on the Altar of the Cross for our sins his mystical bodie or Church is Sanctified for it is said vers 12. This man Christ Offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever and again vers 14. hâ— one offering he hath perfiâ—ted for ever them that are Sanctified and then we are exhorted vers 22. Let us draw neer with a true heart in full assurance of faith and vers 23. Let us hold fast the Proâ—ession of our faith without wavering If we sin there remaineth no more sacrifice c Having shewed what the foundation of our Christian religion is namely Jesus the Son of God God Incarnate and in his humane nature performing the covenant law and will of God both actively and passively for us and in our stead and requiring that we should have a full assurance of faith of the truth of that Doctrine without which faith Christ will not profit us he now shewes the sad consequences of rejecting this doctrine by Apostacie or falling away from our Christian religion in these words There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certaine fearfull looking for of judgement So that the sin here meant is Apostasie that is forsaking Christianitie as Julian did esteeming of Christ but as of an ordinarie Coman man and therfore distrusting the sufficiencie of his blood and death as not an equivalent price and ransome for man's redemption The truth of this Exposition will better appear by the words following wherein this particular sin is evidently expressed and is called verse 29. Treading under foot the Sonne of God counting the blood of the Canant unholy or as it is in the Originall a common thing and doing despight unto the Spirit of Grace Now to tread under foot is to vilipend and undervalue Christ as esteeming him not sufficient to take away or satisfie for our sinnes to count the blood of the Covenant unholy or Common is to esteem of the death and blood shedding of Christ to be of no more vertue and power then the death and blood of another Common man and they that so basely undervalue Christ as to think and to account him but a meer man do despight unto the Spirit of Grace What is the Spirit of Grace in the Sonne of God but his Divine Spirit and Godhead even that Spirit from which all Graces flow which are called the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ So they who have no higher estimation of Christ then of a meere man do despight unto his Divine Nature his God-head for what greater spite can be then to un-God him the word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despite in effect is all one with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Matthew and the Spirit of Grace here is the same which is there called the Holy Spirit which doth signifie the God-head of Christ as hath been shewed before For if he that despised Moses Law died without mercy verse 28. Yet Moses was but a mere man and so but a Theod. in loc fervant to this our God Quanâ—ò morte dignior est qui Mosis Deum habâ—t despicatui i. What shall become of him that despiseth the God of Moses and the saving Doctrine of Christ who is the Onely Eternall God Moses propounded life as a reward to them that should perform the Law Christ did perform that Law in mans stead to mans behoof and benefit and offereth to men the benefit of that performance and with it life eternall onely with this condition of believing on him Therefore that man which will not give credit to this joyfull-Evangelicall offer must expect to perish eternally for if Christ be rejected absolutely and salvation through him despised and not hoped for or expected There is no other sacrifice for our sins possibly to be found nor any other Name by which we can be saved By what hath been said it appeareth that these words If we sinne in this place signifie the sinning of the
writing upon those words Gen 3. 8. They heard the voice of the Lord God walking he saith quomodo ambulatio Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 10. Prosp de vit Cont. l. 1. c. 5. lib. 2. c. 18. latio dei possit intelligi sine humans specie non video i I doe not see how the walking of God can be understood except we suppose that God assumed an humane shape Prosper also the follower of Austin saith Deus non potest hic videri sine assumptione Elementi non sine forma visibilis creaturae i. God can not be seen but by assuming some Elementarie and visible forme of a Creature and this doctrine was so generally received that Austin saith again Deum apparuisse humanis Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 14. Oculis per Creaturam subjectam quis dubitat i who doubteth that God hath indeed appeared to mans sight by assuming some Creature The sum of all is that God hath bin seen but not in his single and pure divine nature but by assuming and involving himself in some Element figure body or shape and those apparitions of God in the old Testament did but accidentally point at the great and principal Appartiion of God described in the new Testament where it is said Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his glorie and Coloss 2. 9. In him dwelleth all the fulnes of the Godhead bodily and 1 Tim. 3. 16. Great was the mysterie of Godlines God manifest in the flesh For indeed all the apparitions of God in the old Testament were but types figures proems preludes preambles praefigurations or as dumb shewes If I may so speak of the incarnation of the same God in the person of Jesus all fore-shewing that the most high only God would in the fulnes of time take upon him men's nature S. Austine saith of that apparition which Ioshua saw when God appeared to him like a man of warr Iosh 5. 13. That it was the Son of Aug de 5 haer c. 4. God 1. Jesus Iesum interrogat figurae veritate i. Ioshua who is also called Jesus Iesus the typespake to Iesus who is the truth and substance of that type for the auncients made this Construction of all the apparitions of God in humane shapes to be but as types of the incarnation of the same God as wil appeare more cleerly hereafter CHAP. V. The Incarnation of God foreshewed in types the heresie of the Anthropomorphites the first article of the Church of England explained GOd began very early to promise and intimate by words and signes the great and profitable Mystery of his owne Incarnation and his gracious work of the redemption of man for he said before he created Man Gen. 1 26. Let us make Man in Our Image and God created Man in his owne image first here is Our Image in the plural number intimating the image of the trinitie to be in the soule of man Consisting in Will Memorie and Understanding as S. Austin expounds it and here is also mention of his owne Aug. comp Ser. Arian to 6. c. 16. Tert. de Resur Gen 1. 27. Tert. adv Prax. Image in the singular number that is as Tertullian expounds it more then once Deus ad imaginem suam fecit hominem Limus iste jam â—unc imaginem Christi induens futuri in carne Christus Cogitabatur homo suturus i. that the image of God was meant of Christ who in after ages would take the same shape of man upon him And againe he saith on those words In the jmage of God Created he him Sc. an Imaginem Filii qui homo suturus Orig. in Gen. ho. 1. i. that the Image of God signifies the image of the Son of God who was to be a man and Origen expounding the same words tels us that the image of God there signifies Imaginem Salvatoris i. That man was made in the same humane image that one day Our saviour would assume and albeit the image of God may have other significations as righteousnes holines c. Yet nothing hindreth this exposition to be one and the jmage thus expounded houldeth when the other is ceased or much defaced and what els is the meaning of that saying The seed of the Woman shall Gen. 3. 15. bruise the serpents head But that the Son of God should take flesh of the Woman and therein prevaile against Satan and why should both Abraham and Jacob require Gen. 24. 47. 29. Aug. cont sec Manichae c. 23. to 6. Amb. de Abrah l 1. c. 9. Hier. cont Jov. l. 1. c. 5. that at the taking of an oath the hand should be put under their thigh a strang booke to Swear on but S. Austin expounds it Abraham prophetabat deum Caeliâ— im eam carnem â—sse venturum quae fuisset exillo femore propagata i. Abraham prophecied that the God of heaven would assume flesh propagated from Abrahams thigh and the very same reason is rendred by S. Ambrose and S. Hieâ—ome but most memorable is the passage with Jaâ—ob which wee read Gen. 32. 22. There wrastled a man with Jacob This man was God to signifie that there would be a contention between the Son of God made man and Jacobs posteritie Jacob seemed stronger then the man and held him and prevailed to signifie that Jacobs posteritie who are called by his name Iacob and Israel should so prevail with God incarnate as to be stronger and to hold him as the Jewes did in bonds and durance and to nail him on the câ—osse Iacob halted that is his posteritie would faile and falter in the faith of the God of Iacob yet Iacob obtained a blessing signifying that the Jews or all true Israelites nothwithstanding all their contentions and injuries done to this incarnate God yet by houlding him in faith should obtaine a blessing and this is the exposition of Tertullian lib de Tâ—in If that book Tert. de Trin. be his And for the same reason I take it did it please the only and most high God to appeare to Abraham in the habit of man Gen. 16. and to converse with him and to be entertained at meat by Abraham as a guest and all this was acted as a prophetical scean or shew that Abraham might with his eyes behould a representation of that great mysterie of God incarnate which one day should be really performed when the same God who now conversed with Abraham but in a temporarie and assumed shape of man should really become a very and perfect man and converse with and be entertained by Abrahams posteritie These and such like passages may further infome us in the true meaning of those hard words which God said to Moses when he could him that he should see his â—◠〈◊〉 but not his face Ex. 33. 23. What the face or forepart of God signifies I have shewed before that it signifies his divine nature the Eternal Godhead but
his back parts signifie his later dispensations in assuming our nature of the Virgin Mother his birth his conversation with men his passion death resurrection ascention so that the meaning is that Moses viz. the Mosaical people should in after times see God when God should be incarnate So Athanisius expounds it posteriores Ath. ad Antio quaest 23. n. 28. dei partes carnen intellige quam assum sit ex Virgine per quam conspectus est i by the back-parts of God you must vnderstand his flesh taken of the Virginâ— Marie in which flesh he was seen and this also is the exposition of Origen on Psal 36. hom 4. and Austin giues a reason why the incarnation is callâ—d the after parts of God Propter posteritaâ—em mortalitatis vel Aug. de Trin. l. 2. 17. quia poster ùs â—arnem assumpturus erat i. because his mortal or humane nature was to be assumed long after Moses time and later then his divine nature which had bin from all Eternitie Neither doth this Doctrine by asserting the incarnation of God any way countenance the heresie of the Anthropomorphites who ascribed corporeal lineaments and parts to God and because it is said Esa 66. 1. heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool they thought the divine nature was a vast body teaching from heaven to earth as Origen relates of them Orig in Gen. ho. 1. and because they read of the hand and arme and eyes of God simple monks as they were they ascribed those parts literally to the divine nature which are spoken of in Scripture but figuratively these were the Andian Enrors as wee read in Epiphanius The odoret Sozomen these men thought a body to be essential to God as if God could not be God except he had a body but wee say the body or humane nature is not essential to God no not to the person of the Son of God but it is an accessarie assumed and not into the essential union with the Son but into personal union with him being now God incarnate for he was God and the Son of God before his incarnation so that although the divine nature in its owne essence or pure Godhead is incorporeal yet the same Godhead now considered in the Person of Christ cannot be said to be without a body for as Theodoret noteth Christus Theod. dial 3. n. 13. significat Deum incorporatum non incorporeum id est Christ signifieth God incarnate and not God incorporeall because the Son of God who is the One and onely true God is now Emmanuel the Godhead and the Manhood in him are inseparably united for ever and in this sence I conceive the first Article of Religion in the Church of England is to be p. Art 1. understood which saith p. God is without Body because albeit God never will be without his assumed Body yet this Body is not of the Essence of God for although the Son of God never had assumed a Body nor ever had been incarnate yet nevertheless he had been and shall be God and the Sonne of God from everlasting to everlasting This I hope is enough concerning the first question of Gods visibility and invisibilitie CHAP. VI. The Second question why the Fathers said that 2 Question onely the Son was seen by the Patriarks and not the Father IT being granted that the Father and the Son are but one onely and the same God allthough distinct in proprieties and Persons it would be inquired why the Fathers before mentioned said that the Son appeared and was seen when the Father did not appear nor was seen for how can one be seen and not the other when both are one Before I enter upon this question I desire the Reader to take notice of two things First that this discourse is intended to be onely concerning such a sight of God as mortall men are capable of in this life because it is not revealed to us how man shall see God in the life to come of which it is said Marth 5. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God and yet also the impure shall see God for every eye shall see him and they also which pierced him Rev. 1. 7. Saint Austine expounding the words Zach. 12. 10. They shall Aug. de Trin lib. 1. c. 13 look upon me whom they pierced saith The wicked shall not see him in thâ— form of God but in the form of a servant because God shall sit in judgement as he is clothed with his humane body that so the judge may be visible to all that shall be judged for even Satan conversed with our God on earth being in his flesh when he tempted him Matt. 4. But the righteous when they once are in the possession of the joyes of Heaven shall see God as he is in his Divine nature which Divines call facialem visionem the beatificall vision seeing God face to face as it is said 1 Cor. 13. 12. and then happily the distinct Person of the Father will be visible to eyes glorified for then the Saints shall be equall to the Angels Luke 20. 36. of whom we shall read Matth. 18. 10. Their Angels do alwayes behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven Secondly that I do not take upon me peremptorily to affirm that the Person of God the Father hath never presented himself in any corporeal or visible shape for how should I know such a Mystery And because I find that Saint Austine saith Nâ—mis temerarium est dicere Aug. de Trin l. 2. c. 17. 18 patrem nunquam visum patâ—ibus credibile est Patrem solitum fuisse apparere mortalibus i. It is too much rashnesse to affirm that the Father was never seen Nay it is credible that he used to appear to the Patriarchs And Atbanasius saith that although God was sometimes seen in the Person of the Son when he was not seen in the Person of the Father yet he saith also that at another time all the three Persons Athan. lib. de Com. essentia n. 24. were seen by Abraham Tres Personae sedebaent apud Abraham i. All the three Persons sate at Abrahams tent For what inconvenience will follow if God shew his presence at the same time both in severall places and also in severall assumed shapes for he that is at all times really present in all places may also manifest his presence where and when and how he pleaseth It is confessed that the Person of the Sonne assumed an humane body and was seen and at the same time the Person of the Holy Ghost descended in the likenesse of a Dove Matthew 3. 17. and then also the voyce of the Person of the Father was heard and again Matthew 17. 5. which Divines say must needs be from the Person of the Father because the Sonne of God is not the Sonne of any other Person but onely of the Father Indeed it is said of