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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the second Proposition which is this The sins of the Elect Members of Christ are 2. Proposition not to be accounted onoly the sins of the Elect but are justly charged on the score of Jesus Christ being their Surety and Redeemer To charge Christ with sin may seem very harsh and some Divines in high reverence of his most holy and innocent Person are afraid to affirm that Christ suffered for his own sins But when the Spirit of God hath said that 2 Cor. 5. 21. He was made sin who knew no sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manifest that both these sayings are true First 1 Joh. 3. 5. In Christ is no sin Secondly Christ was made sin Bishop Andrewes who knew what he wrote and said as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubted not to affirm that Bish And. de â—at Serm. 9. The 〈◊〉 was with us not onely in nature as 〈…〉 in sin also factus peccatum pro nobis And this not onely he but others also both ancient and later Doctors have assered for besides what I shewed out of St. Bernard before Gregory Nazianzen saith Naz. Orat. 36. Quamdiù ego inobediens sum Christus per me inobediens est after him St. Austin saith Aug. in Psal 37. Christus peccaeta nostra sua vocat propter corpus â—â—um and Luther also perceived the great consequences of this union when he said Lutheri Epist Tu Domine Jesu es justitia mea Ego sum peccatum tuum for if but one member of the body commit an offence the whole man is chargeable with it This truth is of great concernment to be known for if Christ cannot be truly charged with sin how can we possibly justifie the proceedings of the Godhead when it is said Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just both are abominable to the Lord So then Christ must be charged with sin and man must be discharged of sin or else neither Christ can justly suffer punishment nor can man with Justice be saved The neglect or ignorance of this weighty truth occasioned the Socinian party to exclaim against us as if we charged God with tyranny in laying the punishment due to us offenders upon our innocent Saviour which also drew from Brentius a Lutheran this blasphemy Deus Brent Exeges in Joh. 19. Pater in cruce Tyrannum egit erga Filium and in the margin this note is set Deus aliquando Tyrannus an assertion false and blasphemous The difficulty of this doctrine consisteth in two Points 1. How Christ can be justly charged with sin in whom all Christians confesse there was no sin 2. How man can justly be acquitted of sin who without doubt never lived one minute without sin The truth of both the Christian Reader may thus apprehend In Christ there is a double capacity or twofold consideration First as he is in himself a natural body a private man or particular person without any relation to us and so no actions of his concern us or ours him Secondly as he is a part of a corporation Political or body mystical before mentioned for the head is but a part of the body in this consideration his and our actions concern us joyntly for if the hand be wounded the head will say You hurt me so we read 1 Cor. 12. 26. If one member suffer all the members suffer with it if one member be honoured all the members rejoyce with it now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular If one member of a Corporation do an injury in the name of the whole the whole or any one of them shall be liable to answer for it If a corporation be indebted any one member paying the debt satisfieth for the whole and for every particular member Posthumius a Roman Consul professing himself to be a Citizen of the Samnites and intending to pick a quarrel with that Common-Wealth openly in the assembly of the Samnites kickt the Roman Herald and said Livi. Decad. 1. lib. 9. I being a member of the Common-wealth of the Samnites have done publick injury to the Roman fecial therefore the Romans may justly make war upon the Samnites Just so particular members of this mystical body have done injuries to God and are become debtors so that the whole body is subject to penalty but the whole debt and injury is laid upon and discharged by one even Christ the Head in the name and behoof of the whole body These things being premised let us next consider what extent and operation this Union Conjunction or Communion of Christ and his Members hath and what effects it produceth Which may appear by the Communion of the Primitive Christians twice mentioned in the Acts where it is said Act. 2. 44. and 4. 32. They that believed had all things common And they were of one heart and one soul neither said any of them that ought was his own but they had all things common So this Union or Communion of Christ and his Members doth produce that which Divines call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. a mutual communication of properties which worketh and extendeth it self so far that the perfections and excellencies which are originally proper and peculiar to the individual Person of Jesus Christ are communicated and truly affirmed of holy men So likewise the infirmities yea and the sins also of such men who are members of Christ are communicated to and affirmed of and imputed and ascribed to Christ as may be perceived by these instances following First That Christs proper perfections are communicated to sinful man The Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 1. 30. Christ is made unto us wisdome and righteousnesse and sanctification which is as much as to say the wisdome the righteousnesse and sanctity which originally is onely in Christ and not in us yet it becomes our wisdome righteousnesse and holinesse because we are One with him The same Apostle tells us again that 2 Cor. 5. 21. We are made the righteousnesse of God in him So that man is righteous onely because Christ is so with whom man is united in one body Thus every true member of Christ is called 1 Pet. 2. 9. Rev. 1. 6. a King and a Priest this is onely because Christ is both and because his members are one with him therefore they are so denominated by his perfections Upon this ground it is that St. Hierome calleth Baptisme Hier. ad Damas Epist 58. cont Luciferian Sacerdotium Laicum i. a Lay-mans Priesthood because baptisme is the Sacrament of our entrance and ingrafting into Christ and so of our union with him which union doth work a communication of his regality and Priesthood to us So Origen saith Orig. in Levit cap. 16. hom 9. Sacerdotium tibi toti populo credentium datum est and so Austin Aug. de Civit. l. 20. c. 10. also Omnes Christiani sunt sacerdotes quia membra unius Sacerdotis Secondly That our actions and passions our infirmities yea and our sins also are communicated to Christ and
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 Holy Ghost can be seene becase the Godhead of every and all Persons is one and alike invisible for God is a spirit and a spirit cannot be seene and therfor S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa triâ—itâ—s intellâ—giâ—ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist 112. Aug. Epist 111. Tert. cont Prax. Pater i. The whole trinitie is invisible and not only the Father and again he saith The whol trinitie is of a nature invisible and again he saith out of Ambros. and Hierome Neither the Father nor the Son can be seen in their divine nature For so noe Eye can see them and therfore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis i. Patriarks saw God not in the plenitude of his Majestie but according to the capacitie of man and to this both Ahanasius and Atha ad Antio n. 28. Chrys. ho. 48. Antio n. 17. Chrisostome agree Nemo essentiam invisibilis i. The essence of God is to all mortalls invisible The divine nature and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture somtimes calls the face of God of which God said to Mooses Thou canst not see my face and live so Theodoret expounds those words divina natura Theod Dialog immutat Atha quest ad Antioch n. 28. Aug. de Trin. l. 2. sub aspectum non cadit i. the divine nature can not be seen so doth Athanasius 1. Anteriora dei significant divinitatâ—m i. the foreparts of God signifie the Godhead and so S. Austin often tels us that the face of God signifies the form of God and the afterparts signifie the form of a servant which is the humane nature But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spake unto Moses face to face and how could Jacob say I have seene God face to face if the pure Godhead can not be seene And how could Moses tell the Israelites Deut. 5. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount and yet before he had said Deut 4. 15. yee saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb I answer that as in one place of those Scriptures alleaged the face of God signifies his divinitie or Godhead which can not be seen so in the other place it signifieth Gods presence manifested by words or signes wherby God declare th himself present as on mount Horeb by fier and thunder and in the tabernacle by a cloud or by a sound and words so Gods face or presence may be where there is no sight of him and so he spake to the people face to face because they knew for certaine that God was there present But Iacob saw the face of God because he saw the face of that man or that shape which wrastled with him when God appeared to him in the forme of a man although Iacob could not see the pure Godhead and this kind of appearing in an assumed shape is called by Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The appearing of God from hence the Dion Areop Caelest Hier. c. 4. Eus de Dem. l. 5. c l. 14. aforementioned Ensebius argued that because Iacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him in which man was God therfore he said it was the person of the Son and not the Person of the Father because Eusebius was persuaded that the Person of the Father did never shew himself in a visible shape â—nd for this Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons of which more hereafter CHAP. IV. More concerning the first question how God hath bin and may be seen FOr the further explanation of this question it would be inquired how it is said that God is visible and hath bin seene and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible which in their owne Spiritual nature are as invisible as the divine nature is for because a spirit hath nothing in it self which can be an object for mortal Eyes therfore whensoever Spirits or Angels good or bad are seen of men it must be by assuming some shape or body and mingling themselves with it that so they may become a fit visible object because only such things are visible for ever so many invisibles whether they be good or bad spirits Angels or devils cannot make one visible Object and therfore when we read in Scripture that God appeared in an Angel it is not so to be understood as if the invisible God became visible by taking uppon him the invisible nature of an Angel for an Angelâ—â—al nature is of it self as invisible as the divine nature as is said because both are Spirits but when God is seen in an Angel the Angel meant is the corpoâ—â—al visible shape which God assumeth and imployeth and useth for that purpose to be seen and to converse with man by for the word Angel doth not alwayes signifie a spiritual nature but any officer imployed by God as a Messenger so S. Iohn the Bapâ—ist is called Gods Angel Mat. 11. 10. in the Original So that the visible creature which is used as a Medium to present God visible is and may very fitly be called the Angel of God As Moses therfore put a Veile over his shining face which otherwise the people could not behold and as the Sun by our weak Eyes is better seen through the veil of a thâ—n mist then in its Cleer brightnes so in this life God is visible Only as in a glosse â—arkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightneâ— is invisible but the Invisible things of God are seen by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinitie can â—ot be sâ—â—e except it be clothed and allayed with some moâ—e grosse and Material veil and therfore at what time God shewed himself visibly to men he took some corpâ—real Creature and shape unto him that so he who by nature is invisible might in that assumed habit be seen and this was the resolution of the Fathers a Filius Atha de uniâ— Tâ—in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Maâ—â— iâ— Filius vâ—sus est Patriarchis in specie hâ—minis i. The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material and visible shape as â—â— a Man So S. Chrisostome saith The Prophets which saw Chrys ho. 10. Antâ—o Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id Epist 11â— God had not otherwise the expresse sâ—ght oâ— him sed figuras viderund i they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conveâ—sing with man in Paradise saith Deus locutus est cum pâ—imâ—s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali and againe Deus non est visâ—â— nisi assumptione creaturae i God talked with first parents in some bodily shape for God can not be seen but by assuming some Creature and
Generation from Adam but our better and spiritual regeneration is derived from Christ and as there are no Sons of Men but such as are so from Adam so ther are no Sons of God but those that are so from Christ Now if it be demanded how Christ and wee can be accounted one and what it is which came from Christ and is in man that so he may be said to be in us and so that what he did or suffered should be really accounted as done or suffered by us for although wee know why Adam's sin is imputed to us viz. because wee are of the same Lump propagated carnallie from him but yet why Christs righteousnes oâ— his sufferings should be imputed to us seeing wee are not propagated from Christ nor ever were in his loines as wee were in Adams is now the question To which this is the arswer that as Christ received his flesh and blood from man so man hath received the divine Spirit from Christ and as the natural bodie of Christ is made of the same lump of Adam that our's is so man hath in him the self same spirit that is in Christ though he be in heaven and wee on earth by which spirit wee are called the Sons of God just as Christ by taking our flesh is called the Son of Man Nos homines vocamur filii dei quia filius dei Atha in decret Nic. Conc n. 13. nostrum gestavit corpus quia Spiritus filii in nobis est i Men are called the Son of God because the Sons of God took his bodie of man and put his owne Spirit into man and therfore Christ doth fitly sustaine an Universal person of mankind That the Spirit of Christ is given and put into man the Scriptures doe manifestlie declare First it appeareth evidently in the regenerate Man of sueh S. Paul speaketh when he prayeth Ephe. 3. 17. That Christ may dwell in their harts And how Christ may be sayd to dwell in Man Saint John sheweth 1 John 4. 13. Hereby we know that we dwell â—in him and â—e in us because he hath given us of his Spirit and hence it is that Saint Chrysostome saith Anima sancta est Tabernaculum Chrys ho 2. Antioch Christi id est The soul of an holy Man is Christs Tabernacle For indeed though Christ had not at all assumed flesh from Man yet because the same Spirit which is in Christ is also so put into and communicated to man it is sufficient to make Christ the head of the Saints his Members to be but one mysticall Body with him And this is intimated by Saint Paul when he saith Ephesians 4. 4. There is one body and one Spiriâ— which is as much as if he should say though the Saints on earth are many yet because all are endued with one and the same Spirit of Christ therefore all are but one body with Christ even as in man there are many parts and members yet because all parts have the same soul in them therefore all together are but one body Hence it is that Origen saith Omnes salvandi sunt Orig. in Eze. ho. 9. unum Corpus id est All those which shall be saved are but one body and Saint â—asill giveth this reason of their vnitie Quia unus est Deus si in singulis Bas Epist 141. sit omnes coadunat id est Because there is but one God if this one God be in all he doth thereby Tert. de Trin. n. 28 Christus est ecclesia De Paenit n. 16 unite all and this unitie is also expressed by these odd words in Tertullian Spi itus nos Christo confibulat id est It is the Spirit that doth button us or joyn us to Christ For this reason the Scripture saith Romans 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ And again 1 Corinthians 6. 17. He that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit And again Galathians 3. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus yea such is our conjunction and union with Christ and his with us by reason that his Spirit is in us that Theodoret doubted not to say Si pati possit Theod. in Dâ—alog impatib n. 13. divina natura supervacanea fuisset corporis assumptio id est If the pure Godhead were of a nature passible so that it could have suffered for man God should not have needed to be Incarnate And Saint Augustine puts the case a little plainer and nearer thus Si Christus non assumpta carne à Virgine sed vera tamen apparens nos vera morte redimeret quis eum non potuisse audet dicere Suppose Christ had not taken his flesh from the Virgine and so not from Adam but yet had really taken a body upon him some other way and in that assumed body had really died to redeem man who dares say that he could not and no doubt such a suffering had been sufficient for our redemption if as I said before God had not otherwise determined and limited himself by his sentence of the curse and death upon the seed of Adam And thus we have seen how Christ and the Saints are united and become one body SECT II. More of the same That Jesus Christ was a Person every way fitly qualified to be Man's Redeemer both for that he was free from all sin Originall and Actuall although he took flesh from the loynes of Adam and also in regard of the infinite worth and excellencie of his Person THe qualities required to a redeeming high Priest are set down Heb. 7. 26. For such an high Priest became us who is holy harmless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undefiled seperate from sinners For if Christ were not absolutely without sin in his own Person he could not be a fit sacrifice for our sins the Lamb of God must be answerable to the paschall Lamb his Type A Lambe without blemish and so the Scripture describeth Christ 1 Pet. 1. 19. as a Lambe without blemish or spot and that he knew no sin that he did no sin and that in him 1 John 3. 5. is no sin As for any actuall sinne there will be no question among Christians but the difficulty is in shewing Christ to be without Origâ—â—â—l◠〈◊〉 because he was in the loins of Adam when he fell and is the Son of David of Abraham and of Adam and the Church hath ever acknowledged that the whole lump of Adam is a Prosper Resp ad Genu. Massa corruptionis as Prosper saith and b Aug. Epist 105 157. De Civit. l. 15. c. 1. alibi Massa damnationis Vâ—nculnm damnationis Apostatica radâ—x Massa originaliter tota damnata as S. Austin often confesseth in all these words and many more id est a corrupt lump a lump of damnation an Apostate root totally condemned from the the very Originall The Apostle also seemeth to lay this to the charge of Christ 2 Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to
Godhead is there called the Holiâ— Spirit or Holie ghost as hath bin shewed before in my Second book and this blasphemio consisteth in the denial of the Godhead of Iesus Christ wherby his allsufficient Sacrifice is undervalued and the Son of God is troden underfoot as being esteemed but a creature and a meer man and therby becometh contemptible and his Blood even the blood of the Covenant is esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i But common ordinarie unholie blood no better then the blood of another ordinarie common man and not Sanctified and ordaineth for that great and high mysterie to be offered as a full and sufficient expiatorie sacrifice for the sins of the world according to the Covenant of God For he that denyeth the Godhead of Christ must needs think that his blood is but common blood as other mens blood is and therfore not of sufficient worth and value to redeem the world more then another mans blood is and indeed if his blood be no better then the blood of another man and if it be not the royal blood of God Act. 20. 28. It hath not it can not redeeme us Now whether the sin mentioned in this place be absolutely unpardonable and altogether remediless will better apeare by a diligent exposition of that text as it stands in relation to the context both before and after it For if we sin c If everie sin which is committed after we knew and professed the Christian religion should be unpardonable what man could be saved seeing the most righteous men fall and therfore doe daylie pray forgive us our trespasses therfore this saying can not be understood of every sin but suerlie here is one special grand and capital sin meant and what that is the words going before and following doe declare For verse 5. it is said in the Person of the Son of God Sacrifice and Offerings thou wouldst not but a Vide. Psal 40. bodie hast thou prepared for me That is because the Legal sacrifices or the blood of bulls and goates could not redeem man therfore an humane bodie was prepared for the Son of God that in that assumed humane nature he might in man's stead beare the curse and suffer death which man had merited And because we who are but meer men weak and sinfull can not by our selves performe the will and law of God without performance wherof no man can be saved therfore the Son of God came in our stead to performe the whole law so as was required and willed of God as it is said vers 9. Then said I loe I come to doe thy will o God So that both the active obedience of Christ in doing the law and his passive obedience in suffering the punishment of our transgressions are here set forth in these words vers 10. By the which will we are sanctified through the Offering of the body of â—esu Christ once for all That is by Christs performing the will or commandments of God in our stead and through the Sacrifice of himself on the Altar of the Cross for our sins his mystical bodie or Church is Sanctified for it is said vers 12. This man Christ Offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever and again vers 14. hâ— one offering he hath perfiâ—ted for ever them that are Sanctified and then we are exhorted vers 22. Let us draw neer with a true heart in full assurance of faith and vers 23. Let us hold fast the Proâ—ession of our faith without wavering If we sin there remaineth no more sacrifice c Having shewed what the foundation of our Christian religion is namely Jesus the Son of God God Incarnate and in his humane nature performing the covenant law and will of God both actively and passively for us and in our stead and requiring that we should have a full assurance of faith of the truth of that Doctrine without which faith Christ will not profit us he now shewes the sad consequences of rejecting this doctrine by Apostacie or falling away from our Christian religion in these words There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certaine fearfull looking for of judgement So that the sin here meant is Apostasie that is forsaking Christianitie as Julian did esteeming of Christ but as of an ordinarie Coman man and therfore distrusting the sufficiencie of his blood and death as not an equivalent price and ransome for man's redemption The truth of this Exposition will better appear by the words following wherein this particular sin is evidently expressed and is called verse 29. Treading under foot the Sonne of God counting the blood of the Canant unholy or as it is in the Originall a common thing and doing despight unto the Spirit of Grace Now to tread under foot is to vilipend and undervalue Christ as esteeming him not sufficient to take away or satisfie for our sinnes to count the blood of the Covenant unholy or Common is to esteem of the death and blood shedding of Christ to be of no more vertue and power then the death and blood of another Common man and they that so basely undervalue Christ as to think and to account him but a meer man do despight unto the Spirit of Grace What is the Spirit of Grace in the Sonne of God but his Divine Spirit and Godhead even that Spirit from which all Graces flow which are called the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ So they who have no higher estimation of Christ then of a meere man do despight unto his Divine Nature his God-head for what greater spite can be then to un-God him the word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despite in effect is all one with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Matthew and the Spirit of Grace here is the same which is there called the Holy Spirit which doth signifie the God-head of Christ as hath been shewed before For if he that despised Moses Law died without mercy verse 28. Yet Moses was but a mere man and so but a Theod. in loc fervant to this our God Quanâ—ò morte dignior est qui Mosis Deum habâ—t despicatui i. What shall become of him that despiseth the God of Moses and the saving Doctrine of Christ who is the Onely Eternall God Moses propounded life as a reward to them that should perform the Law Christ did perform that Law in mans stead to mans behoof and benefit and offereth to men the benefit of that performance and with it life eternall onely with this condition of believing on him Therefore that man which will not give credit to this joyfull-Evangelicall offer must expect to perish eternally for if Christ be rejected absolutely and salvation through him despised and not hoped for or expected There is no other sacrifice for our sins possibly to be found nor any other Name by which we can be saved By what hath been said it appeareth that these words If we sinne in this place signifie the sinning of the
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
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
word there used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so again when Christ shewed himself to St. Paul in the Temple Act. 22. 17. he was in a trance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now an exstasie or trance is as St. Austin describes it Cum abripitur animi intentio Aug. de Gen. ad lâ—t l. 12. c. 6. Ibid. c. 21. n. 69. à sensibus i. When our soul is elevated and taken off from the use and management of our bodily senses and is actuated inlightened by the Spirit of God or some Angel So the same Father saith again Bono Spiriâ—u assumitur anima hominis cum in somnis futura videt sic Aâ—gelus apparet Joseph in somnis i. When in our sleep things to come are revealed to us our soul is taken and informed by some good spirit as Joseph was by an Angel Matth 2. 13. And so also Prosper saith Ecstasis est cum mens aliqua inspiratime assumitur i. An Ecstasie is when Prosper in Psal 115. n 46. our soul is wholly taken up and imployed by some inspration And St. Bisil saith That when we read that the Basil in Ps 28. hom 5. Word of the Loâ—d came to the Prophets we are not tâ— think so grosly as if God uttered vocal and audible sounds or words to them but that he informed and instructed their soules by a more divine way of illumination though something like as we in our ordinary dreams do imagine we hear voices and discourses of men and see our friends or such like when they are but the imaginations of our brain St. Austin Aug. Epist 101. doth very fitly resemble them thus Non erant voces corporâ—ae exâ—rinsecùs sed quales apud nos tacitè transâ—urrimus memoriâ—â—r vel canâ—ando i. e. When the Word of the Lord came to a Prophet it was not any outward corporeal voice but in such a way as we use when silently in our minds and by our memories we discourse with our selves inwardly as in running over a businesse or an Oration or a song which men usually do onely by thoughts though our tongue never move and just so doth the holy Poâ—t Prudentius describe St. Prudent in hamartig p. 187. John's Revelation Corporeus Johannes adhuc nec carne solutus Secedenie anima non discedente videbaâ— St. John saw the Revelation when his soul was not out of his body but retired to it self from the use â—o the body and St. Basil tells us Si nos viveremus animâ Basil hom Divers 3. n. 11. nudâ sine carnis velamentis cogitationes cognosceremus nunc verbis opus est i. When our soules have put off the garments of our flesh then they shall understand one another by thoughts as now men do by words And St. Austin is of the same judgment Tunc patebunt Aug. de Civ l. 22. c. 29. cogitationes invicem i. That our pure spirits shall perceive and converse with one another by thoughts Now when our soules are so ecstatically retired from our bodies as that they do not so much as contemplate the Phantasmes as their object then are they in a fit posture to converse with the Divine Spirit of God or those immaterial and heavenly spirits the holy Angels and when our soules are so elevated then such visions or revelations as are presented to our minds are as evident to us as if they had been sensibly presented to our eyes or eares and thus St. Hieromâ— Hier proaem in Esai n. 33. saith That the holy Prophets were instructed in their Prophecies by God in such câ—stâ—sies and by Angels also for that which we read Zach. 2. 3. The Angel that talked with me in St. Hier. it is thus read Angelus qui loquebatur in me i. The Angel which spâ—ke in me and Terâ—ullian saith Ecstasis est qua Propheâ—ia Constat i. e. Tertul. de anima c. 21. Prophâ—cie doth coâ—sist in ecstasie and in the Primitive times of the Church before the ordinary gift of Prophetical Revelations was ceased St. Cyprian tells us Impletur apud nos Spiritu sancto puerorum innocens Cyp. l. 3. Epist 14. n. 71. aetas quae in ecstasi vidit oculis audit loquitur ea quibus nos Dominus monere dignatur i. With us children in their innocent age see and hear in ecstasies and declare to us suâ—h things as God doth vouchsase to admonish us of and St. Austin doâ—bteth not to call that Aug. de Gen. cap. 5. l. 6. wonderful sleep of Adam when the rib was taken out of him an ecstasie or divine â—apture Deus misit ecstasin in Adam evigilabâ—â— plenus Prophetiae inirans in curiam angeloâ—um i. e. God sent an ecstasie upon Adam he awaked full of Prophecy entring into the Court of angels and therefore Origen reckons Orig. in Cant. ho. 2. Adam amongst the Prophets Now when such ecstasies were brought upon men by God or good Angels from him the person so illuminated was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if evil Angels invaded 2 Tim. 3. 16. and actuated mens minds then their ejaculations were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ethusiasmes because they proceeded from Satan the heathens god by which spirit the Oracles of the heathens gave answers in Pythonists and that spirit it was which spake in men possessed with an evil spirit so that many times when the Priest was in an extatical fury or madnesse he knew not what the evil spirit spake in him or her just as men possessed did not know what they said or did such persons were by the Church called â—nergâ—menâ— daemoniâ—â—â— that is such as were acted and wrought upon by evil spirits and therefore Tertullian translates this Tert. de anima c. 21. word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amentia madnesse they knowing no more what they said then that Serpent in which the devil spake when he tempted Eve For whereas the Spirit of God in divine exstasies did wonderfully enlighten holy Prophets who were therefore called Videntes i. Seâ—rs contrarily the spirit of Satan did mostly darken the minds of his Prophets and Demoniacks so that they perceived nothing of what their lips uttered and therefore Justin Martyr said of Justin lib. 1. ext n. 6. such Sibylla non intelligunt quae dicunt i. These Prophâ—â—â—sses do not understand what themselves prophâ—sie and Origen saith Pythia furit nec sui compos est dum promit Orig. cont Cels l. 7. n. 36. 〈◊〉 i. The Pythonisse is mad when she uttereth the Oraclâ—s and therefore such are commonly called Arrepâ—iâ—iâ— men forcibly snatcht and used but as an instrument by the evil spirit and the same Origâ—n tells Orig. Peri Arc. l. 3. c. 3. Hier. in vita Hilarion n. 10. us that Magicians would cause young Children to pronounce Poems which they never learned and St. Hierome writes of one Orionus a Demoniack in whom the evil spirit spake with many several voices at the same
time This is sufficient to shew in what manner those extatical apparitions probably might be presented to mens soules and also may be an argument of the soules sepaâ—ability because by this we perceive it may have operations which do not at all depend upon the body and in all these revelations and intercourses with Angels good and bad we cannot receive any certain intelligence what the state of the other world is CHAP. XIII Of the apparitions of the dead and that they are not the soules of men deceased but other spirits assuming their shapes ALthough the known Inhabitants of both parts of the other Woâ—ld I mean the holy Angels and the infernal spitits have oftentimes appeared to and conversed with mortal men yet still we are ignorant of the affaires both of the City of God and also of the infernal Sodome howbeit those spirits have shewed themselves in plausible shapes of men and of our friends and kindred and not in such terrible apparitions as might deter men from any converse with them for the Scripture declareth that God and good Angels have appeared in shapes of men and that evil Anâ—els have also appeared so as to Sâ—ul in the likenesse of Samuel and also to Christ in his temptation for no doubt Satan conversed with him in the similitude of a man and the Ecclesiâ—stical Writers asfirm the same Tertullian tells us that in the Tert. de anima c. 57. exorcismâ—s which the Church in his time used over men possessed with unclean spirits the spirit would say Se esse aliquem pâ—rentum aut bestiarium aut talem gladiatorem defunctum i That they wâ—re some of their forefathers or some beast-master or such a fencer deceased and again he saith that it was usual with Magicians Ibid. to tell men that the spirits which they raised were the soules of dead men and that they could raise the soules of the holy Prophets from the dead The like is also observed by St. Chrysostome that when evil spirits appeared Chrys Ser. 2. de Laz. n. 〈◊〉 unto men they used to say Monachi illius sum anima sed non câ—edo quia daemones dicunt i. I am the soul of such a Monk deceased but I do not believe it because the Devil said so and again he saith That Idem ibid. the Devil perswaded Conjurers and witches to murther some young men making them believe that the soules of those whom they murthered should become familiar spirits and be at the command of those Conjuâ—â—rs to serve them and fulfill their commâ—nds and in later times Johannes Wier de praestig l. 1. c. 15. Wierus writâ—s that to satisfie the curiosity of the Emperour Maximilâ—an the fiâ—st about the year of ouâ— Lord 1500 a certain Magician in his Court raised spirits representing the shapes of Hector Achiâ—es and David which visibly apâ—â—aâ—ed â—n the presence of the â—â—id Emperour Many more such instances may be alledged out of Wriâ—ers of approved credit but these may suffice to inform us that althouâ—h many have comâ— to us from the other world yet none have given us intelligence of the state of things there for although those apparitions good and bad have entertained discourse with men as with Saul and with the blessed Virgin yet of this particular they have been silent and for this reason perhaps Poets called such apparitions and ghâ—sts Silenâ—â—s umbras and therefore they had a pretty fiction that such spirits as returned to this life from the dead first drank of the a Virg. Aen. 6. Lâ—â—hean River to signifie that they were so silent of those affaires as if they had forgot what their condition was in the other world because either they would not or could not relate the stâ—â—y of it even in the holy Scripture the place of the dead is called the Land of forgeâ—fulnesse and that Psal 88. 12. which the Latine reads Anima mea habiâ—asset in infeâ—no qâ—i dâ—scendunâ— in insernum our English Translation reads Psal 94. 17. My soul had almost dwelt in silenâ—e and â—hey that go down inâ—o silence for this Psal 115. 17. reason as I suppose Necromancie or consulting with the dead is forbâ—dden by God Deuâ— 18. 11. not that we should think the dead can at their own pleasure or at the desire of the living return to us without the special diâ—pensation and appointment of God for St. Austiâ— assâ—â—â—d himself that if it were in the power of Aug. de Cur. pro Mort. c. 13. soules departed to come and converse with mortals his holy and most loving mother dâ—ceased who followed hâ—m by Sea and Land in her life would nor have been so long absent fâ—om him but would have come and administred comfort to him among his man old sorrowes and so he concludes out of the 27 Psal My faâ—her and my mother have forsâ—keâ— me But bâ—cause Psal 27. 10. God having dâ—termined to conceal from us the state of the dead and because men should not delude thâ—mselves nor be deluded by Satan by conversing with Devils when they were raised in the shapes of men departed this life therefore Necromancy is forbidden and indeed as Origen hath well noted upon that Law Orig. ho. 7 in Esai 22. that they that enquire of the dead A daemonihus quaerunt qui moâ—tui sunâ— Dâ—o i. Nâ—cromancers that enquâ—re of the dead do consult with Devils who are dead to God CHAP. XIV That the Commemoration of the dead in the prayers of the Church was intended principally to set forth the Immortality of their soules IF it be enquired to what end or purpose the ancient Church set up that custome of praying for the soules of men departed it will appear that the chief motive hereunto was to declare the Churches assured belief that the soules of men survived after this life was ended and conrinued in a state of Immortalâ—ty for it cannot appear clearly that the Church had any precept for it or any example in the Scripture and so much is acknowledged by Epiphanius when he wrote against that Aërius who separated from the Church partly because he disliked the custome of praying for the dead and cheifly because Eustatius was preferred to the Bishoprick before Aâ— ius I say Epiphanius Epiph. haer 75. confesseth that the Church performed those rites to the dead Tradiâ—ione à patribus accepâ—aÌ„ i. because the ancient Fathers did so before his time and from them the Church received that custome for saith he Quis poterit Ib. n. 22. statutum matris dissoâ—â—â—re aut legem paâ—ris i. Who can dissolve the statutes of the Church our Mother or the laws of the Fathers and it cannot appear to us what benefit the dead receive by the prayers of the living nor hath the ancient Church fully satisfied us herein for St. Ambrose prayed for the deceased Emperor Theodosius Ambr. de obit Theod. n. 47. whom he then beleeved to be in lumine Sanâ—torum
vigilant now at all the ports of thy soul and take some antidote of thy precious Christian faith to corroborate thy heart against the danger of most deadly poyson for now the Serpents nest and Pandora's box are to be opened containing multitudes of evils and deadly blasphemies against the Divine Person of thy dear Saviour and his precious death all which I must now present to thy view and for thy more easie discovery I will draw them out in two files The first containeth such blasphemies which deny the Godhead and Divine nature of Jesus Christ The second containeth such blasphemies as deny the Incarnation of God and the Redemption of man by the Passion bloodshed and death of thy Saviour when he offered himself a full sufficient expiatory sacrifice on the altar of the Crosse and also such as deny the merit of his active obedience in fulfilling the Whole Law and performing the Covenant of God in our stead on our behalf and to our benefit and now they advance Blasphemies against the Godhead of Jesus Christ 1. That Christ was by his Resurrection consequently deiâ—ied Chap. 1 vers 2. pag. 3. it seemes the Commenter doth not believe that Christ was God before his death 2. That the Creation of the world cannot be referred to Christ Chap. 1. vers 10 p. 10. That his making of the world was but the restoring of mankind to a new state pag. 3. yet all things were made by him that were made Joh. 1. 3. 3. That Christ had an immense measure of the Holy Ghost Cap. 1. 9. p. 9. If it were immense how is it a measure and if by measure how is it immenâ—e is not this illogical blasphemy the Scripture saith of him God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him Joh. 3. 34. 4. That Christ had a beginning Cap. 1. 12. p. 13. Yet of Christ it is said His goings forth have been from everlasting Mich. 5. 2. 5. That if the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrewes had taken Christ to be the supream God he had discouâ—sed impertinently C. 1. 10. p. 10. That it is manifest that Christ is not the Supream God C. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ was a divine man C. 7. 22. p. 136. That Christ was opposed to God Cap. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ carried himself as a person diverse from God and that he was so the thing it self declares C. 12. 25. p. 320. p 54. 6. That Christ doth not forgive sins of his own authority Cap. 4. 14. pag. 70. That Christ hath not power of himself to save us C. 9. 24. p. 192. Yet Christ saith The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins Matth 9. 6. and Thou shalt call his Name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins Mâ—â— 1. 21 7. That the Angels are equal to Christ for duration C. 1. 10. p. 10. The â—ngel are creatures Christ is their Creator and therefore before them and of longer duration à parte anâ—e but if he mean that Angels are equal to him for duration à parte â—â—st onely he hath said nothing to his own purpose for so soules of men yea and devils â—â— all endure for ever but the Son of God is from everlasting to everlasting as is shewed out of Mich. 5. 2. 8. That the Lord Christ was not the first Author of the Gospel but God was the first C. 2. 3. p. 19. If the Law had been published by God himself it had been mâ—re excellent then the Gospel c. C. 2. 2. p. 16. This blasphemy is particularly answered before Cap. 7 9. That the Saints in heaven shall noâ—â—e under Christ but besides him C. 2. 6. p. 23. What! Check by soul yet Philip. 2. 1â— God hath puâ— all things under his feet and gave him to be head over all things to the Church and this Supremacy is there said to be in heavenly places verse 20. and The four and twenty Elders fall down and worship the Lamb Rev. 4. 10. 10. That it appears that faith in Christ is not contained in all faith in God Cap. 11 6. p. 251. That he that believes in Christ doth not believe in him finally but in God by him C. 3. 12. p. 54. He would have you believe there is something greater and better then Christ to believe in Ultimatè Terminativè 11. That Christ must not be compared with that Angel who represented God C. 12. 25. p. 321. Yet Christ even in his humane nature exalted is set far above all Principalities and powers and might and dominion and every name that is named not onely in this world but in that which is to come Ephe. 1. 21. Indeed he is said to be made lower then the Angels to suffer death Heb. 2. 9. lower in the humiliation of his humane nature but of his Divine nature alone and of his humane exalted and so of his whole Person as he is Emmanuel it is said Heb. 1. 6. Let all the Angels of God worship him The total summe of all these is Onely this blasphemy That Christ is not God Blasphemies against the Incarnation of the Son of God and his Work of Redemption 1. That Christ the Son of God cannot be said to be Incarnate more then the Saints are Heb. 2. 14. pag. 31. 2. That the Supream God can no way be a Priest C. 5. 5. p. 80. True if you had added this Except he be Incarnate and assume humane nature 3. The expiatory Offering of Christ for our sins was not performed on earth but in heaven C. 7. 1. p. 116. c. 8. 4. p. 146. c. 9. 12. p. 168. That his offering did not consist in his death but by his entrance into heaven after death C. 9. 7. p. 160. his Priesthood began there C. 9. 14. p. 171. 4. That Christ was not the Author of the New Testament but is called the Testator only because he was the main witnesse C. 9 19. p. 182 183 184. 5. That when it is said Jesus made a surety of a better Testament Heb. 7. 22. it is not meant that Christ became our surety to God and took upon him the payment of our debts But was a surety of Gods promise and dyed to assert the truth of the Covenant C. 7. 22. p. 136 319 348 357. 6. That Eusebius would not have the Son of God who appeared to Abraham to be the most high God Cap. 13. 2. p. 331. 7. That the Nicene Fathers hâ—ld not that the Son is that one most high God who is the Father These are the Articles of Infidelity which are affirmed by this Commenteâ— against which consisting of two Heads as is said I will Gods assistance addresse two Books following in the former whereof The Godhead of Christ shall be declared and in the later the Incarnation of the same Jesus who is the true onely and supream God shall be manifested and thereby the Great and gracious Mystery of man's Redemption by our God so Incarnate
will be unfolded CHAP. XVIII The Conclusion of this first Book with a friendly Caution to the Commenter BEfore I close up this Book I desire the Commenter who denyeth the Godhead of Christ and the Works of Creation and Redemption by him to lay to his heart that saying of St. Austin Domine qui In Vita Aug. pro Cor. lanâ— lib. 3. c. 42. non amat te propter opus Creationis dignus est inferno quid dicam de to qui non amat te â—ropter Redemptionem i. Lord he that doth not love thee for thy work of Creation is worthy of hell but what shall I say of him that doth not love thee for the work of Redemption And when the same Father heard an heavenly voice saying unto Idem ibid. him Augustine amas me Dic quantum amas me i. Austin lovest thou me declare how much thou lovest me This holy man returned answer thus Si ego Deus essem tu Augustinus vellem fieri Augustinus ut tu Deus fieres i. If I were God and thou wert Austin I would desire to be Austin that thou might'st be God I do not marvel that he which denieth the Godhead of his Saviour doth labour to prove and also earnestly desire that mens souls may die with their bodies and more yet that they may be for ever annihilated or if a resurrection and judgment must needs be that hell-torments may continue but three dayes for although some School-men argue that it is better to be in the state of eternal torment then to be annihilated and so not be at all yet I am sure the Scriptures and Fathers speak otherwise as of Judas Matth. 26. 24. It had bin good for that man if he had not bin boâ—ne Then they shall say to the mountaines Fall on us Luk. 23. 30. And I doubt not but the devils whose continuance is but Misera aeternitas Aug. de Civ l. 9. c. 13. Minut. Foel p. 330. n. 102. as Austin speaks Eâ—eâ—lasting misery would willingly have an end of being wish an end of torment Minutius Foelix saith of some Malunt extingui penitùs quam ad suppliâ—ia reparari i e. They would rather be for ever dead then to be restored to a living torment and Nazianzen saith Optandum est imprâ—bis hominibus igne Naz. Orat. 10. aeterno dignis ut corpus â—orum protiâ—us extingueretur i. e. They that have earned eternal fiâ—e may wish that they may never reâ—urn from death but More perire serae †Idem poem 14. n. 42. Prosp iâ— Sent. 170. to be like the beasts that perish because as the first death taketh mens soules from them against their wills so the Second death as Prosper saith Animan nolentem tenet in corpore i. In hell the soules of the damâ—ed shall be kept in their bodies against their wills I have read of one in despair that wished that he had been a toad rather then a man and St. Ambâ—ose saith Ambr. ad virg laps n. 36. to such kind of men Beatae vos serae volueres quibus nullus meâ—us est de inseris i. Happy are the silly beasts and birds in whom there is no fear of hell yea some have been so affrighted with the thought of those infernal torments that they feared to leave this present life as Seneca reports of Mecaenas a noble but a very Sen. Epist n. 17. voluptuous Heathen that he wished Deformitatem debiâ—â—tatem crucem acuâ—am modo vita prorogetur i. That with continuance of this life he would be content to suffer deformity diseases yea and the sharp pain of the Crosse and of such despairing men St. Austin saith Si Aug. de lib. arbit l. 3. c. 6. quis dixerit non esse quam me miserum esse mallem respondebo mentiâ—is If I should hear such a man say I would rather dye then live in this misery I would give him the lie Now I heartily wish and pray that this Commenter may live to see and revoke and repent these blasphemies because I am verily perswaded that they are such of which it is said in the Gospel that he that so blasphemeth and therein liveth and Matth. 12. 32. dyeth impenitent shall never be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come of which I shall have occasion to speak at large hereafter Now that this first Book may not swell to the Readers too much tediousnesse it shall here end for I am apprehensive by mine own reading of other mens Books as they will be of mine and as Austin said of Aug. de fide cont Man c. 24. his own Ita â—ibri termino reficitur lectoris intentio sicut labor viatoris hospitio i. The end of a book refresheth a weary Reader as an Inne doth a weary Traveller L. Deo FINIS THE Second Book Wherein is shewed THAT JESVS CHRIST is the True and Onely Supream and most High GOD. Qui stabilimenta fidei Christianae subvertere nititur Stantibus eis ipse subvertitur Aug. Cont. Julian l. 6. c. 1. Qui fidem incertam habent certam infidelitatem ostendunt Athan. Cont. Arian Orat. 1. LONDON Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes Armes in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1655. THE PREFACE HAving in the first Book transacted some of the lighter errours of this Commentary I now proceed to the weightier blasphemies therein contained and particularly to that of the denial of the Divine nature and eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ which I conceive to be that blasphemy which the Scripture saith shall never be forgiven And because the diligent discussion thereof will give a great light to the Mystery of our Saviour's Godhead I have resolved to make my entrance into that Discourse by handlingt this blasphemy as it is described by three of the Evanglists Matth. 12. 31. Mar. 3. 29. Luk. 12. 10. And because the Exposition of those places in my way may perhaps to others seem new though in truth it is not so I do here humbly submit mine own opinions therein unto the Judgment of the Church and her more Learned and grave Divines The GODHEAD OF Jesus Christ CHAP. I. Of divers doubts and difficulties concerning the sin against the holy Spirit and divers opinions thereof IF this question be loosely and negligently handled what man can be found free from this sin for every sin against God may be called a sin against the holy Spirit because as Athanasius Atha de Commu essent p. 625. noteth Contumelia unius Personae est blasphemia universae plenitudinis deitatis i. A Comumelie against any one Person in the Trinity is the blaspheming of the fulnesse of the Godhead But if you say that by this sin is meant some particular sin or blasphemy onely against the third Person I ask Did not Ananias and Sapphira thus sin Act. 5. 3. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost Yet I
think no sober Divine will pronounce Ananias Orig. in Eze. ho. 1. absolutely damned Origen saith Deus non punit bis * Idem in Maâ— Tract 8. Ananias Sapphira in hoc seculo recipiebant peccatum suum ut muâ—diores exirents i. God punished but once for once sinning Ananias and Sapphira received the punishment of their sin in this world that they might depart cleaner to the other world The Jewes resisted the Holy Ghost Act. 7. 51. and amongst them was St. Paul Act. 8. 1. yet the holy Martyr S. Stephen prayed for them Simon Magus so basely esteemed of the Holy Ghost that he offered money for it yet St. Peter invited and exhorted him to repentance not despairing of his conversion and the Church Primitive invited those hereticks to her Communion and fellowship whose special heresie was the denying the Godhead of the Holy Ghost as the a Naz. Orat. 37. Eunomians and Macedonians whom the Church did therefore call b Sec. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. enemies of the Holy Ghost and those that did come in to the Church she entertained c. 35. and reconciled them and pronounced Peace unto them If every particular offence against the third Person be indeed this unpardonable sin what shall become of many Preachers who howbeit they be learned and well-meaning men yet many times they erre in delivering false glosses and expositions upon Scriptures and Isychius saith Qui aliena docent in Spiritum blâ—sphemant Isych in Levit c. 10. sic peccant qui Prophetarum dogmata non interpretantur ad intentionem Spiritûs i. They blaspheme the Spirit who interpret doctrines of the Prophets otherwise then they intâ—nded St. Austin saith Donatistae Aug. Epist 53. peccant in Spiritum quia â—xufflant baptisma Catholicae Ecclesiae i. The Donatists sin against the Spirit when they renounce the baptisme which they received in the Church-Catholick because that baptisme was administred to them in the Name of the Holy Ghost and yet both Austin and the Church did perswade many of them to return to the Communion of the Church and also entertained them To quench the Spirit 1 Thess 5. 19. and to grieve the Spirit Ephes 4. 30. surely are sins against the Spirit the meaning is c Aug. de gen l. 4. c. 9. Ne contrista eos in quibus est Spiritus i. Do not vexe afflict or grieve those in whom the Spirit of God is and yet how many have been and still are quenched by afflictions and Prisons lest the Spirit of truth in them should detect the foul practices of men nay the holy Martyrs did pray for their very afflicters whereby it is evident that they despaired not of the possibility of their Conversion and Salvation Some expound this unpardonable sin to be when we resist the motions of Gods Spirit after we are enlightned and so sin with knowledge stubbornly and rebelliously because it is said Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible fur those who were once enlightned and have tasted of the heavenly gift c. if they fall away to renue them again to repentance Upon this place misunderstood Novatus and his Cathari grounded their heresie that such as fell into sin after baptisme could not be received into the Church though they repented as we read in Epiphanius Epiph. hae 59. But did not David commit adultery and murther knowingly did not Peter deny Christ not ignorantly but timerously both of them after illumination but neither of them unpardonably Do not the most holy Christians upon earth even the Elect and after regeneration fall into grievous sins and such men as are called just are said to fall seven times Prov. 24. 16. for there is not found in any mortal man any such high degree of grace as to preserve flesh and blood impeccable so that if this exposition were true who shall be saved Christ saith That servant which knew his Lords will and did it not shall be beaten with many stripes which St. Austin thus expounds Non sempiternam Aug. in exp Epist ad Rom. n. 96. sed severiorem disciplinam significat i. It signifies a more severe but not an eternal punishment You see the question concerning this sin growes very difficult and indeed it is as Athanasius calleth it Athan. to 3. p. 687 625. Tenebricosa p ofunda sententia an intricate and profound sentence but yet very advantagious to be râ—ghtly understood that so we may avoid it The Lord give us understanding by whose assistance I will endeavour to unfold these two Questions First What particular sin that is which is called the blasphemy against the holy Spirit and Secondly Why that sin is especially said to be unpardorable CHAP. II. What the sin against the holy Spirit is and â— Question what is meant by blasphemy TO blaspheme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to speak ill of to deprave to defame to speak against the Spirit of God to traduce and asperse it opprobriously as the Pharisees did Matth. 12. for when Christ had cast out a Devil by the power of his Godhead or Divine Spirit the Pharisees said it was done by the spirit of Beelzebub for what greater obloquie or blasphemy can be invented then when God is called Devil The Pharisees knew that this wonderful work was done by some power in Christ which was more then humane and therefore they knew it must proceed either from God or from the Devil and therefore as St Hilarie noteth Quia humanam infirmitatem haec Hilar. in Mat. Can. 12. tanta ejus opera excederent confiteri Dei nollent dicunt ex Beelzebub esse i. Because this work exceeded humane infirmity and the proud Pharisees would not acknowledge it to be from God therefore they said it was frâ—m the devil So in effect they called God Beelzebub and Christ a Conjurer and this was a blasphemy in the highest degree This Pharisaical blasphemy spread far and near both among Jewes and Heathens and amongst these it was a common received errour that Christ was a Magician as Eusebius notes There was in the first age after Euseb de Demonst l. 3. c. 2. Christ * Hier. Epist exeg 62. Ambr. in symb n. 21. Lact. de Instit l. 5. c. 3. one Apollonius of Tyana a notorious Magician that did many strange feats amongst the rest when he was convented before the Emperour Domitian in his Consistory to be punished presently he vanished out of sight this Apollonius is by Hierocles in Eusebius compared with Christ as being equal to him for miracles insomuch that the Emperour †Lamprid. in Alex. c. 7. Alexander Severus in his Lararium or house-Chappel set up the image of this Magician with the images of Abraham and Christ and worshipped them all and some heathens exâ—olled this Magician far above Christ as we read in St. Austin and because in the dayes of Origen Aug. Epist 4. some Egyptian Magicians like Mountebanks in the
Heresie excommunicated him Then divisions appeared for seven Priests twelve Deâ—cons and seven hundred Virgins had joyned with Arius Great discord grew among the people some taking part with Aâ—ius and others with Alexander then the Emperour by Letters commanded both of them to desist from disturbing his subjects but this could not appease them then he called that famous Councill of Nice of about three hundreth and eighteen Bishops from all parts of the Romane Empire They condemned this Heresie of Arius and compiled that Confession of Faith which remaineth to this day and is yet called the Nicene Creed wherein the Godhead of Christ is asserted in these words â—eing of one substance with the Father and God of God very God of very God Arius refusing to subscribe to it was banished by the Imperiall Edict but was afterwards recalled and exhibited in writing a Confession of Faith to the said Emperour which he allowed of and upon an oath taken by Arius that he believed so as he had written the Emperour commanded that he should be received into the Church This equivocating hypocrite had in his bosome secretly at the same time another Confession of his own hereticall Doctrine written of which he meant The Emperour was then at Constantinople Arius and his associates were going to the Church to require admission but the Bishop of Constantinople whose name also was Alexander had resolved to keep him out having prayed earnestly to God the day before in the Church prostrate on the pavement and with tears uttering these words Domine Athan. Epist ad Serapion n. 16. si Arius â—rasâ—in synaxin introducetur nunc dimittas sâ—rvâ—m tuum sin Ecclâ—siae parcaâ— tolle Arium i. If Arius must be brought into the Church to morrow Lord now let thy servant depart in peace but if thou wilt be mercifull to thy Church take away Arius In the morning as Arius with a great train was as is said going to Church presently finding a great looseness in his body he went aside to the common boggards of the City and there voyded his bowels splâ—en liver and blood and was there found suddenly Socr l. 1. c. 28 Ruff. hist l. 1. c. 13. dead as Socrates relateth so died this blasphemer Faetida morâ—â— faetida mente as Ruffinus noteth a stinking death suitable to his stinking soul Cacando as the marginall note is For a long time after people would point at that place in detestation of Arius untill a well affected brother of the Arian sect bought the place and to smother the fame of that judgement and Soz. l. 2. c. 28. the infamy of Arius he built a dwelling house upon it as Sozomen reports Another who by our late Divines is instanced in to have committed this sin against the holy Spirit is Beza in Heb. 6. 6. Musc in Mat. 12. p. 386 Gualt in Mat. 12. Polan p. 340. Buc. p. 174. Soz. l. 5. c. 2. Julian the Apostaâ—e he was the son of Constantius who was brother to Constantine the Great and was by this Emperours command carefully brought up in Christianity wherein he so profited that he was admitted to be one of the Clergie and was appointed i Anagnost that is the Lâ—ctour or Pible-Clark in the Church of Nicomedia and to shew his great zeal he and his brother Gallus joyned in building a Church over the Tombe of a Martyr and so precise he was that he lived a monasticall strict life and after when he was declared Câ—sar or heir apparent by his Cousin the Emperour Constantius for a time he continued in such a seeming religiousness that the good Father St. Hilary stiled Hil. adv Constan lib. 3. him Religiosum Dominum i. his Religious Lord But when he had got the command of a powerfull Army he rebelled against the Emperor Constantius and caused himself openly to be proclaimed Emperour and to strengthen the rebellion he opened all the old Idol-Temples which had been a long time disused and so got the hearts of all heathens and himself forsook his old Christian Religion and turned heathen caused his baptisme to be washed off with the blood of sacrifices offered to idols and writ Orations against Christians and grew so zealous in the worship of Idols that in stead of Julianus he was called Idolianus Now the Naz. in Julian Orat. 3. Apostasie and grand sin of this Iulian was the denying Christ to be God for he would not vouchsafe him any better appellation then Galilean son of Mary ' Carpenters son he permitted his Officers to do and say all manner of despite against Christ Julianus the uncle of this Apostate seized on the Church-plate at Antioâ—h and Sâ—â— 5. 7. sent it to the treasury Foelix the questor having before scoffingly said En qualibâ—s vâ—sis Mariâ— filio ministratur i. See what rich vessels the son of Mary is served withall and having robb'd the Church in great derision they sent Urine to be presented at the holy Table in stead of Wine as Theodoret writeth It is Theod. hist l. 3. c. 12. therefore plain enough that Julian did therefore forsake the Christian Religion because he did not believe that Christ was God and indeed if Christ be not God why should any man be a Christian and for this cause have those Divines said that this sinne of Julian was the unpardonable sinne against the holy Spirit Wherefore God to deter all Professours of Christianity from this damning blasphemy hath manifestly stretched out his own hand in vengeance for the exemplary destruction of these two ringleaders in this Grand blasphemy of Arius his end you heard before and upon this Julian his anger appeared more evidently insomuch that the Heathens in those dayes said as St. Hierome reporteth who was an ear-witnesse O Hier. in Habac 3. P. 203 how can Christians say that their God is patient and long-suffering seeing he hath taken away Julian in such anger and sudden fury ne moâ—iâ—o quidem spatio indignationem suam differre potuit i. and could not for a little space defer his indignation Whilest the Church grâ—oanâ—d under the pressures of this Apostate the Ecclesiasticall History relates a strange Soz. l. 6. c. 2. passage of a man That in a Church had a vision in a dream or ecstasie he knew not which for he saw Apostles and Prophets complaining of the injuries of Julian and two of their company went from the rest as if they went against Julian the man for present awaked but when he fell asleep there again he saw in the same manner the two returnning and saying to the rest Julian is slain which indeed proved true and at that very time The same Writer in the same place before noted reporteth that Didymus the famous learned man of Alexandria who was blind yet was a stout disputant against the Ariaâ— heresie in the dayes of Constantius had a revelation at the same time for being in a dream or ecstacy there appeared to him in
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
expâ—cted in this life for against this thorn in the flesh did this Apostle pray â— but it was answered My Gâ—â—ce iâ— sufficient That 2 Cor. 12. 7. is no other deliverance may be had but power by grace to resist this temptation yet not so much power as to annihilate and quite extinguish it in this life If it be here objected that the Holy Scriptures acknowledge Gen. 6. 9. Job 1. 1. Luke 1. 5. some persons just and righteous and perfect ones as Job and Noah and Zecharie the answer is that this perfection doth not imply impeccancie or impeccability for such just men fall seven times Prov. 24. 16. Noah was just but it is said there in his generation such may be called perfect Travellers but not perfect Possessors having not yet finished their course so a child is called perfect which hath all his limbs and lineaments compleat yet is far from a perfect man and a perfect man is yet far short of Angelicall perfection Men are called just who are not Aug. de natura Grat. â— 38. free from sin Justi suâ—runt sine peccato non suerunt That this truth hath been ever acknowledged by the Church may appear in that the Apostle saith â—f we say we havë no sin we deceive our selves civitas 1 Joh. 1. 8. Dei oâ—atâ— dimiâ—te nobis debiâ—a the universall Church in the time of prayer saith Forgive us our trespasses Indeed Aug. de Civit l. 19. c. 22. De peccat merito l. 2. c. 6. S. Austin confesseth That a man may sometime live without acting a sin yet that any mortall man can be without sin he denyeth For when the Pelagians urged that the Virgin Mary was without sin he desired to be excused from all accusation of that Blessed Mother of our Lord God yet he was assured that all Saints on earrh would submit to that speech of Ambr. de Jacob l. 1. c. 6. Hier. ad Ctesiphon cap. 5. Id. Cont Pelag l. 2. cap. 8. Saint Iohn If we say we have no sin c. Sainâ— Ambrose saith Non glâ—riâ—r quia justus sum sâ—d quia redemptus not glorying in Justice but in Justification St. Hierom saith men are called just not because they are without sin but because they are endowed with many vertues as Ezechias was a just man though he sinnâ—d and wept he did not lose the repute of a just man for some sins but he retained it because withall he performed many just and worthy actions besides a man is â—steemed righteous when his unâ—ighteousnesse is forgiven as he is â—steemed with God a performer of the Law whose transgrâ—ssions are pardoned Omnia Aug. Retract 1. c. 19. mandata facta deputanâ—ur quando quiâ—quid non fit ignosciâ—ur Now that the rebellion of flesh and blood or concupiscâ—nce doth contâ—nually dwell in all mankind during this life may clearly appear in the Holy Person of Saint Paul by his own words for thus he writes Rom. 7. 19. The goâ—d that I would I do not but the evil which I would not that I do f we inquire what evill it is which the Apostle would not do and yet did it it must needs be answered that evill concupiscences or carnall lusts did arise in him which he desired to be quit of and free from that they might not all be in him but because evill concupiscences will ever be in mortal men therefore his next care is that such desires may be râ—sisted so that they proceed not into action as he saith Rom. 6. 12. Let not sin reign in your mortall body that ye should obey iâ— in the lusts thereof he doth not say let it not be for it will alwaies be in us but let it not rule and pâ—evail over Grace So Gala. 5 16. wâ—lk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh he doth say ye shall not have those lusts but not fulfill and peâ—form them and ver 17. Ye cannot do the thing that ye would that is because ye cannot as you desire be free and quit from evill desires so as no evill desires at all should arise in you yet resist them do not obey them Tene Aug. de Verb. Dei ser 43. manus pedes ocuâ—oâ— c. withhold your members from acting those carnal suggestions Where he saith What I hate that I do We are not Rom. 7. 15. to imagine that the Apostle meaneth that although he hated fornication adultery rapine c. yet he did act these things but he meaneth that he hated evill lusts which yet did continually arise in him he desired they might not all be in him Nolo concupiscere tamen conâ—upisco O â—i tamen Aug. de verbis Apost ser 5. ago quamvis membraâ—â—eneo arma nego So himself adviseth Rom. 6. 13 Yâ—â—ld not your members as iâ—st â—ments of unrighteousness Although sinfull desires arise in Id de Temp. Ser. 45. your carnall heart Rebellant râ—bella pugnant pugna This is the strife betwen the flesh and the spirit he did continually resist those temptations Luctabatur noâ— Id. ibid. subjugâ—baâ—ur alwayes strâ—ving with them but not overcome by them Rom 8. 8. They that are in the flesh cannot please God Though holy men are in the flesh yet because they are not over-ruled by the flesh they do please Id. de verbis Apost Ser. 6. God Carnem portant sed non pâ—rtantur ab â—a Where he saith Rom. 7. 25. With the mind I my self serve the Law of God but with the flesh the Law of sin We are not to think that the naturall mind or intellective faculty of this Apostle was free from carnall concupiscence for by nature our whole man body and soul is carnall but the mind here signifieth his understanding reformed and renued by the Spirit of God for the very naturall spirit or mind of man needeth â— renuing by the Spirit of Grace as himself saith Ephes 4. 23. Bâ— râ—nued in the Spirit of your mind When he saith Rom. 7. 17. It is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me His meaning is not to excuse himself so as if he were without sin and blameless But that his Spirituall part or in ward man did detest that which his carnall part or outward man did suggest Just so doth this Apostle ascribe his holy and spirituall actions not to himself but to the Grace of the Spirit as 1 Cor. 15. 10. I laboured more then they all yet not I but the Grace of God which was with me So 1 Cor. 7. 10. I command yet not I but the Lord. So again Gal. 2. 20. The conclusion is that The Son himself that is to say Christ as he is considered with the plenitude of his Mysticall Body and so is the Whole Christ cannot be perfectly subject and obedient to the Godhead untill this mortall hath put on immortality and our naturall body be raised a Spirituall body when
progenitor Therfore Christ sinned in Adam This consequence is false because Christ did not so proceed from Adam as Levi did from Abraham that is by way of carnal generation and therfore Christ did not attract sin from Adam as Levi did from Abraham so as is said before But yet because Christ took flesh from Adam therfore all the pressures included in the curse on Adam were intayled on Christ sin only excepted as mortalitie and the consequences therof sorrowâ— labour wearines hunger abasement and subjection Tâ—â—e it is that Abraham paying tithesâ—oo Melchisedech which was in the nature of an homage or political submission and acknowledgment as holding the Land of promise to him and his seed by the donation of the Lord of Heaven who is the Messiah he did in this act include all the tribes which were to proceed from him to submit as homagers to the said Messiah represented in his type Melchisedech even as earthly Lords their successors do homage to their superior princes for lands held of them But what is this to intayling of sin Original sin is not derived to posterity by any such external acts I doubt not but Christ himself as man and as the seed of Abraham was involved in this homage Mat. 17. 27. See beneath l. 3. c. 17. and therfore did actually pay tribute and submit to the law as other Israelites did Of which tribute paying and also of the difference between Levies and Christ's being in the loins of Abraham I shal say more in the last chapter at the close of this third book Now for conclusion that it may appeare that our saviour is a compleat high-priest every way accomplished with all abilities and requisits needful to the great work of mans redemption of him it is spoken Psal 89. 19 I have laid help upon One that us mighty who Psal 89. 19. Psal 132. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 19. Act. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 15. 47. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Isa 9. 6. Joh. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Heb. 7. 26. is no lesse then the mighty God of Jacob. The blood which he shed for us is justly by S. Peter called Precious for it was the blood of God This second Adam Incarnate for us is no less then The Lord from Heaven and God manifest in the flesh and The mighty God the everlasting Father the prince of peace he that was wounded for us is called by the Apostle my Lord and my God he that was crucified for us was no less then the Loâ—d of glory and in his very humiliation of the humane nature he was holy harmless undefiled and seperate from sinners To him be all honour and glorie and thanksgiving for ever CHAP. XII That the unregenerate man is redeemed by Christ and that the Spirit of Christ is communicated to him BUt in the second place it would be inquired what Interest the unregenerate man hath in Christ how he can lay any claime to Christs sufferings for although it be true that Christ hath taken the unregenerate man's nature on him yet may wee or can we truly say that the unregenerate man hath received the Spirit of Christ into him If this will not be granted Christ cannot be a person idoneous or fitly qualified to be his redeemer because as such a redeemer must take somthing from man so man must also receive somthing from him that by giving and taking the redeemer and redeemed may be united and so considered as one bodie and that must be by receiving the Spirit from Christ as Christ received flesh from man which is elegantlie expressed by Prosper in his poem Vt nos insercret Summis se miscuit Imis That man Prosp de Ingrat n. 41. might be joyned unto God God joyned himself with man Now it seemeth that the Spirit of Christ is also communicated to the unregenerate man because wee find in Scripture that he also hath an interest in Christ and a claime and title to him for the Scripture declareth that the benefit of Christ's death and by it redemption is offered to all men of what condition soever whether good or bad regenerate or unregenerate beleevers or unbeleevers for the Gospel is sent to all the world and to every creature Mar. 16. 15. and One of the maine points of the Gospel is the offer of the benefit of redemption by the death of Christ of which the Scripture saith 2 Cor. 5. 15. that he died for all so Rom. 8. 32. 1 Tim. 2. 6. and againe Heb. 2. 9. He tasted death for every man here is the benefit of Christs death offered Omnibus singulis i. to all and every man and more particularly it is offered to the ungodly Rom. 5. 6. Christ died for the ungodly and more plainly yet it is offered to them that shall perish and be destroied for S. Paule saith 1 Cor. 8. 11. Through thy knowledg shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ dâ—ed and againe he saith Rom. 14. 15 Destroy not him with thy meate for whom Christ died And to put it out of all doubt that Christ did indeed offer the benefit of redemption to them that not only may possibly perish but even to such as actually shall perish S. Peter saith 2 Pet. 2. 1. There shall be false teachers which denie the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction false teachers are the most unlikely to have any benefit by Christ for Rev. 20. 10. the devil the beast and the false Prophet are joyned in the lake of fire and brimston and yet wee see the benefit of redemption was offered to false Prophets This is the Doctrine of the Church of England and so it was of the Church Primitive as appeareth by diverse testimonies for S. Ambrose saith Ethnicus haereticus peccator sanguine Amb. in symb Apost c 25. Christi redempti sunt i Not only the sinner but the heathen and the heretick are redeemed by the blood of Christ and Athanasius delivereth the same doctrine not only as being his single opinion but as the judgment of the Council of Sardice Deus pro illis Arrâ—anis Ath. in Epâ—st synodi Sardic â— n. 15. and pro nobis omnibus mortem subiit i God who is the president of the Church did suffer death both for the Arrians and for all us and yet no heresie is more opposite to redemption by Christ then the Arrian and this is also set forth by Nazianzen Arriani divinitatis acerbi Naz. Orat. 38 expensores diaboli figmenta pro quibus Christus mortuus ingratae Creaturae i the Arrian's are the most malicious examiners of Christ's divinitie and yet Christ died for these unthankfull creatures who are the figment of the devil but most home is the judgment of S. Chrysostom Christus mortuus est pro inimicis pro tyrannis Chrys hom 76. Constant n 24. pro maleficis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Osoribus pro crucifigentibus atque pro his ipsis
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
our whole Man in our Redemption Thus having said so much concerning this question I submit the determination thereof to the Judicious Reader onely adding this that if Christ did indeed take not onely his Body but the whole man by traduction from Adam we may most comfortably entertain a more evident and reasonable Argument of the Redemption both of our bodies and soules by him because hereby we may conceive our selves to be joyned and united unto Christ in a more noble tie then onely in our flesh that as he hath communicated his Divine Spirit to Man as is shewed before so our humane Spirit is communicated to him CHAP. XV. That the Spirit of God is communicated to the unregenerate and of the diversitie of the Measures and the graces therof IN the next place I am to shew how the Spirit of God is said to be communicated to men unregenerate as I promised before and this because many men are apt to beleeve that to have the Spirit of God is a grace proper and peculiar only to those that are the the Sanctified holy ones but the contrarie will appeare a none for a man may have Gods Spirit in him yea and divers common gifs and graces of that Spirit and yet remaine unsanctified and void of vertue and holines Aug. de beat vita n. 16. S. Austin saith Omnis homo deum habet nec tâ—mâ—n omnis beatus est i. every man hath God in him and yet every man is not in a state of blessednes so there is in every man a natural goodnes for every creature is good and where goodnes is there is God though this natural bonitie may be mixed with a great deale of moral pravitie and the same Spirit of God worketh in all men but yet to several purposes and with several Naz. Orat. 44. operations and in diverse degrees Spiritas spirat quando vult super quos vult quantum vult i The Spirit bloweth when it will and on whom it will so much as it will and though the Spirit of God be alwayes in man yet men doe not alwayes perceive it Aug. Confes. lib. 9. c. 4. Id. n. 88. or consider it S. Austin confessed Christus miserat spiritum in me Ego nesciebam i Christ had sent his Spirit into me and I knew it not and againe he saith â—git Spiritus Domini per bonos malos per Scientes nescientes ut per Caipham i The Spirit of the Lord worketh by good and bad by men that know it and by men that know it not as it did by Caiphas Men may have the Spirit of God and Operations of that Spirit in them and some graces also of that Spirit and yet those graces possibly shall not be operative so high as to Sanctification neither are they such high graces as divines call Gratum facientes But yet graces they are for grace is but a free gift and therfore is it called grace because it is Gratis data i freely given There may be grace in those persons who are not therby rendered favourable gracious or acceptable in Gods sight for even our natural endowments and temporal blessings and our very Creation rightly considered will appeare to be an act of Gods grace and therfore men do usually give thanks to God for their very Creation This doctrine of the great variety of graces and workings of Gods Spirit is most evidently set forth 1 Cor. 12. There are diversities of gifts and diversities of operations but the same Spirit the same Lord the same God And you may find mention of many graces there which are not saving or sanctifying graces but are Common even to reprobates as knowledge healing prophecie toungs c. Which wee know may be and are found in men not Sanctified even the knowledg and skill of manual arts are the operations of Gods Spirit in man which no divine will say are saving or sanctifying graces as wee read of Bâ—zaleel Ex. 35. 31. That he was filled with the Spirit of God in wisedome and in all manner of workmanship to devise Curious workes and to worke in Gold Silvâ—â— and brass Philosophers use to say If heaven stood still man could not move so much as his litle finger but surely if God were not Primus Motor in us to be as the soule of our soules we could not live or move and though God be in man and operateth in him yet his operations are diversified by divers degrees in some he worketh but weakly and low in others higher and stronger even to produce holines and happines but though the Spirit of God be in every man yet this Spirit is not a Sanctifier in every man as he is not Paracletus i a Comforter in every man this doctrine hath bin taught of old by the ancients Deus in est multiformiter Richard de S. Vict. de Trin. l. 2. c. 23. secundum participationem Gratiae aliis per participationem potentiae aliis vita aliis sapientiae aliis bonitatis aliis beatitudinis imanum suam parcius vel largius extendens i God is in us by distributing his graces in great diversitie some partake of power some of life only others have wisdome others goodnes others blessednes for so doth he open his hand more or less as he pleaseth The Spirit of God in Scripture is often resembled to water because as the same water falling from heaven in raine upon several Creatures produceth in them great diversitie and varietie of effects Aqua in spiâ—is alba in rosis rubra in Cyril Hieroâ— n. 18. hyacinthis purpurea i The same raine in the thorne produceth a white flower on the rose bush a red and on the hyacinth a purple Colour So doth the Spirit produce diversitie of effects in men so againe Aqua in Aug. de Mirab. script l. 1. c. 18. vite vinum â—it in apibus mel in Oliva olâ—um i Water in the vine is made wine in the Olive tree Oyl in bees honie in man blood teares c. And the like illustration is used by Epiphanius Chrysost To shew Epiph. in Ane Chrys ho. 4. Antioch that the same Spirit of the same God in some mea produceth but life or understanding in others it produceth those effects and more also as wisdome judgment counsel in others more also as faith hope charitie fortitude even to martyrdome and to blessednes the effect of Gods Spirit in Samson was seen eminently in his great strength in Solomon it was great wisdome in Moses mâ—eknes in the Prophets foresight all these are gifts of one and the same Spirit though in such great varietie and when the Scripture mentioneth divers Spirits as Esa 11. 2 Rev. 1 4 It meaneth severall gifts and graces of one and the same Spirit wee may observe that Elisha 2 Kings 2. 9. did not pray for two Spirits but duplex Spiritus that the same Spirit of Eliah might be doubled on him that is increased
or heightned in him to greater power and efficacie and whereas David prayed Psal 51. 11. take not thy holie Spâ—rit from me it will not follow that David feared he should be left destitute altogether of the Spirit of God but that it might remaine with him in some degree at least but he prayed for the Continuance and Manifestation of Gods help and assistance by the Spirit in the same manner as before he had it because as Prosper observeth Cessatio auxilii pro absentia accipitur i God Pros ad Dem. n. 59. is said to depart from man when he withholdeth his help albeit God is essentially alwayes present so when he withdraweth one grace yet he may manifest his presence by some other grace for every man hath not every grace of the Spirit S. Hierom in one of his exegetical Epistles upon these words 1 Cor. 15. 28. That God may be all in all saith Adhuc Deus est nisi pars Hier. Epist 147. n. 30. in singulis ut sapientia in Solomone patientia in Job post erit omnia in omnibus cum Sancti omnes virtutes habuerint i In this life God is but a part in men as wisdome in Solomon patience in Job but in the next life God will be all in all for then his Saints shall be induced with all vertues And wheras it is said Joh. 7. 39. The holie Ghost was not yet given Yet wee are sure that it was given before both to the Prophets and also to the Apostles but the meaning is as S. Austin expounds it Non quia nulla datio antea sed quia non talis quae de Aug. de Trin. lib. 4. c. 17. n. 72 Linguis legitur i Not as if there had bin no gift of the Spirit before but because the Spirit was not before given in that kind and manner as it was at the feast of Pente cost and so doth S. Cyril resolve the same doubt Cyril Hieros Cat. 16. Spiritus idem descendebat in Pentecoste qui anteà sed tum Copiosiùs i It was the same Spirit that descended at the Pentecost which came before but now it came more Copiouslie Thus are God and man united he taking our flesh and we receiving his Spirit upon this consideration S. Cyprian saith Cum Corpus â— terra Spiritum possideamus Cyp. de Orat. Dom. n. 82. e caelo Ipsi câ—lum tâ—rra sumus i Man is the union of heaven and earth because our bodies are from the earth but we possesse a Spirit which came from heaven CHAP. XVI That the Spirit of God is given to men nâ—â— sanctified how those are said to be Gods anointed who were not anointed with Oile that our King is Gods anointed somthing concerning the Kings touching and Curing the diseased BUt why should we doubt to affirme that the Spirit of Jesus our only Lord God is communicated even to men unregenerate and that in such men this Spirit doth manifest it's presence in some lower degree by some common graces which doe not sanctifie them in whom they are seeing that we find in Scripture that both heathen and wicked Kings are called Gods anointed for Esa 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed to Cyrus yet this Cyrus both lived and died an heathen So King Saul though an Israelite yet a wicked man is called 2 Sam. 1. 14. The Lords anointed Now we know that Vnction doth not alwayes signifie only an External or Ceremonial anointing with Oile but it signifieth also the inward gift and inhabitation of the Spirit of God for wee find that those men are said to be Gods anointed whom we cannot find to have bin externally anointed with Oile for so Christ is said to be anointed Psal 45. 7. Yet not with external Oile so also Abraham Jsaac and Jacob Psal 105. 15. are called Gods anointed yet we find not that they were anointed with Oile but these holie ones are therfore said to be anointed because the Spirit of God was in them which is the true and reall unction wheras external ointment is but the signe therof in like manner because Cyrus an heathen is called Gods anointed and yet was never anointed with Oile it must needs follow that his unction was internal and that he was therfore called Gods anointed because God had put his Spirit into him Iâ—say his Spirit although not working so high as to Sanctification in Cyrus but yet a Spirit of wisdome and kingly fortitude and of skill and knowledg politicall and militarie To enable him to governe which gifts are the effect of Gods Spirit And this is the exposition which the ancients give concerning those forenamed unctions first for Christ Euseb us saith Non apparet Christum unctum fuisse communi oleo sed divino Eus de Dem. lib. 5. c. 2. Spiritu i It can not appeare that Christ was anointed with common Oâ—le Ceremonialie but he was anointed with the divine Spirit and so saith Athanasius Oleum Ath. Orat. 2. Cont. Arian Opt. lib 4. Atha Orat. Cont. Aria n 8. Christi est Spiritus sanctus i The Oile of Christ was the holie Spirit and just so saith Optatus and what this unction of Christ was and wherin it consisted is shewed by the same Athanasius upon those words God of God unitio verbi cum carne vo catur unctâ—o i The union of the Godhead with the manhood was Christ's unction Now for the anointing of meere men and that without any infusion of Oile Eusebius saith Dei Spiritus Eus de Dem. l. 4. c. 15. est dei Oleum i The Oile of God is the Spirit of God and he tels further in the same place that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are called Gods anointed Propter divinum Spiritum cujus participes erant i By reason of Gods Spirit with which those holie patriarks were indued and to the same purpose S. Basil saith Spiritus Basil hom de Bapt. n. 14. sanctus est unctio in nobis i our unction is the holie Spirit which is in us For so it is said also of our Saviour expresly Act. 10. 38. God anointed Iesus of Nazareth with the holie Ghost The appellation of Christ and of Christian is from this unction and we use to say of infants when they are baptized that they are made Christians which signifieth anointed not because of the old Ceremonie of Crisme or anoâ—â—ting with Oile which with us hath bin long agoe disused but as Dionysius formerlie when it was in use gave the reason unction and Christian signifie deificam Spiritus communionem Dionys Areop eccleâ— her c. 2. i The communication of the divine Spirit because wee beleeve that God with the external Sacrament conferreth the inward grace which beleife the ancients did represent by their anointing the baptized with Oile Now if it may app are that by vertue of such an internal Unction of which I spake in Cyrus some unregenerate men have actually exercised and performed
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
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
5 20. 〈…〉 grace did much more abound and that God is rich in mercie and the Father of 〈…〉 and that his mercie is over all his workes and especially his mercy is seen and excercised on mankind even in such as have sinned with an high hand against him if they doe penitentlie turn unto him no Father or â—ender Mother can so much pittie their owne children as our heavenly Father pittieth us Non sic insâ—mus Chrys 77. hom Constant n. 25. 〈…〉 Deus paenitentem animam i no young man sick for love is more inamored with his beloved than our loving God is with a penitent soule Chrys 31. hom Antioch n. 12. and againe the same Father saith Ego testifiâ—or fide 〈◊〉 si quts discedit à peccâ—to nihil aliud requirit Deus i testifie and will be bound that if a sinner will forsake his sin God requireth no more of him The gate of Gods mercy is never shut against a penitent sinner S. Cypriâ—n saith most comfortably Nulla paenitent Cyp. cont Demet. n. 75. Id de Caena n. 95. a in muâ—â—o seâ—a â—st And againe Animâ—m egredientem and in lubiâ— paenitentem non aspernatur Clementissimus Dominus i no repentance can be to late in this life when our Soul is pearched on our lips ready to take her flight even in that moment our most mercifull Lord will not reject her repentance no though her sins have bin never so detestable Prosper saith Nulla Pros de vocat Gent. l. 1. c. 17. sunt tam detestanda â—â—elera quae possun gratiae donum arcâ—re i No wickednes is so detestable which can utterly exclude the mercie of God S. â—asil sets this down as an infallible mark whereby a man may be assured of remission of sins Ceâ—tâ—â—o rem â—ssiâ—nis est peccata abhorrere Basil in Ascet n. 31. i if yow would be assured that your sins are remitted leave your sins The Psalmist saith Psal 33. 5. The earth is full of the goodnes of the Lord Because in this life his mercy is more perceived then his justice which he doth for the most part defer til the judgment in the next life by his patience and long suffering yet even then his very judgments are not void of some mercy in Teâ—tullâ—an it is but Ironically said O deum ad Tert. cont Marc. l. 3 n. 44. inferos usqu◠〈…〉 i O the mercy of God which extendâ—th even to hel but S. Austin delivers the same seriously and dogmatically i Dei misericordia Aug de Civit. l. 21. c. 24. extenditur damnatis mitiùs puniens illos quà m mereantur i The mercy of God is in some measure shewed to the damned in that he punisheth them lesse rigorouslie then they deserved Upon these reasons grounded on the mercies of a most mercifull God an Al sufficient Redeemer I dare not pronounce this sin against the Holie Ghost to be absolutely unpardonable CHAP. II. That the sin against the Spirit possibly may be pardoned and that by repentance Gods threatnings are conditional and not alwayes executed yet the truth of God is not violated Threatnings are but provâ—cations to repentance But dare any Man say this sin is Pardonable when Christ hath said it shall never be forgiven I answer that neither I nor any one that feareth God would presume to affirme it pardonable except wee were assured that God himself had so affirmed for the same God who is the author both of the old and new Testament hath so declared in both that all his threatnings how peremptorilie or absolutely soever they seeme to be delivered yet they are ever to be understood with this limitation or exception except ye repent For although it be not openly expressed in every particular Commination yet God hath more then once given us to understand that whensoever he threatneth destruction to a sinner his threatning is alwaies to be understood with this limitation Except that sinner repent And this truth hath bin long ago discovered by our owne divines and long before them by the ancient Fathers That al threatnings of God are to be understood with the condition of impenitencie for example God had by his prophet said Fortie dayes Jonah 3. 4. and Nineve shall be desâ—â—oyed Yet Nineve was not so destroied neither was his word false because Gods meaning was with this reservation Except they repented and Gods threatning averting or inflicting temporal plagues in the time of the law were signes what he would doe in the like case either with or without repentance in remitting or inflicting eternal punishments since the Gospel was published If you aske me how wee shall know that when God threatneth destruction without any mention of this exception of repentance that yet he so meaneth I answer that we know it because God hath so tould us once or twice that all his threatnings must be so understood and this we learne from two of his great Prophets both for general threatnings against a whole nation and for particular threatnings against any wicked person for Jer. 18. 7. As what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a Kingdom to pluck up and to put down and to destroy it If that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil I wil repent of the evil that I thought to doe unto them So againe Ezech. 33. 14. When I say to the wicked thou shalt surely die If he turne from his sin c he shal surely live he shal not die these two are the general rules of all Gods threatnings in the whole Scripture so that if we lay these to any threatning that was executed or not executed yet we shal find that both the mercy and truth of God wil be hereby cleered as in the differing cases of Sodom destroied and Ninâ—ve saved The same Rules are also to be observed in the threatnings mentioned in the New Testament even where the exception is not expressly mentioned yet it is alwaies to be understood and there we find evident and personal presidents of Gods mercy in sparing those whom he threatned when the threatning seemed to be absolute without any limitation for what threatning can be more peremptorie then that Luc. 12. 9. He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the Angels of God But we know Peter denied him before men yet Mat. 26. 74. we doubt not of Peters Conversion and Salvation And we know that the Jewes unto whom the same Peter preached Act. 3. 14. had denied the Holie One and the Just moreover killed the Pâ—ince of life Yet Sâ— Peter did not think them absolutely unpardonable but exhorted them to repentancâ— and shewed that therby their sin might be pardoned for â—aith he v. 19 Repent yet therfore and be convertâ—d that youâ— siâ—s may be blotted out What threatning seemeth more peremptorie then that 1 Cor. 6 9 Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaâ—eâ—s nor adulteâ—â—rs nor tâ—eves nor
drunkards c. shall inherit the Kingdome of God yet we beleive that Noah Loâ— David and the penitent theif who had offended in these sins shal notwithstanding inherit the Kingdome of God the Apostle in the words immediately following doth cleerly unfold the meaning both of that and of al other Threatnings when he saith vers 11. And such as these were some of youâ— but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus so that in al threatnings we are ever to suppose that ther is at least this secret and reserved condition Except ye repent according to Gods declaration which is thus exprest 1 Joh. 1. 9. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins And hence is the rule of divines Omnes commâ—nationes dei sunt intelligendae sub conditione impaenitentiae i The threatnings of God are ever to be understood with the condition of impenitencie This is the judgment both of our modern divines Orig. in Num. 23. hom 6. also of the Ancients Origâ—n saith Ostenditur Deus quandoque dicere non facâ—reâ—ait ergo per Hieâ—miam loquar super gentem si convertetur gens illa 〈◊〉 c. i Because it appeareth that God saith he wil doe that which yet he doth not performe therfore he hath informed us by Jeremie what his meaning is when he saith â—f I speak against a nation if that nation be convered and repent I also wil repent and againe the same Father saith Deus cum possiâ—â—â—cens punire nunquam hoc facit Orig. in Hier. 1. hom 1. sed etiamsi condemnavâ—râ—tâ— dicit tamen quod sibi semper dicere proposiâ—um est ut liberentur a condemnatione per paenitentiam qui condemnati suerant per delictum ut in Ninivitis i God could punish without threatning but doth not and although he hath condemned yet he saith as indeed he ever purposeth that those against whom the sentence of condemnation is gone forth yet may be delivered by repentance St. Chrysostom hath the like observation upon those words Jona 3. 4. Chrys hom 5. Antioch Forty daies and Ninevy shall be destroyed This threatning did not fail saith he for God declareth Jer. 18 7. That when he speaketh against a Nation his meaning ever is that if that nation repent he also will repent of his indignation and yet the Truth of God is no way prejudiced although the judgment threatned be not so effected because it is alwaies meant conditionally yea it is ever more probable that because God so openly threatned secretly he did really not intend at all to execute that judgment which he so threatned and more yet That he therefore threatned because Chrys hom Antioch 53 he did not purpose it Chrysostom saith Deus Gehennam mmatus est quo Gehennam non inducat i God therefore threatneth hell that thereby he may not condemn Basil in Esa c. 13. Basil in Esa c. 5. to hell And Saint Basil saith Deus interminatur ut sic exoretur i God therefore threatneth that thereby he may provoke men to prayer that by it he may be pacified and again concerning the figtree Luc. 13. 6. he saith Exitat agricolam ut diligentius excolat est comminatio quae efficiat ut à peccato convertantur i. Soz. l. 7 c. 1â— the intent of the threatning was to incite the husbandman to take greater care of it so there is a threatning intended onely to provoke men to conversion It is observed by Sozomen of the most gentle and godly Emperour Theodosius that his Edicts penall did commonly threaten very severe and direfull punishment but that he did not execute them even as our most mercifull God when he seemeth most severe in his threatning yet he secretly reserveth an inlet of mercy to stay the execution if the offenders will repent and therefore the prudent Jewes would not condemn that man for a false prophet who had in the name of God threatned judgments although the judgments threatned were not so executed because they knew that the executing or suspending thereof depended on the penitencie or impenitencie of men Thus having in generall shewed that Gods threatnings are to be understood conditionally let us now examine this particular threatning against such as commit the sin against the holy Spirit of which it is said It shall not be forgiven CHAP. III. That the blasphemy against the holy Spirit is then onely unpardonable when it is accompanied with final impenitencie IT is worthy of our observation that Christ immediately Mat. 12. 31. before he denounced that the blasphemy of the spirit should not be forgiven he had said Mat. 12. 31. All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men Certainly if all sin be forgiven it must needs follow that the blasphemy of the Spirit shall be forgiven unto some and therefore it is not absolutely unpardonable All the difficulty will be to understand how all sins shall be pardoned and yet this sin shall not be pardoned Both sayings must needs be true because Truth hath spoken them Surely the meaning is That there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation Aslemb c. 15. page 27. upon those who truly repent All sins are pardonable to the penitent and therefore this blasphemy also is pardonable if it be repented but without repentance it shall never be forgiven in this world whilest men continue in this sin nor in the world to come if men dye in it But yet it must needs be confessed that there is a difference in the repentance which is required to the pardon of this grand sin and that repentance which is necessary to preceed the pardon of other inferior Vide infra Cap. sins for no actuall sin is to be thought pardonable without repentance in some measure of which difference I shall speak hereafter in its due place But for the present it is expedient to enquire whether this blasphemy be in any case pardonable I have shewed before what the Scripture saith of those that denied Christ as Peter did and those Jewes Acts 3. 14. although denying Christ seemeth to be that sin of which it is said Luke 12. 9. 10. it shall not be forgiven Therefore the next thing to be enquired is the judgment of the Church in the exposition of those words It shall never be forgiven Athanasius in his Ath. to 3. pag. 626. book de Communi essâ—ntia Patris Fâ—lii c. First laieth down this conclusion Nullum â—st peccatum irâ—â—â—â—ssibile apud Dâ—um in illis qui verè 〈…〉 â—gunt i No sin is unpardonable with God in them which truly repent and he maketh this observation on those words of Christ That he did not say that he who sâ— blasphemeth and repenteth but onely he that blasphemeth shall not be forgiven and that therefore the meaning is that he that so blasphemeth and continueth persevering impenitâ—ntly in
that sin shall never be forgiven for if this sin cannot at all be remitted by repentance in this life why was the Church so offended with Novatus for not admitting penitents to his Atha ib. pag. 624. Communion who in time of persecution for fear had denied Christ and yet if there be a possibility of remission after this life why is Origen so condemned for affirming that the punishment of the damned shall have an end Again he saith 〈◊〉 those who were ignorant of the Godhead of Jesus and so did not believe or confesse it shall not be pardoned what will become of his own Disciples Ausim dicere ne ipsos bâ—atos Discipulos Atha ibid pa. 265. perfectam sententiam de ejus Divinitate habiusse antequam Spiritus sanctus in die Penticostes eos visitasset i I dare bouldly affirm that the blessed Disciples of Christ had not a perfect opinion of their Lords Godhead untill the holy Spirit descended on them at the Feast of Penticost for we read Math. 28. 17. that after his resurrection some worshiped him but some doubted Heathens Turks Jewes and Arrians do unto this day blaspheme the whole Trinity and therefore do certainly blaspheme the Holy Spirit yet if any of these should be converted to the true faith and with a penitent confession and with teares should come to the Christian Church renouncing their blasphemies and desire admission thereinto and to be instructed and then baptized what Christian would be so hard-hearted as to deny them St. Austin goeth yet further Aug. in Exposit Epist ad Rom. n. 96. Si ex eo numero hominum quibus Dominus crimen peccati in Spiritum Sanctum objecit veniret ad ecclesiam ad fidem Christi paenitens salutem cum lacrimes posâ—ens quaero utrum quisquam tanto errore esset ut neget ad baptismum admitti aut frustra admissum esse contendat i If any one of those very Pharisees unto whom particularly Cbrist objected this sin against the Holy Ghost had been converted to the Christian faith and with repentance and tears had desired that saving doctrine I demand whether any one would be so ignorantly nice as to deny him leave to be baptized or to affirm that if he were baptized it would not profit him Certainly if Julian or Arrius who by divines are said to have sinned this sin had so offered themselves to the primitive Church in their times they had not been refused for we know that Novatus and his sect were therefore condemned by the Orthodox because they refused to admit such as had denied Christ as is said before The conclusion and resolution of this question by Aug. Epist 50. n. 31. St. Austin is this that this sin is unpardonable only in this case viz. If such a sinner continue in duritia cordis usque ad finem vitae hujus and again Aug. Enchirid cap. 83. n. 58. Si in hac obstinatione mentis diem extremum clandit i If such a blasphemer continue and persevere in this hardnesse of heart and obstinacy all his life time and in it depart this life then will there be no hope of forgivnesse And for this reason onely this grand sin Vid. infra may be called in the Apostles words 1. John 5. 16. A sin unto death Not because it doth alwaies necessarily bring to that sinner eternall death but because it Aug. Epist 50. â— 31. will do so if that sinner live and die in this sin obstinately and impenitently of which saying I shall more largly speak here after in its due place of this sin when it doth necessarily bring the sinner to eternal damnation the same Saint Austin saith very truly as I conceive Non probatur ab aliquo commissum nisi cum de corpore exierit i none can be properly said to have committed the sin unto death untill the sinner be actually dead because if he repent before his death then the sin canot be said to be unto death Finallie neither this sin or any other Apostasie except it be final is so absolutely unpardonable but that forgivenes may be obtained through Christ if the sinner seeke pardon with true repentance But whether any repentance may be had by such who have once fallen into this grand sin is the next thing to be enquired CHAP. IV. An exposition of Hebr. 6. 4. that the word Inlightned signifieth baptisme Anabaptisme is inhibited as both unprofitable and also sinful BEcause no sin how great soever can be said to be absolutely unpardonable if the sinner wil truly repent him of it and that there is no case or condition in this life wherin sinfull man should despair and cast of all hope of pardon therefore divers * Calvin l. 3. 3. 24. Instit Polan p. 339. Buc. p. 155. divines tell us that the reason why it is said of this sin that it shall never be forgiven is because when it is once committed it is ever after accompanied with final impenitentie and that by the just judgment of God such apostates are punished with final and Eternal blindnes and that they cannot possiblie repent and for this doctrine they alleage the saying of S. Paul Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible for those who were once enlightned if they fall away to renue them to repentance Whether this be the true meaning of those words or not it will better appeare if we diligentlie by way of exposition examine them together with the context both before after Which I will not presume to undertake or performe by mine owne single judgment but will call in the assistance of former expositions by the auncient Fathers upon that place where we read as followeth For it is impossible for those who were once enlightned and have tasted of the heavenly gift c. If they fall away to Renue them againe to repentance The Apostle having in the former verses told those Hebrâ—ws that they should not expect that he would new lay the foundations of Christian religion which had bin done to them before wherof one was 〈◊〉 and its Doctrine for if they must be alwaies nâ—w rounded in Christian religion as oft as they fall into â—in then should they be as often baptized that if they fell a second and third time they should as often be baptized and therby reâ—â—ored to their former estate by so many several baptismes This is the eâ—position of Theophilact Si iterum eâ—â— in primordiis religionis instiâ—ueret Theoph. in locum ruâ—sus baptizaret poâ—iquâ—m denuò â—apsi essent baptizaret aâ—que â—teâ—um per â—ujusmodiâ— iterationem essent multi baptismi verum hoâ—â—bsurdum non oportet iterari baptismum i If the Apostle must new lay the foundations of religion in his disciples as oft as they fall into sin then must he new baptize them and if they fall againe he must baptize them againe and againe but â—f so then there would be many Baptismes which were absurd for Baptisme may
not be iterated He mentioneth Baptismes in the plural not as if there were more baptismes then one to be applied to one Person but because of the multitudes of â—ersons Baptized There is but One â—aptism Eph. 4. 5. But that one given to many is called Baptismes yet but One because it may not be administred to one Person more then once and this the Apostle teacheth in these words It is impossible for those who were once enlightned if they fall to Renue them againe by Baptisme unto repentance For it is impossible this Word for sheweth that these following words are a reason rendred of the former words and particularlie of Baptismes as if he should say I will not againe lay the foundation of Baptisme in them that were baptized before because a Second baptisme is both impossible and unprofitable for as a man can not be twice borne naturally so can he not be twice regenerate or new borne And if a Man should be rebaptized it would doe him no good nay it would be an aggravation of his sin because it is a Contempt of the cross and death of Christ as will appear anon Impossible He doth not say only It is unprofitable or unseemly and unexpedient but Impossible Ne sperent se denuò posse Baptisma consequi Theoph. in loc i. That men might not imagine that they mâ—ght be acquitted of their sins by a new Baptisme For those who where once inlightned The Principal thing as I conceive which hath made this Scripture seem so obscure of late which the auncient expositors did most cleerly expound â—s the ambiguitie of this word Inlightned which certainly doth signifie in this place Baptized and so S. Ambrose Theodoreâ— and Theophilact do all unanimâ—uslie expound it And so did also even the Novatians who yet from a true exposition of that word did suck this poison That such as lapsed into notorious sin after baptism could not be admitted into the Church any more by repentance The Syriaâ—â— translation also reads for Inlightned Baptized as is acknowledged by Beza non inâ—pte i. as he thinketh noâ— unfiâ—ly and nothing was more ordinarie in the primitive Church then to call Baptisme Illumination and the Baptized Illuminatos Which appellation was no doubt taken from the words here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and againe Heb. 10. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the ancient Christians by this word Inlightned understood Baptized wich will evidently appear by what followeth Inlightned once Inlightned signifies Once Baptized amongst the Apostolical Constitutions in Clemens this is one In Illuminatione seminaâ—um Dâ—aconissa absâ—ergiâ— Clem. Rom l. 3 Const cap. 15. â—as ne mulieres aspiciantur a viris i In the Illum nation of women other women ministred because it was not comely for men to behold their nakednes here Illumination must needs signifie Baptisme for in those times and long after both men and women were Baptized naked as also it may seeme to be intimated by the Scripture Phrases of putting of the old man and putting on the new man which was represented by putting of their old apparrel and by putting on the white Baptismal garment which is so frequently mentioned in the Farhers and that people were baptized naked doth appeare in Dionisius Cyprian Cyril Hierosol Ambrose Dion Areo. n4 Cyp. 91. Cyr. 21. Aug. Epist 118. c. 5. Arnb. n. 49. Cuspinian in vita ejus Just Apol. 2. n. 13. Chrys n. 40. Cyril Catech. Chrys hom 60. Antio Epiph. n. 33. Naz Orat. 39. Naz. Orat. 39. and 40. and Austin And particularlie by the Historie of the Emperor Constantine the fift who for a certaine miscariage in his baptisme was Nicknamed Copronimus this by the way In Justin Martir baptisme is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Illumination and the baptismal Font is both by him and Chrysostome called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i an Illuminatorie for as we call it the Font because of the water in it the ancients would as readily have called it the Phont because of the Sacramental Illumination So both S. Cyril and S. Chrysostome call the Catechising of those who were already Baptized Catechesis Illuminatorum i The Catechesis of the Baptised and doe expressly expound those words Heb. 6. and. Heb. 10. to signifie the Baptized just so doth Epiphanius call the Font. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Gre. Nazian the festival of Christs Baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i The day of Illumination and he useth both words promiscuously Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i and Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Christ was illuminated Iesus was Baptized and that feast he calleth both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Illumination and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i The feast of Baptism Neither was this appellation used because of lights set up in the church at the time of Baptisme when it was performed in the night as in the Wakes or vigils of Easter which was the custome in S. Chrysostoms time But the Chrys n. 63. Baptized were called Illuminates who had bin Baptized in the day time and the fonts were called Illuminatories at other times when no Baptism was administred as S. Chrysostome tels That in an uprore in the Church such Chrys Serm post râ—ditum n 40. great store of blood shead was made that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or Font was fillâ—d with blood for then the Fonts were litle wels or cistems whose tops were no higher then the Church pavâ—ment To this I ad that the ordinarie gloss upon those words saith Ne quis existimet Lyra. in loc secundum vel tertium Baptisma post peccata posse fieri i the Apostle used those words least any Man should imagine that a second or third Baptisme might be used to release us of sins so doth Dionysius Cart expound them of Baptismal grace and our vulgar Concordance in the title of Illuminati adds Per Baptismum Why Baptism is called Illumination the words following declare viz. because with the Outward Sacrament of water the inward grace of the Spirit is as by a conduit convayed wherby Original and actual sins past are remitted and the strength of sin is abated by the same Spirit of regeneration and a new life kindled and the peacable and sweet tranquilitie of Christs Kingdome by the comfortable promises of the Gospel is tasted which is an heaven upon earth for Grace is the Inchoation of glorie All these things are expressed by these words following Tasted the heavenly gift made partakers of the holie Ghost tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the world to come For a man that is indued with the regenerating and illuminating Spirit of God may very well be said to be enlightned when as our meer natural soule and understanding is called a light of which and the common and ordinarie concurrence of Gods Spirit it is said Joh. 1. 9. It Inlightneth every Man that â—ommeth into
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
the very least sin is liable to eternall death except it be confessed and in this life in some measure repented But I proceed CHAP. XVII Whas is meant by a sin unto death the judgment of the Fathers and the Ancient expositdrs therein and the discipline of the primitive Church therunto correspondent that the greatest sins both have bin actuallie and so may be pardoned in what sence the Fathers called some sins venial and some Mortal THere is a sinne unto death I do not say he shall pray for it If any words in the whole sacred Scripture will bear this exposition and make good this Doctrine That there is any sinne at all which once committed cannot possibly upon any terms or condition whatsoever be remitted not upon confession or repentance and forsaking and renouncing it and after it adhering to Gods Truth and his Precepts and that even to death and martyrdome nor upon all these together This saying is most likely to bear it A sinne unto death and not to be prayed for which words require a very diligent Explication being of so great weight and concernment Lord Jesus send thy Light and thy Truth A sinne unto death This sin unto death I conceive not to be intended of any particular sin whether it be absolute Atheisme or the blasphemy of Arâ—us denying the Godhead of Christ or of Eunâ—mius denying the Holy Ghost or totall Apostacie from Christianity or Adultery Idolatry witchcraft murther sedition or any of these grand sins mentioned Gal. 5. 19. such as the Fathers do usually â—in som sence call sins Mortall Mortiferous and Capitall My reason is because it may be made apparant by Scriptures and the Records of the Church that particular men who have sinned these sins severally have bin by Gods mercy and his castigations reduced to renounce their errours and to forsake their sins For many of those sins were seen in King Manasses 2 Chron 33. Who yet was converted and humbled himself greatly and God was intreated and we know that many Heathens Atheists Apostates and â—rrians have Paulinus in vita Ambrosii n. 3. Athan. to 2 page 448. n. 17. bin reduced to Confession of their sins and to repentance of their Arrianismâ— and those who have not bin actually reduced yet during their naturall lives were in a condition reducible if grace sufficient and prevalent had bin given so that their conversion was not absolutely impossible Beza finding fault with distinction of sinnes into Beza in loâ— veâ—iall and mortall as the Schoolmen sometimes use it for which he had good reason affirmeth that it is absurd to say that mortall sins are utterly left without all hope of pardon and yet he thinketh the sinnâ— unto death here meâ—tioned to be that sinne against the holy Ghost and that it is lethiferous and that the commitrers thereof cannot possibly repent which I dare not assent unto but yet he most truly affirmeth that if those who have once committed that sinne against the Holy Ghost would and could repent Certè veniam consequerentur i. certainly they would and might obtain pardon Thus he Vnto death The old Exposition of the Fathers and ancient Expositors surely is the truest and plainest and being received will quit us of many unnecessary doubts and anxiâ—tics and is most agreeable with the Analogie of Faith particularly with the Article of forgivâ—nâ—sse of sinnes and coâ—respondeth best with the justice and mercifulnesse of God for thus they write A sinne unto death is any grand or capitall sinne such as is before mentioned out of Gal. 5. 19. in which a man liveth continueth and dieth impenitently And that it is therefore onely so called a sinne unto death because it is obdurately and impenitently continued and persevered in unto the end of our life and expiration of our souls So Oâ—cumâ—nius saith Solum hoc peccatum ad mortem Oâ—â—um in loc est quod ad paeâ—tentiam non respicit id est Onely that sinne is a sinne unto death which never is repented Beda â—n loc And Beda saith Peccaâ—um ad morâ—em peccatum usque ad tempora mortis protractum diximus râ—cte posse intelligi est de tali magno peccato quale David commisit si proâ—ractum sit usque ad mortem id est A sinne unto death may truely be understood of a sinne continued in untill the time of our death such a great sinne as David committed if we persevere in it till death So doth Saint Hierome understand it Peccâ—tum ad Hier. in Evag. objurg n. 41. moâ—tem est cum tempus râ—â—â—ssionis in vitio inueniâ— id est A sinne unto death is when death cometh and findeth us continuing in sin So doth Saint Austine expound this very Text Peccatum Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. ad morâ—â—m est si in hac perversitate finierit â—anc uiâ—â—m id est The sinne unto death is when a man continueth in sinne obstinately and therein endeth his life and in another place he just so expounds the sin against the holy Ghost which shall never be forgiven Non absurde intelligunt â—um peccare in Spiritum â—sse sine Aug. de fide oper c. 16. n. 79. venia reum aeterni peccati qui usque ad finem vitae â— oluerit credere in Christum id est It is no inconvenience â—o understand it thus that he sinneth against the Holy Spirit and shall not be forgiven for ever who will not at all believe in Christ as long as he liveth Just so Lyra and both glossâ—s expound it Ad mortalem i. usque ad morâ—em vitae quod in hac vitâ— non corrigitur est finalâ—s impaenitentia si quis perseveret in eo usque ad finem vitae inclusivè i. unto death signifies to the end of our life natural that sin which is not amended in this life it is finall impenitencie when a man persevereth in sin unto the end of his life inclusively not repenting at the time of his departure but dieth impenitent By all which it appeareth that in the judgement of these Expositors the sin unto death is some of those grand sins in which a man liveth and dieth impenitently and that it is not called the sin unto death in respect of the sin it self but for the sinneâ—s continuance therein unto his death for the same sin which in one man is a sin unto death and shall never be forgiven in another man proves a sin not unto death but is repented of and so is pardoned that this is the judgment of St. Austin I have divers times shewed before and especially in that place alleaged by me before pag. 201. cap. 14. whâ—reafter after a long discourse concerning the sin called the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit he concludeth That no sin against Vide supra â— 14. the Holy Ghost is unpardonable but only in case a man doth obstinately persevere in it without any hope or desire of pardon or care of
not see sin in such pretty black Saints Now albeit in the prayers of our Saviour and the Protomartyr S. Stephen the words run Forgive them Father Luc. 23. 34. Act. 7. 60. and Lord â—ay not this sin to their Charg without any explicit and overt mention of their Conversion and repentance yet we are not so to understand them that those grand sins should absolutly be pardoned without any conversion or repentance but that the prayers for forgivenes must presuppose and implie an inclusive prayer for the meanes leading to forgiveness which are faith conversion repentance and amendment as if our Saviour had said Father Open their eyes that they may know and confess me and adhere to me and repent and so that their sin may be forgiven and never laid to their charg So S. Chrysostome understandeth Chry n. 48. Fulg. n. 14. the words of Christ for saith he upon these words hinc tria quinque millia conversa and so Fulgentius noteth upon S. Stephens prayer Paulus converticur per orationem Stephani i. That these prayers did implie the conversion of these sinners for by vertue of them 3. and 5. thowsands yea and S. Paule was converted and this is cleerly expressed in S. Peters sermon Act. 3. 17. 19. as an exposition of our Saviours words And now brethren I wot that through ignorance ye did it repent ye therfore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out to signifie that the blotting out of sins ever presupposeth repentance Finally wheras some object that we may nor pray for the Conversion of the malicious enemies of the Church because they say S. Paule did not pray for Alexander the Copper smith mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. but said The Lord reward him according to his work To this we say First It doth non appear that S. Paul did not at all pray for his conversion Secondly S. Paul did not hereby forbid prayer for him Thirdly That as those words are no prayer for his conversion so neither are they accounted by the best expositors any imprecation but an Apostolical commination and a leaving of him to the judgment of Theoph. in Loc. Theod. in Loc. Anselm in Loc. God Theophilact expounds it thus Reddat pro reddet verbum pronunciantis est non imprecantis and so saith Theodoret and Anselm i. He saith the Lord reward him for the Lord shall or will reward him it is not the wish but the forewarning of the Apostle and therfore S. Ierome to express rather the meaning then the letter of those words for reddat reades Reddet ei Deus i. God will reward him which is no more then is said of other sinners Heb. 13. 4. Whâ—remongeâ—s and adulterers God will judg CHAP. XXI A recapitulation of the former Expositions of the foure places That finall Impenitencie cannot properly be called the grand sinne The difference of Repentance required to the grand sinne and to other inferiour and unknown sinnes The danger of misunderstanding the solifidian doctrine Of the misbeliefe of the Incarnation of Christ censured with Charitie The Conclusion IT is now high time to ease the Reader and to release him from my tediousnesse and to draw to a conclusion by summing up what hath been delivered concerning this grand sinne against the Holy Ghost in the Expositions of all those difficult places of Scripture the breviate whereof I do here represent in a few conclusions First To that saying Matthew 12. 31. It shall not be 1. forgiven The meaning is that it shal not be forgiven to that man who liveth and dieth in that blasphemie impenitently Secondly to that saying Heb. 6. 4 6. It is impossible 2. to Repentance The meaning is that they cannot be restored to newnesse of life and remission of sinnes after Baptisme by any new or second Baptisme but yet Repentance is not impossible as a second remedy to them that have fallen after Baptisme neither is it during life absolutely denied Thirdly To that saying Heb. 10. 26. If we sinne wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the 3. truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinne The meaning is he that wilfully rejecteth Christs onely and all-sufficient sacrifice for sinne by accounting his blood Commoâ— that is by esteeming it to be but the blood of a meer man a meer creature and therefore to be no better nor of more worth then the blood of another man and in this blasphemous conceit and infidelitie liveth and dieth that man must look for nothing but judgement of condemnation and fiery indignation because there is none other sacrifice for sinne possibly to be found but Christ crucified who then was and is and ever will be Emmanuel Fourthly to that saying 1 John 5. 16. There is a sinne 4. unto death I do not say that he shall pray for it The meaning is that whosoever shall commit the grand sinne and in that sinne shall persist continue and persevere obdurately stubbornly and impenitently his whole life time and die therein without repentance and without speciall revocation recantation or retraction therof that man must needs perish everlastingly All prayers for that man so living dying will be unprofitable for his souls health For though whilest he liveth we may pray for his conversion and perhaps beheard for ought we know yet to pray for his pardon and salvation immediately without praying for and desiring his conversion as being necessary in order to his pardon and salvation is a foul abuse of Gods Truth and righteousness Fifthly That if all these Expositions prove true and 5. be so found and approved by the Christian Reader then my former conclusion will necessarily follow that neither this sinne which is called the sinne against the holy Spirit nor any other sinne how great soever is absolutely unpardonable but upon speciall and particular repentance thereof the sinner may finde mercy and forgivenesse From this doctrine of the necessity of repentance to go before forgivnesse some divines suspect that the grand and onely unpardonable sin is final impenitence because it is true that this grand in is pardonable if it be timely repented and as true that when it is accompanied with final impenitence it shall never be forgiven and indeed such a conceit did fall from the pen of Saint Hierom Impenitentiae crimen solum est quod Hier. Epist 4. 8. n. 9. veniam consequi nou potest i. impenitence is the only fault which cannot obtain pardon To this conceit the answer is that impenitencie cannot be called properly the sin unpardonable because of it self it is not alwaies to be called a sin for impenitency is blamlesse where no sin is the holy and unspotted quire of heavenly Angels as they are impeccant so are they not penitent and yet offend not thereby But impenitency in grand and capital offenders is a weighty and an aggravating circumstance then when it is the perpetual concomitant of sin and a consequent finally it makes the
13. 13. and 1 Corinthians 14. 47. The second man is the Lord from Heaven Thus did some of the old Hereticks believe as the l Basil n. 37. Valentinians and m Naz. n. 34. Apollinarius n Aug. to 6. n. 9 the Manichees and o Epiph haer Apelles said that Christ made himselfe a body of the Elements and did not take it from Marie And this they professed in a pretended honour 44. of Christ p Aug. to 6. n. 10. Iusipienti honorificentia as Saint Augustine calleth it id est foolishly thinking thereby to honour Christ and this was also one of the Tenents of the late Anabaptists as we finde in the sixteenth Centurie Now to affirme these things is to gainsay the Doctrine and promise of Redemption by the seed of the woman and the promised seed of Abraham and the sonne of David for Christ is not from their loyns if his body came from Heaven and although a simple well meaning soul should live and die in this errour who hath alwayes adhered to the main principall Doctrine viz. God in Christ and God incaruate believing Vide supra lib. 3. cap. 10. 11. that Christ performed the Law actively for him and also suffered death on the Crosse for him in a body howbeit not in such a body as descended from Adam shall we affirm that such a misbeliever must necessarily perish I answer that I dare not so pronounce because this sinfull and erroneous conceit of the incarnation is at most but one of these sinnes which our Saviour called A word spoken against the Sonne of Man Matthew 12. 32. For it is onely against this humane nature and no blasphemy against his Holy and Divine Spirit or Godhead and of such sinnes he saith It shall be forgiven him viz. If such a sinner with an humble heart make an acknowledgement and general confession of his secret and unknown sinnes wherein this will be included so as is before said with a resolution to decline any thing that he knowes to be sinfull so much as by assistance of Gods Grace he can still holding himself close to the main foundation which the forenamed old Hereticks did not but vented many blasphemies against the Divine Nature and also polluted themselves with many fowle Morall vices I say when Jesus Christ hath said It shall be forgiven how dare any Man presume to say It shall never be forgiven For although the Erroneous conceits of Christs Body comming down from Heaven doe disturb the Order of Gods dispensation and the congruitie of the work of Redemption and correspondence thereof with the words of the Covenant yet it doth not take away and root up the foundation This doth not un-God our Redeemer nor deny utterly the gracious work of Mans Redemption So as this most blasphemous Commentarie hath none which I now together with my weak endeavours in opening the dangerous Doctrines thereof leave and submit to the censure of the learned and to the namelesse Anthor thereof I say of both our Writings as Saint Cyprian did Cyp. lib. 4. Epist 9. to Paptanus In die judicii ante Tribunal Christi utrumque recitabitur To God the Father God the Son God the Holy Ghost three Persons one onely God be ascribed all honour and glory for ever and ever Amen Qualitèr haeretici pro falsae opinione in die judicii puniendi sunt nullus potest scire nisi Judex patiens est Deus quia affectis piae opinionis errant Salvian degub l. 5. p. 163. FINIS THE TABLE Of the Contents of each several CHAPTER THE FIRST BOOK Containing General Animadversions upon the Commentarie and Commenter and the assertion of the Souls Immortalitie Chapter I. CErinthus Artemon Theodotus and Page 1. Natalis Authors and spreaders of the blasphemie of the denying Christ's Godhead The Divine warning of Natalis That after these Paulus Samosatenus and Arius were maintainers of the same Heresie The spreading of it in severall parts of the known world even in our Britain That it was here discovered in Queen Maries dayes And punished by fire in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and of King James That the same is now revived by this Commenter the qualitie of G. M. who negotiated in the Printing and publishing this Commentary Chapter II. That the Commenter though he carefully concealed Page 4 his own name yet caused this his Book to be presented to divers persons of quality That this Commenter is the first that ever published this Heresie in our English Print Three reasons conceived why he concealeth his own name Chapter III. Of the licensing of this Comment the Licensers Page 7 censure of it and an Apologie for him in that he called this Commentarie a Comment and in his letter to an honourable Person declared it to be erroneous The copy of the Letter a parallel passage of Libanius concerning Julian and the Manichees concerning their Founder Manes the ancient practice of burning such hereticall books Chapter IV. The Commenters compliance in unsainting the Page 10 Apostles The reason why the Title of Saint was of old withdrawn from Churches by the decree of a Council That the abuse of images occasioned it and yet that the Title of Saint was not denied to the persons of Holy men Of his condemning Tombes Something concerning Hypocrisie in long hair and short Of the reason of the Nazarites long hair and the hypocrisie of their imitators Chapter V. The Commenters compliance with the old Arians Page 15 The judgement of the Ancients concerning the Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrewes A Vindication of Eusebius concerning the words Homo ousion and Homoi ousion and also of the Nicene Fathers falsly charged by the Commenter as if they favoured his own Heresie How the Father and the Sonne are said to be Opposite and yet both are but one God The Commenters Errour in the Logicall Doctrine of Relatives Chapter VI. That this Commenters principall designe was by Page 16 his pretended Commentarie to darken and extenuate or confute the clear Evidences of this Divine Epistle onely because therein are many great Testimonies of Christ's Godhead That herein he imitateth the practices of the old Hereticks Marcion Valentinus and the Manichees The Commenters misexpounding Hebrewes 1. 6. in allowing Divine Adoration to Christ and yet will not acknowledge him to be more then a creature and in applying the appellation Jehova to one whom he denieth to be the Supream God contrarie to Psalme 83. 18. what prostration signifieth Chapter VII That this Commenter mis-expoundeth Hebrewes Page 21 2. 2 3. That the Gospel is therefore preferred before the Law in that the Gospel was delivered by God himself immediately for it was delivered by Christ himself who is the Supream and onely God whereas the Law was delivered indeed by the same God but mediately by the Ministery of Angels or Creatures A true Exposition of Acts 7. 53. and of Gal. 3. 19. and Exodus 20. 21. Moses and Paul reconciled That
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
Baptisme That the principal scope of that place is against the presumption of Anabaptisme or a second Baptisme Chapter V. That the word Renue is to be understood onely of Page 16 renovation by a new Baptisme That sinners after Baptisme may have the remedy of repentance but not by a new Baptisme The distinction of renuing 1 Baptismall 2 Morall or penitentiall Four Propositons by which the meaning of these words is collected In what sense sinnes originall or actuall are said to be taken away in Baptisme Chapter VI. How a second Baptisme is said to be a new crucifying Page 19 of Christ That it is ignominious to the All-sufficient sacrifice of Christ That a second Baptisme doth no good but much harm it aggravates sins even as rain maketh weeds to grow that these words do not prove an impossibilitie of repentance but onely an impossiblitie of renewing by a new Baptisme Chapter VII A review of those words Heb. 6. 4. and some Page 25 doubts cleared That none were anciently called illuminate but onely the Baptized That Catechising was not then called illumination What moved the Apostle to handle the Doctrine of Baptisme and so strictly to forbid Anabaptisme in the Epistle to the Hebrews rather then in other Epistles Chapter VIII The distinction of Baptismes into true and false Page 30 The formes of Pseudobaptismes among Hereticks That after their dipping a true Baptisme may be administred and yet cannot be accounted Anabaptisme The Novatian Baptisme was a true Baptisme Saint Cyprian is in part excused Chapter IX That the Disciples of Ephesus Acts 19. who Page 34 said they had been baptized to Johns Baptisme were notwithstanding then Baptized by Saint Pauls appointment yet that this example doth not warrant Anabaptisme because Johns Baptisme was then out of date and Null Johns too late Baptisme compared with the now Jewish Circumcision and both found unlawfull Chapter X. Of true Christian Baptisme that it may not Page 38 be twice ministred No Heretick maintained two Baptismes but onely Marcion What Marcion was the reason why he multiplied Baptisme The reasons why Novatians Donatists and the late Anabaptists rebaptized answers to their reasons Of baptizing Infants of Saint Cyprians error and Athanasius his ludicrous Baptisme Chapter XI That the ancient Church allowed but one Baptisme Page 46 is shewed by the then frequent deferring it till ripe years or old age That their delaying was mostly for carnall respects The danger of delaying Baptisme The Story of a Jew Anabaptist An example upon an Arian Pseudobaptisme The summarie meaning of that Scripture and the Exposition concluded Chapter XII A full Exposition of Heb. 10. 26. The particular Page 52 sinne against the Holy Spirit is shewed to be the blasphemous denying Christ to be God What is meant by accounting his blood common or unholy The unsufficiencie of legall sacrifices and the sufficiencie of Christs sacrifice Chapter XIII Of severall degrees of this sin of denying and rejecting Page 57 Christ and salvation by him First some deny him outwardly onely by compulsion and terror of torments Secondly Others wilfully uncompelled Thirdly Others both willfully and also after-knowledge as Arius Julian and this Commenter The concurrence of Theophilact and Saint Anselm in the sence of this place Chapter XIV That the remedy of repentance is not absolutely Page 61 taken away from them who have sinned the grand sin of denying and renouncing Christ That such possibly may repent That this sin is then onely unpardonable when it is accompanied with small impenitencie The Conclusion of this Exposition Chapter XV. Whether such blasphemers if they repent may Page 64 possibly find mercy The difference of repentance Legall and Evangelicall The repentance of Judas The difference of Repentance and Rescipiscence The Conclusion that true repentance is never totally rejected Objections out of the Old Testament answered Why temporall pressures are not alwayes removed upon true repentance Chapter XVI A full and large Exposition of 1 John 5. 16. Page 70 That the Fathers called some sins Veniall and some Mortall albeit every sinne in its own nature and merit is mortall or deadly What is meant by a sinne unto death and a sinne not unto death That sins are not equall Chapter XVII The judgement of the Fathers and ancient Expositors Page 74 concerning sinne unto death The Discipline of the Primitive Church correspondent to their judgement That the greatest sinnes may be and actually have been pardoned The true sence of the Fathers in calling some sinnes veniall and some mortall Chapter XVIII The meaning of those words I do not say he shall pray for it That the praying or not Page 79 praying mentioned is to be understood of the living and not of the dead The practice of the Church in praying for penitents The manner of Ecclesiasticall or outward pennance shewed in the pennance of the Lady Fabiola In what case God forbad praying for sinners in the Old Testament Chapter XIX That no condition of any grand sinner is so desperate Pag 83 during life but that he may be prayed for in this sence that he may have the grace of conversion Certain Propositions of Divines concerning the matter now in hand are examined The practice of the Synagogue and Church in praying for all Mankind the concurrence of the Church of England therein praying even for Heathens Idolaters Persecutors and Hereticks Chapter XX. The meaning of those words I do not say he Page 89 shall pray for it set down positively and conclusively The difference between praying for the Person and praying for the sin The different prayers for a sinner penitent and a sinner not yet penitent The practice of this Church in praying for persecutors and yet against them The prayers of Christ and Saint Stephen explained The case of Alexander the Copper-smith Chapter XXI A Recapitulation of the former Expositions of Page 94 those foure places That finall impenitency cannot be called the Grand sinne The difference of repentance required for the inferiour and unknown sins Of the Solifidian doctrine The particular sin of misbelieving the Incarnation of God censured with Charitie The conclusion of this fourth Book FINIS Errors of the Press In the Title page line 12 for 1647 read 1646. In the advertisement to the reader p. 3. l. the last to Joh. Hen. Bistersâ—ldius add and published An. 1639. In the preface p. 12. l. 29 r. only In the 1. Book p. 18 l. 10 r your word is p. 28. l. 7. r. mortuos p. 29 l. 18 r. one Lord p. 30 l. 38 r. Nicetas p. 33 l. 41 r. a dead p. 34 l. 32 r. Sentence p. 47 l. 19 soul r. joul p. 51 l. 29 pro r. per in the margin In the 2 Book p. 3 l. 8 fur r for p. 6 l. 27 Lucan r. Bucan p 8 l. 33 Ehat r. That p. 12 l. 16 aith r. saith l. 18 sod r. Son l 23 conjicietur r. conjicietur p. 17 l. 19 r. how can p 18 l. 37 Olympus r.
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