Parents by the intimation of God himself to Abraham the great Patriarch of the faithful Gen. 18. 19. For I know him that he will command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord. This that your posterity may perform the Lord grant It shall be the hearty prayer of Yours Honours most humble Servant Edm. Porter Norw March 21. 1647. AN ADVERTISEMENT to the READER BE pleased good Christian Reader in order to the perusal of this Book to pre-understand a few things 1. That the Commentary on the Hebrews so often mentioned was long since written in the Latine Tongue by a forreigner either Johannes Crellius or some other Socinian as I am informed from a noble and Mr. Edâ— Cock learned Gentleman residing in Norwich in whose hands that Latine Commentary is now extant And this English Commentary is but a 〈◊〉 of that Latine one And thaâ— the Traâ—slator is a Doctor of Divinity as lately hath been discovered How the â—aid Doctor will quit himself from the crime of Plagiarism in concealing the right Author's name ipse viderit 2. That because this Doctor contemptuâ—â—sly slighteth the Niâ—â—â—â— Fathers and yet â—â—ledgeth Eusebius to his own design but very injuriously I have bestowed some leave in the vindication of that Learned Father perhaps more then otherwise would have been needful yet I have not used the Authority of any of them that were members of that most Religious Council except onely the same Eusebius Indeed AthanasiUs is often mentioned by me but he was no member there for although he were present as a Disputant among many others in the outward porch yet being then but in the Degree of a Deacon he had no voice or right of Suffrage in that Council But if this Doctor under the notion of the Nicenei Fathers intendeth a contempt of all those Primitive Doctors and others that since have adhered to the Decrees of that Council he must thereby dis-believe the then whole Catholick World and we with more modesty and lesse liberty professe we do not believe him nor his fellowes 3. That I have bestowed the more time in the Question of the visibility of God because this Doctor doth very prophanely slight that great mysterious apparition of God to Abraham in the shape of three men which I conceive Gen. 18. to have been purposely acted as an holy Scene to teach man That in after-times God would be really incarnate and corporally and hospitably converse with Abraham in his posterity which was performed when the Person of the Son of God became Emmanüel and is also spiritually intimated in the Gospel Joh. 14. 23. Rev. 3. 20. 1 Joh. 4. 13. And also to give a timely intimation of a Trinity of Persons in the Vnity of the Godhead For as to the Eternal Covenant of Grace before the Creation Three Persons were necessarily required as is shewed in the Preface of this Book so now because the same Covenant was renewed with Abraham when he was newly circumcised it pleased the Divine Wisdom to exhibit a glimpse of the same Blessed Trinity As also again in the Gospel when our blessed Saviour was Incarnate and then Circumcised and Baptized which Sacraments were a new Sealing of the same Covenant there was a manifestation of the Three Persons Matth. 3. the Father by a voice the Spirit as a Dove and the Son in the flesh I do not remember any other so evident Overtures and Apparitions of the Trinity as these 4. That I have so largely endeavoured the Exposition of those hard places Heb. 6. 4. and Heb. 10. 26. because the Commenter hath passed them over very slightly although the difficulties therein might well busie a Doctoral pen and brain But I conceive he knew that a true and sound Exposition would spoil his design of picking Socianisme out of this Divine Epistle to the Hebrews 5. That the Reader is not to expect Answers to Arguments against the Divinity of Christ because the Doctor useth none at all but onely his own magisterial affirmation without proof and if he had proceeded by way of Argument he could not have used stronger then had been before published in print by the said Joh. Crellius which are also as strongly answered by that Learned man Johannes Henr. Bisterfeldius 6. That whereas in my first Book and tenth Chapter I have affirmed The Article of Christ's Descent into hell not to have been mentioned in any Creed generally received till after the dayes of St. Austin I am still of the same mind Although I confesse that this Article is mentioned in that large Symbole which is rehearsed in the ninth Tome in the book called Soliloquia Chap. 32. And also in Aug. Soliloq cap. 32. To. 9. De Temp. Ser. 115. To. 10. the 10. Tome Serm. 115. De Tempore and there asserted as if it were cast into the Creed by St. Thomas the Apostle My answer is That those writings were not Austin's own but Supposititious and pinned on him by later Writers as is well known and proved by Learned men Because the same Father in his book De Fide Symbolo which is undoubtedly Aug. De Fide symb To. 3. his own disputeth quite through that Creed which was then called the Apostles Creed and this in the Presence of a grand Council of all Africk at Hippo yet maketh no mention at all of Christ's Descent And although it be true that the Doctrine of Christs descent into Hell is by the same Father very often asserted as Catholick notwithstanding as I said it was not in his time inserted into the Creed 7. That whereas in my fourth Book and 10th Chapter I have said That no old or new Anabaptist did ever to my remembrance assert two Baptismes except onely Marcion Now since the writing thereof which was finished Anno 1647. Two English Books came to my hands one printed 1646. affirmeth that Baptisme may be oft administred as well as the Word may be oft preached to one and the same person The other book printed 1638 very modestly and under Correction affirmeth That Not Scripture but the Practice and Tradition of the Ancient Church is the Onely ground whereby we are restrained from twice Baptizing the same person But I trust that the godly Reader will be otherwise perswaded when he hath perused the Exposition of Heb. 6. 4. which beginneth at the 4th Chapter of my 4th Book 8. That my design in penning this Book was both to discover the great and dangerous Heresies lurking in that Commentary And also in my way to open and set forth the very foundations of Christian Religion and to give what satisfaction I could to scrupulous men in the Doctrines and Disciplines of this Church Which hath been my practice both in my private and publick Labours for many years Especially in these our later Sceptick and Zetetick dayes of New-light wherein we have many Seekers that will never find what they pretend to Optatus thus writeth of the
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
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
accepit à Patre non Filio verbo accepit sed carni and again n Quae Christus possidet ut Deus ea postulat ut Filius hominis Those things which Christ is said to have received of the Father he received not to himself as he is God the Word but by reason of his assumed flesh and such things as he required to his manhood he possesed before by his Godhead and in this sense onely is the Son of God said to be anointed and so only is he called Christ o Ath. orat 2. cont Arian n. 5. Vnctus est non ut Deus sed ut homo Heb. 1. 9. erat p Theod. Decret l. 5. n. 17. Luke 2. 52. Ath. ser 4. cont Ar. n. 8. n. 22. Erat Verbum Filius unigenitus ante incarnationem sed non nominaetur Jesus Christus nisi post incarnationem saith Theodoret He was anointed not as God but as man he was the Word the Son the Only begotton before his incarnation but is not named Jesus Christ till his incarnation so when it is said he increased in wisdom it is meant of his humane nature not of his Godhead as Athanasius expounds it Profecit non verbum sed caro So again Omnia mibi traditae sunt à Patre Nam antea non erat homo so again God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ Acts 2. 36. God cannot be said to make him but onely in respect of his incarnation for otherwise the Father is said to beget him but not to make him So again The Father giveth life to the Son that is to his flesh and as he is Man So Christ is said to receive the Spirit without measure that is his humane nature received the Divine Spirit for in him the Godhead dwelt bodily so The Father is greater then I That is as I am Man and he hath given him a Name still as he was Man and in this sense onely is Christ said to be Deified for nothing was in Christ before his Incarnation that could receive any new Title of God because his pure divine Nature was so before neither could that Title be really and properly ascribed to any other God because there is no God but he and therefore Epiphanius doth truly affirm Ante Epiph. haer 69. incarnationem non dicit Christus Deus meâ—s i. Christ did not say My God before his birth of the Virgin because he hath no God but onely in consideration of incarnation CHAP. X. How those words which signifie the abasing and minoration of the Son of God are to be understood of his delivering up the Kingdome and end thereof and of his subjection to the Father AS no Title of Majesty Exaltation or Deification could be newly added to the Son of God except he had humbled himself to incarnation So neither could any tearms or words of minoration and subjection be put upon the same Son of God if he had not determined before and actually afterward performed the assuming of flesh for by his incarnation he became capable of such infirm passions and thereby is as shewed Tert. cont Marc. l. 2. before he is said to be born to grow to weep to pray to thirst to suffer to die and yet to be truely called Deus mortuus Though dead yet God nevertheles S. Hilary upon these words The Father is greater then I saith Pater est Hil. de Trin. l. 9. n. 3. John 14. 28. major Filio respectu hominis assumpti sed Filius non est minor Patre respectu Deitatis The Father is greater then the Son in regard of the Sons assumed Manhood but the Son is not less then the Father in respect of the Sons Godhead For in consideration of the Divinity of the Son he saith The Father and I are one John 10. 30. They are one and that not onely in will or concurrence of consent as the Arians would have it but in Godhead for as the same Father answereth them Quasi divinae doctrinae inops sermo sit nec dici à Domino Hil. de Trin. l. 9. p. 185 potuerit Ego Patâ—â— unum volumus i. The Divine Scriptures wanted not words but Christ would have said The Father and I consent in will If he had so meant So St. Ambrose faith of his praying Christus vogat Ambr. de fide l. 3. n. 22. c. 3. ut Filius Hominis imperat ut Deus i. Christ prayed as he was the Son of Man for as he is God he commandeth And again he saith of the death of Christ Christus Id. de incarn l. c. 5. n. 25. moriebatur non moriebatur secundum hominem secundum Dium i. Christ died for he was a Man Christ was immortall for he was God So the minoration of the Son of God Fulâ—entius saith Exiâ—â—ni Fulg. de grat c. 2. n. 3. Phil. 2. 7. io fuit acceptio formae servilis the making of himself to be of no reputation was by assuming the form of a servant just as a King doth condescend below himself in the disguise of mean apparell But the principall doubt is how Christ can be believed and said to be the true onely supream and eternall God and all one with the Father in the Unity of Godhead seeing the scripture tells us I Corinth 15. 24. 1 That Christ shall deliver up the Kingdome to God the Father 1 Cor. 15. 24 25 28. 2 That Christ shall reigne till he hath put all his enemies under his feet 3 That then the Son himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him For how can it stand with a supream God and an eternall King to deliver up his Kingdome and so to reign but for a limited time untill and then to become a subject 1 For answer hereunto I say first that Christs delivering up the Kingdome to the Father doth not imply any resignation or annulling of his own interest nor excluding of himself or abdicating his own dominion but a communication of that power which he received as he was man to his Father who is the same God with him For as he is said to deliver the Kingdome to the Father so the Father is said to have delivered all things to the Son Luk 10. 22. All things are delivered to me of my Father and Matth. 28. 18. All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth Yet no man will say that the Father by this gift excluded himself from his own dominion still God is Lord of all things but by this gift he communicated his Domiuion to the Man Christ and yet reserved it to himself Now what is this Kingdome that shall be delivered the Kingdom of Christ is his Church his Saint his Elect and what kind of delivering is here meant were not the Church and Saints and Elect Gods Kingdom before and how are they said to be delivered up to the Father who never had been out of his hands
quae â—sse beata Solitudâ— Lact de fal rel l. 1. c. 7. quâ—at How can that one God be aeternally blessed and happie If he be alone and Solitarie Solitarines is rather an argument of sadnes then of joy to this Lactanius answereth tanquam noâ— qui unumâ—sse dicimus desertum Id. ibid. 1 Cor. 8. 4. solitaâ—ium esse dicamus i. although wee say that God is one for so the Scriptures tell us 1 Cor. 8. 4. there is none other God but One yet wee doe not say that this God is so forlorne and solitarie as to have no societie for he hâ—th Ministers whom wee call his angels thus he but this answer doth not fully satisfie for shall wee say God was alone and Solitarie before angels or any other Creatures were made The full answer therfore must be this that before any creation and at the creation and after it God was and still is but one one I say in essence and Godhead but yet not only one and alone in person Pater filius duo sunt personâ unum Atha Orat. Cont. Aria n. 8. diâ—â—ate i. the Father and the Son are two in persons though but one in Godhead for when the Son of God saith The Father and jare one Joh. 10. 30. Athanasius Atha Dis cont Arian 27. observeth that he doth not say Vnum sumus but unum sumus i. it is not said wee am one singularly but plurally wee are one one for essence but more for persons and in another place the Substantive word Elohim signifying God is plural and the verbe is singular Gen. 1. 1. as is before noted both wayes to signifie an unitie in Godhead but a pluralitie of persons and the Son of God saith expresly Joh. 8. 16. I am not alone but I and the Father and he calleth himself and the Father two witnesses Surelie If the Son be said not to be alone and to be another neither can the Father be said to be alone although both are but One God yet they are distinct persons for did not God manifest himself in three distinct persons Severally at one time Math. 3. 16. The Father in a voice the Son in the flesh and the Spirit like a dove Nay did not the Spirit at one time manifest its self in many seueral cloven fierie tongues Act. 2. 3. And yet there is but One Spirit S. Hilarie to this point very acutely saith Deus est non solus sed tamen Hil. de Trin. lib. 7. unus Deus est unus tamen non solus essentia unus pro personis non solus i God is but one and yet God is not alone for he is indeed one in essence but he is not alone because in God there are more persons then one Now although wee detest the blasphemie of Marcion Tert. Cont. Marc. l. 5. Aug. de Morib Eccles l. 1. c. 10. Basil Epist 8. Naz. Orat. 37. pag. 7. c. 1. v. 6. and the Manichees who said there were two Gods and also the Calumnie of the Arians and the Macedonians Who called the Orthodox Church Tritheitas i Men that worshipped three Gods because they confessed three Persons in One God yet wee reject the heresie of the Sabellians who acknowledg but one Person in God as is shewed before just as our commenter doth call the Godhead the Person of God as if ther were but one Person in God But because there is in him a pluralitie of Persons therfore wee say that God neither is nor ever was alone or solitarie for the three Persons for ever had Communion Communication Societie and fellowship one with the Other although they all are but one God as of one in the comedie it is said Socia Ego Plaut Amph. 2. 1. Cap. 2. 1. stich 5. 4. ille Scâ—o me te esse te esse me Ego sum tu tu es ego And in S. Ambrose a young man saith Amb de Paenit l. 2 c. 10. of him self Sed ego non sum i One speaketh of himself as if he were another and speaketh of another as if he were himself So Moses bringeth in the self same one and only God ' speaking to the same God because God is distinct in Persons but the Persons are but one in Godhead let there be light lâ—t us make mâ—n the Lord rained from the Lord by which it appeareth that there was a Communication betweene the Father and the Son before the World was for the Son is called the Counseller Esa 9. 6 and the wisedome of the Father But who should God consult with but only with God and who was his wise Counseller but himself Nemo tibi suadere potest Sapientius te ipso Tul. Epist l. 2. 17. Id lib. 10. Ep. 194 Ipse tibi sis Senatus i It may more truly be said of God None are Gods Counsellers but himself he is his owne Senate God the Father and God the Son Communicate in Counsil as the Father made all things by the Son So they communicated not only in the creation but also in the divine Counsil of the great worke of redemption although the manner of this communication is to us secret and in effable Now to the Question What one thing doe wee find that was Consulted on or agreed and purposed between the Father and the Son before the World I answer that the Eternal Covenant was made betweene the Father and the Son to mans behoofe before the World and in this everlasting Covenant of grace was the whole Mystical body of Christ included and by vertue of that Covenant and in Christ they were Predestinated decreed purposed and Elected to life and by that Covenant so transacted seccretly the Son of God undertooke for man and became a suertie for him to performe whatsoever was required and by this first Covenant the Church was committed to the Son he thus became her great Shepheard for wee read Joh. 10. 29. The sheep were given to him by the Father This Covenant is that great and hidden Mysterie which so nearly concerneth both Jewes and Gentiles of which it is said Rom. 16. 25. To be kept secret sine the world began and againe Eph. 3. 4. 5. 9. the Mysterie of Christ which n other ages was not made knowen unto the Sons of men as it is now That the gentiles should be fellow heyres but it had bin bid in God but now is might be made knowen According to the Eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus And hence it is that Christ is called the Great Shepheard through the blood of the everlasting or Eternall Covenant Heb. 13. 20. By this Eternal Covenant or Eternal purpose and undertaking God the Son became the Suertie the Mediator and Advocate for the Sons of men and by reason of this undertaking it is said that for the blessed the Kingdome was prepared from the foundation of the World Mat. 25. 35. And it is further said that the precious blood of
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
externallie some one act wherby that inward grace was shewed as namely by that one gift of healing mentioned 1 Coâ— 12. 9. Of which I spake in the former chapter I trust it will not be denied to be as it is called v 7. A manifâ—station of the Spirit And for this I shall instance in another heathen Prince who was of no better religion then Cyrus was and that is Vespâ—tian the Roman who in the raigne of Nero and before he was Emperor was imploied in the execution of divine vengeance on the rebellious * vide Paulum Oros lib. 7. c. 1. Iewâ—s and the citie of Ierusalem and for that service it may with great pobabilitie be thought that God gave him the Roman Empiâ—e for his reward as he gave Nebuchaduezzar the Kingdome of Egypt for his service against Tyrâ— as we read Ezâ—ch 29. 18. And that the Empi e was the gift of God to him it seemeth to me probable because it was Prophetically foretold unto him by Iosephus the learned Jew who was then a pâ—â—iâ—t unto whom God had revealed both Vespatian's advancement and also the destruction of the Iewish nation God having appeared to Joseph de bel jud l. 2. lib. 7. him in his sleepe as himself relateth and withall confessed that he feared God was offended with him for labouring to save his nation when he knew God had decreed their 〈◊〉 for this reason I think I may call the said Veâ—â—â—tian Gods anointed as being so cleerly designed by God to that empire and also for that as an effect of his unction Tacâ—us Dion Suetonius doe Tac. hist l. 4. c. 19. Suet. in vesp c. 7. Dion in vesp c. 2. vide Plutarch in vita Pyrrhi p. 384. unanimously report that whilest this Emperor was in Egypt the gift of healing was manifested in him for a blind man was restored to his sight and a lame man was cured by his touch If this prove true in an unregenerate and heathen Prince give me leave good reader a litle to discourse unto thee the like effect of divine unction in a regenerate King the most vertuous and most Christian King this day as I doe firmly beleeve and so doe the greatest number of his subjects in the whole world I meane our owne most gracious King Charles For that the King is Gods anoined was never with us called in question before this sceptick time and God never shewed a greater manifestation of any Kings unction in this nation since the dayes of King Edward the Confessor who was the first of our Kings that by his royal touch cured the disease called the Kings Evil then he hath lately shewed in the person of our most pious and most mercifull King Charles for never were so many in so short a time restored to their health and soundnes as of late by him many hundreds were touched by his sacred hand and as many returned home with health in their bodies and blessings in their soules to their royal physician to the great admiration of many witnesses where of my self am one for to his majesties court at Newmarket Jnue 18. Anno 1647. did I â—end one of my Children a child of 11. yeares old who immediatly before had bin extreamly afflicted and indeed tortured with that disease but having bin there and then touched the next day following he returned home perfectly cured and sound and hath so continued ever since for the space of more then 5 Moneths Blessed be the Lord Jesus who is the author of every good gift and blessed be his anoinred servant in whom his goodnes was so cleerly manifested These things might stop the mouthes of his Majesties most implacable enemies who in print have endeavoured to make the people beleeve that the King is not Gods anointed and might particularly shame them who most unchristianly have called this Gift of healing witchcraft although there is an expresse warrant 1 Cor. 12. 9. for it in the word of God these men without doubt except they repent shall one day be accountable for the sinne of blaspheming God and the King for ascribing that worke to witchcraft and so to Satan which is done both by the Kings hand and with the finger of God assisting his anointed just so did the Pharisees blaspheme Christ when he cast out Satan by the finger of God for they said he cast him out by Belzebub Neither wil it be sufficient to say that the gift of healing was a temporâ—rie grace and now quite expired for it can not be so pâ—oved Gods arme is not shortned for although the ordinarie and frequent use of such divine cures is now abated yet no man can for certaine affirme that the gift is utteriie ceased and for our owne particular case in this kingdome why should we not rather thinke that our merciful God now in these needful times to stop the mouthes of al the enemies of his anointed or at least to leave the obstinate without excuâ—e hath so manifestly shewed and declared him to be indeed his anointed and that these multitudes of Royal cures are as so many lampes manifesting the divine Oile of his unction for so the Royal Pâ—almist bringeth in God â—aying Psal 132. 17. I have ordained a Lamp soâ— mine anointed his enemies will I clothe with shâ—â—â— but upon himself shall his Crowne florish Even so Amen Deus dâ—fendat Opt. lib. 2. Oleum suum Upon himself and his royal posteritie Lord let this Crowne florish as long as the Sun and moone endure CHAP. XVII The Vnion of Christ and his Church further shewed why Christ is called by the names Adam Jacob David Why all mankind was extracted out of One man why S. Austin denied the Antipodes wherin this Vnion consisteth An Explication of Heb. 7. 9. Which was slubbered over by the Commenter touching Melchisedech and Levi. BY what hath bin said the Christian reader I trust doth by this time perceive that our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ with great love justice and equitie did sustaine our person and in our steed and to our behalf did both beare the punishment of our transgressions and also fulfilled the whole law of God for us as our suretie because he was as an Vniversall man in whom all mankind was united The sower leaven of the first Adam had â—owred the whol lump of mankind but the divine Spirit of the second Adam sweetned his whole mystical body for a Spirit us est genitoris Aug. de Trin. l. 6. genitiqae Suavitas i The Spirit is the sweetnes of the Father and the Son and because our true and only God hath assumed both our flesh and our soule also on himself and hath put his Spirit into us therefore he is become one with us mystically and we with him hence it is that Prosper saith Tota ecclesia cum Christo Pâ—osp in I sal 102. capite est unus homo i The whol bodie of the Church with Christ the head is one man
The everlasting Covenant and Rev. 14. 6. The Eternal Gospel and must needs be meant in those places of Scripture where mention is made of Eph. 1. 4. Electing us in Christ before the foundation of the World and of 2 Tim. 1. 9. Calling us according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the World began and of 1 Pet. 1. 20. Christ ordained for our Redemption before the foundation of the World Of which there is a full discourse in my Third Book and eighth Chapter This Covenant doth necessarily imply a plurality of persons in the Godhead One to require and injoyn another to restipulate and which is requisite in all Covenants a third Person distinct from the Contractors as a stander-by and Witnesse thereof So in this Covenant First God the Father requireth obedience upon pain of death Secondly God the Son undertaketh for man's performance or penalty or both Thirdly God the Holy-Ghost is witnesse between the Father and the Son for oftentimes in Scripture we read of the Spirit bearing witnesse For though the Father the Son and the Spirit are all said to bear witnesse for our assurance as Joh. 8. 18. I am one that bear witnesse of my self and my Father that sent me and 1 Joh. 5. 7. There are three that bear witnesse in heaven and Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our Spirit But before the Creation who could be a witnesse between the Father and the Son save onely the Eternal Spirit of the Father and the Son Nor can it be imagined that this Covenant and restipulation could be enacted by One single Person for the Law-giver must be considered as a Soveraign onely and the persons upon whom the Law is imposed are as subjects so it will be dissonant from right reason to fasten the Legislation and subjection upon the self-same person Now supposing the Law made and the penalty determined and set down it cannot be denyed that the Supream Law-giver hath naturally and absolutely a power of relaxation and dispensation so that he may remit the punishment for breach of his own Law and of meer grace without any satisfaction forgive the offender but if the said Law-giver do decree and by his Word bind himself to punish the offender as he did when he said Gen. 2. 17. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye hereby he doth confine and restrain himself from using the Imperial prerogative of free pardon which otherwise he might have granted and hence it is that a Satisfaction must needs be exacted necessitate hypothetica as Divines say upon supposal of the said decree and upon this reason Jesus Christ our Surety becomes liable to his dreadfull Passion and death Touching the Passion of Christ in Satisfaction of Gods Justice for the sins of men the Socinian Writers do utterly deny it as being unjust to punish one for another and especially an innocent for a malefactor and they call this doctrine of Christ's satisfaction as Vossius reporteth Ger. Joh. Vossii Defens Grotii c. 13. Dogma nugatorium frigidum falsum injustum et horribilitèr blasphemum Their reasons are very considerable for they say that God hath by his Prophets and Apostles declared the contrary as Deut. 24. 1◠Every man shall be put to death for his own sin Jer. 31. 30. Every one shall dye for his own sin he that eateth sower grapes his teeth shall be set on edge Eze. 18. 4. The soul that sinneth it shall dye Gal. 6. 5. Every man shall bear his own burthen 1 Pet. 1. 17. God judgeth according to every mans work The Answer hereunto usually given is That because God doth actually punish one for another it must needs be just because God doth it but this answer doth not satisfie the Adversary neither doth it I confesse satisfie me for God doth not so Therefore for the better satisfaction of my self in this weighty question and perhaps of others also I offer to the consideration of the Learned Reader these two Propositions following First The Passion of Christ neither is nor ought to be accounted the punishment of one for another but the same that offended the same is punished Secondly The sins of the elect Members of Christ are not to be accounted onely the sins of the Elect but are justly charged on the score of Jesus Christ being their Surety and Redeemer These two Propositions may perhaps seem at first Paradoxical but I trust I shall prove them to be truly Catholick and Orthodox For the first That Christ's Sufferings are 1. Proposition not the punishment of one for another I have learned from St. Bernard Bernard Epist 190. Omnium peccata unus portavit nec alter jam inveniatur qui forefecit alter qui satisfecit quia caput corpus unus est Christus satisfecit caput pro membris i. One bare the sins of all so that we cannot say One forfeited and another satisfied because the head and body are but one Christ the head satisfied for the members So the Husband and Wife are but one person in Law an action of debt is not brought against the wife but the husband so the principal debtor and the Surety are in Law but one person and either of them are liable to payment or penalty This first Proposition is grounded on the doctrine of Christ's Vnion and conjunction with his members which Vnion is of such weighty concernment that without it it is impossible to salve or unfold the mysterious riddles of Gods operations and words in the businesse of man's Salvation and therefore the holy Scriptures and ancient Doctors have with very great abundance of testimonies asserted this necessary truth See first what the Scriptures say Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ Eph. 5. 30. We are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Gal. 3. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 6. 17. He that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit 1 Cor. 12. 2. By one Spirit ye are all baptized into one body Eph. 4. 4. There is one body and one Spirit This is because the same Spirit that is in Christ is also in his members and because there is but one Spirit uniting the head and members therefore the head and members are but one body having the same Spirit residing in both for so it is said Eph. 3. 17. Christ dwelleth in your hearts and 2 Cor. 13. 5. Jesus Christ is in you 1 Cor. 6. 19. Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost Joh. 15. 1. I am the vine ye are the branches This Union of the members with Christ the Head is called by the Apostle a recapitulation Eph. 1. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Bishop Andrews observeth Andr. de Nativ Serm. 16. A gathering of all to the head for as God is one with Christ as Christ is God so we are one with Christ as Christ is man who is therefore called
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
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
Generation from Adam but our better and spiritual regeneration is derived from Christ and as there are no Sons of Men but such as are so from Adam so ther are no Sons of God but those that are so from Christ Now if it be demanded how Christ and wee can be accounted one and what it is which came from Christ and is in man that so he may be said to be in us and so that what he did or suffered should be really accounted as done or suffered by us for although wee know why Adam's sin is imputed to us viz. because wee are of the same Lump propagated carnallie from him but yet why Christs righteousnes oâ— his sufferings should be imputed to us seeing wee are not propagated from Christ nor ever were in his loines as wee were in Adams is now the question To which this is the arswer that as Christ received his flesh and blood from man so man hath received the divine Spirit from Christ and as the natural bodie of Christ is made of the same lump of Adam that our's is so man hath in him the self same spirit that is in Christ though he be in heaven and wee on earth by which spirit wee are called the Sons of God just as Christ by taking our flesh is called the Son of Man Nos homines vocamur filii dei quia filius dei Atha in decret Nic. Conc n. 13. nostrum gestavit corpus quia Spiritus filii in nobis est i Men are called the Son of God because the Sons of God took his bodie of man and put his owne Spirit into man and therfore Christ doth fitly sustaine an Universal person of mankind That the Spirit of Christ is given and put into man the Scriptures doe manifestlie declare First it appeareth evidently in the regenerate Man of sueh S. Paul speaketh when he prayeth Ephe. 3. 17. That Christ may dwell in their harts And how Christ may be sayd to dwell in Man Saint John sheweth 1 John 4. 13. Hereby we know that we dwell â—in him and â—e in us because he hath given us of his Spirit and hence it is that Saint Chrysostome saith Anima sancta est Tabernaculum Chrys ho 2. Antioch Christi id est The soul of an holy Man is Christs Tabernacle For indeed though Christ had not at all assumed flesh from Man yet because the same Spirit which is in Christ is also so put into and communicated to man it is sufficient to make Christ the head of the Saints his Members to be but one mysticall Body with him And this is intimated by Saint Paul when he saith Ephesians 4. 4. There is one body and one Spiriâ— which is as much as if he should say though the Saints on earth are many yet because all are endued with one and the same Spirit of Christ therefore all are but one body with Christ even as in man there are many parts and members yet because all parts have the same soul in them therefore all together are but one body Hence it is that Origen saith Omnes salvandi sunt Orig. in Eze. ho. 9. unum Corpus id est All those which shall be saved are but one body and Saint â—asill giveth this reason of their vnitie Quia unus est Deus si in singulis Bas Epist 141. sit omnes coadunat id est Because there is but one God if this one God be in all he doth thereby Tert. de Trin. n. 28 Christus est ecclesia De Paenit n. 16 unite all and this unitie is also expressed by these odd words in Tertullian Spi itus nos Christo confibulat id est It is the Spirit that doth button us or joyn us to Christ For this reason the Scripture saith Romans 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ And again 1 Corinthians 6. 17. He that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit And again Galathians 3. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus yea such is our conjunction and union with Christ and his with us by reason that his Spirit is in us that Theodoret doubted not to say Si pati possit Theod. in Dâ—alog impatib n. 13. divina natura supervacanea fuisset corporis assumptio id est If the pure Godhead were of a nature passible so that it could have suffered for man God should not have needed to be Incarnate And Saint Augustine puts the case a little plainer and nearer thus Si Christus non assumpta carne à Virgine sed vera tamen apparens nos vera morte redimeret quis eum non potuisse audet dicere Suppose Christ had not taken his flesh from the Virgine and so not from Adam but yet had really taken a body upon him some other way and in that assumed body had really died to redeem man who dares say that he could not and no doubt such a suffering had been sufficient for our redemption if as I said before God had not otherwise determined and limited himself by his sentence of the curse and death upon the seed of Adam And thus we have seen how Christ and the Saints are united and become one body SECT II. More of the same That Jesus Christ was a Person every way fitly qualified to be Man's Redeemer both for that he was free from all sin Originall and Actuall although he took flesh from the loynes of Adam and also in regard of the infinite worth and excellencie of his Person THe qualities required to a redeeming high Priest are set down Heb. 7. 26. For such an high Priest became us who is holy harmless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undefiled seperate from sinners For if Christ were not absolutely without sin in his own Person he could not be a fit sacrifice for our sins the Lamb of God must be answerable to the paschall Lamb his Type A Lambe without blemish and so the Scripture describeth Christ 1 Pet. 1. 19. as a Lambe without blemish or spot and that he knew no sin that he did no sin and that in him 1 John 3. 5. is no sin As for any actuall sinne there will be no question among Christians but the difficulty is in shewing Christ to be without Origâ—â—â—l◠〈◊〉 because he was in the loins of Adam when he fell and is the Son of David of Abraham and of Adam and the Church hath ever acknowledged that the whole lump of Adam is a Prosper Resp ad Genu. Massa corruptionis as Prosper saith and b Aug. Epist 105 157. De Civit. l. 15. c. 1. alibi Massa damnationis Vâ—nculnm damnationis Apostatica radâ—x Massa originaliter tota damnata as S. Austin often confesseth in all these words and many more id est a corrupt lump a lump of damnation an Apostate root totally condemned from the the very Originall The Apostle also seemeth to lay this to the charge of Christ 2 Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to
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
Optat. lib. 6. Donatists Dum pro vestro arbitrio quaeritis puritatem c. That they sought for purity by scraping breaking and digging up Altars he wisheth them not to digg too deep lest they digg to hell and there find the Grand Patrons of Schisme Korah Dathan Abiram Numb 16. 9. In the last place the Reader is desired to foreknow That in this Book we affirm Jesus Christ to be the Supream or most high God The Jehova and the Only God But with this Caution That albeit we confidently affirm him to be the Only God yet we say not that Only Jesus Christ is God for thereby we should impiously deny the gracious and comfortable Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead We therefore acknowledge that the Father and the Holy Ghost as well as Son are also the most high and Onely God so that not onely the Father nor only the Son nor only the Holy Spirit are the Supream God But that All and every one of them are but One Onely most high God I have no more to premise but to pray that God would give to the Reader the knowledge and love of his truth And to the Author or Translator of that Commentary I tender the advice of St. Austin Aug. De Anima Orig. l. 3. c. 15. To. 7. Considera quam sit horrendum ut Omnes hae Haereses sint in uno homine quae damnabiles sunt in singnlis singulae The most profound Clerks may and have erred It is an honour rather then disparagement to revoke and recant heresies St. Hierom writes thus to Ruffinus Hier. cont Ruff. l. 1. c. 2. Non es tantae authoritatis famae ut te errasse pudeat For by revoking Errors Truth will be advanced and the God of truth glorified and no need will be of hiding your name you will be known by conformity to truth unto those that know not your face and also in the end will be acknowledged by Christ himself and not otherwise as one saith Plaut in Rud. Act. 4. Sâ— 3. Si adhibebit Fidem etsi ignotus est notus est Si non notus ignotissimus est THE PREFACE WEE are informed by a late Writer Mr. Cheynel that the Sâ—ciâ—iâ—â— party would have us to deny Christ to be God for an accommodation and compliance with Jewes and Turks that by such an insinuation we may have opportunity to convert them But we are better taught by the Apostle Not to â—â— evil that good may come of it and also by St. Austin Aug. in Epist ad Gal. to 4. Qui homini de falso bono placere studes de vero malo displices Deo and if by this slight a Socinian should convert a Turk or Jew to his own religion the Turk or Jew would not be thereby a Christian but the Socinian would more declare himself to be of the Turkish or Jewish Religion for whosoever shall professe Christianity and yet un-God the Lord Jesus his Religion shall profit him no more then the Jewish infidelity doth them The devout man St. Bernard was much troubled with the heresies of Petrus Abailardus who I think was a principal Patriarch of the now Socinian tenents and declared them more fully then the more ancient hereticks had done this Abailardus would fain have perswaded men that Plato the Heathen Philosopher was a Christian But St. Bernard sets this mark upon Bern. Epist 190. him Abailardus dum multùm sudat quomodo Platonem faciat Christianum se probat Ethnicum If Jewes and Heathens will be contented to be instructed in Christianity in the Name of God let us teach them the truth without flattering them in their false tenents It is observed by Paulus Orosius That when the heathenish P. Oros l. 7. c. 19. Goths petitioned Valens the Arian Emperour to appoint them Christian Preachers to instruct them in Christianity this Emperor sent Arian Priests who poysoned the poor Goths with their heresie but it came to passe afterwards by the just Judgment of God that those Goths put the said Emperour to flight in battel and pursued him so that they burnt him alive Indeed St. Paul writeth that 1 Cor. 9. 20. To the Jewes he became as a Jew and to the Gentiles as one without Law But this was a compliance Compatiendo non mentiendo Aug. of Compassion onely without any transgression of the Moral Law of God With the Jewes he complied in Act. 16. 3. Gal. 5. 2. Circumcising Timothy onely as it was a national custome but not as a Sacrament for if so himself declared that Christ should profit them nothing so he purified himself he went to their Feasts and ascended into their Temple these were unsinful compliances The like he did with the Gentiles he conversed with them and did eat with them and cited their own Writers but we find not that ever he sacrificed to their Idols In our dayes a Lecture is set up for the Conversion of the Jewes as is said and for an harmlesse compliance with them it is performed on the Jewish Sabbath our Saturday but we are weil perswaded that none of the Lecturers will so far temporize with Jews as to deny the Eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ or teach That the Messiah is not yet come or blaspheme the ever blessed and holy Trinity which is the Character by which Christians are discerned from Jewes and Turks who with us confesse the Vnity of the Godhead but will not believe ae plurality of Persons therein In which unchristian errour the Socinian agreeth with the Jew and this Antitrinitarian doctrine is the Cracovian Leaven wherewith this new Commentary on the Hebrews is Leavened The Reasons why the Church-Catholick hath constantly held fast the doctrine of the most holy Trinity are weighty First For the evidence and authority of holy Scripture which would be too long to insist on here it being clearly declared by very many Theological Writers Secondly To refute the Heathens cavill against the Unity of the Godhead for they could not conceive how there could be but one God from Eternity and yet that this one God should not be solitary which opinion must needs take place except we acknowledge this mysterious doctrine of a Personal plurality in the substantial Vnity of God therefore to avoid this sadnesse of solitude they fansied a plurality of Gods for as God said It is not good that man should be alone so man on his own behalf may truly affirm as Bishop Goodman hath observed It is not good that God should be alone as will appear in the reason following Thirdly Because this doctrine of the Trinity is the main and prime foundation of mans Redemption Justification and Salvation by the Son of God which we believe and hope and expect by vertue of that most gracious Covenant made between God the Father and God the Son and secretly transacted between them before the Creation Which Covenant is called Ephes 3. 11. The eternal purpose of God and Heb. 13. 20.
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
find great friends and assistants in the other life because they had many pious friends gone before them one would say My father was a Martyr and another My Grandfather was a Bishop and a third Such and such a holy man was my dear friend on earth therefore we shall find friends in the other world Thus far St. Chrysostome Notwithstanding all this that hath been said of which this Commenter cannot be ignorant yet against all this evidence he denyes the Immortality of the Soul Like another Vrbicus Potentinus an heretick to whom Athanasius thus writeth O Potentine adversus Scripturas Athan. cont Poten n. 30. divinas vel totum mundum tu solus sentis i. Potentinus held an opinion heretical against the holy Scriptures and also against the whole world CHAP. XVI Of the departure of our soules from our bodies and the Conductors or leaders of them to the other world and of the places or mansions of dead mens soules IN the last place it will not be amisse to set down what the Scriptures and the Ancient Fathers have said concerning the departures and mansion-places of dead mens soules which will be also a strong argument against the Epicurean doctrine of this Commentary The Angels in Scripture are called ministring spirits to the heires of salvation Heb. 1. 14. their charge is to keep such in all their wayes Psal 91. 11. therefore as Angels conducted Peter out of prison Act. 12. 7. and Lot out of Sodom Gen. 19. 16. so likewise Angels are imployed no doubt in the conveying and placing and settling departed soules in such mansions as are by God appointed for them for so the Scripture declareth in the Parable of the begger which for substance is indeed but parabolical yet for the Circumstance of the conducters of his soul the persons are really set forth so as is usual in the passage of other mens soules even as the burial of the rich man is mentioned because it was the common custom of other rich men to be buried It is therefore said The begger dyed and was carried by the Angels into Abraham's bosome Luk 16. 22. And of another sort of Angels conducting soules it is said Thou fool this night shall they take â—â—y soul from thee Luk. 12. 20. So of the place or mansion of a blessed soul it is said it was carried into Abraham's bosome and This day shalâ— thou be with me in Paradise Luk. 23. 43. but of the mansion of a reprobate soul it is said that it was placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. a place secret hidden invisible and of torment this is the summe of what we find in Scripture for the present condition of soules departed untill the last judgment And of the last Judgment it is also said The Angels shall gather his Elect from one end of heaven to the other Matth. 24. 31. In correspondence to these overtures of Scripture the Church-Writers have set down at large their expositions and opinions both for the several sorts of Conductors and also for the distinct mansion-places of the soules of Pious and of Impious Just quaest n. 31. men First Justin Martyr saith Animae hominüm ducuâ—tur ad condigna loca ab angelis ubi servantur usque ad resurrectionem i. The soules of men are conducted by Angels to convenient mansions and there are kept untill the resurrection and we read in the Constitutions of Clemens that the Church in the office of the godly deceased Clem. Const l. 8. c. 47. prayed thus Deus Collocet â—um in regionâ— piorum Angelos placidos ei constitute i. That God would place them in the region of the godly and appoint them gentle Angels and Irenâ—â—s saith Discipulorum animae Iren. l. 5. prope finem abibunt in invisibilem Loâ—um definitum eis à Deo ibi usque ad resurrectionem â—ommorabuntur i. The soules of Christians shall go into a place invisible appointed by God and there abide untill the resurrection St. Hierom Hier. Epist 25. n. 26. saith Moâ—tuos nos Angelorum turba coâ—itatur when we are dead a multitude of Angels accompanieth us And again he saith of the Martyrs soules against Vigilantius Hier. cont Vigil to 2. p. 159. Senatoriae dignitatis sunt ut noâ— inter homicidas teterrimo carcere sed liberâ honestâ—que custodid vecluduntur i. The soules of Martyrs are not committed to dark prisons as men-slayers are but like unto Senaâ—ors they are placed in a free and honourable Custody and this also is the doctrine of St. Chrysosto◠†Chrys hom in laud. Mart. to 1. Martyres in caelum ascendunâ— Angelis comitantibus i. The soules of Martyrs ascend into heaven accompanied with Angels but of the soules of the reprobate he saith Malorum animae Chrys de Laz. Ser. 2. to 5. n. 41. Atha de Virgin n. 24. Basil exhort ad bapt hom n. 14. Macar hom 22. à metuendis virâ—utibus repetuntur sunâ—que doctores viae i. The soâ—les of evil men are taken and conducted by terrible and affâ—ighting powers which also Athanasius calls Inclementes angelos i. Churlish and unkind angels and of them St. Basil saith Veniet angelus tristis animam tuam rapiet ad Tartara i. A sad dâ—smal angel will seize on thy soul and convey it to hell and the same is yet more particularly set forth by Macâ—â—ius of Egypt Cum animapeccatirea è corpore exierit accedunt Chori daemonum sinistâ—i angeli c. animam ad partes suas trahuntâ— when a guilâ—y soul deparieth troops of evil and unhappy angels drag it to their ownquarters These are the Messengers which are sent for mens soules some terrible and feared others of pleasant appearance and desired the slight apprehension of this truth and such Messengers hath occasioned men to fansie and to paint a meager raw-bon'd thing with a dart to be the summoner of mens soules to the other world which of these several â—orts of Angels is true Now whatsoever common or distinct and severall mansions there are for pious soules respectively correspondent to their qualities and demeanures on earth and so likewise for impious soules in their severall degrees as they are in bundles gathered which Lâ—ctantius Lact. de Div. Cult c. 21. n. 25. Aug. de Dulc. quaest n. 89. qu. 2. calls Communis custodia i. e. their common lodge and St. Austin Abdita receptacula i. Secret receptacles and the Scripture calleth them The spirits in prison 1 Pet. 3. 19. yet the Ancient Church did as we do reduce all those mansions to these two appellations of heaven and hell * Ath. de Incarnat n. 23. although there may be several different mansions in hell for the damned as well as we read of the blessed in heaven Joh. 14. 2. In my Fathers house are many mansions CHAP. XVII Of the blasphemies contained in the Commentary against the Godhead of Christ and the Incarnation thereof and his Redemption of man Good Reader be
the Church as it was long before the time of Nestorius recorded by Gregorie of Neo-Cesaria qui Greg. Thaum de 12. cap. fidei n. 2. dicit Christum esse perfâ—ctuâ— hominâ—m divise Deâ—m divise non unum Domiâ—uâ— ei aâ—aâ—hâ—ma i. Cursed is he that calleth Christ a perfect man separately and that calleth him God separately so denying him to be one Lord God For this erroneous doctrine is destructive to the work of redâ—mption if the Person who died for us was not in his very death very God so that he by reason of that Personall union before mentioned might truely be called Dâ—us crucifixus God crucified and therefore our Commenter is also in this errour who will afford Christ no better Title then a Divine Man p. 136. which is no more then â—ay be said of a Prophet an Apostle or any holy man whereas he should acknowledge him to be Dâ—us homo God and Man united So St. Austine in one of his Books had said that Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. Christ was Dâ—miniâ—us homo but he retracted it Quia Dâ—mâ—nusest saith he because he is more then a Man of the Lord for this Man is the Lord. For this hypostaticall or Personall union must be in and go through all the great dispensations of our Saviour's Medâ—atourship both in his active and passive obedience for otherwise his fulfilling the Law had been beneficiall to none but himself and his passion could not have sufficed for the whole world therefore the Personall union was most necessary to that great work and is declared both in the Scriptures and in the Fathers For whereas we now reade 1 Iohn 4. 3. Every spirit that confesseâ—h not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is Soc. l. 7. c. 32. not of God This place is thought by Socrates to have been corrupted by the Nestorians for indeed the old reading was as we to this day find both in Hierome and Prosper Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jeâ—um Every Prosper de vocat Gent. l. 1. c. 23. Spirit that divideth Iesus that is which separateth his Divine from his humane nature The Scripture joyneth both in a communion of properties as is said before for Elizabeth calleth Mary Luk 1. 43. The Mother of my Lord no doubt but she meant the mother of her Lord God for otherwise how was Christ her Lord but as David calls him Lord and as St. Ambrose noteth upon the words One Lord In Ambr. de Spir. sanct l. 3. c. 17. Dominatione diviniâ—as est in diviâ—iâ—ate Dominatus That in the title Lord the Lord God is meant So again Acts 20. 28. Feâ—â— the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood that is with the blood of God for it cannot otherwise be understood So likewise 1 Cor. 2. 8. They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory Now I ask who is the Lord of glory but onely God Consider now that to have a mother and to have blood and to be crucified though they be such things as properly belong to the humane nature yet you see that these humane infirmities are said of God because the same Person is both God and Man To this Doctrine of the Scripture agreeth the doctrine of the Fathers concerning this communication of propertics for because in Scripture Christ is called the Son of David therefore St. Chrysostome without any scruple saith that David is a Chrys serm de pseudopro n. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because the Scripture calleth Iames the brother of our Lord Gal. 1. 19 the same Father saith that Iames was b Chrys serm de poenit n. 49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that David was the Father of God Iames was the brother of God and also St. Austine saith that David was c Aug. de 5. haeres c. 2. 10. 6. n. 6. Parens Dei the Parent of God and Oâ—igen saith d Orig cont Cels l. 1. n. 33. Corpus Iesu est â—orpus Dei that the Body of Jesus is the body of God This Doctrine was held by the Church to be of such great weight and concernment that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Councill of â—halcedoâ— added this to the Creed as an Article of Faith e Evangrius l. 2. c. 4. Mary the mother of God and afterwards in another Creed ratified by the edict of Justinus the Emperour f Evag. l. 5. c. 4. The Virgin Mary is again called the Mother of God And the Emperour Justinian built a Church and called it g Evag. l. 5. c. 21. Templum Deâ—paâ—ae the Church of the mother of God and Gregory Nazianzen long before in an Epistle written to Cledonius had affirmed h Naz. Orat. seu Epist 51. Si quis Mariam non credi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that doth not believe Mary to be the mother of God himself is an Atheist and without God Nestorius for denying this Doctrine was summoned to the Councell of Ephesus which was called Soc. l. 7. c. 33 by the authority of the Emperour Theodosius the younger where Cyril of Alexandria sate President the Councell deposed Nestorius out of his Bishoprick and the Emperour banished him In his banishment his blasphemous tongue rotted in his mouth and was eaten out with worms so he died with a mark of Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Evag. ib. Gods vengeance on him as Arius did and the Church History passeth this hard sentence on him Ex his miseriis ad sempiterna supplicia migravit that he departed out of this misery into eternall torments Notwithstanding all this Thalâ—ia Arii this pretty Ath. cont Arian or 2. n. 5. Commentary tells us that Christ is not the supream God nor ever was a God till he rose from the dead for then he was Consequently Deified so if he be God he must be but of a late Edition This Doctrine harmoniously agreeth with the Heathens Theology which also tells us of Dii superi inferi Medioxumi Magni Minuti Plaut in Cist Patellani i. High and low and middle gods great and small and Pint-pot deities The deifying of heathen Emperours hath as good authority from Scripture I have said ye are Gods Psal 82. And Romulus Mart. l. 5. Ep. 8. Julius Augustus Dominus Deusque noster Domitianus are as well God deified as Christ himself by this Comment And in the Church-Writers Deification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word used by Dionysius is ascribed to mortall men for that Father sheweth that an holy Man indued with the Spirit of God may be said to be Deified that is assimulated to God indued Dâ—ony Areop de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. id epist 2. n. 10 Naz. or 37. n. 29. with sanctified and united to God And in another place he tells us Deificatio est imitatio i. Deification is the imitating of God and to the same purpose Nazianzen saith Spiritus nos deificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
still worship toward the Temple and our Saviour tells us which is the true Temple indeed Iohn 2. 19 21. Destroy this Temple in 3 dayes I will raise it up But he spake of the Temple of his body For Iesus est Deus Templum Dei saith Nazianzen i. Naz. Orat. 43. Jeius is both the Temple of God and the God of the Temple And so Saint Austine saith Christus est Sacerdos Aug. de dog Eccl. n. 73. Sacrificium est Deus Temâ—lum i. Christ is the sacrificer and the sacrifice he is the God and the Temple And Origen saith Christus est Templum in Orig. in Josh Hom. 17. utero Virginis formatuâ— i. Christ is the Temple built in the Virgins womb And Athanasius more plainly expresseth this Mystery Digni sunt Ariani qui Atha Or. 5. cont Ar. n. 4. â—aepè percant qui prisci populi reverentiam â—rga Templum laudant sed Dâ—minum in carne ut in Templo suo adorare recusant i. The Arians have well deserved perdition who praise the Iewes for their reverence towards the Temple yet themselves refuse to worship the Lord iâ— the Temple of his Body Solomon saith Proverbs 9. 1. Wisedome hath built her an house Who is wisedome but God and what house is it but as Athanasius often expoundes that saying Corpus Christi Atha ser 3. cont Ar. n. 6. est Domus sapienâ—iae i. The house of Wisedome is the Body of Christ The word building in Scripture is applyed to an humane body as well as to an house Gâ—nesis 2. 22. Deus aedificavit costam in muâ—erem i. God builded the woman of Adams rib and Ruâ—h 4. 1. Rachâ—l and Leah did build the house of Israel and in three dayes I will raise it Iohn 2. As if it were the raysing of an house So the Mysticall Body of Christ which is his Church is called Gods building 1. Cor. 3. 9. In brief Iesus Christ in respect of his divine Nature is our God and the Temple wherein our God dwelleth and that which is truely said to be his rest for ever Psalme 132. 14. Is his glorified Body now in Heaven When we compose our selves to Prayer we lift up our mindes to this God in that Temple God Incarnate is the finall and ultimate Object of our adoration there is no way to approach to our God with any hope of obtaining pardon and remission of sins but through the open doores of the Temple of his wounded body therefore our Prayers are all sealed with Through Iesus Christ our Lord. He that maketh any approach to God otherwise then considered in this Temple must expect to finde him onely as a severe and offended Judge but whâ—n he looketh on us through his Sonne his severity is sweetned Filius est dulâ—edo Dâ—i i. The Sonne is Fulg disc object Arian n. 1. the sweetnesse of God When he beholdeth us through Jesus Christ he is pacified and gâ—acious the clouds and tempests of Gods anger are asswaged by the serenity of the Countenance of Jesus Vulâ—u quo Coelum tempestatesque sâ—renat Virg. Aâ—n 1. Are we not therefore called Christians because we worship God in Christ To him Saint Stephen directed his Prayer Acts 7. 57. Lord Iesus receive my spirit And Saint Paul also Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father comfort your hearts for so Christ had given direction before Iohn 14. 13. Whatsoever ye shall aske in my Name that will I doe that the Father may be glorified in the Son By what hath been said I trust the danger of this Commentors bold assertion will be discovered who tells us that Christ is not to be believed P. 54. in finally but God in Christ not believing or not considering that the Godhead is in Christ And therefore Christ in respect of this Gohead is to be believed in and prayed to finally and â—erminaâ—ely as the utmost object of our Faith and the Manhood of Christ so endowed with and united to the same Godhead is to be believed in and prayed to Mediately for by the Incarnation of the Godhead in Jesus he became our Advocate and Mediatour and a Priest which is next to be discoursed CHAP. XV. That the most high God became a Mediatour and a Priest and that Christ is prayed unto and yet is a Mediatour Every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed unto THe Commentor tells us That the supream God P. 80. c. 5. v. 5. can no way be a Priest and therefore Christ is not supream God because he is maâ—e a Priest This assertion is most false and blasphemous he that affirmeth it either never was Christian or else must be an Apostate because to say that the most high and onely God cannot be a Priest is all one as to say This God cannot assume flesh or be Incarnate For in the same manner the supreme God became a Priest in which he became a Mediatour and both by assuming humane nature For if it be demanded how we can pray to Christ seeing he is our Mediatour and Priest who interceedeth and prayeth for us and that by him we approach to God so that we may seem rather to pray by him then to him and if Christ be the finall Object of our Prayer who is our Mediatour To this it may be answered that Christ is a Mediatour in the same sense that he is a Priest and in that sense he prayed Now he became a Priest and a Mediatour by assâ—ming Manhood for Saint Chrysostomâ— Chrys Hom. Ant. 32. n. 12. saith truely Christus orabaâ— ut homo nam Deus non â—rat i. Christ prayed in that he was a Man for God doth not pray And Saint Austine saith Christus Aug. de Civit. â— 20. c. 10. est Sacerdo quatenus est Filius hominis i. Christ is not a Priest but by being the Sonne of Man For although it be said Rom. 8. 26. The Spi it maketh intercâ—ssion for us though the Spirit as it signifieth the third Person was not Incarnate the meaning is onely that the Holy Ghost helpeth our infirmities in prayer as is there said and nos intâ—rpellare facit It enableth and stirreth us up to pray as Saint Austine Aug. expos in Ro. n. 96. expounds it not that the Spirit it self prayeth for us When Eudoxius the Arian was newly placed in the Episcopall seat of â—onstanâ—inople the first sentence that he uttered was this blaâ—phemy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. l. 2. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father is impious the Sonne is pious at which words when the people began to raise a tumult he appeased them by saying that his meaning was that the Father never prayed but the Son did often pray his intent was hereby to insinuate that because Chrâ—st prayed therefore he was not God but was onely a creature which â—s the Argument which our Commenter useth against the Priesthood of God for indeed the pure Godhead
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
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
and againe he saith Tota civitas dei est unus homo in Capite Corpore i Id. in Psal 131. The whole Citie of God is one man in the head and in the bodie being as one corporation And concerning Christs Prayers and the Churches Prayers the same Father saith Ad deum clamaâ— Caput in Corpore Id. in Psal 142. Corpus in Capite i Christ prayeth in his Church and his Church prayeth in him for otherwise how could wee say to God Abba Father and this neareness and intire unitie betweene God and man in Christ is principallie from this ground that because there is but one God and that one God is in all men therfore doth he make al to be one and also men with Christ are Commembers Aug. cont mendacium c. 2. n 77. Chrys in S. Theophaniam to 6. n. 59. as S. Austin cals them i. fellow members of his bodie because wee with him were made of one blood as we read Act. 17. 26. for as S. Chrysostome noteth Deus ideo incarnatus ut ingeret opus cum opifice i God was therfore Incarnate that therby he might unite the Creature with the Creator all communicating both in flesh and in Spirit hence all Christians are called one anothers brethren and sisters because all have the same Spirit of one heavenlie Father Anima fratris est Hier. n. 41. soror tua S. Hierom saith i Thy brothers soule is thine owne sister a sister but it is only in Christ because the same Spirit of Christ is in both upon the same grounds it is that Christ becomes so neare of kindred to us men that he takes upon himself the names of other Men to implie an â—dentity with Man for 1 Cor. 15. 45. he is called Adam and the Prophets call him David Jer. 30. 9. Ezech. 34 23. Ose 3. 5. And this long after Adam and David were dead and is therfore meant of Christ for when David is called a Man after Gods owne heart 1 Sam. 13. 14. Act. 13 22. which is very hard to be said or understood of any sinfull man but de Aug de Dule quaest q 6. n. 89. Christo intellige and nullus nodus erit i if you will understand it to be spoken of Christ there will be no difficultie at all So also I think that saying Num. 23. 21. He hath not beheld iniquitie in Jacob is meant of Christ who is called Jacob with as greate reason as the other posteritie are called by the name of their patriarch Israel and Iacob very frequently in Scripture and namely Psal 41. 7. Because the Creator at the first intended this union to be a ground and preparative of mans redemption therefore he extracted all mankind even the woman also out of one Man that so all might come into the unitie of Christ which is the reason that is alleaged by Prosper and that theâ—eby christs obedience active and Prosper De Provid n. 39. passive might be in stead of all Adâ—m and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not believe there were any 〈◊〉 although he knew the earth was scated in the midst of the woâ—â—d Aug. de Civ l. 16 c 9. l aâ—â— de fal Rel. l. 3. c. 24. but it was least he should grant that the e was any one man in the whole world which came not out of the loins of Adam Now as all Mankind hath its interest in Christ so more especially hath the Church whâ—ch is joyned to her head in a more sweet and loving matâ—imonâ—all bond Matth. 22. 2. The Kingdome of Heaven is like unto a Certain King which made a marriage for his son and this is set forth more Emphatically Eph. 5. 30. For wâ— are member of his body â—f his flâ—sh and of his â—ones this is a great Mystery but I spâ—ak conâ—â—â—ning Christ and his Church For the union of Christ and his Church doth not onely consist in this that Christ assumed the flesh of his holy ones for so he did of all nor in that he communicates hi Spiâ—it to his Elect â—nd holyenâ—s for so also he doth to all But in that he gives to his Church his Divine Spirit with all the sweetnesse of his love and goodnesse and with such high graces as make her lovely acceptable and gracious in the eyes of her Lord and head This great mystery of Mans Redemption by the Incarnation of God was imitated early at the Creation of the woman It is observed by S. Ambrose that at Ambr. de Paradiâ—o n 9. the Creation of the Man it is not said God saw that it was good but when it is said Male and Female created he them Gen. 1. 27. Immediately it followes God blessed them and verse 31. It was verâ— good and this because from the Womans fruitfulness the Redeemer was to come and this is the meaning of St. Paul 1 Tim. 2. 15. She shall be saved in child-bearing That is by the Son of God now born of a woman if she continue in the Faith and for the comfort of all sorts of men unto whom the benefit of the Gospell and with it the inestimable benefit of Christs death is offered the Gospell hath set forth our Saviour descending from the first man and extracted through holy and unholy Ancestors through Jews and Gentiles by noble and ignoblâ— births as appeareth in the Genealogâ—â—s of S Luke and of â— Matthew where there is mention of â—amar and of 〈◊〉 a Moabiâ—â— and Gentile to shew that all sorts of men have an interest in Christ for all men in the world were united with Christ himselâ— also in the loyns of Adam Before I clâ—se this Book I think it very pertinent to the business in hand to explain that place Heb. 7. 9. which our Commenter hath most slightly passed over yet warily because if he had rightly expounded it it had clâ—aâ—ly made against his blasphemy the words are these Levi 〈◊〉 Tithes in Abraham For he was in 〈◊〉 of his Fatâ—â—r when Melchiâ—edech met him The collection from these words is that therefore Meâ—chisâ—aechs and so Christs Priesthood is greater then Leviâ—â— Pâ—iâ—stâ—ond But against this Argument it may be objected that Christ was also in the loins of Abraham at that time as well as Levi for thâ—n 〈◊〉 was not begot and therefâ—re in this respect both Levi and Christ paid tithes in Abraham and neither are to be for this cause preferred before the other except we can shew that Christ was not then in the loins of Abraham Secundum aliquem modum in some manner as Levi was For answer hereunto S. Austine thought it sufficient to say that the difference between â—â—vies and Christs being in the loins of Abraham was this Christus Aug. de Gen. ad lit l. 10. c. 19 non 〈◊〉 secundum animam seâ— Levi ficit i That Christs Soul was not derived by propagation from Abrâ—haâ— as Lâ—viâ—s soul was But this answer will not satisfie because it is uncertain to us
the Triniâ—ie such we pronounce Baptized but not rebaptized for we may not account such to be baptized who were not dipped in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holie ghost and such were those who were dipped by the Photinians Montanists Manichees and by Maâ—cion Cerdon thus he And in this S. Cyprian may so far be justly excused in requiring that those who had bin so dipped by those hereticks should be againe re dipped by the Church in lawfull baptisme for saith he Haeretici illi non possunt Cyp. de haer Bapt. n. 85. baptizare qui negant dietaâ—em Paâ—ris aut Filii aut Spiritus nam Marcion non poterat qui negabat Trinitatem i Those hereticks can not minister true baptisme who therein denie the Godhead of the Father or the Son or the Holie ghost for therfore Marcions was no baptisme because he denied the Trinitie And therefore such pseudo-baptismes as were Ministred by such hereticks so as is shewed before Cyprian will not call Baptismes Non est Baptismus sed tinctio i It must not be called a baptisme but a dipping And of those whom the Church baptized after they had bin formerlie dipped by those hereticks he saith Nâ—n est râ— Baptizaâ—io Cyp. ibid. ad Quint. n. 86. â—aeâ—eticorum sed haptizatio i We can not say such hereticks are rebaptized but that they are baptized If Cyprian had held himself to this Doctrine and gone no further in his zeal againâ—â— the hereticks and schismaticks of his time he had escaped much blame where with succeeding ages have charged him and not without Cause as will appeare anon Upon Cypâ—ians grounds of Baptizing Aâ—tiâ—rinitarians who had bin so fouly dipped before the Canons of the first Nicene Council as they are recorded by Ruffinus direct that when any heretick of the sect of Paulus Samosatâ—nus would forsake that heresie and joyne with the true Church that such an one should not be entertained before he were new baptized this is in the 21 Canon of Ruffiâ—us But before in the ninth Ruff. n. 16. Canon it is ordered that if any Catharist or Novatian leave that sect to joyne with the Church he should be received and for such there is no mention or direction of a new baptisme because the baptisme of the Novatians was a true baptisme but the Samosaâ—eniâ—n dipping was but a Pseudobaptisme because Samosatenus denied the Godhead of Christ as is before declared Also before the Nicene Council and Cyprians time amongst the Canons of the Apostles recorded by Clemens one is Ordinati vel Paptizati ab haeâ—eticis reordinandi and râ—baptizandi suntâ— i Those that have bin ordained and baptized by hereticks must be re ordained and re baptized this was not intended to countenance a Second Baptisme but because the tinctions or dippings of those who would not confess the Trinitie were not to be esteemed Baptismes And therfore Athanasius also after the Nicene Council had condemned the Arrian heresie for denying the Eternal Godhead of the Son saith plainly Arâ—iani verum Baptismum Athan. cont Arrian serm 3. n. 6. amittunt quiâ— verum filium negant i The Arrians in denying the Son of God doe therby cease to administer true Baptisme for we find that after that Council the Arrians denying the Trinitie would neither use the same forme of Doxologie which the Church Catholick used nor the same forme of invocation of the Trinity in Baptisme but glorified and baptized thus Gloria Patri cum filio in Spiritu and In nomine Patris Basil de Spirit c. 25. n. 27. per filium in Spiritu Because they would not acknowledg the Son and the Spirit to be aequal to the Father CHAP. IX That the disciples of Ephesus Act. 19. who had bin Baptized by Johns disciples before were re-baptized because Johns Baptisme was then out of date and null THe principal president of a Second and a true Baptisme after an imaginaâ—ie and pseudobaptisme is cleerly set foâ—th by that passage of the great Apostle and recorded Act. 19. of the Ephâ—sian disciples who had bin baptized unto Johns Baptisme but because that baptisme was out of date at the time when they were first dipped therfore when they heard S. Paules words they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus For although Iohn Baptisi's baptisme was a true Baptisme whilest the time of his Baptismal office lasted in so much that our saviour never that we find caused any to be re baptized who had bin baptized by Iohn yet we know that Iohn's Baptisme was to have a period and not to last alwaies But how long it was to last and to be in force is the cheif question material for the exposition of this passage To this question I will set downe the answer given Optat. lib. 5. by Optatus That Iohns baptisme being to repentance and beleife in him that was to come even Christ to be manifested especiallie to his death and resurrection this baptisme must last till then and further also until Christ had ordained a new forme and law of baptisme to be perpetual in his Church So that until Christ after his resurrection had given a new rule and precept of baptisme the ould baptisme of Iohn was accepted but after Christ had once said Goe and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son c. I say after this Iohn's baptisme was expired nor could he or his Disciples baptize any longer in that forme of beleeving in him that was to come because now he was come and manifested and gone out of the world Christs new law and precept of baptisme was the bounds and limits of Ioâ—n's baptisme from that time all baptismes must be In the name of the Father and of the Son c Now these Disciples of Ephesus were indeed Baptized with Iohn's Baptisme but they were so baptized when it was to late and when that forme of baptisme was quite expired and out of date for their baptisme was after Christ had setled the new law of baptisme In the name of the Father c Without the observation wherof a thousand dippings or duckings will not make one baptisme so that those Ephesians can not be properly said to have bin baptized because the very essence of that Sacrament was wanting Optatus speaketh Opt. lib. 5. home to this purpose Hiqui apud Ephesum post legâ—m Iohannis Baptismaâ—e baptizaâ—i leguntur in Sacramento erraverunt quia jamintroductum fuerat baptisma Domini exclusum fuerat seâ—vi i Those Ephesians who are said to have bin baptized with Iohn's baptisme greatly erred in that Sacrament because then the Baptisme of the Lord Christ was brought in the baptisme of his servant Iohn was shut out Briefly that baptisme which before Christs new precept was good and usefull after the precept became useless and void So saith the same Father of the same question Post hodiernum non licebat quod
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
Saint Austine therein and the Authors submission thereof to the Reader That because God was to be Incarnate only in the Person of the Sonne and not in the Person of the Father therefore the ancient Fathers said that God was seen in the Person of the Sonne onely and not in the Person of the Father Chapter VII The Incarnation of the Sonne of God is shewed against Page 22 the Commenter That a meer Man may be said to be Incarnate and so may Christ be truly said and much rather because the soul of Man may exist without a body and the Godhead of Christ really did exist from Eternitie without a Body untill his assumption of a temporary shape and his Incarnation in an ever durable Body That the Scripture calleth him that denieth Christs Incarnation a deceiver and an Antichrist Chapter VIII That the Son of God was to be Incarnate necessarily Page 27 by vertue of the Covenant although God could have saved Man by his Power without the Incarnation Of that curious question viz. What God did before the Creation That God was never solitarie though alwaies but One. Of the Everlasting or Eternall Covenant between the Persons of the Father and the Sonne before the world Chapter IX Of the Covenant between God and Man divers Page 33 times renewed The first words of the Covenant about the Tree of Knowledge before the fall The second words of bruising the Serpents head since the fall The same Covenant with Abraham and afterwards with Moses in more words The outward signes of the Covenant viz. Sacrifices circumcision Tabernacle and Leviticall rites That the Legall and Evangelicall Covenant are but one The words of the Evangelicall Covenant Why it is called a new Covenant the Covenant of Grace and of works a better Covenant and a Testament of Christs suretie ship The reason why Christ was circumcised and Baptized Chapter X. That as our state condition now standeth Page 38 man cannot be redeemed and saved but through the Incarnation Obedience and death of the Sonne of God That our salvation is not wrought by the request and verball intreatie of Christ nor by the power onely of God without satisfaction of his Justice The distinction between Christs satisfaction and his merit How Gods just Sentence was fully executed on man and his Law perfectly performed by man Chapter XI That Christ was a Person fitly qualified to stand Page 41 in stead of all Mankind The mutuall unity of Christ and Mankind in that Christ tâ—oke his flesh from Man and Man received the Spirit from Christ That from this mutuall unity it is that Christs Obedience both Active Passive with great justice and equitie may be imputed to Mankind Chapter XII What interest the unregenerate man hath in Page 54 Christ That the Divine Spirit of Christ is communicated to the unregenerate and therewith some common graces That the Doctrine of the Church declareth the benefit of Christs death to be offered to all men good and bad That God is essentially present in every creature though not commugnicating his sanctifying Grace to every one The Stoicks error concerning the souls of Men. Apollinarius his Heresie concerning the soul of Christ Chapter XIII The Heresie of Valentinus and others concerning Page 59 the Body of Christ compared with the Heresie of Apollinarius concerning Christs Soul That the Arguments proving the derivation of the flesh of Christ from mans body do as well prove the traduction of his soul That the soul of man by nature is Carnall The doctrine of the Church of England doth not clearly determine the originall of Christs soul That if the traduction of souls be granted it will argue a greater nearness and conjunction of God and Man Chapter XIV The question of the propagation of the soul of Page 63 Christ and of other mens souls discoursed the difficultie thereof shewed out of Saint Austine and his inclination and reasons to believe traduction rather then a dayly new creation of souls The judgement of the Western Church herein alledged by Saint Hierome That the opinion of Traduction is not inconsistent with Christian Faith But if it be granted it argues a nearer relation between Christ and us then otherwise the Author leaves it undetermined with submission to the judicious Reader Chapter XV. The Ubiquitie of the Spirit of Christ Of the Page 67 diversitie of the Graces thereof In what degree and measure the Spirit with its common Graces is communicated to men unregeneraâ—e How the one Spirit of God is in Scripture represented as if there were more then one how it is said to be withdrawn or not yet given when it is alwayes present That the union of God and man is hence concluded Chapter XVI That the presence of the Spirit doth not alwayes Page 71 sanctifie is proved from the unction of Heathen Kings How such are called Gods annointed though they were not ceremonially annointed with oyl of Christs Vnction and the appellation of Christians Vespatians touching and curing the infirm thereby The King of Englands cures and unction Of the gift of healing mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 9. Whether it be utterly ceased Chapter XVII The union of Christ and his Church further Page 76 shewed Why Christ is called Adam David and Jacob Why all mankind was extracted out of one man Why Saint Austine denied that there were any Antipodes The difference between Christs union with all mankind and his more speciall union with his Church An Exposition of Heb. 7. 9. Touching the difference of Levi and Christ who were both in the loins of Abraham which place is purposely obscured by the Commenter The Table THE FOURTH BOOK Containing a discussion of this Question Whether the blasphemie of denying Christs Godhead which is the sin against the holy Spirit be absolutely unpardonable with full Expositions of certain Scriptures in the Hebrewes and other places which concern that sin Chapter I. THe question stated The judgement of Page 1 some late Divines therein and their grounds That to affirm it absolutely unpardonable seemeth derogatory to the infinite mercy of God in Christ and the grace of repentance The efficacie of true repentance Chapter II. That this sinne possibly may be pardoned upon Page 5 the sinners repentance That Gods threatnings are not to be understood as absolute but as conditionall That therefore his threatnings are not alwayes executed and yet his Truth not violated That threatnings are intended for provocations to repentance an observation upon Theodosius The judgement of the Fathers concerning those threatnings Chapter III. That the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or Page 8 God-head of Christ is then onely unpardonable when it is accompanied with finall impenitencie a short Exposition of Matth. 12 31. Chapter IV. Whether the grace of repentance be absolutely denied Page 11 to those who have once sinned this sin The judgement of some Divines herein A full Exposition begun of Heb. 6. 4. concerning final impenitencie That the word inlightned is there meant of
who is in three distinct persons or properties is one in Godhead and in that one Godhead the three persons are one and as Austins word is Vnissimi this was the judgment of Eusebius touching the apparition and the Godhead of the Son and Eusebius said no more in this point then divers other Fathers said also both before Eusebius and after him as is next to be shewed CHAP. II. That the most high God appeared visibly to the Patriarchs in the Person of the Son and not in the Person of the Father as the Ancients thought THe Fathers in their Expositions of these places in Scripture where it is said No man hath seen God at any time John 1. 18 and yet Iacob said I have seen God face to face Gen. 32. 30. who was therefore called Israel i. Seeing God or prevailing with God and the place Peniel i. the presence of God these seeming contradictions are by them thus reconciled Tertullian Tert. de Trin. n. 28. saith Deus Pater inuisibilis sed Deus Filius visibilis descendere solitus God the Father is invisible but God the Son is visible and used to descend If it be objected that the Book de Trinitate was not Tertullians which is an excellent and learned book Yet that this was Tertullions opinion appeareth in another Id. cont Marc. lib. 3. undoubted book where he saith Christus Abrahamo apparuit in veritate carnis sâ—d nâ—ndum nata i Christ appeared to Abraham in the flesh which flesh or body was not then born of the Virgin Clemens Alex. saith as much of the apparition of God to Iacob Clem. in Paedag l. 1. c. 7. Jacob luctatus est cum Deo Verbo nondum homo facto Iacob wrastled with God the Word before he was Incarnate Now we know that onely the second Person is called the Word and Christ And this was also the opinion of Origen who saith that our Lord Iesus Christ before Orig. in Eze. ho. 6. he assumed our flesh descended to the holy Patriarks and was with Moses And again he saith That Esaias was therefore sawn asunder by the Iews because Id. in Esa ho. 1 he had said I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne Isay 6. 1. Iustin Martyr also saith Deus Pater non dicitur venire Just dial cum Try n. 26. in locum sed Deus Filius the Father is not said to come into a place but God the Son is said and that God the Son was seene by the Patriarks and this was also the Opinion of Irenaeus and he giveth a reason Iren. l 4. c. 37. for it thus God the Son was often seen by men least men should not beleeve that there were any god at all but God in the person of the father was never seen least men by reason of familiaritie should contemne God or think that there could be no God but such an one as is corporeal and visible Thus you see that this opinion was not new in Eusebius time nor was by him first invented or singly mointained for many his Contemporaries were of the same judgment and they also which lived and writ after the death of Eusebius for this was the Doctrine of Athanosius and Atha Orat. Cont. Arion n. 8. Hil. de Trin. l. 4. Epiph. haer 65. Theod. hae f. 6. l. 5. n. 17. Mat. 11. 27. 1. Hilarius who both of them lived at the same time with Eusebius and the same was afterwards delivered by Epiphaâ—ius and Theodoret and the scripture seems to favour this exposition for it is said Ioh. 6. 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God i none have seen the Father but the Son of God but it is no where said that no man hath seen the Son for the Father is not seen but in the Son and God the Son was seen in his assumed manhood and therefore when the disciples desired to see the Father our saviour tould them he that hath seen me hath seen the Father Ioh. 14. â— that is God who is the father can not otherwise be visible but in the Son not in him but by the assuming of humane nature by which God becomes visible who in his pure God head is invisible and he that seeth God the Son in the flesh seeth the self same God who is the Father although the person of the Father was not incarnate yet the same God is incarnate in Christ for Col. 1. 15. Christ is the image of the invisible God that is as Beza noteth Christ is he in whom only the Father doth manifest and shew himself visible so he that sees God the Son sees God the Father for both persons are one God By what hath bin said it may appeare common that opinion of the primitive Christians was that it was the person of God the Son which appeared to the Patriarks not the person of God the Father Now because these ayings are hard to understand I think it will not be amisse to discourse the 2 questions following first how God is said to be invisible and how yet he hath bin and may be seen by mortal men Secondly seing there is but one God how it may be said that the Father hath not bin seen and yet the Son hath bin seen In which discourse I will not promise the reader full Satisfaction but â— doe promise him my indeavour CHAP. III. How God is said to be invisible What is meant by the face and the after parts of God HOw the Invisible God hath bin seen by mortal Eyes and in what sence he is said to be both Invisible 1. Quest and Visible will be worthy of our inquisition because the right understanding therof is pertinent to the doctrine of Man's redemption by the incarnation of God and will serve for reconciliation of some Scritures which at the first hearing may seeme to contradict one another for in the old Testament it is said Ex. 33. 11. The Lord spake unto Moses race to face But presently after in the same Chapter ver 20. God saith Thou canst not see my face for no man shall see me and live and it followes ver 23 thou shalt see my back-parts Yet before this Iacob had said Gen. 32. 30. I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved but in the new Testament it is said No man hath seen God at any time Joh. 1. 18. And againe 1 Joh. 4. 12. And S. Paul cals God invisible Col. 1. 15. and 1 Tim. 1. 17. For explication of these Scriptures it is to be understood that when God is called Invisible it is meant of the pure Godhead because the Essence Nature substance or divinitie is not visible by mortal Eyes in this sence S. Cyprian saith Deus est visu clarior tactu purior i the Majestio of the Godhead dazeleth all mortal Cyp. de idoorum vanitate â— 77. eyes and senses and thus neither the Father nor the Son nor
the Holy Ghost can be seene becase the Godhead of every and all Persons is one and alike invisible for God is a spirit and a spirit cannot be seene and therfor S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa triâ—itâ—s intellâ—giâ—ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist 112. Aug. Epist 111. Tert. cont Prax. Pater i. The whole trinitie is invisible and not only the Father and again he saith The whol trinitie is of a nature invisible and again he saith out of Ambros. and Hierome Neither the Father nor the Son can be seen in their divine nature For so noe Eye can see them and therfore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis i. Patriarks saw God not in the plenitude of his Majestie but according to the capacitie of man and to this both Ahanasius and Atha ad Antio n. 28. Chrys. ho. 48. Antio n. 17. Chrisostome agree Nemo essentiam invisibilis i. The essence of God is to all mortalls invisible The divine nature and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture somtimes calls the face of God of which God said to Mooses Thou canst not see my face and live so Theodoret expounds those words divina natura Theod Dialog immutat Atha quest ad Antioch n. 28. Aug. de Trin. l. 2. sub aspectum non cadit i. the divine nature can not be seen so doth Athanasius 1. Anteriora dei significant divinitatâ—m i. the foreparts of God signifie the Godhead and so S. Austin often tels us that the face of God signifies the form of God and the afterparts signifie the form of a servant which is the humane nature But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spake unto Moses face to face and how could Jacob say I have seene God face to face if the pure Godhead can not be seene And how could Moses tell the Israelites Deut. 5. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount and yet before he had said Deut 4. 15. yee saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb I answer that as in one place of those Scriptures alleaged the face of God signifies his divinitie or Godhead which can not be seen so in the other place it signifieth Gods presence manifested by words or signes wherby God declare th himself present as on mount Horeb by fier and thunder and in the tabernacle by a cloud or by a sound and words so Gods face or presence may be where there is no sight of him and so he spake to the people face to face because they knew for certaine that God was there present But Iacob saw the face of God because he saw the face of that man or that shape which wrastled with him when God appeared to him in the forme of a man although Iacob could not see the pure Godhead and this kind of appearing in an assumed shape is called by Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The appearing of God from hence the Dion Areop Caelest Hier. c. 4. Eus de Dem. l. 5. c l. 14. aforementioned Ensebius argued that because Iacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him in which man was God therfore he said it was the person of the Son and not the Person of the Father because Eusebius was persuaded that the Person of the Father did never shew himself in a visible shape â—nd for this Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons of which more hereafter CHAP. IV. More concerning the first question how God hath bin and may be seen FOr the further explanation of this question it would be inquired how it is said that God is visible and hath bin seene and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible which in their owne Spiritual nature are as invisible as the divine nature is for because a spirit hath nothing in it self which can be an object for mortal Eyes therfore whensoever Spirits or Angels good or bad are seen of men it must be by assuming some shape or body and mingling themselves with it that so they may become a fit visible object because only such things are visible for ever so many invisibles whether they be good or bad spirits Angels or devils cannot make one visible Object and therfore when we read in Scripture that God appeared in an Angel it is not so to be understood as if the invisible God became visible by taking uppon him the invisible nature of an Angel for an Angelâ—â—al nature is of it self as invisible as the divine nature as is said because both are Spirits but when God is seen in an Angel the Angel meant is the corpoâ—â—al visible shape which God assumeth and imployeth and useth for that purpose to be seen and to converse with man by for the word Angel doth not alwayes signifie a spiritual nature but any officer imployed by God as a Messenger so S. Iohn the Bapâ—ist is called Gods Angel Mat. 11. 10. in the Original So that the visible creature which is used as a Medium to present God visible is and may very fitly be called the Angel of God As Moses therfore put a Veile over his shining face which otherwise the people could not behold and as the Sun by our weak Eyes is better seen through the veil of a thâ—n mist then in its Cleer brightnes so in this life God is visible Only as in a glosse â—arkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightneâ— is invisible but the Invisible things of God are seen by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinitie can â—ot be sâ—â—e except it be clothed and allayed with some moâ—e grosse and Material veil and therfore at what time God shewed himself visibly to men he took some corpâ—real Creature and shape unto him that so he who by nature is invisible might in that assumed habit be seen and this was the resolution of the Fathers a Filius Atha de uniâ— Tâ—in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Maâ—â— iâ— Filius vâ—sus est Patriarchis in specie hâ—minis i. The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material and visible shape as â—â— a Man So S. Chrisostome saith The Prophets which saw Chrys ho. 10. Antâ—o Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id Epist 11â— God had not otherwise the expresse sâ—ght oâ— him sed figuras viderund i they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conveâ—sing with man in Paradise saith Deus locutus est cum pâ—imâ—s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali and againe Deus non est visâ—â— nisi assumptione creaturae i God talked with first parents in some bodily shape for God can not be seen but by assuming some Creature and