of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Jesus Christ the communication of the properties of each nature the life and death of Nestorius and how Christ is said to be deified FOr the avoyding of the unpardonable sin before mentioned it will not be sufficient to believe and confess that God is in Jesus as a man in a ship or as God was in the Prophets and is now in holy men who are therefore called the Temples of the living God 2 Cor. 6. 16. or as God is every where who filleth heaven and earth Jer. 23. 24. For though God be in an holy Man yet we cannot say that God and that Man are one Person and though God be in Heaven yet he and Heaven are not one hypostasis or subsistence in one Personall union but as our soul and body united and composed are one Man and one Person so the Godhead and Manhood united in Iesus are one Person one Christ Now these two distinct natures to wit the Godhead and Manhood are in Christ so united that they will be for ever inseparable and they are so entwined one with the other that no action or passion can be said of the man Christ which may not be said of God the rule of Divines is Effâ—ctus hypostaticae unionis est Regula Theolog communicatio idiomatum i. The result or effect of the Personall union is a communication of properties which rule is laid and more plainly expressed by St Austine in these words Vnilas Personae Christi sic Aug. to 6. cont Ser. Arian n. 7. constat ex humana divina natura ut quaelibet earum vocabulum impertial alteri i. The unitie of the Person of Christ doth so consist of the Divine and humane natures that each nature imparteth its appellation mutually to the other so that what is properly belonging to the divine nature is ascribed as done also by the humane nature the same is also thus expressed by Theodoret Communia Persona evadunt quae sunt Theod. Dial. impatib n. 13. P. 398. propria naturarum i. By reason of this hypostaricall union those things which are proper to each nature severally become common to the whole person and hence it is that Christ is called the Son of Man and the Son of God eternall and yet born the on of David and yet the Lord of David of him it is said John 3. 13. He that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heauen yet the Manhood did not come from heaven nor was the Manhood at that time in Heaven so again Christ said to the thief Luke 23. 43. To day shalt thou be with me in paradise and yet Christ was not there that day in his body nor by his soul for ought we know but onely by his Godhead which was then in Paradise when his body was on the earth and hence it is that the appellation of God is stamped on the humane and infirm actions and passions of Christ for though he was crucified through weaknesse as it is said 2 Cor. 13. 4. that is as he was man yet because his Divine Nature is for ever inseparable from the humane nature he is truely called Deus crucifixus Hier. ut sup c. 6. Naz. Orat. 51. n. 35. i. God crucified as is shewed before out of Saint Hierome and Nazian saith Si quis crucifixum non adorat anathema sit i. He that doth not worship him that was crucified let him be accursed This great mystery of the hyposiaticall union was prudently discerned by the ancient Fathers Origen saith Judaei Dâ—um crucifixâ—â—unt i. The Jewes crucied Origen hom 5. in Ps 36. Orig. in Luc. hom 38. n. 45. Chrys in synax n. 35. God and the same Father speaking of the tears which Christ shed over Jâ—rusalem calleth them Lacrymas Dei i. the tears of God So St. Chrysostome calleth Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the crucified God The Prophet Esay prophesying of the birth of Christ Esay 9. 6. Vnto us a child is born immediately addeth his name shall be called The mighty God and the Church used the same language Fulgentius saith Maria Fulg. de grat n. 3. est genetrix Dei quia were propriâ— peperit Deum Verbum i. Mary is the Parent of God for she brought forth truly and properly God the Word St. Hierome saith Virgo Deum puerum peperit i. Mary brought Hier. Ep. 30. n. 8. forth a child that is God So Saint Ambrose speaketh i Ambr. in sym n. 20. Deus natus est ex virgine God was born of a Virgine and Athanasius saith k Atha apol 2. n. 15. n. 22. Deus incarnatus Deus passus est God was incarnate and God suffered This doctrine is so true and necessary that otherwise we could not have been redeemed the denying thereof no doubt is within the compass of the unpardonable blasphemy and the Church accounted such as taught the contrary to be in the number of the most dangerous hereticks as may appear by the story of Nestorius thus in brief This Nestorius was by birth a German and was admitted Soc. l. 7. c. 29. Theod. haer fab l. 4. n. 16. to be a Presbyter or Priest in the Church of Antioch from thence he was preferred to be Patriarch of Constantinople and there he was a sore vexer of the Arians Novatians and Macedonian hereticks and so eager therein that he incensed the Emperour against them using this proud speech O Imperator da mihi Soc. l. 7. c. 29. terram purgatam hâ—reâ—icis ego tibi eoelum vetribuam i. If the Emperour would purge his Empire of hereticks he would assure him of Heaven He was a man very cloquent and so proud thereof that he disdained to reade the ancient Writers and so being ignorant of Catholick Doctrine he fell into this Heresie of dividing or separating the two Natures of Christ and particularly teaching that the Virgin Mary ought not to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Parent or Mother of Evag. l. 1. c. 3â— God and because some of his sect would have her called onely ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the mother of a man Nestorius desiring to go in a middle way would have her called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the Mother of Christ but at no hand the Mother of God so his error was in this that he divided and rent and severed the two natures of Christ that which his crucifiers were not permitted to do to his very garments in effect as Vincentius noteth Nestorius duos vult esse Filios Dei duos Christos Vincent Lirin c. 17. n. 53. unum Deum alterum hominem i. Nestorius would have fancied two Sons of God and two Christs whereof one should be God and the other a man and so by denying the unity of his Person he indeed made a quaternity of Persons instead of a Trinitie against the sentence of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his word Men indued with Gods Spirit are Deified because God is in them and as it were mingled with them and worketh in them And Athanasius saith Homines in quibus est Spiritus Deificantur Atha ad Serapion n. 26. vid. 2 Pet. 1. 4. Now in what sense our Saviour may be said to be Deified in the later times of the world who was the supream and onely God from all eternity would next be inquired CHAP. IX More concerning Deification and in what sense Christ may be said to be Deified THe Arians were in this Doctrine something more ingenuous then this Commenter though in them it was also most pernicious for they Ath. Hil. cont Arian n. 7. confessed that Christ was the Son of God because they knew that the Saints were so called and they said Christ was before time began because they believed that Angels and Devils were before the world and they called Christ by the Name of God because the Scriptures call some creature so But they would not confess him to have the same Godhead with the Father for they said that he was Deus factus made a God or Ambros de cil div c. 2. n. 26. deified and that he was the Son of God not by nature but by gift or grace and not by eternall generation but by power given as Kings are called Gods for so Saint Ambrose observeth Deus in Scripturis est Ambr. de fide l. 1. lib. 5. c. 1. n. 22 23. 1 Verus 2 Nuncupativus nam sunt qui dicuntur Dii non sunt 3 Falsus ut Dâ—mones i. In Scripture God signifieth 1 The true God 2 Such as 〈◊〉 but called Gods and â—re not so 3 False gods of 〈…〉 this Commenter when he was argued 〈…〉 learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈…〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessed that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But one of the â—â—â—pany â—â—quired him further to declare how long Christ had been God and whether from Eternity at which question he seemed very angry and for present left the room Now indeed the Fathers do oftentimes apply this word to Christ and say that he was Deified and that in time also and not before his incarnation for he could never have been said to have been deified if he never had been incarnate it is only his humane nature that is said to be deified and not his Spirit or divine nature for the Word cannot otherwise be said to be deified then as he is hominified if I may have leave to use that word for Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh signifieth that God was made man by his incarnation and man was made God by the person I union of the divine and humane natures for so he alcame Theanthâ—opos and Emmanuel The reason is because when God assumed a body by his incarnation that body then became the body of God as is shewed before out of Origen and so that Orig. in Mat. tract 21. n. 41. Father expresseth himself thus Christus deificavit humanam naturam quam suscepit Christ deified that humane nature which he assumed Neither may we think so grosly of this deification as if the flesh of Christ were turned into the Goâ—head but onely because it is joyned to the Godhead and assumed into a personall union with it therefore the Name of God is also stamped upon it so that we may truly say the man Christ is God and yet the body and soul of Christ still are and for ever will be creatures In Aug. Epi. 221. this sense St. Austin saith Homo versus est in Deum nâ—c amisit naturam Man is become God and yet man did not lose his humane nature and thus Athanasius saith Archangeli semper antea adorabanâ— Filium sed nunc Atha Orat. 2. cont 2. Arian n. 5. Jesum adorant incarnatum carne quâ—m deâ—fiâ—averat The Archangels did alwaies before the incarnation worship the Son of God but they worship him now in that flesh which by assuming it he now hath deified For now it is the flesh of God as the Scripture calleth his blood the blood of God Act. 20. 28. and so the same Father useth thâ—s word divers times in the same sense g Atha orat 2. cont Ar. n. 5. h. Id. ser 4. cont Arian n. 7. Non deificatus fuisset homo nisi verbum fuisset incarnatum And h. Christus carnem assumendo hominem deificavit The manhood could not have been deified if the Word had not been incarnate and Christ deified man by assuming flesh St. Austin writing upon those words Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ not of men nor by man Gal. 1. Gal. 1. 1. 1. Aug. exp in Gal. in praefaâ— n. 97. 1. saith 1. Paulus missus est per Christum jam totum Deum quia ex omni parte immortalem That Paul is said not to be called by man because Christ was at that time wholly God because now he was perfectly immortall so he fastned this deification or immortality 2. Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 21. only on his humane nature for his divine nature was the immortall God from all eternity and Theodoret upon those words God hath highly exalted him Phil. 2. 9. saith Est de carne quae deificata est nam dominus Theod. Dial. in confu n. 12. gloriae non dicitur glorificari 'T is meant of the flesh of Christ deified for as he is the Lord of glory he cannot be exalted deified or more glorified So Origen Orig. in Levit. hom 3. saith of a Levitical sacrifice that it signified Carnem Christi in coelis deificandam that the flesh of Christ in heaven was to be deified and this deifying the flesh of Christ is said to be done in heaven because there it was glorified and immortall and on earth he is said to be deified because of the Hypostaticall union of his 3. Pet. Diac. apul Fulg. n. 2. 2 natures whereby his flesh was indeed Caro Dei the flesh of God By thus distinguishing the two natures in Christ the ancient Fathers answered the objections of old hereticks made against the eternall divinity of Christ for in the same sense that the Son of God is said to be Phil. 2. 9. Eph. 1. 20. Mat. 28. 18. Act. 3. 13 15. deified he is also in Scripture said to be exalted to be set far above all Angels and Principalities to be made the head of the Church to sit at the right hand of God to have a name given him above all names that are named That all power is given him in heaven and in earth that God raised him from the dead and that Jesus is made an high Priest for ever all these sayings and many more of this â—ind are to be understood of the humane nature of Christ but cannot be verified of his divine nature Athanasius doth in generall give us this excellent rule m Athan. Ser. 4. cont Ar. n. 7. n. ib. Quae Christus
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
Emmanuel as being one with us Let us next see what the Ancient Doctors conceived of this Union to avoid prolixity I will instance onely in St. Austin who saith Aug. in Psal 17. Christus Ecclesia est totum Christi caput corpus And upon those words My God my God why hast thou forsaken me and I cry in the day time and thou hearest not and Let this Cup passe from me and Not my will but thy will be done he saith In Psal 21. Christus dicit de te de me de illo corpus suum gerebat scilicet Ecclesiam membrorum vox erat non timebat mori sed pro his dixit qui mortem timent And again he saith in Ps 26. Omnes in illo Christi Christus sumus totus Christus caput corpus And upon those words Saul Saul why persecutest thou me he saith in Ps 30. Sic vâ—cem pedis suscipit lingua clamat calcas me in membris Christi Christus est Christus est multa membra unum corpus And in Ps 100. Christum induti Christus sumus cum capite nostro cum Christo capite unus homo sumus And in Ps 103. Omnes nos in Christo credentes unus homo sumue And in Ps 127. Multi Christiani unus Christus unus homo Christus caput corpus And in Ps 119. Omnes Sancti sunt unus homo in Christo The summe of all is That Christ and his Members are united so that they are one body and as one person for as the head and inferiour parts in one man are but one body so Christ and his members are but one Christ which the same Father calleth in Ps 36. Ser. 2. Ps 37. Christum plenum And Corpus Christi diffusnm Neither is the Church of England silent in this great mystery of our union with Christ for to shew that the grand reason and the intent and purpose for which Christ ordained the holy Supper was especially to set forth this Union of himself and members to be such as our food is to and with our bodies bread and wine unite themselves to us they grow into one body with us So she saith to faithful Communicants The Exhortat at the Commun That we dwell in Christ and Christ in us We be one with Christ and Christ with us And this also was the reason of instituting Baptisme as St. Paul expresseth it to be baptized Rom. 6. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one body Baptisme is the mysterious sign of our entrance into Christ But the Eucharist is the mystery of Christs entring into us for so St. John maketh the like distinction 1 Joh. 4. 13. Hereby we know that we dwell in him and he in us and after him St. Austin Aug. in Joh. Tract 48. Si benè cogitemus Deus in nobis est Si benè vivamus nos in Deo sumus and indeed this union is principally meant in the Article of the Communion of Saints which in our Creed we professe to believe This Union in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Communion The great Sacrament thereof is therefore called by St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Communion of the body and blood of Christ and because our union with Christ doth unite us with the whole Trinity the Apostle tells us 1 Joh. 1. 3. 1 Cor. 1. 9. Our fellowship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and this is also called 2 Cor. 13. 13. Philip. 2. 1. The fellowship of the Holy Ghost the fellowship of the Spirit But there is a great difference between our common or general union with the whole Trinity and our speciall and particular union with Christ alone for with all the three Persons we are united only by the Spirit because to us is given the Holy Ghost which is the Spirit of the Father and the Son But with the Son we are joyned and united in a threefold bond 1. Spiritu 2. Carne 3. Vadimonio Not onely by his Spirit in us but also in Nature for he assumed flesh with us from the self-same lump of the first man and moreover he is joyned to us in the strong bond of Vadimonie or Suretiship in that everlasting Covenant of Grace before mentioned Concerning the manner of our union with Christ one scruple is to be removed for if we say that we are really and substantially one body with him this doctrine may seem to affirm a personal or hypostatical union of us men with God such as is the union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ so we should make our body the body of God as Christs natural body is and so we make our selves God as Christ is God but this must be confessed to be intolerable blasphemy Our answer is That though Christ and his Church are indeed one body yet they are not one body natural and consubstantial but a body mystically Political as a Corporation a Society a Fraternity not Corpus continuum but Collectivum or aggregativum thus thousands of Souldiers are One Army many graines of corn are but One heap Unae quinque Minae Plaut in Pseud many pieces of money are One summe many letters and lines in one Epistle we call Vnas literas Tully calls one suit of apparel consisting of many parcels Cic. Orat. pro L. Flacco Vna vestimenta and we read Plaut in Trinum Vnos sex dies in Plautus Just so St. Austin expresseth this mystery of Christs body upon those words Psal 11. 1. Salvum me fac Domine Aug. de Unitate Eccles Cap. 13. To. 7. Sic est unus homo qui ait salvum me fac ut ex multis constet for though Christ and his members are many Ones and many Severals which are not united by any internal or natural form yet because they all have one and the same Spirit of Christ in them they are united and made one body or mystical corporation by that one Spirit of Christ of which it is said 1 Cor. 12. 13. By one Spirit ye are all baptized into one body and of these many severals it is said Ro. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ So a body Politick consisting of a multitude of individuals is made one Corporation by the Charter of the Prince and their own agreement but if upon dissension they be tumultuously gathered we rather call them a tumult then a Corporation Aug. De verb. Domini Ser. 26. Da unum populus est tolle unum turba est Touching the last clause of this first Proposition That the same that offended the same is punished whereby our sins seem to be charged upon Christ as if Christ himself had committed sin in whom we are assured no sin was either original or actual as is fully declared in my third Book Chap. 11. Sect. 2. Yet that this is true I am to shew in the explication of
vigilant now at all the ports of thy soul and take some antidote of thy precious Christian faith to corroborate thy heart against the danger of most deadly poyson for now the Serpents nest and Pandora's box are to be opened containing multitudes of evils and deadly blasphemies against the Divine Person of thy dear Saviour and his precious death all which I must now present to thy view and for thy more easie discovery I will draw them out in two files The first containeth such blasphemies which deny the Godhead and Divine nature of Jesus Christ The second containeth such blasphemies as deny the Incarnation of God and the Redemption of man by the Passion bloodshed and death of thy Saviour when he offered himself a full sufficient expiatory sacrifice on the altar of the Crosse and also such as deny the merit of his active obedience in fulfilling the Whole Law and performing the Covenant of God in our stead on our behalf and to our benefit and now they advance Blasphemies against the Godhead of Jesus Christ 1. That Christ was by his Resurrection consequently deiâ—ied Chap. 1 vers 2. pag. 3. it seemes the Commenter doth not believe that Christ was God before his death 2. That the Creation of the world cannot be referred to Christ Chap. 1. vers 10 p. 10. That his making of the world was but the restoring of mankind to a new state pag. 3. yet all things were made by him that were made Joh. 1. 3. 3. That Christ had an immense measure of the Holy Ghost Cap. 1. 9. p. 9. If it were immense how is it a measure and if by measure how is it immenâ—e is not this illogical blasphemy the Scripture saith of him God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him Joh. 3. 34. 4. That Christ had a beginning Cap. 1. 12. p. 13. Yet of Christ it is said His goings forth have been from everlasting Mich. 5. 2. 5. That if the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrewes had taken Christ to be the supream God he had discouâ—sed impertinently C. 1. 10. p. 10. That it is manifest that Christ is not the Supream God C. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ was a divine man C. 7. 22. p. 136. That Christ was opposed to God Cap. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ carried himself as a person diverse from God and that he was so the thing it self declares C. 12. 25. p. 320. p 54. 6. That Christ doth not forgive sins of his own authority Cap. 4. 14. pag. 70. That Christ hath not power of himself to save us C. 9. 24. p. 192. Yet Christ saith The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins Matth 9. 6. and Thou shalt call his Name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins Mâ—â— 1. 21 7. That the Angels are equal to Christ for duration C. 1. 10. p. 10. The â—ngel are creatures Christ is their Creator and therefore before them and of longer duration à parte anâ—e but if he mean that Angels are equal to him for duration à parte â—â—st onely he hath said nothing to his own purpose for so soules of men yea and devils â—â— all endure for ever but the Son of God is from everlasting to everlasting as is shewed out of Mich. 5. 2. 8. That the Lord Christ was not the first Author of the Gospel but God was the first C. 2. 3. p. 19. If the Law had been published by God himself it had been mâ—re excellent then the Gospel c. C. 2. 2. p. 16. This blasphemy is particularly answered before Cap. 7 9. That the Saints in heaven shall noâ—â—e under Christ but besides him C. 2. 6. p. 23. What! Check by soul yet Philip. 2. 1â— God hath puâ— all things under his feet and gave him to be head over all things to the Church and this Supremacy is there said to be in heavenly places verse 20. and The four and twenty Elders fall down and worship the Lamb Rev. 4. 10. 10. That it appears that faith in Christ is not contained in all faith in God Cap. 11 6. p. 251. That he that believes in Christ doth not believe in him finally but in God by him C. 3. 12. p. 54. He would have you believe there is something greater and better then Christ to believe in Ultimatè Terminativè 11. That Christ must not be compared with that Angel who represented God C. 12. 25. p. 321. Yet Christ even in his humane nature exalted is set far above all Principalities and powers and might and dominion and every name that is named not onely in this world but in that which is to come Ephe. 1. 21. Indeed he is said to be made lower then the Angels to suffer death Heb. 2. 9. lower in the humiliation of his humane nature but of his Divine nature alone and of his humane exalted and so of his whole Person as he is Emmanuel it is said Heb. 1. 6. Let all the Angels of God worship him The total summe of all these is Onely this blasphemy That Christ is not God Blasphemies against the Incarnation of the Son of God and his Work of Redemption 1. That Christ the Son of God cannot be said to be Incarnate more then the Saints are Heb. 2. 14. pag. 31. 2. That the Supream God can no way be a Priest C. 5. 5. p. 80. True if you had added this Except he be Incarnate and assume humane nature 3. The expiatory Offering of Christ for our sins was not performed on earth but in heaven C. 7. 1. p. 116. c. 8. 4. p. 146. c. 9. 12. p. 168. That his offering did not consist in his death but by his entrance into heaven after death C. 9. 7. p. 160. his Priesthood began there C. 9. 14. p. 171. 4. That Christ was not the Author of the New Testament but is called the Testator only because he was the main witnesse C. 9 19. p. 182 183 184. 5. That when it is said Jesus made a surety of a better Testament Heb. 7. 22. it is not meant that Christ became our surety to God and took upon him the payment of our debts But was a surety of Gods promise and dyed to assert the truth of the Covenant C. 7. 22. p. 136 319 348 357. 6. That Eusebius would not have the Son of God who appeared to Abraham to be the most high God Cap. 13. 2. p. 331. 7. That the Nicene Fathers hâ—ld not that the Son is that one most high God who is the Father These are the Articles of Infidelity which are affirmed by this Commenteâ— against which consisting of two Heads as is said I will Gods assistance addresse two Books following in the former whereof The Godhead of Christ shall be declared and in the later the Incarnation of the same Jesus who is the true onely and supream God shall be manifested and thereby the Great and gracious Mystery of man's Redemption by our God so Incarnate
open Market-place cured diseases raised spirits presented to their view Magical banquets and seemed to release those that were possessed by devils therefore Celsus said that Jesus performed his miracles by art Orig. Cont. Cels lib. 1. n. 32. magick I say seemed onely for we learn from our Saviour that one devil is not cast out by another and Satan is not divided against himself and although when ignorant people imploy one Witch to help them against another some present ease may seem to be procured yet indeed as Austin observeth Non exit Aug. l. 83. quaest qu. 79 n. 88. Satanas per infimas potestates sed in intima regreditur regnat in voluntale corpori parcens i. Satan is not dispossessed by any infernal power but retireth himself into the more inward parts of the possessed and though he spare the body yet he â—yrannizeth more in the soul and maketh his possession stronger Because this is a dangerous apostasie to seek to or to attribute the work of God to him therefore Christ used divers arguments against it and so did the Ancient Fathers Origen Athan. Euseb Austin and others which having but touched I omit to avoid digressions The greatest difficulty in this question is what our Saviour meant by the words holy Spirit or holy Ghost when he said The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven for the understanding whereof I will lay down a few Considerations to the Reader that from them he may gather the true meaning of that hard saying First That in Christ there are two natures 1. His Godhead or Divine nature by which he is called God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. 2. His humane nature or manhood made of the seed of David according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. The first of these is called Forma Dei the second is called forma Servi both are Philip. 2. 6 7. mentioned Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal to God but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant Secondly Consider that there are two spirits in Christ 1. His soul or humane spirit of which he saith Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. Secondly his Divine Spirit of which it is said If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is noni of his Rom. 8. 9. Thirdly that according to his two natures there are two filiations in Christ for 1. He is called the Son of man the son of David 2. He is called the Son of God Fourthly That according to those two natures two spirits and two sonships the Scripture mentioneth two kinds of blasphemies against Christ thâ— one against him as he is the Son of man and this is pardonable Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him Matth. 12. 32. The other unpardonable But Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost â—t shall not be forgiven him Ibid. Fifthly That the appellation Holy Spirit in Scripture is taken two wayes 1. Pro deitate essentiae omnium personarum Paâ—ris Filii Spiritûs i. For the Godhead or divinity of all the Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost because all are one God as Matth. 12. 28. John 4. 24. 2. It is taken Personaliter i. properly for the third Person alone as Baptizing them in the Nâ—me of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Matth. 28. 19. and this distinction is acknowledged by divers late Divines of the Reformed Churches a Polan l. 3. c 6 Polanus b Bucan l. 3. p â—â— Bucan c Tilen p. 141. Tilenus and d Melan. in loc Com. de Spirit Ph. Melanthon From these plain and confessed Considerations I extract these two Propositions 1. That it is no inconvenience to affirm That those words hoâ—y Spirit or Holy Ghost in that place do signifie the Godhead of the second Person Jesus Christ 2. That to deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ is that blasphemy which in the Gospel is said to be unpardonable And this is my Conclusion which hereafter I hope I shall evidently demonstrate to the Readers satisfaction CHAP. III. That the Godhead of the Son is called Spirit and holy Spirit that the words Ghost and Spirit are of the same signification LEt it not seem strange that the appellation of one person is given to another for as in this place the Godhead of the Son is called the holy Spirit so in another place the Godhead of the Son is called the Everlasting Father Esa 9. 6. For unto us a child is born his Name shall be called wonderfull counsâ—llour the mighty God the everlasting Fâ—ther In that he saith a child is born it must needs be meant of the Son of God and the Son is called the everlasting Father because he is God for the Godhead of every person being but one in all is may be called the everlasting Father and so the holy Ghost is the everlasting Father also because the holy Ghost is God and yet this doth not confound the three persons or their severall and distinct prâ—prieties and personalities for albeit every Person is the everlasting Father in respect of men and of creatures because all concurred in the creation yet onely the first Person hath this Personall proprietie to be the Father of the sâ—cond Person and so the Father of God as the Son is the Father respectu Creaturarum i. in respect of the creatures so the first Person is Father of God and of Man as that in the Poet if it were in the singular number might illustrate Hominum sator atque deorum a Virg. Aene. l. 1. so God the Father is the Father of God the Son that is the Father of the Person of the Son but not the Father of the Godhead of the Son b Pater Personae non essentiae Pater Filii non deitatis We in our Creed confess the Son to be God of God that is God the Son of God the Father but we do not say Deitas de deitate Godhead of Godhead Neither could the Son of God call God the Father his Lord and his God but onely because the Person of the Son assumed the humane nature and form of a servant as St. Augustino hath observed upon that saying Ps 22. 10 Thou art my God from my mothers belly c Pater est Deus Dominus Filio quia in eo est forma servi De ventre matris Deus meus es tu Ps 22. 10. Sed antâ— omnia secula Pater est i. The Father is the Lord and God of the Son because the Son assumed the form af a servant therefore it is said in the Psalme Thou art my God from my mothers belly but the Father may be said to be his Father from eternitie As every Person is called a Father so as is said so also every Person is called Holy because the Godhead is holy
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
is behind of the afflâ—ctions of Christ in my flâ—sh We may not think that Christ in his own particular Person left his Passion insufficient so as if for our redemption the Apostle should need to supply his defect but his meaning is that something was to be suffered in the Mysticall Body of Christ which is his Church by the holy Martyrs for confirmation of Evangelicall Truth as it is there said For his bodies sake that is for the edification of his Members and these Passions of Martyrs are here called the afflictions of Christ though they were acted onely on the Person of this Apostle If it be here objected that there is a great difference between the Sonship of Christ and our sonship because he is the Son of God by Nature and we onely by the Adoption of Grace This cannot be denied but withall we should understand that although Christ in regard of his Divine Nature is very God of very God yet the same Lord Jesus in respect of his assumed Manhood is also the Son of God onely by Grace by Adoption and Election and therefore it is said in regard of this humane Nature All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth Esay 42. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 4. and therefore Christ is called Gods elect Servant and Saint Peter calls him a stone chosen and precious for indeed it was of meer grace that this Man Jesus was chosen and taken into Unity of Person with the Eternal Word and this is the doctrine of the ancient Church Aug. de Verb. Dei ser 8. De Temp. ser 84. delivered by Saint Austine Susceptio hominis per Verbum erat Gratia nam quid meruit ille Homo qui Christus est and again Susceptio hominis ipsius in Deum tota est gratia quid meruit homo ille â—olle gratiam quid est Christus nisi homo quid nisi quod tu and in his disputes against the â—elâ—gians he thus argues Vnde Christus De Praedest cap. 14. homo meruit ut in unitatem personae cum aeterno verbo assumeretur quid â—nte egit and he answereth himself thus ille grat âest tantus â—â gratiâ fiâ— Christianus quâ ille homo fiâ— Christus That is the taking of the manhood into God was meerly of grace for what did that man Christ deserve What did he before by the same grace that a man is made a Christian this man Jesus was made Christ Finally why should we further doubt that holy men are called Christ and the Son of God seeing the Eph. 3. 17. 1 John 4. 13. Matth. 28. 28. Scripture tells us that Christ dwelleth in their hearts and that they dwell in him and that he is with us to the end of the world Hereupon Saint Hierâ—m writes thus to Saint Austin a Hierom. Ep. 80. Habitantem in teâ—dâ—â—exi Dâ—mâ—num Salvatorâ—m And Paulinus thus writes to him b Aug. epist 58. Audiam quâ—d in â—â— mihi loquatnâ— Deus And Austin himself writes thus to Bishop Aurelius c Id. â—e opere Monach. cap. 1. Jussioni â—â—a oporter me obâ—â—mperaâ—e nam Christus in te habitans ex te jussiâ— This union of Christ and his Church is of so great Concernment that the most high and Holy Sacrament was set up by our Saviour purposely not only to signify but also as an Instrumental meanes to effect this most holy Union which cannot be said of common and ordinary food and therefore is called by Saint Austin Thâ— Sacrament of union as out of many grapes one vessell Ad Frâ—â— in Erem ser 28. Sacramentum unitatis of wine is extracted c â—just so saith he of many men one Body of Christ is composed I here present unto the Learned Readers consideration an exposition of those two difficult sayings of Christ but I do not obtrude this conceit Magisterially He saith Iohn 6. 53. Except ye cat the flesh of the Son of man c. and Matth. 26. 26. Take eat this is my Body This he said when he gave not flesh but bread Vide Theophil in â—oâ— 6. 51. This bread may truly besaid to †Vide Theoophil in John 6. 51. be turned into the Flesh of Christ because it is nutrimentally turned into the flesh of every holy Communicant because such are truly called the Body and members of Christ and are called Christ but in prophane persons it is not so turned because they are not the members of Christ neither doth our Saviour say This is my body till he had first said Take Eat my learned friend Dr. Thomas Brown observeth that every Religio â—â—dici man is a kind of Anthropâ—phaâ—e because the main bulk of his body went in at his mouth by nourishment so this holy Eucharisticall nourishment is therefoie turned into the Body of Christ because it is converted into the flesh and blood of us who are his Body for thus Christ and his servants become incorporate and one body In the vision of Saint Peter it was said Arise Acts 10 13. kill and eat the meaning was that Peter should re ceive the Gentiles as well as the Jewes into the Communion of the Church Quasi escam uâ— incorporentur Ecclesiae saith Austin so he expoundeth that of Saint Iohn Aug. Hom. 45. Except ye eat id est nisi incorporentur Christo So also he expoundeth that saying He that cometh to Jo. 6. 37. me I will not cast him out Quiveniâ— ad Christum incorporatur ei And in that exposition of the Apocalyps which goes under his name Rev 20. 9. where it is said that fire came from God and devoured the persecutors he saith Comeduntur ab ecclesia persecutores id est incorporantur the meaning is that by the fire of the Holy Ghost the very persecutors of the Church shall be converted and incorporated into that mysticall Body of Christ this of the first question The second question is What that is which in the Saints Quest 2. Militant is not yet nor ever will be in this life fully subjected to God but shall be hereafter in the next life To this question this is the answer That in the Answer most holy men living there dwelleth a rebellious sin continually unto their death which is the same that by the Apostle is called Concupisence for the law saith Thou shalt not cover and the Apostle saith The Exod 20. 17. Rom. 7. 7. Gal. 5. 17. Psal 94. 20. flesh lusteth against the Spirit this is that which Divines call Originall sin of which the Apostle saith Rom. 7. 23. I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind Psal 94. 20. he calleth it a law because it hath such power over us as the Edicts of Tyrants have over their Vassals this is that sin which â—weâ—lâ—th in us Rom. 7. 2. of which he saith v. 24. who shall deliâ—er us from this body of death the deliverance mâ—st not be
Christ hath put down all carnall and sinfull rule authority and power for where the Apostle saith 1 John 3. 9. Hâ— that is bâ—rn of God sinâ—eth not He meaneth that the seed and fountain of sinning is not in his regenerating and Spirituall part by which he is born of God but he is also born of flesh and by that onely he sinneth CHAP. XI Why the unpardonable sinne is rather fastened on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons BUt why should the denying of the Godhead of the Son be so especially said to be a blasphemy unpardonable when as the denying of the Godhead of the other Persons is also damnable for first Saint Basil saith expresly more then once Qut Spiritum sanctum Crâ—â—turam vocant incidunt inblasphâ—miam Basil epist 387. n. 17. 43. illam irremissiâ—item He that calleth the Holy Ghost a creature falleth â—nto the unpardonable sinne so that Eunomius the Heretâ—cke who said the Spirit was the Creature of the Son was involved in Basil cont Euno n. 20. this blasphemy as well as Arius who said the Son was but a Creature of the Faâ—herâ— and therefore called him Mâ—ttendarium onely an Emissarie of the Father as Ruffinus reporteth and Saint Cyprian calâ—eth the Devill Ruff. in symb apud Cyp. n. 91. who is under the pressure of eternall unpardonableness both Antichristum Antispiritum an Antichrist and an Antispirit intimating as much danger in the one as in the other For we â—earn in Scripture that without holyness no man shall see God Heb 12 14. Therefore how can that man expect the gift of Holyness who denieth the Author of Holyness which iâ— the Holy Ghost Secondly He that denieth the Godhead of the Father is an Atheist for all sorts of Religions which confess 2. a God do also confess a Fatherhood in that God even the Heathens called their Jupiter a Father but how can an Atheist expect salvation from God who denieth that there is any God For answer hereunto it may be said that although the denying of the Godhead of any Person in the Trinity be destructive to salvation yet this sin is rather fastned on the deniers of Christ then the deniers of the other Persons First because the confession of the Father and the holy Spirit is not salvificall without the Confession of Christ for even Heathens confessed both a Fatherhood and a Divine Spirit of God as appeareth by the confession of Neâ—u hadnezar Dan. 4. 9. but the Confession of Christ is alone salvificall because he is not alone as himselfe saith John 8. 16. I am not alone but I and the Father which sent me for the confession of Christ includeth Basil de 〈◊〉 c. 12. the whole Trinity as Saint Basil affirmeth Christi appâ—llatio est professio totius trinitatis deâ—larans Deum Patrem qui unâ—it Filium qui unctus est Spiâ—itum qui est unctio and Saint mbâ—oâ—e affirmeth the same Amb. de 〈◊〉 c. 3. Christus implicat Paâ—rem unguentem Filium unctum Spiritum unctionem i. The appellation of Christ is the profession of the whole Trinity declaring the Father anointing the Son anointed and the Spirit who is the ointment and therefore albeit the form of Baptisme was precisely set down to be in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost yet because the Name Jesus Christ implyeth all these Saint Peter mentioneth onely this name Acts 2. 38. Be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for remission of sins so doth Saint Paul also Rom. 6. 3. Galatians 3. 27 Secondly the unpardonable sin is fastned on the deniers of the second Person rather then on the deniers of the other Persons because the work of redemption was immediately wrought by the second Person For it was the Person of the Son onely that became a Surety for us and not onely a bare Witness or Testifier as the Commenter affirmeth the Son onely took upon him our nature and therein fulfilled the Law for us and suffered death in our stead for our transgressions he onely was our Surety and Mediatour and he onely was incarnate and died and rose again and carried our flesh into Heaven with him and there still continueth a Mediatour for us not by any verball pleading or intreating for our salvation but by presenting there in the glorious Sanctuary of Heaven that humane body and soul which had actually and perfectly performed the whole Covenant of God and therefore even in the most strict Justice of God shewing that Heaven is due by the said Covenant to all his mysticall Body for which his naturall Body was sacrificed on the Crosse for the expiation of all their sinnes which was prefigured by the High Priests entering into the Sanctum Sanctorum All these dispensations and actions which conduced to our salvation must be ascribed onely to the Person of the Sonne but cannot be said of the Father or of the Holy Ghost For that was the Heresie of the â—oc l. 2. c. 15. Sabellians who were therefore called Patripassiani for these workes are proper to the Sonne alone Filius natus passus resurrâ—xisse ascendâ—sse dicitur non Aug. de Trin. l. 1. c. 5. n. 60. Pater As Augustine saith i. The Father cannot be said to be born or suffer or to rise again or to ascend but onely the Sone Therefore Kisse the Son lest he be angry and ye perish Psalme 2. 12. For the denying of him is the renouncing of salvation CHAP. XII The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scripture and by the type of the Tabernacle BEcause the apprehension and believing of this great Mystery of God Incarnate is a wonderfull consolation to the Christian and the denying thereof pertinaciously a certain note of eternall perdition therefore the Scripture hath very evidently and frequently declared this weighty truth both by express words and otherwise for the child to be born of a Virgin must be called Emmanuel Esay 7. 14. that is God with us or God incarnate and the same Prophet Esay 9. 6. giveth that childe such Titles as cannot be attributed to any meer creature as The mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of Peace This Prophets words do so agree with the Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine as the Word was made flâ—sh and the Word was God John 1. and God manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16 and of whom as concerning the flâ—sh Christ came who is over all God blessed for evermore Rom. 9. 5. that Saint Jerome called this Prophet Hier. proaem in Isai n. 33. Esay Non solum Prophetam sed Evangelistam Apostolum Not onely a Prophet but an Evangelist and an Apostle for as the Prophet before the incarnation bringeth in God saying I have sworn by my self to me every knee shall bow Esay 45. 23. So the Apostle applieth that saying to Christ being the same
Basil cont Eunom l. 4. n. 20. hath given him a name In humoniâ—aâ— non in divinitate the gift was given to the humane Nature of Christ which it had not of it self but not given to the divine nature that honour was naturally due to it that is to the Godhead of Christ So that the meaning of the Church and the intent and purpose for which she appointed reverence to be done to Jesus was onely the acknowledgment and confession of his Godhead in detestation of â—ewes Turks end Arians which deny the saâ—e therefore it will seem strange to any learned or intelligent Christian if this adoâ—ation shall be by any Christian authority forbidden or Jesu-worshâ—p as some have in derision called it shall be made an aâ—ticle of accusation and obloquie seeing it hath been practised in the Primitive Church long before there was any direction for it by any Ecclesiastical Canon except only the Canon of Scripture But if it be said that the bowing of the knee mentioned Rom. 14. â—1 be cleaâ—ly said and meant of the time when Christ shall sit in judgment I say so too and it is true but therefore not before for then Heathens Atheists Apostates Persecutors Tyrants yea and devills and all the damned shall be compelled by the rod of iron to confesse and acknowledge and submit to his Almighty Power and Godhead when the Saints both then and before have and shall with willing and cheaâ—full submission acknowledge Hier. in Ruff. inâ—ect â—n 42 him as Ruffinus in Saint Hierome writeth upon these words Evâ—ry knâ—e shall bow â—l qui voluntate alii necessitate the blessed ones will submit willingly and the very damned shall be thereunto compelled good Christian wilt thou not worship thy God without force CHAP. XVIII More of the adoration of our Saviour of his names Jesus Christ Emmanuel Jehova and other names of God IF it be demanded why this adoration is required rather under this name Jesus then under his other names seâ—ing Jesus is also a name given to meer creatures as to â—oshua Act. 7. 45. Hâ—brewes 4. 8. and others I answer if the adoration were intended to the bare name I think the exception were jâ—st but because we prosâ—sse to worship onely the person Jesus and yet not every person so named but onely the person of our Lord Jesus Christ in whom the Godhead for ever resideth who can blame us for worshipping our onely Lord God and that in time of publick worship for if we should therefore for bear to worship lesus because some meer creatures are so named then by the like reason we should forbear to worship God because some creatures are called gods as Moses Exo. 7. 1. and Magistrates Psa 82. 6. and 1. Cor. 8. 5. but we worship God onely and no creature and to God all possible adoâ—ation is due Basil hom 14. n. 14. whether by genuflection or otherwise Saâ—nt Basil saith Ad cultum â—ei Domini Iâ—su flectâ—reoportet genua id est in the worship of Iesus our Lord God it is meet we should bow our knees But yet if we must worship our God upon the naming of him it would be inquired why this name Iesus is so especially insisted upon why not at the name Iehâ—va or Emmanuel or Christ and why not in the naming of the Father or the Holy Ghost To this I say if none other answer could be given it might satisfie any humble Christian that the great Apostle Philip. 2. 10. hath insisted onely in that name yet for the Readers further satisfaction let him consider that no Person in the Trinity hath any pâ—opâ—r Name but onâ—ly the second Person and the second Peâ—son hath no proper Name but onely the Name Iesus For who can tell me what is the proper Name of the Person of God the Father or of God the Holy Ghost For every Person is God and Lord every one is Iehova every one is Iâ—h and Eheih and Adonai for these names signifie but Lord and I am and which was Every Person is El Potent and Hâ—â—ion most High and Schaddai Omnip otâ—nt and all the Pâ—rsons together are Eâ—o im that is Potâ—nt Gen. 1. 1. in the plurall number And all these names are mostly represented by Interpreters in the words God and Loâ—d and therefore these names are not proper names of any one Person in the Trinity but common to all the three Persons yet there are other appellations that are severally peculiar to each severall Peâ—son as the woâ—d Father Sonne or Word and Holy Ghost in some places of Scripture though the word Father and Holy Ghost or Spirit in other places is said of all Persons as is shewed before The rule of Saint Austine is Omnia noâ—ina naturae seu essâ—ntiae Dei de Aug. to 3. n. 76. singulis Personis dici possunt sed non nomina reâ—aâ—iva ut Pater Veâ—bum Fiâ—ius id est Every name which signifieth the Essence and Nature of God may be said of every Person but the Names which import a relation of one Person to another are not so said â—o P. 332. c. 13. v. 2. our very Commenter could not deny that Iesus Châ—ill is callâ—d Iâ—hova For it is a Name of Essence or Godhead And for the word Christ it is not to be taken as a proper name but as Cognomen a sirname i. a superadded name as added to his proper name and signifieth Annointed for we cannot imagine that those Kings and other Holy Persons which in Scripture are called Christi i. Gods anoâ—nted were so called as by a proper Name so here our Saviours prâ—per Name was Jesus his surname Christ this Title Christ being added as for other reasons so for this to distinguish him from other men who had the same proper Name Iesus as you reade Coloss 4. 11. of another that being named â—esus is also sirnamed Justus for distinction and of Bar-Iâ—sus Acts 13. 6. Now for the word Emmanuel we are to understand that it is not the proper Name of our Saviour no more then the word Christ is for where it is said Esay 7. 14. Thou shalt call his Name Emmanuel The Prophers meaning was not to set forth the proper Name of the Messiah But to set forth the wonderfull and reall property of his Person to be by the hypostaticall union of two natures in one Person Theanthropos id â—st God Incarnate for so the word Emmanuel signifieth God with us Therefore Tertullian writing both against the Jews and also against Marcion the Heretick severally when it was objected that our Jesus was not that Messiah which was foretold by Esaias because he was not named Emmanuel He answereth Non solum sonum nominis expâ—ctes sed Tert. cont Judaeos l. 3. contr Mar. sensum quia quâ—d significat Emmanuel venit id est we were not to expect a meere sound and name onely but the thing signified by that word Emmanuel for though his Name was not named
was thus penned partly by Eusebius and partly by Hosiâ—s and yet we are sent to this Eusebius his first book but he doth not tell us to which of his first books for Eusebius hath many first books so I must trace him through Eusebius that I may hit on the place he meanes For I have observed that Eusebius hath no lesse then four times in severall places of his works set down his opinion concerning Gods visible appearing to the patriarks and in none of those places hath he said that which this Commenter would pin uppon him first he saith in his book de monsâ— lâ—b 1. c. 5. as Euseb de Demonst l. 1. â— 5. Ruffinui reads it Audi ut Moses cum qui amicis Dei seipsum ostenderet modo Deum modo Dei angelum appellet sic declarans non hunc fuisse ipsum patrem sed ejus filium qui idem et Deus ac Dominus amicorum Dei et supremi Patris Angelus dici consueverit id est Hear how Moses calleth him who used to appear to the friends of God sometimes he calls him God and sometimes the Angel of God and thereby Moses declareth that he was not the supream Father but his Son which son is usually called the God and Lord of the friends of God and also the Angell or messenger of the most high Father All that Eusebius in this place affirms is that he that appeared to Abraham and the patriarks was God in the person of the Son and not in the person of the Father that it was not the supream Father but it was the supream Son for both the Father and the Son are but one supream God the same supream God appeared which is both the Father and the Son and this he proveth because he that appeared is sometimes called the Angel of the supream Father which may be and is in Scripture said of the Person of the Son but not of the Person of the Father and yet he saith he that appeared was Deus Dominus id est the Lord God of the Patriarks But Eusebius doth not say as you would have him that he was not the most high God only he saith he was not the Father but the Son of the Father which no good Christan can find Euseb de Dem. l. 5. in prefat fault with in such a mystery the same Eusebius had said before in the preface of the same book Dei Verbum apud priora secula in hominis habitu apparuit id est The Word of God in former times appeared in the habit of a man Now we know that onely the Son or second Person is called the Word as Iohn 1. 1. and this the same Eusebius affirmeth again in the 19. Chapter of the said Book id est Idem est Dominus Euseb de Dem. l. 1. c. 19. Deus Christus qui Abrahoe visus habitu pacisico Iacobo tanquam Creator Mosen specie nubis ignis ducebat c. id est It was the same Lord and God and Christ which appeared to Abraham in a peaceable shape and to Iacob as a wrastler and lead Moses with a clould of fire You see that as yet Eusebius hath said nothing to confirm your opinion but let us see what he saith in his first book of his hystory for I guesse that is the first book Deus Abraâ—ae apparuit tanquam communis homo at ille adorat ut Deum veneratur ut Dominum dicens Eus hist l. 1. c. 1. Gen. 18. 25. dominator Domine qui judicas omnem terram quae omnia non ad â—aâ—â—em sâ—d ad fil um referenda sunt id est God appeared to Abraham as an ordinary man but Abraham adored him as God amd worshipped him as the Lord saying shall not the Judg of all the earth do right all which must be considered as spoken to the Son and not to the Father The result of all that Eusebius hath said in this businesse is That the most high God of all the earth appeared to Abraham in the person of his Son and not in the person of the Father But yet it was the same Lord God for Godhead and substance which is in the person of the Father and in the person of the Son therefore he that appeared was the same God with the Father but not the same person with the Father therefore Saint Austin saith very truly That the Father and the Aug. cont Epist Manâ—chae c. 6. n. 7. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. Son are to be called unum but not unus id est one God for essence but not one for person So he expresseth himself in another place upon these words I and the Fâ—thâ—r are one unum secundum essentiam non seeundum relatum id est One in Godhead but not so in personall relation it is very remarkable that in our Saviours prayer for his Church it is desired Iohn 17. Theod. hist l. 2. c. 8. Aug. n. 47 174. 22. That they all may be one as we are one he doth not say That they and we may be one because God and man are not of the same essence for unum cannot be said of two severall natures although they be united Aug. Epist 174. in one person or subsistence sine adiectione as Austin hath observed as the soul and body of man united are not unum except you understand animal you may call them one man one person one living creature but not absolutely One because they differ in essence or nature but the Father and the Son are therefore said to be one because they are but one God though severall persons just as Ensis gladius are unum they are the self-same thing So the Father and the Son are one and the same God though two persons Substanâ—iaâ—iâ— unâ—â—as personalis pluralitas id Rie de St. vict de Trin. l. 3. c 8. est unity of Godheâ—d plurality of persons Therefore the Scripture speaks of them with great caution both plurally and singly Gen. 1. 1. God câ—â—ated the the noune is the plurall but the verb is the singular number and let us make man and in our image this shewes a plurality but yet the persons are never called Gods or Lords Plurally but as he who intended to point at one particular man named Tertullius described him by thrice repeating Tullus Tullus Tullus Jul. cap. in Mar. Ant. c. 10. and as the Consulship of Caesar men used to say that these two Consuls were Julius and Caesar so when the Scripture would intimate the two distinct persons of the Father and the Son it doth it by Sugt in Julio c. 20. repeating the same word because there is but one Lord and but one God it will not say Lords or Gods but The Lord rained from the Lord and The Lord Gen. 19. 24. Ps 45. 7. Aug. Epist 37. said unto my Lord and God thy God hath anointted thee because the same God
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
the Father â—ohn 5. 37. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time noâ— any time noâ— seen his shape and yet his voice was certainly heard at Christs Baptisme but Saint Hilary reconcileth both places telling us Pater nec visus nâ—â— audiâ—us est ab illis â—udaeis quibuscum Christus loquebatur i. Those Jewes to whom Hil. de Trin. lib. 9. Christ then spake were not present when the Fathers voice was so uttered yet this doth not hinder but that as others heard his voyce so others might see his Person presented in some visible shape besides who can tell what Person it was that said Let there be Genesis 1 light If it were the Person of the Father then why may we not say it was the Father which walked in Paradise and talked with Adam Saint Austine moves the question Aug. de Trin. l 2 c. 12. Whâ—n three men appeared to Abrabam why may we noâ—â—â—r they were â—â—e thrâ—e Pâ—â—sons of the Triâ—iâ—ie seeing neither of those that appeared is there said or so much as intimated to be greater or lesse then the other It is but a vain cavill of this Commenter in p 332. saying they were noâ— God but Angâ—ls created because it is said Heb 13. 2. some have entertained Angels for who knows not that in Scripture very often the Son of God is called the Angel of the holy Ghost is said to be sent which is all one and this is enough to verifie that Abraham might entertain God and Angels in those Persons albeit the Father cannot be called an Angel but yet that creature or shape which the Person of the Father did or might assume may be called his Angel as is sâ—id before ch 4. p 119. That the onely and most high God did then appear to Abraham I do nothing doubt and our Commenter confesseth him to be called Jehova which he also confesseth to be an appellation proper to God himself and in that eighteenth Chapter and the five and twentieth verse He is called the Judge of all the Earth and yet he will afford this Jehova no better honour then to be a Creature an Angell and Minister and Delegate though he doth not take upon him to shew us any such Delegation or Commission whereby any creature is ordained to be a Jehova how many Jehovah's would this Commenter have But it was indeed Jehova that is the onely Lord God which appeared but whether in the Person of the Father or the Sonne or the Spirit or All Saint Augustine thought it was an uncertain and an Aug. ib. occult question This was his judgement which seemeth to incline to a probability of the apparition of the three Persons Origen in Gen. ho. 4. Epiph. in Ancor n. 27 1 Ful. de praedest lib 2. though divers other Fathers differ from him as Origen and Epiphanius who thought that the apparition to Abraham was of the Sonne of God and two created Angels with him and Fulgentius saith flatly id est That the Sonne appeared and not the Father By what hath been said it appeareth that in the judgement of the Ancient Church Writers it was the true Jehovah which appeared to Abraham even that onely Jehovah who is the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Spirit in Essence although in a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost they all agree in the apparition of the same God but they doubt to pronounce what Person it was neither will I but leave this question to the judgement of the learned Reader and proceed to shew some reasons why Eusebius alledged by the Commenter and our Fathers thought that onely the Son appeared to the Patriarchs and not the Father Because the Orthodoxe or Catholicke Church did constantly believe and confesse that onely the Sonne of God or second Person did take upon him our nature and became the Sonne of Man and that onely he was God Incarnate he onely was born of the Virgine and converâ—ed with the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Iacob on earth and onely that Person suffered on the Crosse and died for us and that neither the Perâ—on of the Father nor the Person of the Holy Ghost can be aid or truely believed to have taken our nature on them and to be boâ—n of the Virgine nor to be the seed of the woman oâ— the seed of Abraham or the Sonne of David nor to have suffered for Mans redemption And because all the apparitions of God in the shape of Man mentioned in the Old Testament were but Types and prefigurations of the reall Incaâ—nation of the Sonne of God to be exhibited upon promise in the fulnesse of time Therefore Eusebius and other Fathers thought and said that it was God in the Person of the Sonne onely which appeared Typically for that onely the Person of the Sonne was really to be Incarnate and that neither the Person of the Father nor the Person of the Holy Ghost did appear to the Patriarches in humane shapes because neither of theâ—e Perâ—ons were to take our Nature on them for the work of redemption And that this is a faire probable reason may appeare in that the Orthodoxe Church condemned the Heresie of those that were called Paâ—rispassiani which is called by Saint Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est The confounding Cyr. Hier. car 4 of the Persons of the Father and the Sonne which Heresie is recorded not onely by this Eusebius Eus hist l 7. c. 4. 5 and by him called the Heresie of Sabellius but also before him and before Sabâ—llius by Tertullian and called the Heresie of Praxeas and after Eusebius Tert. de haer contr Prax. Soc. l. 2. c. 15 by Saint Basil Nazian Epiphanius and Augustine The Heresie is described by Socrates The Sabellians are condemned for saying that the Trinitie is only three Names and but One Person for so they affirme that the Father suffered Now I desire the Commenter to tell us why Eusebius might not say that it was at least sometimes the Person of the Sonne which appeared to the Patriarches and not the Person of the Father as well as all true Christian Churches doe to this day affirm and believe that the Person of the Sonne was â—ncarnate and suffered and not the Person of the Father For though the Church doth acknowledge that the Father and the Sonne are the same God because we doe not divide the Substance yet we say that the Father and the Sonne are not the same Person because we will not confound the Persons The poyson which this Commenter would infuse to weaker soules by saying that Eusebius would not have the Angell which appeared to Abraham to be the supreame God which Eusebius never said is to make men believe that there is a great and lesser God or else that Jesus Christ is not the One Onely and very God the affirming whereof is that blasphemy which himself saith shall not be forgiven unto men CHAP. VII Of the Incarnation
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
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