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
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
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
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
Devil though Arius himself have put an honest man's name to his own detestable writings Just as hereticks in old time put the name of n Evâ—g l. 3. c. 31. Athanasius to the heresies of Apoll na rius Well! if you will not be known I say but as one in o Sen. cont lib. 1. cont 2. Seneca said of a lewd person Discede ignoâ—us â—sâ— discede notus es nâ—mis i. You are of no â—â—te and yet too notoribus CHAP. III. Touching the Preface Licencing and approbation of this Commentary IN your Preface directed to the Christian Reader it should rather be to your dear brethren the Turks for it savoureth more of that then of Christianity as will be shewed hereafter you tell us that one reason which moved you to print this book is Because it hath received a singular approbation from a most learned and reverend Divine the Divine here meant is Mr. John Downam who licenced this book who as I have heard from a right worthy reverend and honourable person is indeed a right honest grave and learned man now one of the singular approbations which Mr. Downam gives of your book is that he calls it a Comment on the Hebrewes whereas you stile it a Commentary now the word Comment or Commentum being equivocal doth most usually signifie a figment an untruth or fiction and the old Logick rule is Analogum per se positum flat pro significato famosiori therefore this learned man well knowing the falsities in your Commentary as will be proved anon did justly change the word and call'd it a Comment Or if it fell from him unawares then there was a providence in it for truth hath so fallen from many unwittingly as St. Austine confesseth of himself a Aug. Conf. l. 9. c. 4. that the Spirit of truth worketh both by men that perceive it and by them that perceive it not Just so doth Socrates observe in the Writings of Libanius the Sophist who was a great admiâ—â—r of Julian the Apostate this 〈◊〉 a most Learned man intending to praise Julian said of him b Socr. l. 3. c. 19. O daemonum discipule daemonum assessor c O disciple of Demons and Companion of Demons Mirum est eum non vitasse verbum ambiguum i. â—marvâ—l saith Socrates that Libanius would not avoid such an ambiguous word which doth more usually signifie Devils then good Angels In like manner the Manichees to avoid the reproach of the name Manes their sounder which in the Greek tongue signified Madnesse of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would needs have him call'd Manichaeus to signifie one that poured out Manna of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but yet they had neglected to double the N so the name Manichaeus still signified but c Aug. Cont. Faust l. 19. c. 22. Insani-fusorem i. a venter of madnesse as St. Austin hath observed So this learned Divine might shew you a cast of his learning and call your book a Comment and knowingly too I say knowingly and I have good reason for it because I am assured that Mr. Downam did find fault with many passages in your Comment as unsound and erroneous and favouring of Socinâ—anisme and gave advertisement thereof to you the namelesse authour as may appear by Mr. Downam's Letter which for the vindication of his integrity I have here inserted verbatim as it was written to a most Learned and Reverend Person the true Copy whereof your self have seen long ago Mr. Downam's Letter concerning this Commentary on the Hebrews RIght Reverend and my much honoured Lord I humbly and heartily thank you for your kind advertisement and good counsel for untill I read your Lordships Letter I knew nothing of the Printing or publishing of this Comment on the Hebrews which makes me not a little to wonder and somewhat to suspect ill dealing in that I should be made by them that have to deal in it so great a stranger to it seeing I Licenced it and live in the Town near unto them But that you may more fully understand the whole carriage of the businesse thus it was The Copy was brought unto me by a Book-seller from an unknown Author and I was desired to peruse it that if I approved of it it might be Licenced unto which I condescended and in reading I liked much of it as being Learned and well couched together with good dependence but withall misliked many passages as very unsound and savouring strongly of Arminianisme and Socinianisme yet having to deal with a Scholar I desired to be ingenuous and did not as I might have done blot out those erroneous lines and leaves but by means of a Gentleman who did mediate and act the businesse between us I wrote a Letter and by his means sent it to the unknown Author wherein I expressed the severall Points which I thought erroneous and whereâ—n I differed from him together with my Reasons which induced me so to judge and after some time I received his answer full of ingenuity yet not subscribed with any name wherein he neither defended nor excused those Points and passages against which I had taken exceptions but was contented that I should take mine own liberty in expunging what I misliked and having this power put into my hands by the Author himself I did accordingly use it and crossed many passages and divers whole folio-pages although I confesse I passed over divers things which I misliked leaving him to â—he liberty of his own judgment in points which I thought not fundamentally erroneous nor much material unlesse pressed by way of consequence Now if the Author or the Gentleman his Agent have annexed a Stet overagaâ—nst my oblâ—terations and the places by me expunged and yet notwithstanding have published the whole with my attestation I must professe that they have dealt ill with me and will do my best to repair my own right and reputation which that I may the better do I will send for the book that I may revize it and so proceed as I shall see occasion And thus have I truly given your Lordship an account of the whole carriage of this busines the which may be further cleared and enlarged if any fitting occasion shall be offered hereafter In the mean while and ever I shall remain Your Lordships in all Christian service to be commanded John Downam May the first 1646. This is all the singular approbation which Mr. Downame gave but what Christian Magistrates and the Church used to do with books which set forth such doctrines as you have done the Ecclesiasticall Histories tell us d Soz. l. 1. c. 20. Soc. l. 1. c. 5. Constantine the Great commanded the books of Arius to be burnt and threatned death to any one that should keep and conceal them Yet Arius set forth but the same doctrine that you do Just so were the books of the Manichees used at Rome in the time of Pope Leo the first about the year of our Lord 447. e Prosp
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
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
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
the Church as it was long before the time of Nestorius recorded by Gregorie of Neo-Cesaria qui Greg. Thaum de 12. cap. fidei n. 2. dicit Christum esse perfâ—ctuâ— hominâ—m divise Deâ—m divise non unum Domiâ—uâ— ei aâ—aâ—hâ—ma i. Cursed is he that calleth Christ a perfect man separately and that calleth him God separately so denying him to be one Lord God For this erroneous doctrine is destructive to the work of redâ—mption if the Person who died for us was not in his very death very God so that he by reason of that Personall union before mentioned might truely be called Dâ—us crucifixus God crucified and therefore our Commenter is also in this errour who will afford Christ no better Title then a Divine Man p. 136. which is no more then â—ay be said of a Prophet an Apostle or any holy man whereas he should acknowledge him to be Dâ—us homo God and Man united So St. Austine in one of his Books had said that Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. Christ was Dâ—miniâ—us homo but he retracted it Quia Dâ—mâ—nusest saith he because he is more then a Man of the Lord for this Man is the Lord. For this hypostaticall or Personall union must be in and go through all the great dispensations of our Saviour's Medâ—atourship both in his active and passive obedience for otherwise his fulfilling the Law had been beneficiall to none but himself and his passion could not have sufficed for the whole world therefore the Personall union was most necessary to that great work and is declared both in the Scriptures and in the Fathers For whereas we now reade 1 Iohn 4. 3. Every spirit that confesseâ—h not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is Soc. l. 7. c. 32. not of God This place is thought by Socrates to have been corrupted by the Nestorians for indeed the old reading was as we to this day find both in Hierome and Prosper Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jeâ—um Every Prosper de vocat Gent. l. 1. c. 23. Spirit that divideth Iesus that is which separateth his Divine from his humane nature The Scripture joyneth both in a communion of properties as is said before for Elizabeth calleth Mary Luk 1. 43. The Mother of my Lord no doubt but she meant the mother of her Lord God for otherwise how was Christ her Lord but as David calls him Lord and as St. Ambrose noteth upon the words One Lord In Ambr. de Spir. sanct l. 3. c. 17. Dominatione diviniâ—as est in diviâ—iâ—ate Dominatus That in the title Lord the Lord God is meant So again Acts 20. 28. Feâ—â— the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood that is with the blood of God for it cannot otherwise be understood So likewise 1 Cor. 2. 8. They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory Now I ask who is the Lord of glory but onely God Consider now that to have a mother and to have blood and to be crucified though they be such things as properly belong to the humane nature yet you see that these humane infirmities are said of God because the same Person is both God and Man To this Doctrine of the Scripture agreeth the doctrine of the Fathers concerning this communication of propertics for because in Scripture Christ is called the Son of David therefore St. Chrysostome without any scruple saith that David is a Chrys serm de pseudopro n. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because the Scripture calleth Iames the brother of our Lord Gal. 1. 19 the same Father saith that Iames was b Chrys serm de poenit n. 49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that David was the Father of God Iames was the brother of God and also St. Austine saith that David was c Aug. de 5. haeres c. 2. 10. 6. n. 6. Parens Dei the Parent of God and Oâ—igen saith d Orig cont Cels l. 1. n. 33. Corpus Iesu est â—orpus Dei that the Body of Jesus is the body of God This Doctrine was held by the Church to be of such great weight and concernment that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Councill of â—halcedoâ— added this to the Creed as an Article of Faith e Evangrius l. 2. c. 4. Mary the mother of God and afterwards in another Creed ratified by the edict of Justinus the Emperour f Evag. l. 5. c. 4. The Virgin Mary is again called the Mother of God And the Emperour Justinian built a Church and called it g Evag. l. 5. c. 21. Templum Deâ—paâ—ae the Church of the mother of God and Gregory Nazianzen long before in an Epistle written to Cledonius had affirmed h Naz. Orat. seu Epist 51. Si quis Mariam non credi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that doth not believe Mary to be the mother of God himself is an Atheist and without God Nestorius for denying this Doctrine was summoned to the Councell of Ephesus which was called Soc. l. 7. c. 33 by the authority of the Emperour Theodosius the younger where Cyril of Alexandria sate President the Councell deposed Nestorius out of his Bishoprick and the Emperour banished him In his banishment his blasphemous tongue rotted in his mouth and was eaten out with worms so he died with a mark of Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Evag. ib. Gods vengeance on him as Arius did and the Church History passeth this hard sentence on him Ex his miseriis ad sempiterna supplicia migravit that he departed out of this misery into eternall torments Notwithstanding all this Thalâ—ia Arii this pretty Ath. cont Arian or 2. n. 5. Commentary tells us that Christ is not the supream God nor ever was a God till he rose from the dead for then he was Consequently Deified so if he be God he must be but of a late Edition This Doctrine harmoniously agreeth with the Heathens Theology which also tells us of Dii superi inferi Medioxumi Magni Minuti Plaut in Cist Patellani i. High and low and middle gods great and small and Pint-pot deities The deifying of heathen Emperours hath as good authority from Scripture I have said ye are Gods Psal 82. And Romulus Mart. l. 5. Ep. 8. Julius Augustus Dominus Deusque noster Domitianus are as well God deified as Christ himself by this Comment And in the Church-Writers Deification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word used by Dionysius is ascribed to mortall men for that Father sheweth that an holy Man indued with the Spirit of God may be said to be Deified that is assimulated to God indued Dâ—ony Areop de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. id epist 2. n. 10 Naz. or 37. n. 29. with sanctified and united to God And in another place he tells us Deificatio est imitatio i. Deification is the imitating of God and to the same purpose Nazianzen saith Spiritus nos deificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his word Men indued with Gods Spirit are Deified because God is in them and as it were mingled with them and worketh in them And Athanasius saith Homines in quibus est Spiritus Deificantur Atha ad Serapion n. 26. vid. 2 Pet. 1. 4. Now in what sense our Saviour may be said to be Deified in the later times of the world who was the supream and onely God from all eternity would next be inquired CHAP. IX More concerning Deification and in what sense Christ may be said to be Deified THe Arians were in this Doctrine something more ingenuous then this Commenter though in them it was also most pernicious for they Ath. Hil. cont Arian n. 7. confessed that Christ was the Son of God because they knew that the Saints were so called and they said Christ was before time began because they believed that Angels and Devils were before the world and they called Christ by the Name of God because the Scriptures call some creature so But they would not confess him to have the same Godhead with the Father for they said that he was Deus factus made a God or Ambros de cil div c. 2. n. 26. deified and that he was the Son of God not by nature but by gift or grace and not by eternall generation but by power given as Kings are called Gods for so Saint Ambrose observeth Deus in Scripturis est Ambr. de fide l. 1. lib. 5. c. 1. n. 22 23. 1 Verus 2 Nuncupativus nam sunt qui dicuntur Dii non sunt 3 Falsus ut Dâ—mones i. In Scripture God signifieth 1 The true God 2 Such as 〈◊〉 but called Gods and â—re not so 3 False gods of 〈…〉 this Commenter when he was argued 〈…〉 learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈…〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessed that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But one of the â—â—â—pany â—â—quired him further to declare how long Christ had been God and whether from Eternity at which question he seemed very angry and for present left the room Now indeed the Fathers do oftentimes apply this word to Christ and say that he was Deified and that in time also and not before his incarnation for he could never have been said to have been deified if he never had been incarnate it is only his humane nature that is said to be deified and not his Spirit or divine nature for the Word cannot otherwise be said to be deified then as he is hominified if I may have leave to use that word for Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh signifieth that God was made man by his incarnation and man was made God by the person I union of the divine and humane natures for so he alcame Theanthâ—opos and Emmanuel The reason is because when God assumed a body by his incarnation that body then became the body of God as is shewed before out of Origen and so that Orig. in Mat. tract 21. n. 41. Father expresseth himself thus Christus deificavit humanam naturam quam suscepit Christ deified that humane nature which he assumed Neither may we think so grosly of this deification as if the flesh of Christ were turned into the Goâ—head but onely because it is joyned to the Godhead and assumed into a personall union with it therefore the Name of God is also stamped upon it so that we may truly say the man Christ is God and yet the body and soul of Christ still are and for ever will be creatures In Aug. Epi. 221. this sense St. Austin saith Homo versus est in Deum nâ—c amisit naturam Man is become God and yet man did not lose his humane nature and thus Athanasius saith Archangeli semper antea adorabanâ— Filium sed nunc Atha Orat. 2. cont 2. Arian n. 5. Jesum adorant incarnatum carne quâ—m deâ—fiâ—averat The Archangels did alwaies before the incarnation worship the Son of God but they worship him now in that flesh which by assuming it he now hath deified For now it is the flesh of God as the Scripture calleth his blood the blood of God Act. 20. 28. and so the same Father useth thâ—s word divers times in the same sense g Atha orat 2. cont Ar. n. 5. h. Id. ser 4. cont Arian n. 7. Non deificatus fuisset homo nisi verbum fuisset incarnatum And h. Christus carnem assumendo hominem deificavit The manhood could not have been deified if the Word had not been incarnate and Christ deified man by assuming flesh St. Austin writing upon those words Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ not of men nor by man Gal. 1. Gal. 1. 1. 1. Aug. exp in Gal. in praefaâ— n. 97. 1. saith 1. Paulus missus est per Christum jam totum Deum quia ex omni parte immortalem That Paul is said not to be called by man because Christ was at that time wholly God because now he was perfectly immortall so he fastned this deification or immortality 2. Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 21. only on his humane nature for his divine nature was the immortall God from all eternity and Theodoret upon those words God hath highly exalted him Phil. 2. 9. saith Est de carne quae deificata est nam dominus Theod. Dial. in confu n. 12. gloriae non dicitur glorificari 'T is meant of the flesh of Christ deified for as he is the Lord of glory he cannot be exalted deified or more glorified So Origen Orig. in Levit. hom 3. saith of a Levitical sacrifice that it signified Carnem Christi in coelis deificandam that the flesh of Christ in heaven was to be deified and this deifying the flesh of Christ is said to be done in heaven because there it was glorified and immortall and on earth he is said to be deified because of the Hypostaticall union of his 3. Pet. Diac. apul Fulg. n. 2. 2 natures whereby his flesh was indeed Caro Dei the flesh of God By thus distinguishing the two natures in Christ the ancient Fathers answered the objections of old hereticks made against the eternall divinity of Christ for in the same sense that the Son of God is said to be Phil. 2. 9. Eph. 1. 20. Mat. 28. 18. Act. 3. 13 15. deified he is also in Scripture said to be exalted to be set far above all Angels and Principalities to be made the head of the Church to sit at the right hand of God to have a name given him above all names that are named That all power is given him in heaven and in earth that God raised him from the dead and that Jesus is made an high Priest for ever all these sayings and many more of this â—ind are to be understood of the humane nature of Christ but cannot be verified of his divine nature Athanasius doth in generall give us this excellent rule m Athan. Ser. 4. cont Ar. n. 7. n. ib. Quae Christus
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
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
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
it could not be itterated he answereth that when Christ said Iohn 13. 19. He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet He spake of Baptisme of the thing not of the person for then he would have said He that is washed well c. But in that he added not the word Well it was to signifie Quicquid in Trinitate factum suerit bene est i. Opt. ib. That Baptisme which is ministred in the Name of the Trinitie is well ministred Now because Baptizmal grace is conferred onely by the Trinity therefore the Baptisme is not nullified by the Baptizers unworthinesse As when white wooll is died into a royall purple the Opt. ib. colour is not called principally by the touch or handling of the Dier but by the blood of the fish Purpura Murex So neither is it the Officiating of the Minister but the Operation of the Trinitie through the blood of Christ that giveth Baptismall grace which grace cannot be impaired or nullified by the unworthynesse of the Minister And therefore Saint Cyprian upon better consideration in one of his Sermons said Sive Judas sive Paulus baptizeâ— Chrâ—stus peccatum tollit Cyp. serm de Bapt. Christi n. 94. i. Whether Indas or Paul baptize it is Christ who neverthelesse taketh away sinne And this was also the judgement of Saint Austine concerning Baptisme administred by the Donatists who were both Separatists and Hereticks Donatistae non rebaptizandi sunt quia in Aug. Epist 48. Nomine Christi baptizati sunt inter Baptismum Apostoli Ebriosi nihil interest si utâ—rque sit Baptismus Christi i. The Donatists may not be rebaptized because they have been already baptized in the Name of Christ there is no difference substantiall between that Baptisme which is ministred by an holy Apostle and that which is ministred by a debashed fellow If the Baptisme be in that form which Christ ordained and what Christs Baptisme is Optatus tells us Christ appointed in what the Nations should be Opt. lib. 5. Baptized viz In the Name of the Father and of the Sonne c. But he did not limmit by whom they should be Baptized and therefore saith he Quisquis in Nomine Patris Filii Spiritus baptizaverit Apostolorum opus implevit i. Whosoever shall Baptize in the Name of the Father c. doth perform that Baptisme which was given in charge to the Apostles for when Christ said go-and Baptize all Nations he did not say do you Baptize and none other Thus he Now albeit all men have not a Commission or calling to Baptize yet if it be so performed as is said by persons that are not qualified thereunto those persons are indeed to be accounted presumptuous intruders but yet the Baptisme for substance is a true Baptisme and shall stand neither may it be iterated although it was ministred with violation of good order When Athanasius was a Boy playing with his fellow boyes in their game Athanasius acted a Bishop and in their sport he baptized another Boy but used the manner and the form of words which he had seen and heard used in the Church Hereupon when the businesse was brought before the Church Bishop Alexander adjudged that ludicrous Baptisme to be a true Baptisme and would not suffer the Boy that was so Baptized to be rebaptized although at that time for ought can appear Athanasius who Baptized another was himself unbaptized As see in Sozomen In Soz. l. 2 c. 16. Ruffinus l. 1. c. 14. Socrat. l. 1. a Ma haeus Epmus Nor. An. Dom. 1637. this Diocesse in a Town called Acle about ten years since a woman Baptized an â—nfant in the form prescribed in the Gospel whereof when notice was given the then most learned and vigilant a Bishop would not appoint the childe to be rebaptized but yet ordered that the woman for presuming to do that office which did not belong to her should be publickly reproved so carefull were the Ancient and modern Churchmen to avoid Anabaptisme To the second Allegation of uncapablenesse of Baptisme 2. Respons particularly of â—nfants their indocâ—bility cannot be a sufficient reason to nullifie their Baptisme or to rebaptize them For first we do nothing doubt but that Infants born 1 of Baptized Parentâ— are capable of Baptisme as well as the Jewish Infants were of Circumcision and we think the Evangelicall Prophâ—t Esa 49 22 Prophesied of such presenting of Infants to the Church which are to be brought in their arms and that â—nfants are capable of Sanctification and that as they have formerly so they may still receive the holy Ghost as it is said of Jeremy c 1. v. 5. and of John Baptist Luke 1. 15. and that such are esteemed by Christ and called believers Matth. 18. 6. where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 18. 15. Because the Spirit of God is the seed of Faith and of all Christian vertues and therefore it is called the seed 1 John 3. 9. 1 Pet. 1. 23. so that Infants having the Spirit may thereby be said to have Faith In radice semine potentia actu primo in fundamento because the Spirit is the root the Seed the foundation and first act of Faith Now as we read Act. 10. 47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Upon these grounds St. Cyprian with his Councel when the question was by the Epistle of Fidus moved whether Infants of two or three dayes old might be Baptized answered Quid deest ei qui in utâ—ro Dei manibus formatus Cypr. lib. 3 Epist 8 n. 71 est unusquisque nostrum in Osculo Infant is deâ—et recenâ—es Dei manus câ—giâ—are c. i No capacity of Baptisme is wanting in the Infant he was formed in the womb by God when we consider that the youngest Infant is but newly come out of his Creatours hands why should we doubt to salute him with an holy kisse And St. Austin saith A parvulo recens naâ—o usque ad decrepiâ—um Aug. Enchir. cap. 43. n. 58. senem nullus prohibendus est à Baptismo id est Baptisme may not be forbidden to any age from the new-born Babe to most extreem old age But secondly suppose that Baptisme administred to 2. Infant were not duely and rightly with good order conferred on that age the fault must be imputed to the Minister and not to the Baptisme being performed in the form prescribed by Christ nor to the Baptized Infant and the same reasons before alleadged against rebaptizing of others will serve as well against rebaptizing of these But so much hath been by Divines unanswerably written and said for paedobaptisme that nothing of moment can be added by me CHAP. XI That the ancient Church allowed but one Baptisme is shewed by their deferring it till ripe yeares and to old
to Offer or that their white baptismal garment was not made or that they had not sufficient provision to entertaine the baptizers or that they would stay till the Bishop or the Metropolitan came that he might baptize them these were but excuses Naz. Orat. 40. the true cause was as is shewed by Naz. They would not forsake their lusts They feared to ingage them selves to live a strickt Christian life which reason was Tert. deBaptism c. 18. long before intimated by Tertullian when he said Qui intelligunt pondus baptismi magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationâ—m i They that understand the weight of baptisme will more feare to take it upon them then to delay it for in those dayes conscionable men upon their baptisme resolved to live a strickt and austere life being perswaded that sins after baptisme were far more ponderous and displeasing to God then sins before baptisme and that baptisme was an easier remedie for former sins then repentance or pennance was for later sins as Nazianzen also urgeth in his baptismal Naz. Orat. 40. Oration to deter those from sinning who were then to be baptized Post baptismum peccare grave est coâ—rectio per penitentiam est baptismo molestior quantam vim lacrymarum impendemus ut cum baptismo exaequari possit It is a heavie thing to sin after baptisme renuing by repentance is a greater molestation then by baptisme O what an abundance of tears must fall from us before our repentanced can aequalize the water of baptisme Now what necessitie was there that men should so put off and procrastinate their baptismes until old age and their death bed that then they might be acquitted of all their sins and go out of the world cleane and pure but that the Church did by our Apostles words in this place and others understand an Impossibilitie of any new or Second baptisme The Exclâ—siastical Historie in detestation of Re baptization Socrat. l. 7. c. 17. reporteth a memorable storie of a bergerlie vagaband Iew a notorious hypocrite who went to several congregations and sects of Christians counterfitted himself to be converted to Christianitie learned to answeare such Catechistical questions as were required of them that petitioned for baptisme and had bin baptized in the Church of Catholicks at Constantinople and had got much monie which charitable people had bestowed on him in pittie of his povertie and congratulation at his baptisme after this he went to another congregation in the same citie of the Novatiau sect and there presented himself with the like hypocrisie as one newlie converted and petitioned the bishop that he might be baptized concealing his former baptisme Paulus the Bâ—shop commanded that preparation should be made for baptizing this Jew so the font was filled with water and a white baptismal garment was bought for him and when Paulus had proceeded so far in the baptismal office that he was come to the time of dipping him looking into the font he perceived that there was no water in it then he commanded the font to be replenished supposing that the former water was sunck into the bottome hole for want of care in stopping that sinck and caused the sinck and all cranies to be carefully stopp't and so proceeded to dipping but loe the Second time the wather was vanished wherupon Paulus was much amazed and looking upon the Iew with indignation said O homo aut veâ—eâ—ator es aut baptismum accepisti Soc. l. 7. c. 17. i O man either thou art a counterfit or els thou hast bin baptized before hereupon One of the standers by wistly viewing the Jewe declared that he had indeed bin before baptized by Bishop Aâ—ticus who was the successor of Chrysostome this busines happened in the time of Theodosius the yonger Not long after another strang paslage happened in the same citie of Constantinople which was taken as a Nic. l. 16. c. 35. signification of the nullitie of such pseudo baptisme as was ministred by those hereticks who denied the Godhead of Christ For when one Barbas was to be baptized by an Arâ—an Bishop named Deuterius this Arian changed the baptismal words prescribed by Christ and said Baptizaâ—ur Barbas in nomen Patris per filium in Spiâ—itu i Barbas is Baptized in the name of the Father By the Son in the Spirit At these words the font-water presentlie vanished out of sight and Barbas was amazed and fled unbaptized This I trust is sufficient for the clear exposition of that hard place which principallie was intended to assert the unitie of Christian baptisme and not the Impossibilitie of repentance The sum of what hath bin said in this exposition is comprized in the 4 Conclusion following First that the Impossibilitie there mentioned is not to be understood of an Impossibilitie of repentance nor of an Impossibilitie of renuing but onlie of an impossibilitie of being renued by a new or Second baptisme Secondly That baptisme having bin once administred in that form which is prescribed by Christ no Second baptisme may be ministred to the parties so baptized upon any pretence either of non age in the baptized or unworthines and unfitnes in the baptizer Thirdly that such baptismes or rather dippings which are ministred by those hereticks who denie the Trinitie and therfore doe not dâ—p in that baptismal form which is prescribed by Christ are utterlie void and null Fourthly That baptisme rightlie administred to those who have bin heretically dipped before is not to be called a re-baptization but a baptisme By all that hitherto hath bin objected It cannot appear That the blasphemie against the Spirit what soever is meant by that sin is absolutely unpardonable but still there is one remedie left wherby the sinner may find help and that is repentance CHAP. XII An Exposition of Heb. 10. 26. The particular sin against the holie Spirit is shewed to be the denying Christ to be God what is meant by accounting his blood to be Common or unholie The unsufficiencie of legal Sacrifices and the sufficience of Christs sacrifice THere is another place in this Epistle much urged by some divines by which they would infer that if a man once fall into this sin there will be no means or hope of pardon left the words are thus read Heb. 10. 26. 26. For if we sin wilfully after we have received the Knowledg of the truth there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sins 27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgement and sierie indignation c In this Chapter we have an evident discoverie of the grand capital sin which is commonlie called The sin against the holiâ— Spirit or Holie Ghost wherein the obscuritie of it as it is delivered in three of the Evangelists is cleered and by examination of the Apostles words in this chapter it will appeare that the sin which in the Gosple is called the blasphemie against the Holie Ghost is the blasphemous undervaluing of the Person of the Son of God whose
Godhead is there called the Holiâ— Spirit or Holie ghost as hath bin shewed before in my Second book and this blasphemio consisteth in the denial of the Godhead of Iesus Christ wherby his allsufficient Sacrifice is undervalued and the Son of God is troden underfoot as being esteemed but a creature and a meer man and therby becometh contemptible and his Blood even the blood of the Covenant is esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i But common ordinarie unholie blood no better then the blood of another ordinarie common man and not Sanctified and ordaineth for that great and high mysterie to be offered as a full and sufficient expiatorie sacrifice for the sins of the world according to the Covenant of God For he that denyeth the Godhead of Christ must needs think that his blood is but common blood as other mens blood is and therfore not of sufficient worth and value to redeem the world more then another mans blood is and indeed if his blood be no better then the blood of another man and if it be not the royal blood of God Act. 20. 28. It hath not it can not redeeme us Now whether the sin mentioned in this place be absolutely unpardonable and altogether remediless will better apeare by a diligent exposition of that text as it stands in relation to the context both before and after it For if we sin c If everie sin which is committed after we knew and professed the Christian religion should be unpardonable what man could be saved seeing the most righteous men fall and therfore doe daylie pray forgive us our trespasses therfore this saying can not be understood of every sin but suerlie here is one special grand and capital sin meant and what that is the words going before and following doe declare For verse 5. it is said in the Person of the Son of God Sacrifice and Offerings thou wouldst not but a Vide. Psal 40. bodie hast thou prepared for me That is because the Legal sacrifices or the blood of bulls and goates could not redeem man therfore an humane bodie was prepared for the Son of God that in that assumed humane nature he might in man's stead beare the curse and suffer death which man had merited And because we who are but meer men weak and sinfull can not by our selves performe the will and law of God without performance wherof no man can be saved therfore the Son of God came in our stead to performe the whole law so as was required and willed of God as it is said vers 9. Then said I loe I come to doe thy will o God So that both the active obedience of Christ in doing the law and his passive obedience in suffering the punishment of our transgressions are here set forth in these words vers 10. By the which will we are sanctified through the Offering of the body of â—esu Christ once for all That is by Christs performing the will or commandments of God in our stead and through the Sacrifice of himself on the Altar of the Cross for our sins his mystical bodie or Church is Sanctified for it is said vers 12. This man Christ Offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever and again vers 14. hâ— one offering he hath perfiâ—ted for ever them that are Sanctified and then we are exhorted vers 22. Let us draw neer with a true heart in full assurance of faith and vers 23. Let us hold fast the Proâ—ession of our faith without wavering If we sin there remaineth no more sacrifice c Having shewed what the foundation of our Christian religion is namely Jesus the Son of God God Incarnate and in his humane nature performing the covenant law and will of God both actively and passively for us and in our stead and requiring that we should have a full assurance of faith of the truth of that Doctrine without which faith Christ will not profit us he now shewes the sad consequences of rejecting this doctrine by Apostacie or falling away from our Christian religion in these words There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certaine fearfull looking for of judgement So that the sin here meant is Apostasie that is forsaking Christianitie as Julian did esteeming of Christ but as of an ordinarie Coman man and therfore distrusting the sufficiencie of his blood and death as not an equivalent price and ransome for man's redemption The truth of this Exposition will better appear by the words following wherein this particular sin is evidently expressed and is called verse 29. Treading under foot the Sonne of God counting the blood of the Canant unholy or as it is in the Originall a common thing and doing despight unto the Spirit of Grace Now to tread under foot is to vilipend and undervalue Christ as esteeming him not sufficient to take away or satisfie for our sinnes to count the blood of the Covenant unholy or Common is to esteem of the death and blood shedding of Christ to be of no more vertue and power then the death and blood of another Common man and they that so basely undervalue Christ as to think and to account him but a meer man do despight unto the Spirit of Grace What is the Spirit of Grace in the Sonne of God but his Divine Spirit and Godhead even that Spirit from which all Graces flow which are called the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ So they who have no higher estimation of Christ then of a meere man do despight unto his Divine Nature his God-head for what greater spite can be then to un-God him the word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to despite in effect is all one with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Matthew and the Spirit of Grace here is the same which is there called the Holy Spirit which doth signifie the God-head of Christ as hath been shewed before For if he that despised Moses Law died without mercy verse 28. Yet Moses was but a mere man and so but a Theod. in loc fervant to this our God Quanâ—ò morte dignior est qui Mosis Deum habâ—t despicatui i. What shall become of him that despiseth the God of Moses and the saving Doctrine of Christ who is the Onely Eternall God Moses propounded life as a reward to them that should perform the Law Christ did perform that Law in mans stead to mans behoof and benefit and offereth to men the benefit of that performance and with it life eternall onely with this condition of believing on him Therefore that man which will not give credit to this joyfull-Evangelicall offer must expect to perish eternally for if Christ be rejected absolutely and salvation through him despised and not hoped for or expected There is no other sacrifice for our sins possibly to be found nor any other Name by which we can be saved By what hath been said it appeareth that these words If we sinne in this place signifie the sinning of the
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
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 world Clemens Alex. and Naz. Observe that the very Clem. Alex. Paed. l 1. Naz. Orat. 40. heathens called a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i light onlie because he was indued with the light of a reasonable soule much more may those be said to be Inlightned who are indued with the Spirit of Illumination from God Ephe. 5. 8. Ye were darknes but now are light in the Lord and. 1 Joh. 1. 5. God is light for the baptismal regenerating Spirit is the Spirit of God Eusebius noteth in the life of Constantine the Great Post baptismum sibi visus est luce Euseb de vita Con. l. 4. n. 45. plenus quasi numine siderari i Assoone as he was Baptized he seemed to himself to be full of light as if he had bin assisted by some heavenlie power people had such a conceit of Baptismal illumination that Nazianzen reporteth of his reverend Father that as he Naz. Orat. 19. came out of the Baptismal font to them a visible light seemed to shine round about him But I proceed CHAP. V. That the word renuing doth in this place signifie baptisme those that fall after baptisme have yet left to them a second remedy and that is repentance VVE have seen that those that fall into sin after baptism must not expect a release or remedy for their sins by any second or new baptisme the words which follow as some do dangerously understand them at the first veiw seem to exclude such sinners from the second remedy of repentance which is surely an erronious conceit as will appear presently If they fall away it is impossible to Renew them again unto repentance the plain meaning of these words is That those which fall into their old unregenerate and carnal course of living after they have once been renewed by baptism must not expect to be restored to their regenerate and former integrity innocency and cleanesse and freedom from the guilt of their sins by another new baptisme for a second baptisme cannot acquit them of their sins so as their first baptisme did repentance which signifieth amendment of life is not obtained by a second renovation by baptism for that cannot â—enue them so as to make them appear clean and puâ—ged from their sins in the sight of God water once washed in is accounted foul afterwards the Philosopher could say of a fowle Bath Qui hic lavant ubi lavantur St. Ambrose said of Pilates washing in vita Diog. apud Laert. Ambr. non diluit sed in quinavit in psa 61 they that wash in foul water had need to wash again a second baptism is so foul that it addeth a new pollution as will appâ—ar hereafter Indeed God by one baptism wherewith his Regenerating Spirit doth concur doth renew men unto repentance or amendment and newnesse of life but if afterwards we fall away by polluting our selves with new sins let us not so flatter our selves as to imagine that we can be restored and renewed by a second baptismal renovation for no such renewing is to be expected There are two remedies prescribed by God for assoilment from our sins the first is Baptism Act. 22 16 Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins The second remedy is Repentance Act. 3. 19. Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be bloâ—ted out To renew them to repentance If the Apostle meant that it were impossible for those that fall after baptism to repent it may be wondred why he did not say It is impossible to repent and why he should use two words Renâ—w Repentance for repentance it self is a renewing Renewing is a generall word may be distributed into two sorts First there is a renewing Sacramental and baptismal when a man is baptized or illuminated and thereby initiated to a new state and way of living according to new rules of life Secondly there is a renuing Moral when a man once illuminated or baptized having falne into greivous sins yet by grace given changeth his wicked course of sinning to a careful and conscionable new way of living according to direction of the Gospell Hence I collect that the meaning of these words is That he that hath once been renued by baptismall illumination to repentance or amendment of life if such a man fall he cannot the second time be renued by a second baptismal renuing a second baptisme will not acquit him of his sins but yet he is not excluded from a morall renuing by leaving his sinning which is called repentance briefly though he may be renued yet it may not be by a new baptism though he may repent yet his repentance is not to be wrought by a second baptism For the right understanding of this exposition I here lay down to the Readers view these few plain propositions First a man that after baptisme falls into sin though ever so great yet by the Grace of God may repent and be recovered Secondly a man baptized that is falne in his old carnal living may be renued and possibly may become a new man and a new creature for a sinner after baptism may he renued because he may repent Thirdly the reader may take notice that in this place the words Illuminated and Renue are of the same signification So that the meaning is that he that is once by baptism illuminated cannot again by baptism be illuminated and he that is once by baptism Renued cannot again by baptism be renued to repentance Fourthly a man may once be enlightned and baptized and thereby renued to amendment of life and repentance and freedom or acquitment from his sins past and this by the Spirit of God in the laver of regeneration and by the vertue of Christs death But after this one renuing by baptisme he cannot again be renued to resipiscence newnesse of life and acquitment from his sin by a new baptism To renue them Al though a sinner cannot be renued more then once by the Sacramental renovation of baptism yet there is another way left open for renuing and that is penitentiall renovation and acquiring new Spirituall Graces and this way is and ought to be frequently iterated as it is said 2. Cor. 4. 16. The inward man is renued day by day and to this we are exhorted Ephe. 4. 23. Be renued in the spirit of your mind that is by excluding our sins and by acquiring new and higher graces So that when our Apostle saith It is impossible to renue them he cannot possibly mean that renuing is absolutely impossible but onely that renuing by a new or second baptisme is indeed impossible When St. Peter desired John 13. 9. That not onely his feet but his head also might be washed he had this answer He that is washed needeth not save to wash his Aug. de fide ad Pet. Diac. c. 36. n. 74. feet which place is by Saint Austin urged again rebaptization Baptisma semel dandum est non iterandum Baptisme