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
word there used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so again when Christ shewed himself to St. Paul in the Temple Act. 22. 17. he was in a trance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now an exstasie or trance is as St. Austin describes it Cum abripitur animi intentio Aug. de Gen. ad lâ—t l. 12. c. 6. Ibid. c. 21. n. 69. à sensibus i. When our soul is elevated and taken off from the use and management of our bodily senses and is actuated inlightened by the Spirit of God or some Angel So the same Father saith again Bono Spiriâ—u assumitur anima hominis cum in somnis futura videt sic Aâ—gelus apparet Joseph in somnis i. When in our sleep things to come are revealed to us our soul is taken and informed by some good spirit as Joseph was by an Angel Matth 2. 13. And so also Prosper saith Ecstasis est cum mens aliqua inspiratime assumitur i. An Ecstasie is when Prosper in Psal 115. n 46. our soul is wholly taken up and imployed by some inspration And St. Bisil saith That when we read that the Basil in Ps 28. hom 5. Word of the Loâ—d came to the Prophets we are not tâ— think so grosly as if God uttered vocal and audible sounds or words to them but that he informed and instructed their soules by a more divine way of illumination though something like as we in our ordinary dreams do imagine we hear voices and discourses of men and see our friends or such like when they are but the imaginations of our brain St. Austin Aug. Epist 101. doth very fitly resemble them thus Non erant voces corporâ—ae exâ—rinsecùs sed quales apud nos tacitè transâ—urrimus memoriâ—â—r vel canâ—ando i. e. When the Word of the Lord came to a Prophet it was not any outward corporeal voice but in such a way as we use when silently in our minds and by our memories we discourse with our selves inwardly as in running over a businesse or an Oration or a song which men usually do onely by thoughts though our tongue never move and just so doth the holy Poâ—t Prudentius describe St. Prudent in hamartig p. 187. John's Revelation Corporeus Johannes adhuc nec carne solutus Secedenie anima non discedente videbaâ— St. John saw the Revelation when his soul was not out of his body but retired to it self from the use â—o the body and St. Basil tells us Si nos viveremus animâ Basil hom Divers 3. n. 11. nudâ sine carnis velamentis cogitationes cognosceremus nunc verbis opus est i. When our soules have put off the garments of our flesh then they shall understand one another by thoughts as now men do by words And St. Austin is of the same judgment Tunc patebunt Aug. de Civ l. 22. c. 29. cogitationes invicem i. That our pure spirits shall perceive and converse with one another by thoughts Now when our soules are so ecstatically retired from our bodies as that they do not so much as contemplate the Phantasmes as their object then are they in a fit posture to converse with the Divine Spirit of God or those immaterial and heavenly spirits the holy Angels and when our soules are so elevated then such visions or revelations as are presented to our minds are as evident to us as if they had been sensibly presented to our eyes or eares and thus St. Hieromâ— Hier proaem in Esai n. 33. saith That the holy Prophets were instructed in their Prophecies by God in such câ—stâ—sies and by Angels also for that which we read Zach. 2. 3. The Angel that talked with me in St. Hier. it is thus read Angelus qui loquebatur in me i. The Angel which spâ—ke in me and Terâ—ullian saith Ecstasis est qua Propheâ—ia Constat i. e. Tertul. de anima c. 21. Prophâ—cie doth coâ—sist in ecstasie and in the Primitive times of the Church before the ordinary gift of Prophetical Revelations was ceased St. Cyprian tells us Impletur apud nos Spiritu sancto puerorum innocens Cyp. l. 3. Epist 14. n. 71. aetas quae in ecstasi vidit oculis audit loquitur ea quibus nos Dominus monere dignatur i. With us children in their innocent age see and hear in ecstasies and declare to us suâ—h things as God doth vouchsase to admonish us of and St. Austin doâ—bteth not to call that Aug. de Gen. cap. 5. l. 6. wonderful sleep of Adam when the rib was taken out of him an ecstasie or divine â—apture Deus misit ecstasin in Adam evigilabâ—â— plenus Prophetiae inirans in curiam angeloâ—um i. e. God sent an ecstasie upon Adam he awaked full of Prophecy entring into the Court of angels and therefore Origen reckons Orig. in Cant. ho. 2. Adam amongst the Prophets Now when such ecstasies were brought upon men by God or good Angels from him the person so illuminated was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if evil Angels invaded 2 Tim. 3. 16. and actuated mens minds then their ejaculations were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ethusiasmes because they proceeded from Satan the heathens god by which spirit the Oracles of the heathens gave answers in Pythonists and that spirit it was which spake in men possessed with an evil spirit so that many times when the Priest was in an extatical fury or madnesse he knew not what the evil spirit spake in him or her just as men possessed did not know what they said or did such persons were by the Church called â—nergâ—menâ— daemoniâ—â—â— that is such as were acted and wrought upon by evil spirits and therefore Tertullian translates this Tert. de anima c. 21. word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amentia madnesse they knowing no more what they said then that Serpent in which the devil spake when he tempted Eve For whereas the Spirit of God in divine exstasies did wonderfully enlighten holy Prophets who were therefore called Videntes i. Seâ—rs contrarily the spirit of Satan did mostly darken the minds of his Prophets and Demoniacks so that they perceived nothing of what their lips uttered and therefore Justin Martyr said of Justin lib. 1. ext n. 6. such Sibylla non intelligunt quae dicunt i. These Prophâ—â—â—sses do not understand what themselves prophâ—sie and Origen saith Pythia furit nec sui compos est dum promit Orig. cont Cels l. 7. n. 36. 〈◊〉 i. The Pythonisse is mad when she uttereth the Oraclâ—s and therefore such are commonly called Arrepâ—iâ—iâ— men forcibly snatcht and used but as an instrument by the evil spirit and the same Origâ—n tells Orig. Peri Arc. l. 3. c. 3. Hier. in vita Hilarion n. 10. us that Magicians would cause young Children to pronounce Poems which they never learned and St. Hierome writes of one Orionus a Demoniack in whom the evil spirit spake with many several voices at the same
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
afterwards Is not this the Carpenters son Matth. 13. 55. disparaging him for his mean parentage this is the Exposition of St. Ambâ—ose a Ambr. de Spirit l. 1. c. 3. In Filium Hominis pâ—ccare est remissius sentire de carne Christi c. To sin against the Son of Man is to conceive too basely of the flesh of Christ and they that so sin are not utterly excluded from pardon 2. The Jewes blasphemed him now in his Godhead by denying it and ascribing the miracle to confederacy with Beelzebub and of this blasphemy which doth take away the very foundation of remission of sins it is said It shall not be forgiven 5. I may adde hereunto that those unbaptized Pharisees in probability did not intend any obloquy or blasphemy against the Person of the holy Spirit as it is the third Person of which they had never been instructed neither had they so much Christianity as those disciples at Ephesus who though they had been baptized unto Iohns baptisme yet they had not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost Act. 19. 2. Thus having shewed that in Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers and later Divines the Godhead of Christ is called a Spirit and holy and also an holy Spirit and that in St. Matthew those words holy Spirit are to be understood of the Godhead of Christ which is for ever united to and residing in the Holy Temple of his most sacrâ—d Body and Soul I now reassume my former Conclusion That the denying Christ to be God is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is there said to be unpardonable Now that in a Doctrine of so great moment and concernment the Reader may understand that I do not obtrude any novell and private opinion of mine own upon him I will heâ—e lay down the judgement of soâ—e of the Fathers in this very question and first of Athanasius one of the most profound and godly Divines that since the Apostles dayes the Church ever had who in his book De Communi essentia Patris c. aith b Arha to 3. p. 625. It is hard to conjecture what our Saviour means by those words He that speaketh against the Sod of Man shall be forgiven but he that speaketh against the holy Ghost shall not be so given So that the Son may seem â—o he infâ—riour to the Spirit and yet the So saith The Father and I are one If he that saith to his brother Thou fool shall be cast into hâ—ll â—n quam gehennà gehennarum conjiriâ—tur is qui â—ssâ—rit Deum creatu am â—sse Into what Hell of Hells will he be cast who calleth him that is God a Creature and a Servant and a Minister onely And a little after he saith Dâ—iâ—atâ—m Vâ—rbi ipse Christus Spiriâ—um Sanctum vocâ—t humanitatem suam Filium Hominis nâ—minavit i. Our Saviour called his own Godhead the holy Ghost and his own Manhood he called the Son of Man and of those that blaspheme his holy Spirit by blaspheming his Godhead is this sentence to be understood It shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come This is the judgement of Athanasius To him I adde the Opinion of St. Hilâ—râ— who was contemporary with Athaâ—asius who in his Exposition of that Text Matth. 12. 32. saith c Hil. in Mat. Can. 12. p. 731. Si negetur Dâ—us in Christo caret omni misâ—ricordia i. If a Man deny God to be in Christ that man shall finde no mercy And again he saith d Hil. ib. Can. 31. p. 426. Blasphemia in Spiritum â—st Christum Deum â—sse negare i The blasphemy against the Spirit is to deny Christ to be God The same Father in the place last quoted speaking of Saint Peters deniall of Christ saith Because to deny Christ to be God is that sinne which shall never be forgiven therefore Peter denied thus I know not the Man because a word spoken against the Son of Man may be forgiven The very same conceit hath Saint Chrysostome also in his Sermon of Peters deniall and upon these words I kâ—ow not the Man e Chrys to 6 p. 631. Non dixit non noâ—i Deum Verbum sic enim peccasset in Spiâ—itum Sanctum i. Peter said not I know him not to be God for so he had sinned against the holy Ghost but I know not the Man Now whether Saint Peter meant so as these two Fathers conjectured I cannot affirm for certain but by this I finde that the judgement of these two great Doctours was that the denying of the Godhead of Christ is indeed that great unpardonable sinne To this I adde the testimony of Saint Basil who deserved to be called the Great He in that excellâ—nt Book De Spiritu Sancto saith f Basil de Spirit c. 7. Testificer omni Homini Christum profiâ—enâ—i sed â—um neganti Deum â—sse quod Christus nihil â—i proderiâ— i. I testifie to every Man who professeth himself to be a Christian and yet deâ—â—ieth Christ to be God Christ shall nothing at all profit that man And if Christ do not profit us in the remission of our sinnes I am sure our sinnes shall never be forgiven in this world or in the world to come CHAP. V. The Opinions of later Divines concerning the unpardonable sin A brief Narration of the life and death of Arius and of Julian the Apostate TO the above-named Ancients I subjoyn the opinions of our later Divines who in their Expositions and Tractats where they inquire what particular sin this is although they do not agree therein yet when they inquire what persons have sinned this sin they do commonly affirm for one that Arius in his Heresie did sâ—n thus and this is the opinion of Polanus and also of Bucanus and others Now the Polan synt p. 340. Bucan Lo. Com. p 174. onely noted heresie of Arius was the denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ saying that he was not from everlasting and that he was but preferred to be a God Just as our Commenter would have him onely exalted and deisied This Arius was born in Africk and was a Presbyter or Priest of the Cathedrall Church of Alexandria in Egypt In that City in the dayes of the Emperour Constantine the Great there were ten Churches besides Epiph. haer 69. the Cathedrall Just such as we now call Paraecial or Parish-Churches wherein ten of the Presbyters of the Cathedrall Church were the incumbents and Preachers of these ten Arius was one and was more esteemed and followed then any of his brethren It fell out that the Bishop of Alexandria died Arius gaped for the place but mist it for one Alexander was elected then Arius raised a faction and revived the former Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus preaching this damnable doctrine that Christ was not God When Bishop Alexander was informed of this he convented Arius and upon examination discovering his
II. Reasons why the Authour of this Commentary concealeth his own name BUt Sir why do you conceal your name Is it your humility not to be known take heed that Christ say not unto you a Luk. 13. 25. I know you not for you have not onely not confessed him before men but you have moreover denyed him and that in his most high and nearest concernment even his Godhead before our Saviour cast out a Devil he asked his name and had an answer and his name began with b Marc. 5. 9. I. it were meet that your name should be known that it might appear of which kind you are that means may be applied according to your quality to cast out this evil spirit But if you meant seriously to conceal your self why did you cause your Book to be presented to so many of the prime Gentry of this Countrey they all knew the author for the opinion men had of your abilities made them accept of and to expect something in your book answerable thereunto and it was needful they should know you for the greater advancement of such a doctrine But c Mart. l. 10 ep 3. Cur ego laborâ—m notus esse tam pravè i. e. Why should you make your self known so wickedly except you hoped to have a new name of an old heresie that Arians should change theit old appâ—llation and be called after your name and there may be some colour for it for although you have told us no new thing but onely a revival of many old heresies yet you are the first that ever in our English Print published and asserted them so that if all the former Catalogues of the most dangerous heresies were lost yet we may find more then enough in your Commentary but there may be greater reasons why you so cautelously withhold your name First the danger of the Law de haretico Comburendo for when a certain Gentlewoman by a friend of yours was told that some men said you might be burnt for your book she modestly replyed thus Sir they that said so may themselves be in danger of burning for being Witches they foretell so shrewdly I have heard that one of your opinion said Tolle legem c if it were not for the danger Tolle legem sivis esse certamen Ambr. Epist 13. of the Law he would dispute down all our Christian Religion which by your Comment is done to his hand as well as you could do it insomuch that a Minister of this Diocesse whom I know to be very learned and ingenious inquired for your book at the Stationers using these words Have you such a Doctors Book against Christ But why should you fear the Law for your very good friends that know you very well do assure us that you will never burn for any Religion On earth and for the other World you have much lessened mens feares in telling us that after death our soules shall be insensible untill the resurrection and more comfort yet that although our soules shall at the last day be judged yet as is by your own very good friends reported you have certified your people that the torments of Hell shall last but the space of three dayes Secondly If your name were subscribed to your Comment it would appear that the Author was a Chaplain in Ordinary at Court and appointed by our most Religious Soveraign to preach to the Prince his Highnesse and the other Royal Issue if therefore you with your blasphemous doctrines were made known to his Majestie who is so faithful and constant in his Christian Religion with what detestation would he exufflate you as an evil spirit or as a pestilence lest you should infect the soules of the Blood-Royal and the Court St. Hierom said of one that spake lesse against Christ then you have written b Hier. Ep. ad Pam. n. 20. Ego si patrem si matrem si germenum adversus Christum meâ—â—â— auaissem ista dicentes blasphemantia ora â—aâ—erassem i. e. If I had heard mine own father or mother or my brother spâ—aking these words against Christ I would have torn thei blasphemous mouâ—hes It is well known by the Ecclesiastick History c Sozo l. 2. c. 26 Soc. 1. 19 26. what mischief one single sneaking Arian Priest did in the Court-Royal of Constantine the Great in recalling Aâ—ius from banishment and infecting the next Emperour Constanâ—ius with the Arian heresie which from that small retriving overspread the whole Roman World he had been commended to Constantine by Constantia his own Sister on her death-bed and he so insinuated himself into the Emperour that on his death-bed he committed his last Will and Testament to the trust of this Arian Priest who by his faithful carriage in delivering the said Will to the succeeding Emperour obtained his favour also then he opened his heresie and therewith infected the bed-chamber-men and the Eunuches next the Empresse then the Emperour himself and presently all families in the Imperial City fell to disputes and divisions about those questions as d Soc. l. 2. c. â— â—â— Socrates relateth A third reason why you conceal your name is because the quality of your doctrine is such as doth require a secret Seminary it is not such as a Preacher may publish e Mat. 10. 27. 2. on the house-â—op but as a false light which shineth in the darknesse and is more fit for a dark lantern or to be put under a bushel or in a tub Puâ—chra Laverna f Hoâ— Epist l. 1. c. 16. Da mihifallere da justum sanctumque videri Noctâ—m peccatis fraudibus objice nubem Neither truth it self nor her Preachers are ashamed of their doctrine g Tertul. cont Valent. n. 52. Nihil veritas â—rubâ—scit nisi so 〈◊〉 abscondi i. e. Truth is not ashamed but when she is suppressed he that in a Christian Common-wealth would sowe true and established doctrine may be h Aug. cont Faust l. 18. c. 3. In terdianus Sator as Austin's word is i. he may sprâ—ad it in the day-light but he that intends to sowe tares must do it secretly While men 〈…〉 enemy came and 〈…〉 Matth. 13. 25. Evil spirits they are which are called Nocturni â—emures i. nâ—ght-goâ—â—iâ— when the Jewes had crucified the Son of man there was Mat. 27. 45. darknesse over all the Land and now when darknesse is over all our Land by reason of dâ—ssâ—nsions in Religion you crucifie the Son of God afresh i Heb. 6. 5. and indeed haec est hora vestra potestas tenebrarum k Luk. 22. 53. for though your person be obscured your doctrine is sprung up into print even that doctrine which heretofore lurked in corners as l Psal 91. 6. a 〈…〉 that wâ—â—keth in darknesse is now again become as St. Herome complained of it in his time m Hier. Cont. Rust l. 2. c. 4. 22. Arius est daemonâ—um meridianum your Arianâ—sme is a noon-day
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
the Holy Ghost can be seene becase the Godhead of every and all Persons is one and alike invisible for God is a spirit and a spirit cannot be seene and therfor S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa triâ—itâ—s intellâ—giâ—ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist 112. Aug. Epist 111. Tert. cont Prax. Pater i. The whole trinitie is invisible and not only the Father and again he saith The whol trinitie is of a nature invisible and again he saith out of Ambros. and Hierome Neither the Father nor the Son can be seen in their divine nature For so noe Eye can see them and therfore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis i. Patriarks saw God not in the plenitude of his Majestie but according to the capacitie of man and to this both Ahanasius and Atha ad Antio n. 28. Chrys. ho. 48. Antio n. 17. Chrisostome agree Nemo essentiam invisibilis i. The essence of God is to all mortalls invisible The divine nature and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture somtimes calls the face of God of which God said to Mooses Thou canst not see my face and live so Theodoret expounds those words divina natura Theod Dialog immutat Atha quest ad Antioch n. 28. Aug. de Trin. l. 2. sub aspectum non cadit i. the divine nature can not be seen so doth Athanasius 1. Anteriora dei significant divinitatâ—m i. the foreparts of God signifie the Godhead and so S. Austin often tels us that the face of God signifies the form of God and the afterparts signifie the form of a servant which is the humane nature But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spake unto Moses face to face and how could Jacob say I have seene God face to face if the pure Godhead can not be seene And how could Moses tell the Israelites Deut. 5. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount and yet before he had said Deut 4. 15. yee saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb I answer that as in one place of those Scriptures alleaged the face of God signifies his divinitie or Godhead which can not be seen so in the other place it signifieth Gods presence manifested by words or signes wherby God declare th himself present as on mount Horeb by fier and thunder and in the tabernacle by a cloud or by a sound and words so Gods face or presence may be where there is no sight of him and so he spake to the people face to face because they knew for certaine that God was there present But Iacob saw the face of God because he saw the face of that man or that shape which wrastled with him when God appeared to him in the forme of a man although Iacob could not see the pure Godhead and this kind of appearing in an assumed shape is called by Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The appearing of God from hence the Dion Areop Caelest Hier. c. 4. Eus de Dem. l. 5. c l. 14. aforementioned Ensebius argued that because Iacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him in which man was God therfore he said it was the person of the Son and not the Person of the Father because Eusebius was persuaded that the Person of the Father did never shew himself in a visible shape â—nd for this Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons of which more hereafter CHAP. IV. More concerning the first question how God hath bin and may be seen FOr the further explanation of this question it would be inquired how it is said that God is visible and hath bin seene and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible which in their owne Spiritual nature are as invisible as the divine nature is for because a spirit hath nothing in it self which can be an object for mortal Eyes therfore whensoever Spirits or Angels good or bad are seen of men it must be by assuming some shape or body and mingling themselves with it that so they may become a fit visible object because only such things are visible for ever so many invisibles whether they be good or bad spirits Angels or devils cannot make one visible Object and therfore when we read in Scripture that God appeared in an Angel it is not so to be understood as if the invisible God became visible by taking uppon him the invisible nature of an Angel for an Angelâ—â—al nature is of it self as invisible as the divine nature as is said because both are Spirits but when God is seen in an Angel the Angel meant is the corpoâ—â—al visible shape which God assumeth and imployeth and useth for that purpose to be seen and to converse with man by for the word Angel doth not alwayes signifie a spiritual nature but any officer imployed by God as a Messenger so S. Iohn the Bapâ—ist is called Gods Angel Mat. 11. 10. in the Original So that the visible creature which is used as a Medium to present God visible is and may very fitly be called the Angel of God As Moses therfore put a Veile over his shining face which otherwise the people could not behold and as the Sun by our weak Eyes is better seen through the veil of a thâ—n mist then in its Cleer brightnes so in this life God is visible Only as in a glosse â—arkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightneâ— is invisible but the Invisible things of God are seen by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinitie can â—ot be sâ—â—e except it be clothed and allayed with some moâ—e grosse and Material veil and therfore at what time God shewed himself visibly to men he took some corpâ—real Creature and shape unto him that so he who by nature is invisible might in that assumed habit be seen and this was the resolution of the Fathers a Filius Atha de uniâ— Tâ—in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Maâ—â— iâ— Filius vâ—sus est Patriarchis in specie hâ—minis i. The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material and visible shape as â—â— a Man So S. Chrisostome saith The Prophets which saw Chrys ho. 10. Antâ—o Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id Epist 11â— God had not otherwise the expresse sâ—ght oâ— him sed figuras viderund i they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conveâ—sing with man in Paradise saith Deus locutus est cum pâ—imâ—s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali and againe Deus non est visâ—â— nisi assumptione creaturae i God talked with first parents in some bodily shape for God can not be seen but by assuming some Creature and
quos tales fore ante mundum conditum sciÌ„ebat praescientiam vincente bonitate i Christ died for his enemies for tyrant-persecutors for witches and conjurers for those that hated him for those that crucified him and for those whom he foresaw before the world that they would be such yet his foreknowledge did not hinder his goodnes toward them but that he offered to them the benefit of his death Now if yet any man desire to know upon what ground the unregenerate man can lay claim to any benefit by Christ I answer that the reason and ground of this claime is because the unregenerate mans nature is taken into Christ as well as the regenerate mans and I say moreover that the Spirit of Christ is communicated to the unregenerate man as truly as it is to the regenerate man although with a great deale of diversitie in operation as shall be shewed hereafter That the Spirit of God which is the spirit of Christ is communicated to men unregenerate the Scripture evidently declareth for if the Spirit of God doe fill heaven and earth as the Prophet Jeremie saith Jer. 23. 24. Who can imagine that the same Spirit is not in man which is in Creatures inferior to man and the Gospel saith Joh. 1. 9. He enlightneth every man that commeth into the world Therfore unregenerate men are not without the light of the Spirit of Christ and againe Act. 17. 28. In him wee live and move and have our being for infinitenes of Gods Spirit doth include all ereatures Deus est in Creaturis intra extrà supereminens Hil. de Trin. lib. 1. circumsusus infusus Saith Hilarie i. God is within us and on our outside and over us and round about us whersoever any life or motion or but being is there is God for God is not only a being of himself but he is the Essentiator that communicateth being to all Creatures Eusebius giues this excellent reason of it Eus de praep l. 15. c. 11. If there were not saith he one lively power which insinuateth it self into every creature in the world this vast universe could not be so rightly and prudently ordered by such uniforme and mutuall correspondence of one part with another when the whole consisteth of such contrarietie of parts S. Paule in his sermon at Athens Act. 17. above mentioned approveth of the saying of an heathen poët who said that men are the off-Spring of God he said so no doubt because even heathen's confessed that our very being is from him and our soules and motions are actuated by his Spirit It is worth our observing that as the genealogie of S. Matthew deriveth Christ from Mat. 1. Luc. 3. men descending downe from Abraham so S. Lukes Genealogie deriveth men from God by ascending upward and whereas S. Mathew useth the words begate and the Son S. Luke useth not these words in the Original because men are not the natural Sons of God so as they are of their carnal parents but yet they are of God so as â—s said in effect S. Mathews Genealogie deriveth the flesh of God from man and S. Luke deriveth the Spirit which is in man from God this was the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers S. Besil saith Omnia Basil cont Euno lib. 5. creata participant de creatore nam mâ—sâ—ra essent si a creatore dirimerentur i. all Creatures participate of the Creator for most miserable would the Creatures be if they were Dionis de diu no. c. 3. served disjoyned from their Creator Dionysius Areop saith Deus est in Omnibus rebus sed extra omnia i God is within all Creatures and yet he is also on the Theod. de Prov. Ser 10. n. 27. Clem. Rom. Recog l. 8. outside of those Creatures and Nulla mundi pars deo destituta est i no part of the world is destitute of God and againe Deus est intra nos sed infidelibus dormit absens dicitur quia non creditur i God is within us men and is even in infidels although he is said to sleepe or to absent himself from them because they Fulg. ad Thras l 2 n. 8. doe not with faith apprehend him Fulgentius also saith Deus adesâ— ubâ—que per potentiam sed non ubique per gratiam substantialiter nullibi deest i God is every where by his power his substance or Godhead 〈◊〉 no where absent though his grace Sanctifying grace he id ibid. n. 9. meanes be not eveâ—y where and 〈◊〉 Substantialitèr ubique est 〈◊〉 i Th◠〈◊〉 trinitie is every where by their substances and Godhead for when it is said â—oh 14. 23. Wee will come unto him anâ— makâ— our abede with him The meaning is that the Father and the Son will manifest their gratiousnes and propitiousnes to be present then when their Godhead is never absent the divine Spirit alwayes filling all things hence it is Atha cont Apollinar n. 22. that Athanâ—siu dâ—th call men 〈◊〉 as he called Christ Deum Carnigerum i. as God the Son beareth man's flesh so the Sons of men beare his Spirit in them From hence it is that both Saint Cyprian and Saint Cyp. ser De Resur Aug. de Civit. l. 4. c. 12. Austine say from the Confession of Heathen Philosophers Deus est anima Mundi Mundus est Corpus Dei i. God is as the Soul of the World and the World is as the Body of God and of the presence of God in Men. The same Father saith Deus implet populum Aug. de Civ l. 17. c. 12. suum pâ—pulus plenus est Deo suo i. God doth fill his people and the people are filled with their God This truth was seen and confessed by the wiser Heathens Prope à te Deus est tecum est intus est i. Seneca ep 41. Ovid. God is near thee he is with thee yea he is within thee and Est Deus in nobis agitante calescimus illo id est God is in us and produceth those warm Spirits in us And because there is but one God and that one God is now Incarnate and beareth the Name of Jesus Therefore it must needs be the Spirit of our Lord Jesus which is thus said to be in Man even in the unregenerate sort of men whereby all Mankinde have at least a common interest in this Jesus This truth is of so great concernment and evidence that it could not easily be denied and therefore both Heathens and some Hereticks because they could not gain say it sought onely to deprave it by an impious suggestion For the Stoick Philosophers perceiving that there was something of Divinitie in Man said That the Soul of Man was a part of God and are therefore by Epiphanius reckoned amongst the number of Epiph. haer 5. haer 66. Theod. diu decret l. 5. Hereticks and so said also the Manichees and before them so did Marcion teach us as Theodoret
or heightned in him to greater power and efficacie and whereas David prayed Psal 51. 11. take not thy holie Spâ—rit from me it will not follow that David feared he should be left destitute altogether of the Spirit of God but that it might remaine with him in some degree at least but he prayed for the Continuance and Manifestation of Gods help and assistance by the Spirit in the same manner as before he had it because as Prosper observeth Cessatio auxilii pro absentia accipitur i God Pros ad Dem. n. 59. is said to depart from man when he withholdeth his help albeit God is essentially alwayes present so when he withdraweth one grace yet he may manifest his presence by some other grace for every man hath not every grace of the Spirit S. Hierom in one of his exegetical Epistles upon these words 1 Cor. 15. 28. That God may be all in all saith Adhuc Deus est nisi pars Hier. Epist 147. n. 30. in singulis ut sapientia in Solomone patientia in Job post erit omnia in omnibus cum Sancti omnes virtutes habuerint i In this life God is but a part in men as wisdome in Solomon patience in Job but in the next life God will be all in all for then his Saints shall be induced with all vertues And wheras it is said Joh. 7. 39. The holie Ghost was not yet given Yet wee are sure that it was given before both to the Prophets and also to the Apostles but the meaning is as S. Austin expounds it Non quia nulla datio antea sed quia non talis quae de Aug. de Trin. lib. 4. c. 17. n. 72 Linguis legitur i Not as if there had bin no gift of the Spirit before but because the Spirit was not before given in that kind and manner as it was at the feast of Pente cost and so doth S. Cyril resolve the same doubt Cyril Hieros Cat. 16. Spiritus idem descendebat in Pentecoste qui anteà sed tum Copiosiùs i It was the same Spirit that descended at the Pentecost which came before but now it came more Copiouslie Thus are God and man united he taking our flesh and we receiving his Spirit upon this consideration S. Cyprian saith Cum Corpus â— terra Spiritum possideamus Cyp. de Orat. Dom. n. 82. e caelo Ipsi câ—lum tâ—rra sumus i Man is the union of heaven and earth because our bodies are from the earth but we possesse a Spirit which came from heaven CHAP. XVI That the Spirit of God is given to men nâ—â— sanctified how those are said to be Gods anointed who were not anointed with Oile that our King is Gods anointed somthing concerning the Kings touching and Curing the diseased BUt why should we doubt to affirme that the Spirit of Jesus our only Lord God is communicated even to men unregenerate and that in such men this Spirit doth manifest it's presence in some lower degree by some common graces which doe not sanctifie them in whom they are seeing that we find in Scripture that both heathen and wicked Kings are called Gods anointed for Esa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed to Cyrus yet this Cyrus both lived and died an heathen So King Saul though an Israelite yet a wicked man is called 2 Sam. 1. 14. The Lords anointed Now we know that Vnction doth not alwayes signifie only an External or Ceremonial anointing with Oile but it signifieth also the inward gift and inhabitation of the Spirit of God for wee find that those men are said to be Gods anointed whom we cannot find to have bin externally anointed with Oile for so Christ is said to be anointed Psal 45. 7. Yet not with external Oile so also Abraham Jsaac and Jacob Psal 105. 15. are called Gods anointed yet we find not that they were anointed with Oile but these holie ones are therfore said to be anointed because the Spirit of God was in them which is the true and reall unction wheras external ointment is but the signe therof in like manner because Cyrus an heathen is called Gods anointed and yet was never anointed with Oile it must needs follow that his unction was internal and that he was therfore called Gods anointed because God had put his Spirit into him Iâ—say his Spirit although not working so high as to Sanctification in Cyrus but yet a Spirit of wisdome and kingly fortitude and of skill and knowledg politicall and militarie To enable him to governe which gifts are the effect of Gods Spirit And this is the exposition which the ancients give concerning those forenamed unctions first for Christ Euseb us saith Non apparet Christum unctum fuisse communi oleo sed divino Eus de Dem. lib. 5. c. 2. Spiritu i It can not appeare that Christ was anointed with common Oâ—le Ceremonialie but he was anointed with the divine Spirit and so saith Athanasius Oleum Ath. Orat. 2. Cont. Arian Opt. lib 4. Atha Orat. Cont. Aria n 8. Christi est Spiritus sanctus i The Oile of Christ was the holie Spirit and just so saith Optatus and what this unction of Christ was and wherin it consisted is shewed by the same Athanasius upon those words God of God unitio verbi cum carne vo catur unctâ—o i The union of the Godhead with the manhood was Christ's unction Now for the anointing of meere men and that without any infusion of Oile Eusebius saith Dei Spiritus Eus de Dem. l. 4. c. 15. est dei Oleum i The Oile of God is the Spirit of God and he tels further in the same place that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are called Gods anointed Propter divinum Spiritum cujus participes erant i By reason of Gods Spirit with which those holie patriarks were indued and to the same purpose S. Basil saith Spiritus Basil hom de Bapt. n. 14. sanctus est unctio in nobis i our unction is the holie Spirit which is in us For so it is said also of our Saviour expresly Act. 10. 38. God anointed Iesus of Nazareth with the holie Ghost The appellation of Christ and of Christian is from this unction and we use to say of infants when they are baptized that they are made Christians which signifieth anointed not because of the old Ceremonie of Crisme or anoâ—â—ting with Oile which with us hath bin long agoe disused but as Dionysius formerlie when it was in use gave the reason unction and Christian signifie deificam Spiritus communionem Dionys Areop eccleâ— her c. 2. i The communication of the divine Spirit because wee beleeve that God with the external Sacrament conferreth the inward grace which beleife the ancients did represent by their anointing the baptized with Oile Now if it may app are that by vertue of such an internal Unction of which I spake in Cyrus some unregenerate men have actually exercised and performed
not be iterated He mentioneth Baptismes in the plural not as if there were more baptismes then one to be applied to one Person but because of the multitudes of â—ersons Baptized There is but One â—aptism Eph. 4. 5. But that one given to many is called Baptismes yet but One because it may not be administred to one Person more then once and this the Apostle teacheth in these words It is impossible for those who were once enlightned if they fall to Renue them againe by Baptisme unto repentance For it is impossible this Word for sheweth that these following words are a reason rendred of the former words and particularlie of Baptismes as if he should say I will not againe lay the foundation of Baptisme in them that were baptized before because a Second baptisme is both impossible and unprofitable for as a man can not be twice borne naturally so can he not be twice regenerate or new borne And if a Man should be rebaptized it would doe him no good nay it would be an aggravation of his sin because it is a Contempt of the cross and death of Christ as will appear anon Impossible He doth not say only It is unprofitable or unseemly and unexpedient but Impossible Ne sperent se denuò posse Baptisma consequi Theoph. in loc i. That men might not imagine that they mâ—ght be acquitted of their sins by a new Baptisme For those who where once inlightned The Principal thing as I conceive which hath made this Scripture seem so obscure of late which the auncient expositors did most cleerly expound â—s the ambiguitie of this word Inlightned which certainly doth signifie in this place Baptized and so S. Ambrose Theodoreâ— and Theophilact do all unanimâ—uslie expound it And so did also even the Novatians who yet from a true exposition of that word did suck this poison That such as lapsed into notorious sin after baptism could not be admitted into the Church any more by repentance The Syriaâ—â— translation also reads for Inlightned Baptized as is acknowledged by Beza non inâ—pte i. as he thinketh noâ— unfiâ—ly and nothing was more ordinarie in the primitive Church then to call Baptisme Illumination and the Baptized Illuminatos Which appellation was no doubt taken from the words here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and againe Heb. 10. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the ancient Christians by this word Inlightned understood Baptized wich will evidently appear by what followeth Inlightned once Inlightned signifies Once Baptized amongst the Apostolical Constitutions in Clemens this is one In Illuminatione seminaâ—um Dâ—aconissa absâ—ergiâ— Clem. Rom l. 3 Const cap. 15. â—as ne mulieres aspiciantur a viris i In the Illum nation of women other women ministred because it was not comely for men to behold their nakednes here Illumination must needs signifie Baptisme for in those times and long after both men and women were Baptized naked as also it may seeme to be intimated by the Scripture Phrases of putting of the old man and putting on the new man which was represented by putting of their old apparrel and by putting on the white Baptismal garment which is so frequently mentioned in the Farhers and that people were baptized naked doth appeare in Dionisius Cyprian Cyril Hierosol Ambrose Dion Areo. n4 Cyp. 91. Cyr. 21. Aug. Epist 118. c. 5. Arnb. n. 49. Cuspinian in vita ejus Just Apol. 2. n. 13. Chrys n. 40. Cyril Catech. Chrys hom 60. Antio Epiph. n. 33. Naz Orat. 39. Naz. Orat. 39. and 40. and Austin And particularlie by the Historie of the Emperor Constantine the fift who for a certaine miscariage in his baptisme was Nicknamed Copronimus this by the way In Justin Martir baptisme is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Illumination and the baptismal Font is both by him and Chrysostome called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i an Illuminatorie for as we call it the Font because of the water in it the ancients would as readily have called it the Phont because of the Sacramental Illumination So both S. Cyril and S. Chrysostome call the Catechising of those who were already Baptized Catechesis Illuminatorum i The Catechesis of the Baptised and doe expressly expound those words Heb. 6. and. Heb. 10. to signifie the Baptized just so doth Epiphanius call the Font. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Gre. Nazian the festival of Christs Baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i The day of Illumination and he useth both words promiscuously Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i and Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Christ was illuminated Iesus was Baptized and that feast he calleth both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Illumination and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i The feast of Baptism Neither was this appellation used because of lights set up in the church at the time of Baptisme when it was performed in the night as in the Wakes or vigils of Easter which was the custome in S. Chrysostoms time But the Chrys n. 63. Baptized were called Illuminates who had bin Baptized in the day time and the fonts were called Illuminatories at other times when no Baptism was administred as S. Chrysostome tels That in an uprore in the Church such Chrys Serm post râ—ditum n 40. great store of blood shead was made that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or Font was fillâ—d with blood for then the Fonts were litle wels or cistems whose tops were no higher then the Church pavâ—ment To this I ad that the ordinarie gloss upon those words saith Ne quis existimet Lyra. in loc secundum vel tertium Baptisma post peccata posse fieri i the Apostle used those words least any Man should imagine that a second or third Baptisme might be used to release us of sins so doth Dionysius Cart expound them of Baptismal grace and our vulgar Concordance in the title of Illuminati adds Per Baptismum Why Baptism is called Illumination the words following declare viz. because with the Outward Sacrament of water the inward grace of the Spirit is as by a conduit convayed wherby Original and actual sins past are remitted and the strength of sin is abated by the same Spirit of regeneration and a new life kindled and the peacable and sweet tranquilitie of Christs Kingdome by the comfortable promises of the Gospel is tasted which is an heaven upon earth for Grace is the Inchoation of glorie All these things are expressed by these words following Tasted the heavenly gift made partakers of the holie Ghost tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the world to come For a man that is indued with the regenerating and illuminating Spirit of God may very well be said to be enlightned when as our meer natural soule and understanding is called a light of which and the common and ordinarie concurrence of Gods Spirit it is said Joh. 1. 9. It Inlightneth every Man that â—ommeth into
weight are worthy of an apostolical determination which is here set down with great gravity and severity when we are told that such as will be re-baptized do to themselves re-crucify Christ Rebaptization is not so light a matter as some take it to be Sr. Austin said upon great Aug. epist 163. utrum rebaptizari an non baptizari perniciosius sit difficile est judicare Aug. cont donatist l. 2 n. 37 vide Epiph. n. 29. 1 Maccab. 1. 15 1 Cor. 7. 18. vide Joseph Ant l. 12. c d Martial l. 7. 29. Aug. Epist 203. deliberation Rebaptizator peior â—sse potest quam intersector i he that rebaptizeth may be far worse then he that murthereth God so ordered the Sacrament of Circumcâ—sion that it could not twice be administred to the same person the two differing sects in Palestine I mean the Jews and the Samaritans could nor recircumcise one another neither was it ever attempted that I find upon the apostate and impure recuâ—iâ—eâ— among them but onely on Symmachus as Epiphamus saith Christian Baptisme is the Circumcision of the heart therefore he that will be twice baptized must first get two hearts as St. Austin saith Wherefore I think it will not be overmuch impertinent to this businesse in hand of expounding that place Heb. 6. 4. to discourse a little the question of Anabaptisme or Re-baptization upon what reasons and grounds it was practised by old Hereticks and by that worthy man St. Cyprian and in some cases by the Church Catholick but most especially because our Apostle even St. Paul himself is alleaged by some as a countenancer and practiser thereof by that story related Act. 19. CHAP. VIII The distinction of Baptisms into true and false the formes of pseudobaptismes among Hereticks after their dippings a true baptisme may be administred yet is not to be accounted Anabaptism the Novatian baptisme was a true baptism St. Cyprian in part is excused BEcause this impossibility of renuing appeareth to bâ— mâ—ant onely of renuing by a new baptism and that a new baptism is not onely uselesse but sinful also I am now to discourse the reasons that have moved old and new Anabaptists to attempt second baptisms Epiph. hae 76. The word Baptisme is Vox dualis an aequivocall word of a double signification First it is taken improperly and abusively when 1. that is called baptisme which indeed is not so but onely hath some outward similitude thereof yet wanteth the Essentials of true baptism Secondly it is taken properly for that baptism which 2. was prescrâ—bed by God for Sacramenta sunt de â—aelo God must be the author of Sacraments properly so called and administred so with the essentiall part thereof as by the author of it is prescribed For the first kind I have shewd that the traditional washings of the Jewes are called baptismes but improperly and so the very Heathens had their baptisms for they imitated the Christians in initiating their Novices by washing as Tertullian oft observeth Ecclesia Tert. de prescript and Advers Quintil. n. 30. and 10. diaboliâ—mitatur illam Christi in lavacro c. and again Ethntci per aquas imitantur sacris Ecclesia diaboli bâ—ptismum exâ—râ—et in suis i The worshipers of the divel imitate the Church of Christ in their laver for heathens are initiated in their rites by a baptism and Just apol 2. n. 13. the same relation was before delivered by Justin Martyr Now such false and nominall Baptisms as these do not at all bar either Iewish ot heathenish converts from a true Christian baptism Besides these there were other false and aequivocall baptismes or Pseudobaptismes among Hereticks who professed Christianity which they called Baptisms although in truth they were not so because they wanted the very essentialls of true Christian baptism of which we have very frequent mention in the Church-writers as namely of the Valentinians who thus baptized In nomine ignoti paâ—ris in ve itaâ—e Matris and in nomine Iren. lib. 1. c. 18. n. 107. Iesu as Irenaeus saith i in the name of the unknown Father in the truth of the Mother and in the name of Jesus So the baptism ministred by the Marcionites was vain and null for this reason as St. Basil thought because they thought God was the Author of evill and Basil Epist 2. ad Amphi. n. 35. therefore they would not baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and for this reason the baptism of the Pepuzian Montanists was by the same father adjudged void because they Bafil Epist 1. ad Amphican 1. n. 34. baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of Montanus Pâ—isâ—illa So also the baptismes administred by Eunomius the heretick were by the Church adjudged void and null because he baptized in nomen Epiph haer 76. Dei incarnati Filii Creati Spiritus Sanotificativi i in the name of God uncreated of the Son created and the sanctifying Spirit Such false baptismes as these cannot disable any who have been dipped in this form from receiving the true baptism of the Church upon their conversion and desire of the same If our Commenter should dip one in the words of the same faith which himself hath professed in his book viz. In the name of the Supream God his deified Son not Supream God being in this profession a manifest Antitrinitarian who can doubt but that such a dipping will not be a baptisme but the party is for all this unbaptized and by reason of the same Doctrine which our Commenter hath commented the baptisines by Photinus the heretick were adiudged void because he Baptized Sozo l. 4. c. 5. not into the Eternal Son of God for he thought hâ—m to have had his beginning from Marie his Mother Upon these reason's Origen expressly saith Baptismus fit Otig in Eze. hom 7. in nomine Patris Fiâ—â—i Spiritus Sancti si quis pauca commutans unxerit quemquam is Oleum dei ponit ante idoâ—um i Baptisme is to be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holie Ghost If any shall but a litle alter this forme and so Baptize he doth therby lay downe the Baptismal Oil of God before an idol Quod vult Deus in S. Austin proposeth a very pertinent Aug. to 6 de haeres Epist 1. n. 3. question to this matter now in hand in these words Post quas haereses ecâ—lâ—sia Baptizet non rebaptizet i He would know after what heretical Baptisme the Church might Baptize such as had bin dipped before and yet that the Church shall not be charged with rebaptizing To which question S. Austin in Aug de eccles dog c. 52. n. 73. another booke returned this good answer Those that have bin Baptized by hâ—reâ—icks without invocation of the hoâ—ie Triniâ—ie and returning to the Church doe receive baptisme in the name of
to Offer or that their white baptismal garment was not made or that they had not sufficient provision to entertaine the baptizers or that they would stay till the Bishop or the Metropolitan came that he might baptize them these were but excuses Naz. Orat. 40. the true cause was as is shewed by Naz. They would not forsake their lusts They feared to ingage them selves to live a strickt Christian life which reason was Tert. deBaptism c. 18. long before intimated by Tertullian when he said Qui intelligunt pondus baptismi magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationâ—m i They that understand the weight of baptisme will more feare to take it upon them then to delay it for in those dayes conscionable men upon their baptisme resolved to live a strickt and austere life being perswaded that sins after baptisme were far more ponderous and displeasing to God then sins before baptisme and that baptisme was an easier remedie for former sins then repentance or pennance was for later sins as Nazianzen also urgeth in his baptismal Naz. Orat. 40. Oration to deter those from sinning who were then to be baptized Post baptismum peccare grave est coâ—rectio per penitentiam est baptismo molestior quantam vim lacrymarum impendemus ut cum baptismo exaequari possit It is a heavie thing to sin after baptisme renuing by repentance is a greater molestation then by baptisme O what an abundance of tears must fall from us before our repentanced can aequalize the water of baptisme Now what necessitie was there that men should so put off and procrastinate their baptismes until old age and their death bed that then they might be acquitted of all their sins and go out of the world cleane and pure but that the Church did by our Apostles words in this place and others understand an Impossibilitie of any new or Second baptisme The Exclâ—siastical Historie in detestation of Re baptization Socrat. l. 7. c. 17. reporteth a memorable storie of a bergerlie vagaband Iew a notorious hypocrite who went to several congregations and sects of Christians counterfitted himself to be converted to Christianitie learned to answeare such Catechistical questions as were required of them that petitioned for baptisme and had bin baptized in the Church of Catholicks at Constantinople and had got much monie which charitable people had bestowed on him in pittie of his povertie and congratulation at his baptisme after this he went to another congregation in the same citie of the Novatiau sect and there presented himself with the like hypocrisie as one newlie converted and petitioned the bishop that he might be baptized concealing his former baptisme Paulus the Bâ—shop commanded that preparation should be made for baptizing this Jew so the font was filled with water and a white baptismal garment was bought for him and when Paulus had proceeded so far in the baptismal office that he was come to the time of dipping him looking into the font he perceived that there was no water in it then he commanded the font to be replenished supposing that the former water was sunck into the bottome hole for want of care in stopping that sinck and caused the sinck and all cranies to be carefully stopp't and so proceeded to dipping but loe the Second time the wather was vanished wherupon Paulus was much amazed and looking upon the Iew with indignation said O homo aut veâ—eâ—ator es aut baptismum accepisti Soc. l. 7. c. 17. i O man either thou art a counterfit or els thou hast bin baptized before hereupon One of the standers by wistly viewing the Jewe declared that he had indeed bin before baptized by Bishop Aâ—ticus who was the successor of Chrysostome this busines happened in the time of Theodosius the yonger Not long after another strang paslage happened in the same citie of Constantinople which was taken as a Nic. l. 16. c. 35. signification of the nullitie of such pseudo baptisme as was ministred by those hereticks who denied the Godhead of Christ For when one Barbas was to be baptized by an Arâ—an Bishop named Deuterius this Arian changed the baptismal words prescribed by Christ and said Baptizaâ—ur Barbas in nomen Patris per filium in Spiâ—itu i Barbas is Baptized in the name of the Father By the Son in the Spirit At these words the font-water presentlie vanished out of sight and Barbas was amazed and fled unbaptized This I trust is sufficient for the clear exposition of that hard place which principallie was intended to assert the unitie of Christian baptisme and not the Impossibilitie of repentance The sum of what hath bin said in this exposition is comprized in the 4 Conclusion following First that the Impossibilitie there mentioned is not to be understood of an Impossibilitie of repentance nor of an Impossibilitie of renuing but onlie of an impossibilitie of being renued by a new or Second baptisme Secondly That baptisme having bin once administred in that form which is prescribed by Christ no Second baptisme may be ministred to the parties so baptized upon any pretence either of non age in the baptized or unworthines and unfitnes in the baptizer Thirdly that such baptismes or rather dippings which are ministred by those hereticks who denie the Trinitie and therfore doe not dâ—p in that baptismal form which is prescribed by Christ are utterlie void and null Fourthly That baptisme rightlie administred to those who have bin heretically dipped before is not to be called a re-baptization but a baptisme By all that hitherto hath bin objected It cannot appear That the blasphemie against the Spirit what soever is meant by that sin is absolutely unpardonable but still there is one remedie left wherby the sinner may find help and that is repentance CHAP. XII An Exposition of Heb. 10. 26. The particular sin against the holie Spirit is shewed to be the denying Christ to be God what is meant by accounting his blood to be Common or unholie The unsufficiencie of legal Sacrifices and the sufficience of Christs sacrifice THere is another place in this Epistle much urged by some divines by which they would infer that if a man once fall into this sin there will be no means or hope of pardon left the words are thus read Heb. 10. 26. 26. For if we sin wilfully after we have received the Knowledg of the truth there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sins 27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgement and sierie indignation c In this Chapter we have an evident discoverie of the grand capital sin which is commonlie called The sin against the holiâ— Spirit or Holie Ghost wherein the obscuritie of it as it is delivered in three of the Evangelists is cleered and by examination of the Apostles words in this chapter it will appeare that the sin which in the Gosple is called the blasphemie against the Holie Ghost is the blasphemous undervaluing of the Person of the Son of God whose
Godhead is there called the Holiâ— Spirit or Holie ghost as hath bin shewed before in my Second book and this blasphemio consisteth in the denial of the Godhead of Iesus Christ wherby his allsufficient Sacrifice is undervalued and the Son of God is troden underfoot as being esteemed but a creature and a meer man and therby becometh contemptible and his Blood even the blood of the Covenant is esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i But common ordinarie unholie blood no better then the blood of another ordinarie common man and not Sanctified and ordaineth for that great and high mysterie to be offered as a full and sufficient expiatorie sacrifice for the sins of the world according to the Covenant of God For he that denyeth the Godhead of Christ must needs think that his blood is but common blood as other mens blood is and therfore not of sufficient worth and value to redeem the world more then another mans blood is and indeed if his blood be no better then the blood of another man and if it be not the royal blood of God Act. 20. 28. It hath not it can not redeeme us Now whether the sin mentioned in this place be absolutely unpardonable and altogether remediless will better apeare by a diligent exposition of that text as it stands in relation to the context both before and after it For if we sin c If everie sin which is committed after we knew and professed the Christian religion should be unpardonable what man could be saved seeing the most righteous men fall and therfore doe daylie pray forgive us our trespasses therfore this saying can not be understood of every sin but suerlie here is one special grand and capital sin meant and what that is the words going before and following doe declare For verse 5. it is said in the Person of the Son of God Sacrifice and Offerings thou wouldst not but a Vide. Psal 40. bodie hast thou prepared for me That is because the Legal sacrifices or the blood of bulls and goates could not redeem man therfore an humane bodie was prepared for the Son of God that in that assumed humane nature he might in man's stead beare the curse and suffer death which man had merited And because we who are but meer men weak and sinfull can not by our selves performe the will and law of God without performance wherof no man can be saved therfore the Son of God came in our stead to performe the whole law so as was required and willed of God as it is said vers 9. Then said I loe I come to doe thy will o God So that both the active obedience of Christ in doing the law and his passive obedience in suffering the punishment of our transgressions are here set forth in these words vers 10. By the which will we are sanctified through the Offering of the body of â—esu Christ once for all That is by Christs performing the will or commandments of God in our stead and through the Sacrifice of himself on the Altar of the Cross for our sins his mystical bodie or Church is Sanctified for it is said vers 12. This man Christ Offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever and again vers 14. hâ— one offering he hath perfiâ—ted for ever them that are Sanctified and then we are exhorted vers 22. Let us draw neer with a true heart in full assurance of faith and vers 23. Let us hold fast the Proâ—ession of our faith without wavering If we sin there remaineth no more sacrifice c Having shewed what the foundation of our Christian religion is namely Jesus the Son of God God Incarnate and in his humane nature performing the covenant law and will of God both actively and passively for us and in our stead and requiring that we should have a full assurance of faith of the truth of that Doctrine without which faith Christ will not profit us he now shewes the sad consequences of rejecting this doctrine by Apostacie or falling away from our Christian religion in these words There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certaine fearfull looking for of judgement So that the sin here meant is Apostasie that is forsaking Christianitie as Julian did esteeming of Christ but as of an ordinarie Coman man and therfore distrusting the sufficiencie of his blood and death as not an equivalent price and ransome for man's redemption The truth of this Exposition will better appear by the words following wherein this particular sin is evidently expressed and is called verse 29. Treading under foot the Sonne of God counting the blood of the Canant unholy or as it is in the Originall a common thing and doing despight unto the Spirit of Grace Now to tread under foot is to vilipend and undervalue Christ as esteeming him not sufficient to take away or satisfie for our sinnes to count the blood of the Covenant unholy or Common is to esteem of the death and blood shedding of Christ to be of no more vertue and power then the death and blood of another Common man and they that so basely undervalue Christ as to think and to account him but a meer man do despight unto the Spirit of Grace What is the Spirit of Grace in the Sonne of God but his Divine Spirit and Godhead even that Spirit from which all Graces flow which are called the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ So they who have no higher estimation of Christ then of a meere man do despight unto his Divine Nature his God-head for what greater spite can be then to un-God him the word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despite in effect is all one with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Matthew and the Spirit of Grace here is the same which is there called the Holy Spirit which doth signifie the God-head of Christ as hath been shewed before For if he that despised Moses Law died without mercy verse 28. Yet Moses was but a mere man and so but a Theod. in loc fervant to this our God Quanâ—ò morte dignior est qui Mosis Deum habâ—t despicatui i. What shall become of him that despiseth the God of Moses and the saving Doctrine of Christ who is the Onely Eternall God Moses propounded life as a reward to them that should perform the Law Christ did perform that Law in mans stead to mans behoof and benefit and offereth to men the benefit of that performance and with it life eternall onely with this condition of believing on him Therefore that man which will not give credit to this joyfull-Evangelicall offer must expect to perish eternally for if Christ be rejected absolutely and salvation through him despised and not hoped for or expected There is no other sacrifice for our sins possibly to be found nor any other Name by which we can be saved By what hath been said it appeareth that these words If we sinne in this place signifie the sinning of the
Christ is the Authour or Testator of the Evangelicall Testament and not onely a Witnesse or Martyr as the Commenter would have him Chapter VIII The Immortalitie of the Soules of Men asserted against this Commenter from our Saviours Page 23 words Matthew 22. 32. Luke 23. 43. That the Article of Resurrection is therefore expressed to be said of the body onely because the Soul dieth not which is shewed in Saint Pauls Rapture and Saint Stephens Prayer from Church Writers Philosophers and Physicians observations in Anatomie the Souls mortalitie was the old Arabick Heresie Of the immortalitie of Christs humane Soul and consequently of ours That the Doctrine of the Souls immortalitie is now an Article of the Creed and why this Article was then newly added to the old Creed Chapter IX That the Article of Christs descent was added to Page 26 the old Creed principally to set forth the Immortalitie of the Soul of Christ and so of our souls An examination of the tradition oral and the writing of Creeds The summe of the ancient Doctrine of Faith briefly delivered by Irenaeus and the most Ancient Creed thereunto agreeing recorded by Tertullian Chapter X. That divers additions were made to the old Creed Page 29 occasioned by divers Heresies What the Heresies were and what Articles they occasioned and particularly that the Arabick Heresie denying the Souls immortalitie occasioned the Article of Descent is probably shewed for that it was not any Creed generally received before the death of Saint Austine the Nicene hath it not yet the Athanasian at first had it not nor is it in the symbolicall Hymne called Te Deum A modest censure of the Athanasian symbol and an Observation concerning the multitude of Creeds Chapter XI Of the word Hades which is translated Hell Page 32 that it proves the soules immortalitie in that it signifies a being subsistence or permanencie of the souls of dead men separated from their bodies and residing in a Mansion and Condition invisible to us Mortals That the place and state of souls separated is kept secret from us though the knowledge thereof hath been and is much desired Of Saint Hierom's and Curina's visions and the apparition of Irene deceased Chapter XII A censure of those visions of Saint Hierome and Page 35 Curina by comparing them with the Ecstasies of Saint Peter and Saint Paul mentioned Acts 10. 10. and Acts 22. 17. What an Ecstacie Traunce or Vision is In what manner God spake to the Prophets in visions Of Saint Johns Revelation The difference between Divine Inspirations and prophane Enthusiasmes That the one illuminates the other obtenebrates mens understanding and how such raptures or exstacies do argue and prove the Soules seperabilitie and immortalitie Chapter XIII That the Apparitions of the dead do not prove the Page 39 Souls immortalitie For that they are not really the Soules of men deceased but possibly may be the delusions of Satan assuming the shapes of men Why Necromancy is forbidden Deuteronomie 18. 11. Albeit the dead cannot appear to the living at their desire That the state of Soules seperated is concealed Chapter XIV That the Soules immortalitie is confessed by the Page 41 Church Catholick That the Commemoration of the dead in the Church Litnrgies was principally to set forth the Churches belief of the immortalitie of their Soules For that the dead receive no benefit by the prayers of the living The Opinion of some Divines concerning Saint Pauls prayer for Onesiphorus 2 Timothy 1. 18. and of that saying 1 John 5. 16. of which see a full Exposition in my fourth Book Chapter XV. That the Father's did not believe as the Commenter Page 43 doth that Soules departed are insensible as if they were dead or asleep because the Saints departed do pray for the Church Militant as the Fathers thought Chapter XVI Of the departures of mens soules That their conductors Page 48 and leaders to the other World are Angels good or bad That soules seperated are setled in certain Mansions is shewed by Scriptures and Fathers whereby the permanencie and immortalitie of the soul is clearby proved That all those severall mansions go under the generall appellations of Heaven and Hell Chapter XVII A particular detection of the blasphemies contained Page 51 in the Commentarie which are reduced to these two heads The first shewing the blasphemies against the Godhead of Jesus Christ The second shewing the blasphemies against the Incarnation of God and his gracious work of Redemption CHAP. XVIII The dreadfull consequences of the Commenters Page 51 blasphemies in denying the Godhead of Christ and his great works both of Creation and Redemption That it is much better never to have been born or by death to be annihilated or to perish as the beasts doe then to live and die in these sinnes and to rise to judgement The conclusion of the first Book The Table THE SECOND BOOK Containing an assertion of the Godhead of Jesus Christ against the Commentarie Chapter I. AN introductorie discourse concerning Page 1 the sinne against the Holy Spirit as it is described Matth. 12. 31. Mark 3. 29. Luke 12. 10. Divers doubts difficulties and opinions thereof Chapter II. What the word Blasphemie signifies That this Page 4 sinne was the blasphemous denying the Godhead of Christ The spreading of that Pharisaicall blasphemie amongst Jewes and Heathens Of Apollonius of Tyana the Magician compared by Heathens with Christ for miracles Certain considerations premised for clearing doubts concerning this sinne and two conclusions extracted from those consisiderations Chapter III. That the Godhead of the Sonne is called Spirit 7 and Holy Spirit that every Person in the Trinitie is and may be called the Everlasting Father in respect of Creatures and yet how the appellation Father is proper to the first Person That every Person is holy and an Holy Spirit and yet how the appellation Holy Spirit is proper to the third Person That the words Spirit and Ghost signifie the same thing Chapter IV. Diverse Observations of the words of Christ Matthew Page 20 12. The result is that the Pharisee's blasphemie consisted in the deniall of Christ's Godhead The difference between a sinne against the Sonne of Man and against the Holy Spirit The judgement of the Fathers herein Chapter V. The Opinion of later Divines concerning this Page 14 sinne that they affirm Arius and the Emperor Julian the Apostate to have sinned this sinne An examination of the particular sinne of the said Arius and Julian and a breif narration of their lives and deaths Chapter VI. Why the Blasphemy of denying Christs Godhead Page 33 is called the unpardonable Sinne that the Commenters Doctrine in this grand Heresie is no better then Judaisme or Turcisme that it is by the Fathers esteemed and called Antichristianisme To deny Christs Godhead is to renounce redemption and salvation by him wherein the worth and preciousness of the blood of Christ consisteth Chapter VII That the Commenter in Logick sheweth himself Page 37 to be a