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
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
was thus penned partly by Eusebius and partly by Hosiâ—s and yet we are sent to this Eusebius his first book but he doth not tell us to which of his first books for Eusebius hath many first books so I must trace him through Eusebius that I may hit on the place he meanes For I have observed that Eusebius hath no lesse then four times in severall places of his works set down his opinion concerning Gods visible appearing to the patriarks and in none of those places hath he said that which this Commenter would pin uppon him first he saith in his book de monsâ— lâ—b 1. c. 5. as Euseb de Demonst l. 1. â— 5. Ruffinui reads it Audi ut Moses cum qui amicis Dei seipsum ostenderet modo Deum modo Dei angelum appellet sic declarans non hunc fuisse ipsum patrem sed ejus filium qui idem et Deus ac Dominus amicorum Dei et supremi Patris Angelus dici consueverit id est Hear how Moses calleth him who used to appear to the friends of God sometimes he calls him God and sometimes the Angel of God and thereby Moses declareth that he was not the supream Father but his Son which son is usually called the God and Lord of the friends of God and also the Angell or messenger of the most high Father All that Eusebius in this place affirms is that he that appeared to Abraham and the patriarks was God in the person of the Son and not in the person of the Father that it was not the supream Father but it was the supream Son for both the Father and the Son are but one supream God the same supream God appeared which is both the Father and the Son and this he proveth because he that appeared is sometimes called the Angel of the supream Father which may be and is in Scripture said of the Person of the Son but not of the Person of the Father and yet he saith he that appeared was Deus Dominus id est the Lord God of the Patriarks But Eusebius doth not say as you would have him that he was not the most high God only he saith he was not the Father but the Son of the Father which no good Christan can find Euseb de Dem. l. 5. in prefat fault with in such a mystery the same Eusebius had said before in the preface of the same book Dei Verbum apud priora secula in hominis habitu apparuit id est The Word of God in former times appeared in the habit of a man Now we know that onely the Son or second Person is called the Word as Iohn 1. 1. and this the same Eusebius affirmeth again in the 19. Chapter of the said Book id est Idem est Dominus Euseb de Dem. l. 1. c. 19. Deus Christus qui Abrahoe visus habitu pacisico Iacobo tanquam Creator Mosen specie nubis ignis ducebat c. id est It was the same Lord and God and Christ which appeared to Abraham in a peaceable shape and to Iacob as a wrastler and lead Moses with a clould of fire You see that as yet Eusebius hath said nothing to confirm your opinion but let us see what he saith in his first book of his hystory for I guesse that is the first book Deus Abraâ—ae apparuit tanquam communis homo at ille adorat ut Deum veneratur ut Dominum dicens Eus hist l. 1. c. 1. Gen. 18. 25. dominator Domine qui judicas omnem terram quae omnia non ad â—aâ—â—em sâ—d ad fil um referenda sunt id est God appeared to Abraham as an ordinary man but Abraham adored him as God amd worshipped him as the Lord saying shall not the Judg of all the earth do right all which must be considered as spoken to the Son and not to the Father The result of all that Eusebius hath said in this businesse is That the most high God of all the earth appeared to Abraham in the person of his Son and not in the person of the Father But yet it was the same Lord God for Godhead and substance which is in the person of the Father and in the person of the Son therefore he that appeared was the same God with the Father but not the same person with the Father therefore Saint Austin saith very truly That the Father and the Aug. cont Epist Manâ—chae c. 6. n. 7. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. Son are to be called unum but not unus id est one God for essence but not one for person So he expresseth himself in another place upon these words I and the Fâ—thâ—r are one unum secundum essentiam non seeundum relatum id est One in Godhead but not so in personall relation it is very remarkable that in our Saviours prayer for his Church it is desired Iohn 17. Theod. hist l. 2. c. 8. Aug. n. 47 174. 22. That they all may be one as we are one he doth not say That they and we may be one because God and man are not of the same essence for unum cannot be said of two severall natures although they be united Aug. Epist 174. in one person or subsistence sine adiectione as Austin hath observed as the soul and body of man united are not unum except you understand animal you may call them one man one person one living creature but not absolutely One because they differ in essence or nature but the Father and the Son are therefore said to be one because they are but one God though severall persons just as Ensis gladius are unum they are the self-same thing So the Father and the Son are one and the same God though two persons Substanâ—iaâ—iâ— unâ—â—as personalis pluralitas id Rie de St. vict de Trin. l. 3. c 8. est unity of Godheâ—d plurality of persons Therefore the Scripture speaks of them with great caution both plurally and singly Gen. 1. 1. God câ—â—ated the the noune is the plurall but the verb is the singular number and let us make man and in our image this shewes a plurality but yet the persons are never called Gods or Lords Plurally but as he who intended to point at one particular man named Tertullius described him by thrice repeating Tullus Tullus Tullus Jul. cap. in Mar. Ant. c. 10. and as the Consulship of Caesar men used to say that these two Consuls were Julius and Caesar so when the Scripture would intimate the two distinct persons of the Father and the Son it doth it by Sugt in Julio c. 20. repeating the same word because there is but one Lord and but one God it will not say Lords or Gods but The Lord rained from the Lord and The Lord Gen. 19. 24. Ps 45. 7. Aug. Epist 37. said unto my Lord and God thy God hath anointted thee because the same God
quae â—sse beata Solitudâ— Lact de fal rel l. 1. c. 7. quâ—at How can that one God be aeternally blessed and happie If he be alone and Solitarie Solitarines is rather an argument of sadnes then of joy to this Lactanius answereth tanquam noâ— qui unumâ—sse dicimus desertum Id. ibid. 1 Cor. 8. 4. solitaâ—ium esse dicamus i. although wee say that God is one for so the Scriptures tell us 1 Cor. 8. 4. there is none other God but One yet wee doe not say that this God is so forlorne and solitarie as to have no societie for he hâ—th Ministers whom wee call his angels thus he but this answer doth not fully satisfie for shall wee say God was alone and Solitarie before angels or any other Creatures were made The full answer therfore must be this that before any creation and at the creation and after it God was and still is but one one I say in essence and Godhead but yet not only one and alone in person Pater filius duo sunt personâ unum Atha Orat. Cont. Aria n. 8. diâ—â—ate i. the Father and the Son are two in persons though but one in Godhead for when the Son of God saith The Father and jare one Joh. 10. 30. Athanasius Atha Dis cont Arian 27. observeth that he doth not say Vnum sumus but unum sumus i. it is not said wee am one singularly but plurally wee are one one for essence but more for persons and in another place the Substantive word Elohim signifying God is plural and the verbe is singular Gen. 1. 1. as is before noted both wayes to signifie an unitie in Godhead but a pluralitie of persons and the Son of God saith expresly Joh. 8. 16. I am not alone but I and the Father and he calleth himself and the Father two witnesses Surelie If the Son be said not to be alone and to be another neither can the Father be said to be alone although both are but One God yet they are distinct persons for did not God manifest himself in three distinct persons Severally at one time Math. 3. 16. The Father in a voice the Son in the flesh and the Spirit like a dove Nay did not the Spirit at one time manifest its self in many seueral cloven fierie tongues Act. 2. 3. And yet there is but One Spirit S. Hilarie to this point very acutely saith Deus est non solus sed tamen Hil. de Trin. lib. 7. unus Deus est unus tamen non solus essentia unus pro personis non solus i God is but one and yet God is not alone for he is indeed one in essence but he is not alone because in God there are more persons then one Now although wee detest the blasphemie of Marcion Tert. Cont. Marc. l. 5. Aug. de Morib Eccles l. 1. c. 10. Basil Epist 8. Naz. Orat. 37. pag. 7. c. 1. v. 6. and the Manichees who said there were two Gods and also the Calumnie of the Arians and the Macedonians Who called the Orthodox Church Tritheitas i Men that worshipped three Gods because they confessed three Persons in One God yet wee reject the heresie of the Sabellians who acknowledg but one Person in God as is shewed before just as our commenter doth call the Godhead the Person of God as if ther were but one Person in God But because there is in him a pluralitie of Persons therfore wee say that God neither is nor ever was alone or solitarie for the three Persons for ever had Communion Communication Societie and fellowship one with the Other although they all are but one God as of one in the comedie it is said Socia Ego Plaut Amph. 2. 1. Cap. 2. 1. stich 5. 4. ille Scâ—o me te esse te esse me Ego sum tu tu es ego And in S. Ambrose a young man saith Amb de Paenit l. 2 c. 10. of him self Sed ego non sum i One speaketh of himself as if he were another and speaketh of another as if he were himself So Moses bringeth in the self same one and only God ' speaking to the same God because God is distinct in Persons but the Persons are but one in Godhead let there be light lâ—t us make mâ—n the Lord rained from the Lord by which it appeareth that there was a Communication betweene the Father and the Son before the World was for the Son is called the Counseller Esa 9. 6 and the wisedome of the Father But who should God consult with but only with God and who was his wise Counseller but himself Nemo tibi suadere potest Sapientius te ipso Tul. Epist l. 2. 17. Id lib. 10. Ep. 194 Ipse tibi sis Senatus i It may more truly be said of God None are Gods Counsellers but himself he is his owne Senate God the Father and God the Son Communicate in Counsil as the Father made all things by the Son So they communicated not only in the creation but also in the divine Counsil of the great worke of redemption although the manner of this communication is to us secret and in effable Now to the Question What one thing doe wee find that was Consulted on or agreed and purposed between the Father and the Son before the World I answer that the Eternal Covenant was made betweene the Father and the Son to mans behoofe before the World and in this everlasting Covenant of grace was the whole Mystical body of Christ included and by vertue of that Covenant and in Christ they were Predestinated decreed purposed and Elected to life and by that Covenant so transacted seccretly the Son of God undertooke for man and became a suertie for him to performe whatsoever was required and by this first Covenant the Church was committed to the Son he thus became her great Shepheard for wee read Joh. 10. 29. The sheep were given to him by the Father This Covenant is that great and hidden Mysterie which so nearly concerneth both Jewes and Gentiles of which it is said Rom. 16. 25. To be kept secret sine the world began and againe Eph. 3. 4. 5. 9. the Mysterie of Christ which n other ages was not made knowen unto the Sons of men as it is now That the gentiles should be fellow heyres but it had bin bid in God but now is might be made knowen According to the Eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus And hence it is that Christ is called the Great Shepheard through the blood of the everlasting or Eternall Covenant Heb. 13. 20. By this Eternal Covenant or Eternal purpose and undertaking God the Son became the Suertie the Mediator and Advocate for the Sons of men and by reason of this undertaking it is said that for the blessed the Kingdome was prepared from the foundation of the World Mat. 25. 35. And it is further said that the precious blood of
Saint Austine therein and the Authors submission thereof to the Reader That because God was to be Incarnate only in the Person of the Sonne and not in the Person of the Father therefore the ancient Fathers said that God was seen in the Person of the Sonne onely and not in the Person of the Father Chapter VII The Incarnation of the Sonne of God is shewed against Page 22 the Commenter That a meer Man may be said to be Incarnate and so may Christ be truly said and much rather because the soul of Man may exist without a body and the Godhead of Christ really did exist from Eternitie without a Body untill his assumption of a temporary shape and his Incarnation in an ever durable Body That the Scripture calleth him that denieth Christs Incarnation a deceiver and an Antichrist Chapter VIII That the Son of God was to be Incarnate necessarily Page 27 by vertue of the Covenant although God could have saved Man by his Power without the Incarnation Of that curious question viz. What God did before the Creation That God was never solitarie though alwaies but One. Of the Everlasting or Eternall Covenant between the Persons of the Father and the Sonne before the world Chapter IX Of the Covenant between God and Man divers Page 33 times renewed The first words of the Covenant about the Tree of Knowledge before the fall The second words of bruising the Serpents head since the fall The same Covenant with Abraham and afterwards with Moses in more words The outward signes of the Covenant viz. Sacrifices circumcision Tabernacle and Leviticall rites That the Legall and Evangelicall Covenant are but one The words of the Evangelicall Covenant Why it is called a new Covenant the Covenant of Grace and of works a better Covenant and a Testament of Christs suretie ship The reason why Christ was circumcised and Baptized Chapter X. That as our state condition now standeth Page 38 man cannot be redeemed and saved but through the Incarnation Obedience and death of the Sonne of God That our salvation is not wrought by the request and verball intreatie of Christ nor by the power onely of God without satisfaction of his Justice The distinction between Christs satisfaction and his merit How Gods just Sentence was fully executed on man and his Law perfectly performed by man Chapter XI That Christ was a Person fitly qualified to stand Page 41 in stead of all Mankind The mutuall unity of Christ and Mankind in that Christ tâ—oke his flesh from Man and Man received the Spirit from Christ That from this mutuall unity it is that Christs Obedience both Active Passive with great justice and equitie may be imputed to Mankind Chapter XII What interest the unregenerate man hath in Page 54 Christ That the Divine Spirit of Christ is communicated to the unregenerate and therewith some common graces That the Doctrine of the Church declareth the benefit of Christs death to be offered to all men good and bad That God is essentially present in every creature though not commugnicating his sanctifying Grace to every one The Stoicks error concerning the souls of Men. Apollinarius his Heresie concerning the soul of Christ Chapter XIII The Heresie of Valentinus and others concerning Page 59 the Body of Christ compared with the Heresie of Apollinarius concerning Christs Soul That the Arguments proving the derivation of the flesh of Christ from mans body do as well prove the traduction of his soul That the soul of man by nature is Carnall The doctrine of the Church of England doth not clearly determine the originall of Christs soul That if the traduction of souls be granted it will argue a greater nearness and conjunction of God and Man Chapter XIV The question of the propagation of the soul of Page 63 Christ and of other mens souls discoursed the difficultie thereof shewed out of Saint Austine and his inclination and reasons to believe traduction rather then a dayly new creation of souls The judgement of the Western Church herein alledged by Saint Hierome That the opinion of Traduction is not inconsistent with Christian Faith But if it be granted it argues a nearer relation between Christ and us then otherwise the Author leaves it undetermined with submission to the judicious Reader Chapter XV. The Ubiquitie of the Spirit of Christ Of the Page 67 diversitie of the Graces thereof In what degree and measure the Spirit with its common Graces is communicated to men unregeneraâ—e How the one Spirit of God is in Scripture represented as if there were more then one how it is said to be withdrawn or not yet given when it is alwayes present That the union of God and man is hence concluded Chapter XVI That the presence of the Spirit doth not alwayes Page 71 sanctifie is proved from the unction of Heathen Kings How such are called Gods annointed though they were not ceremonially annointed with oyl of Christs Vnction and the appellation of Christians Vespatians touching and curing the infirm thereby The King of Englands cures and unction Of the gift of healing mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 9. Whether it be utterly ceased Chapter XVII The union of Christ and his Church further Page 76 shewed Why Christ is called Adam David and Jacob Why all mankind was extracted out of one man Why Saint Austine denied that there were any Antipodes The difference between Christs union with all mankind and his more speciall union with his Church An Exposition of Heb. 7. 9. Touching the difference of Levi and Christ who were both in the loins of Abraham which place is purposely obscured by the Commenter The Table THE FOURTH BOOK Containing a discussion of this Question Whether the blasphemie of denying Christs Godhead which is the sin against the holy Spirit be absolutely unpardonable with full Expositions of certain Scriptures in the Hebrewes and other places which concern that sin Chapter I. THe question stated The judgement of Page 1 some late Divines therein and their grounds That to affirm it absolutely unpardonable seemeth derogatory to the infinite mercy of God in Christ and the grace of repentance The efficacie of true repentance Chapter II. That this sinne possibly may be pardoned upon Page 5 the sinners repentance That Gods threatnings are not to be understood as absolute but as conditionall That therefore his threatnings are not alwayes executed and yet his Truth not violated That threatnings are intended for provocations to repentance an observation upon Theodosius The judgement of the Fathers concerning those threatnings Chapter III. That the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or Page 8 God-head of Christ is then onely unpardonable when it is accompanied with finall impenitencie a short Exposition of Matth. 12 31. Chapter IV. Whether the grace of repentance be absolutely denied Page 11 to those who have once sinned this sin The judgement of some Divines herein A full Exposition begun of Heb. 6. 4. concerning final impenitencie That the word inlightned is there meant of
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
you grant him onely to be Assimilated to God which is the same in English with the Arian word Homoiâ—â—sion i. e. of like substance so you would have Christ to be onely like unto God which is no more then the Scripture affordeth to our first parents who were made not onely after the Image but after the similitude of God Gen. 1. 26. and because the Nicene Fathers asserted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Arius therefore you are unreasonably angry with them also and in your passion you write rashly for you say The Nicene P. 331. Fathers are not to be thought to have hâ—ld that the Son is that one most high God who yet if they should appear in these times they would be condemned of an universal Council Your impudence is great in saying those Fathers did not hold so and your passion is unreasonable in saying they should now be condemned for if they held not so wherefore should an universall Arian Council condemn them We know that their doctrine was indeed condemned by no lesse then * Bishop Jewel f. 362. ten Councils of Arians †Sexâ—â—nti Episcopi Ariaâ—i consentiunt Ario. Hâ—â— in Epist Auxentii n. 7. and it was therefore condemned because as the principall businesse for which that renowned Council was called they asserted the Son to be Homâ—ousion that is to be of the same essence substance and Goâ—head with the Father which most true and wholesome doctrine all Orthodox Churches in the World have ever since and to this day do maintain and that Council is for this reason of most venerable estimation amongst all good Christians as being the best that ever was since the Aposties dayes and Epiphanius accounteth that Council to be one of the greatest and most memorable acts that the great Emperour Constantine did Constantinus duo maximâ— fâ—cit Nicaenam Epiph. haer 70. Synodum Conseâ—sâ—m de Paschaâ—e i. e. The two greatest acts that ever Constantine dâ—d were the calling of the Nicene Council and procuring the universal agreement for the solemnity of Easter If those Fathers had heard you denying the Godhead of Jesus and his eternal generation and vilifying him by placing him under some Angels they would have done before you as they did to Arius for when he said in that Council that God the Father was not alwayes a Father nor the Son a Son from eternity and that he was preferred to be a God or Deified as the word is those godly Fathers at the hearing of these words did all stop their eares from hearing any more of his blasphemies as Athanasius writeth and yet Arius may yield Atha cont Arian Orat. 1. n. 4. the buckler to you You tell us Christ as he is the Son of God is * pag. 80. pag. 320. Opposed to God and diverse from God This is a cast of your profound Logick indeed the rule in Logick at which you quibble is Oppositio relativa est inter relatum correlatum i. e. That there is an opposition between the Relative and Correlative Now in the Divine persons these terms Father and Son may be truly said to be opposed one to another in Recto So that we may say the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father but we cannot say the Father is not God or the Son is not God because the opposition lies between the two relative terms onely and not between the tearms and the subject For example A man that hath a son is a father but that father is not that son this is true Logick But you cannot say that this father is not a man If therefore by your new Logick you would prove that the Son of God is not God because he is not God the Father I will put this petition into my Letanie as St. Ambrose is reported to have done the like in his when St. Austin before his Conversion troubled the Church of Millane with his Manichâ—an disputes A Cor. lan in vita Aug. l. 2. c. 1. Logica Augustâ—ni lib ra nos Domine From the hereticall Logick good Lord deliver us CHAP. VI. Sheweth that the whole design of this Commenter is to confute or extenuate and darken the authority and evidence of this Epistle to the Hebrewes I Observe again that you have very improperly and perversly nick-named your book A Commentary my reason is because it is not an Exposition of that Text nor so intended by you but it is an Undoing of the Epistle an interversion and a confutation of it as much as you can for you have endeavoured to extinguish this great light by which the eternal Godhead of Jesus is so evidently illustrated You may as well blow out the light of the Sun but though you blow till your lungs crack that Sun and this light will still shine Tertullian saith That the Epistle to the Thessalonians is of such clearnesse and evidence as if Tert. de Resur n. 30. it had been written radâ—o â—oâ—is with a Sun-beam And this Divine Epistle doth so clearly demonstrate the Godhead of Jesus as if St. Paul had writ it whilest he was in his raptuâ—e in the third heaven or that it had been written immediately with the singer of God and therefore all your wit and Learning is employed to darken and blur this our grand piece of evidence there are many profound mysteries in this sacred Scripture the which you are so far from explicating that you have onely laboured to make them more difficult as Austin modestly fea ed in himself Vereor ne exponendo Aug. Expos in Levit. quaest 174. Tul. de Nat. Deor. l. 3. do siat obscurius and such places as are plain and easie you have laboured to hide Just as Tullâ— said of one Râ—m minimè dubâ—am dispuâ—ando duâ—iam facis Former hereticks used to perswade their heresies by alledging Scriptures positively but such Scriptures as did so clearly evince them that they could not gainsay those they rejected thus the Manichees slighted the whole Old a Aug. cont Faust l. 2. c. 1. Testament and the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luk calling them b â—b l. 4. c. 1. Genisidium because of the Genealogies and therefore Te tullian calls Marcion c Tert. cont Marc. l. 1. n. 39. Murem Pontiâ—um the Mâ—use of Pontus because he also rased out or rejected such Scriptures as made against him and the same Father giveth this character of two grand Hereticks d Tert. de praescript n. 30. Marcion ad materiam suam caedem Scripturarum confecit Valentinus materiam ad Scripturas excogitavit i. e. That Marcion pared and fitted the Scriptures to be suitable to his heresies but Valentinus invented heresies that might seem to agree with the letter of Scriptures But you have imitated both these first in your endeavour to null the authority of this Epistle and though you fail in that yet in a second place you have laboured to conform and new turkiss
the most principal to assert the Immortality of his humane Soul and thereby to set forth this true doctrine of the Immortality of all mens soules and the Church had great reason for it because all Christians for some Centuries of years generally believing this doctrine In the fag end of the primitive times many atheistical and Epâ—curâ—an professors sprung up and denyed this truth obstinately and then it became an heresie and was so recorded by St. Austin as is said before under the title of the Arabick heresie and so occasioned a new article of Christs descent although it was an old Scriptural received truth to be put into the Creed I am not ignorant that in Epiphanius the Epiâ—uâ—eans are set down Epiph. haer 8. among hereticks who denyed this truth and so are Sâ—oicks and Pythagoreans and Jewes which I take to be something unproper because none can be called hereticks except they at least professe Christianity and perhaps Epiphanius meant such Christians who in Philosophy were of those Sects or Jewes by birth CHAP. IX Of the most ancient Creed why so many additions have been made and particularly the article of Christs descent THe Reasons that move me to think that the new article of Christs descent was added to the Creed principally to set forth the Immortality of man's soule are now to be brought forth to the Readers view It was a long time before the Church-Creed went about in writing though some private men did so preserve it yet it was learned by oral tradition and so rehearsed Hil. de Synodis cont Arian n. 7. at baptismes and this is noted by St. Hilarie Fides Apostolica non scripta erat literis sed Spiritu Conscriptas sides hucusque nesciverunt Episcopi i. The Apostles Creâ—d or faith was not written by letters but by the Spirit untill these dayes about the Nicene Council the Bishops did not take notice of any written Creeds and the same Father findeth fault with the writing of Creeds Fides scribenda est quasi in corde non fuerit i. Hilar. contr Const l. 3. n. 6. Faith must now adayes be written as if it had no place in mens hearts and although this symbole or Creed were not written yet it is confessed that it went about traditionally and without additions from the Apostles as Terâ—â—llian for his time sheweth Ab initio Evangelii Tert. Cont. Prax. dâ—cucurrit ante priores quosque haereâ—icos i. The rule of faith spread from the beginning of the Gospel and before Praxea's herâ—sies began And again he saith Regulam Tert. de praescr haeret hanc Ecclesia ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Dâ—o tradidit i. The Church delivered the Creed as it came from the Apostles and the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God for there is nothing in that Creed but what is the expresse doctrine of Scripture Now the reason why the Apostolical rule of faith or Creed was not published then in writing is rendred by Ruffinus in Cyprian The Apostles did not deliver this Symbole Cypr in Symb. iâ— paper or parchment but by tradition oral to be laid up in the heart that so it might the better appear that the doctrine thereof was really from the Apostles for Infidels might have got it into their hands If it had been written and by that colour of rehearsing this Creed hypocritically mighâ— have undermined the Church therefore it was delivered rather vocally then in writing just as the Commander in War giveth the Word or sign vâ—cally and noâ— in writing by which friends are discerned from enemies which wate hword is called Symbolum as the Creed is that is a token or signal Thus far Ruffinus The most ancient record of the Christians Symbolâ— which I find written and without exception for that which is in the Constitutions of Clemens I believe is much later is in Tertullian who was a Writer as himself saith in the year after the birth of Christ 160. Tert. de Monoga which I have here inserted that the Reader may see how much hath been added to that first Creed untill these dayes as I find it in Tertullian lib de Veland Virgin principio Regula fidei una immobilis irreformabilis Tert. de Velan Virginibus Credendi in unicum Deum Omnipotentem mundi conditorem Vide Doctrinam praedicationis Apostolicae apud Irenae lib. 1. â— 2. Filium ejus Jesum Christum natum ex Virgine Maria Crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato tertia die resuscitatum à mortuis receptum in coelis sedentem nunc ad dextram Patris venturum judicare vivâ—s mortuis per carnis ctiam resurrectionem The onely Rule of Faith unmoveable and unreformable is To believe in one God Almighty maker of the World and his Son Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary câ—ucified under Pontius Pilate the third day raised from the dead received into heaven sitting now at the right hand of the Father that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead by the resuâ—râ—ction also of the flesh This is all in that place the same again in substance is rehearsed but in a few more words * Tert. de Praesc p. 92. Cont. Prax. p. 379. Lib. de praescriptionibus with the mention of the Mission of the Holy Ghost and the same again Lib. Cont. Praxean mentioning also the Mission of the Holy Ghost without any other considerable difference the same Father in the place above noted de praescript tells us Haec Tert. de Praescript regula nullas dubitationes habet nisi quas harâ—ses in ferunt i. that this rule of faith hath no doubts or dissensions among Christians but such as a e raised by heresies therefore what doubts and dissensions have been so raised is next to be considered CHAP. X. Of Heresies which occasioned neâ— additions to the old Creed THat the springing up of the tares of heresie gave occasion to the Church to enlarge the Creed thereby endeavouring to extirpate those errours it may appear by these instances whereof some are undeniable and the rest very probable and have been so thought formerly by †Erasm ad facul Theol. Sorbon others 1. In the Creed of Ruffinus in Cyprian is Credo resurrectionem hujus carnis i. e. the resurrection of this flesh because the Origenists would not believe that the resurrection should be of the same body but of another new body 2. By the Nicene Fathers to the words Jesus Christ was added Unum Dominum i. One Lord against the Arians who would not confesse the Father and the Son to be but one One Lord. 3. The same Fathers added the word Homoousion against the said Arians because they would not believe that the Father and the Son were both of one Godhead or substance 4. The Article of Remission of Sins was added after that the Novaâ—ian hereticks refused to admit any to their Communion though they were penitents which after baptisme
of it as was true Our English tongue is I think defective in translating this and some other a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words for Hades in heathen Writers signified as well a good and joyful condition of soules departed as a sad and woful state and I have heard that Mr. Broughton reported that he had seen the Lords Prayers in an ancient Greek Manuscript which began thus * Archbish of Armach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if this be true then Hades must there signifie 〈◊〉 But our English word Hell is ever with us taken in the worse sense but yet so it signifies a state of 〈◊〉 and permanency of the soul aâ— neither â—yâ—â—◠〈◊〉 The Ancient Fathers as they did generally and dogmatically teach the Immortalitie of man's soul 〈◊〉 did they as generally teach the doctrine of 〈◊〉 descending into Hades but as they could not tell us certainly the condition of other mens soules no more could they assure us of the place and condition of 〈…〉 Christs soul though some of them ventured very far and yet much differing one with another for that saying 〈…〉 Epist 〈◊〉 â— 30. Psal 24. 7. Lift up your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave is expounded of Christs ascending into heaven by Eusebius and c Hierom and d Theod. 〈◊〉 inconsâ—â—n 1â— The 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 But the very same words are also expounded of his descent into hell by e Epiph. Ser Mag. Sab n 32. Epiphanius and also by f Chrys Ser. de Pâ—nt n. 49. â—â—â—â—m quod Christus Deus n. 52. Chrysostome in another place so that he expounds the same words both wayes I am therefore perswaded that God hath purposely for reasons best known to his Divine wisdom concealed from us mortals the state of souls departed because I find in Scripture that dâ—yers have risen from the dead but â—â—â—nd not that they ever made any discovery of that unknown land no not Lazarus who was dead foure dayes and though he lived 3â— years Epiph hae 6â— 2. Cor. 12. 2. after his resurrection as Epiphanius writeth nor St. Paul though he died not yet was rapt into the 〈◊〉 heaven and tels us that he heard words which is not lawful for a man to utter and though he also lived more then 14 years after yet neither of them revealed it though the knowledge of it ever was and â—â—â—ll is very much desired and it was the wish of 〈◊〉 Eras ad Theol. Parisiens â—â— 22. Cle. Ro. in Recog princip Vtinam Paulus 〈◊〉 ruisset qualitèr extent animae 〈◊〉 à corpore ubinum extent i. I wish St. Paul was declared in what place and condision souls departed 〈◊〉 And this was an old currositie for we read in 〈◊〉 that before his conversion he was very desirous to kuow something of the souls immortality and for himself confesteth often thought to imploy some 〈◊〉 to raise dead a mans soul that so he might be informed Jâ—st apol 2. â— â—â— and after him Justin Martyr laboureth to prove that mens souls are immortal because as he thought Conjurers used to raise the souls of dead men and in the raigne of the Emp. Caligula one Canius a worthy man was playing at tables when a Warrant came for his execution Sen. de Tranq c. 14. so he took leave of his play-follows and promised them that if after death he could he would appear to them and certifie them of the affairs of the other World as Seneca relates but we find not that he ever returned from the dead and though we read in the Ecclesiastical histories that Irene the daughter of Ruf. l. 1. c. 5. Soc. l. 1. c. 8. Bishop Spiridion who was a member of the Nicâ—ne Council having in her custody in her life-time a rich jewel which was left with her in trust and that she having hid it died and did not discover the place where she had laid it so that the owner demanded it of her father with bitter menacing words charging him with fraud The holy man went in the bitternesse of his soul to his dead daughters Sepulchre and there prayed that the truth might be made known and presently he saw an apparition of his said daughter which revealed the place where the jewel was hid and there it was found yet no tidings from the other World are mentioned I know not why I may not think that this apparition was a good Angel in the shape of Irâ—nâ— for why may not good Angels appear in the femal shapes as well as an evil Angel appeared in the likenesse of Samuel It is a strange story that 1. Sam. 2â— Hier. Epist 53. c. 13. n. 5. St. Hierom tels of himself in his travâ—l toward Jerusalem he fell into a fever and to mens thinking was dead and was laid out and burial was prepared for him during this time of his seeming death he thought he was brought before a judgement-seat and by sentence of the judge was greivously scourged for reading secular books but at the request of them that stood about the Judge he was released and dismissed and so presently returned to his life and senses and found his eyes full of teares and his shoulders black and blew and sore as if they had bin beaten so that himself knew not what to thinke of it whether it were an extasie a rapture or a real emigration of his soul for he saith t' was more then a sleep and dream It was a divine monition no doubt by a kind of vision to ingage him more earnestly in divine studies as himself confesseth it did but what ever it was yet we are never the wiser concerning dead mens souls and their state such another story doth St. Austin tell of Aug. de Cura pro Mort. c. 13. one Curina who lay as dead for some dayes but returning to his senses tels them that in this trance he was certified that the Messenger which was sent to fetch his soul mistook him for another man of the same name hiâ— neer neighbour and indeed it was found that at the same moment wherein this Curina was restored to life the other Curina died yet neither the dead which come to the living nor the living which as they imagined went to the dead and returned again have yet informed us of the other World CHAP. XII A digressive Censure of St. Hierome's anâ— Curina's Visions how they might be presented and of Exstasies Raptures or Trances both from God and from the Devil By the way it will not be amisse to digresse a little and discourse how and in what manner these apparitions and visions probably were shewed to St. Hierome and also to other holy men for I do not believe that their soules were then really departed and totally separated from their bodies but I think they were taken in an exstasie or trance such as we read of Act. 10. 10. for when the vision of the sheet was presented to the soul or mind of St. Peter the
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
accepit à Patre non Filio verbo accepit sed carni and again n Quae Christus possidet ut Deus ea postulat ut Filius hominis Those things which Christ is said to have received of the Father he received not to himself as he is God the Word but by reason of his assumed flesh and such things as he required to his manhood he possesed before by his Godhead and in this sense onely is the Son of God said to be anointed and so only is he called Christ o Ath. orat 2. cont Arian n. 5. Vnctus est non ut Deus sed ut homo Heb. 1. 9. erat p Theod. Decret l. 5. n. 17. Luke 2. 52. Ath. ser 4. cont Ar. n. 8. n. 22. Erat Verbum Filius unigenitus ante incarnationem sed non nominaetur Jesus Christus nisi post incarnationem saith Theodoret He was anointed not as God but as man he was the Word the Son the Only begotton before his incarnation but is not named Jesus Christ till his incarnation so when it is said he increased in wisdom it is meant of his humane nature not of his Godhead as Athanasius expounds it Profecit non verbum sed caro So again Omnia mibi traditae sunt à Patre Nam antea non erat homo so again God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ Acts 2. 36. God cannot be said to make him but onely in respect of his incarnation for otherwise the Father is said to beget him but not to make him So again The Father giveth life to the Son that is to his flesh and as he is Man So Christ is said to receive the Spirit without measure that is his humane nature received the Divine Spirit for in him the Godhead dwelt bodily so The Father is greater then I That is as I am Man and he hath given him a Name still as he was Man and in this sense onely is Christ said to be Deified for nothing was in Christ before his Incarnation that could receive any new Title of God because his pure divine Nature was so before neither could that Title be really and properly ascribed to any other God because there is no God but he and therefore Epiphanius doth truly affirm Ante Epiph. haer 69. incarnationem non dicit Christus Deus meâ—s i. Christ did not say My God before his birth of the Virgin because he hath no God but onely in consideration of incarnation CHAP. X. How those words which signifie the abasing and minoration of the Son of God are to be understood of his delivering up the Kingdome and end thereof and of his subjection to the Father AS no Title of Majesty Exaltation or Deification could be newly added to the Son of God except he had humbled himself to incarnation So neither could any tearms or words of minoration and subjection be put upon the same Son of God if he had not determined before and actually afterward performed the assuming of flesh for by his incarnation he became capable of such infirm passions and thereby is as shewed Tert. cont Marc. l. 2. before he is said to be born to grow to weep to pray to thirst to suffer to die and yet to be truely called Deus mortuus Though dead yet God nevertheles S. Hilary upon these words The Father is greater then I saith Pater est Hil. de Trin. l. 9. n. 3. John 14. 28. major Filio respectu hominis assumpti sed Filius non est minor Patre respectu Deitatis The Father is greater then the Son in regard of the Sons assumed Manhood but the Son is not less then the Father in respect of the Sons Godhead For in consideration of the Divinity of the Son he saith The Father and I are one John 10. 30. They are one and that not onely in will or concurrence of consent as the Arians would have it but in Godhead for as the same Father answereth them Quasi divinae doctrinae inops sermo sit nec dici à Domino Hil. de Trin. l. 9. p. 185 potuerit Ego Patâ—â— unum volumus i. The Divine Scriptures wanted not words but Christ would have said The Father and I consent in will If he had so meant So St. Ambrose faith of his praying Christus vogat Ambr. de fide l. 3. n. 22. c. 3. ut Filius Hominis imperat ut Deus i. Christ prayed as he was the Son of Man for as he is God he commandeth And again he saith of the death of Christ Christus Id. de incarn l. c. 5. n. 25. moriebatur non moriebatur secundum hominem secundum Dium i. Christ died for he was a Man Christ was immortall for he was God So the minoration of the Son of God Fulâ—entius saith Exiâ—â—ni Fulg. de grat c. 2. n. 3. Phil. 2. 7. io fuit acceptio formae servilis the making of himself to be of no reputation was by assuming the form of a servant just as a King doth condescend below himself in the disguise of mean apparell But the principall doubt is how Christ can be believed and said to be the true onely supream and eternall God and all one with the Father in the Unity of Godhead seeing the scripture tells us I Corinth 15. 24. 1 That Christ shall deliver up the Kingdome to God the Father 1 Cor. 15. 24 25 28. 2 That Christ shall reigne till he hath put all his enemies under his feet 3 That then the Son himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him For how can it stand with a supream God and an eternall King to deliver up his Kingdome and so to reign but for a limited time untill and then to become a subject 1 For answer hereunto I say first that Christs delivering up the Kingdome to the Father doth not imply any resignation or annulling of his own interest nor excluding of himself or abdicating his own dominion but a communication of that power which he received as he was man to his Father who is the same God with him For as he is said to deliver the Kingdome to the Father so the Father is said to have delivered all things to the Son Luk 10. 22. All things are delivered to me of my Father and Matth. 28. 18. All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth Yet no man will say that the Father by this gift excluded himself from his own dominion still God is Lord of all things but by this gift he communicated his Domiuion to the Man Christ and yet reserved it to himself Now what is this Kingdome that shall be delivered the Kingdom of Christ is his Church his Saint his Elect and what kind of delivering is here meant were not the Church and Saints and Elect Gods Kingdom before and how are they said to be delivered up to the Father who never had been out of his hands
Christ hath put down all carnall and sinfull rule authority and power for where the Apostle saith 1 John 3. 9. Hâ— that is bâ—rn of God sinâ—eth not He meaneth that the seed and fountain of sinning is not in his regenerating and Spirituall part by which he is born of God but he is also born of flesh and by that onely he sinneth CHAP. XI Why the unpardonable sinne is rather fastened on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons BUt why should the denying of the Godhead of the Son be so especially said to be a blasphemy unpardonable when as the denying of the Godhead of the other Persons is also damnable for first Saint Basil saith expresly more then once Qut Spiritum sanctum Crâ—â—turam vocant incidunt inblasphâ—miam Basil epist 387. n. 17. 43. illam irremissiâ—item He that calleth the Holy Ghost a creature falleth â—nto the unpardonable sinne so that Eunomius the Heretâ—cke who said the Spirit was the Creature of the Son was involved in Basil cont Euno n. 20. this blasphemy as well as Arius who said the Son was but a Creature of the Faâ—herâ— and therefore called him Mâ—ttendarium onely an Emissarie of the Father as Ruffinus reporteth and Saint Cyprian calâ—eth the Devill Ruff. in symb apud Cyp. n. 91. who is under the pressure of eternall unpardonableness both Antichristum Antispiritum an Antichrist and an Antispirit intimating as much danger in the one as in the other For we â—earn in Scripture that without holyness no man shall see God Heb 12 14. Therefore how can that man expect the gift of Holyness who denieth the Author of Holyness which iâ— the Holy Ghost Secondly He that denieth the Godhead of the Father is an Atheist for all sorts of Religions which confess 2. a God do also confess a Fatherhood in that God even the Heathens called their Jupiter a Father but how can an Atheist expect salvation from God who denieth that there is any God For answer hereunto it may be said that although the denying of the Godhead of any Person in the Trinity be destructive to salvation yet this sin is rather fastned on the deniers of Christ then the deniers of the other Persons First because the confession of the Father and the holy Spirit is not salvificall without the Confession of Christ for even Heathens confessed both a Fatherhood and a Divine Spirit of God as appeareth by the confession of Neâ—u hadnezar Dan. 4. 9. but the Confession of Christ is alone salvificall because he is not alone as himselfe saith John 8. 16. I am not alone but I and the Father which sent me for the confession of Christ includeth Basil de 〈◊〉 c. 12. the whole Trinity as Saint Basil affirmeth Christi appâ—llatio est professio totius trinitatis deâ—larans Deum Patrem qui unâ—it Filium qui unctus est Spiâ—itum qui est unctio and Saint mbâ—oâ—e affirmeth the same Amb. de 〈◊〉 c. 3. Christus implicat Paâ—rem unguentem Filium unctum Spiritum unctionem i. The appellation of Christ is the profession of the whole Trinity declaring the Father anointing the Son anointed and the Spirit who is the ointment and therefore albeit the form of Baptisme was precisely set down to be in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost yet because the Name Jesus Christ implyeth all these Saint Peter mentioneth onely this name Acts 2. 38. Be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for remission of sins so doth Saint Paul also Rom. 6. 3. Galatians 3. 27 Secondly the unpardonable sin is fastned on the deniers of the second Person rather then on the deniers of the other Persons because the work of redemption was immediately wrought by the second Person For it was the Person of the Son onely that became a Surety for us and not onely a bare Witness or Testifier as the Commenter affirmeth the Son onely took upon him our nature and therein fulfilled the Law for us and suffered death in our stead for our transgressions he onely was our Surety and Mediatour and he onely was incarnate and died and rose again and carried our flesh into Heaven with him and there still continueth a Mediatour for us not by any verball pleading or intreating for our salvation but by presenting there in the glorious Sanctuary of Heaven that humane body and soul which had actually and perfectly performed the whole Covenant of God and therefore even in the most strict Justice of God shewing that Heaven is due by the said Covenant to all his mysticall Body for which his naturall Body was sacrificed on the Crosse for the expiation of all their sinnes which was prefigured by the High Priests entering into the Sanctum Sanctorum All these dispensations and actions which conduced to our salvation must be ascribed onely to the Person of the Sonne but cannot be said of the Father or of the Holy Ghost For that was the Heresie of the â—oc l. 2. c. 15. Sabellians who were therefore called Patripassiani for these workes are proper to the Sonne alone Filius natus passus resurrâ—xisse ascendâ—sse dicitur non Aug. de Trin. l. 1. c. 5. n. 60. Pater As Augustine saith i. The Father cannot be said to be born or suffer or to rise again or to ascend but onely the Sone Therefore Kisse the Son lest he be angry and ye perish Psalme 2. 12. For the denying of him is the renouncing of salvation CHAP. XII The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scripture and by the type of the Tabernacle BEcause the apprehension and believing of this great Mystery of God Incarnate is a wonderfull consolation to the Christian and the denying thereof pertinaciously a certain note of eternall perdition therefore the Scripture hath very evidently and frequently declared this weighty truth both by express words and otherwise for the child to be born of a Virgin must be called Emmanuel Esay 7. 14. that is God with us or God incarnate and the same Prophet Esay 9. 6. giveth that childe such Titles as cannot be attributed to any meer creature as The mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of Peace This Prophets words do so agree with the Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine as the Word was made flâ—sh and the Word was God John 1. and God manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16 and of whom as concerning the flâ—sh Christ came who is over all God blessed for evermore Rom. 9. 5. that Saint Jerome called this Prophet Hier. proaem in Isai n. 33. Esay Non solum Prophetam sed Evangelistam Apostolum Not onely a Prophet but an Evangelist and an Apostle for as the Prophet before the incarnation bringeth in God saying I have sworn by my self to me every knee shall bow Esay 45. 23. So the Apostle applieth that saying to Christ being the same
still worship toward the Temple and our Saviour tells us which is the true Temple indeed Iohn 2. 19 21. Destroy this Temple in 3 dayes I will raise it up But he spake of the Temple of his body For Iesus est Deus Templum Dei saith Nazianzen i. Naz. Orat. 43. Jeius is both the Temple of God and the God of the Temple And so Saint Austine saith Christus est Sacerdos Aug. de dog Eccl. n. 73. Sacrificium est Deus Temâ—lum i. Christ is the sacrificer and the sacrifice he is the God and the Temple And Origen saith Christus est Templum in Orig. in Josh Hom. 17. utero Virginis formatuâ— i. Christ is the Temple built in the Virgins womb And Athanasius more plainly expresseth this Mystery Digni sunt Ariani qui Atha Or. 5. cont Ar. n. 4. â—aepè percant qui prisci populi reverentiam â—rga Templum laudant sed Dâ—minum in carne ut in Templo suo adorare recusant i. The Arians have well deserved perdition who praise the Iewes for their reverence towards the Temple yet themselves refuse to worship the Lord iâ— the Temple of his Body Solomon saith Proverbs 9. 1. Wisedome hath built her an house Who is wisedome but God and what house is it but as Athanasius often expoundes that saying Corpus Christi Atha ser 3. cont Ar. n. 6. est Domus sapienâ—iae i. The house of Wisedome is the Body of Christ The word building in Scripture is applyed to an humane body as well as to an house Gâ—nesis 2. 22. Deus aedificavit costam in muâ—erem i. God builded the woman of Adams rib and Ruâ—h 4. 1. Rachâ—l and Leah did build the house of Israel and in three dayes I will raise it Iohn 2. As if it were the raysing of an house So the Mysticall Body of Christ which is his Church is called Gods building 1. Cor. 3. 9. In brief Iesus Christ in respect of his divine Nature is our God and the Temple wherein our God dwelleth and that which is truely said to be his rest for ever Psalme 132. 14. Is his glorified Body now in Heaven When we compose our selves to Prayer we lift up our mindes to this God in that Temple God Incarnate is the finall and ultimate Object of our adoration there is no way to approach to our God with any hope of obtaining pardon and remission of sins but through the open doores of the Temple of his wounded body therefore our Prayers are all sealed with Through Iesus Christ our Lord. He that maketh any approach to God otherwise then considered in this Temple must expect to finde him onely as a severe and offended Judge but whâ—n he looketh on us through his Sonne his severity is sweetned Filius est dulâ—edo Dâ—i i. The Sonne is Fulg disc object Arian n. 1. the sweetnesse of God When he beholdeth us through Jesus Christ he is pacified and gâ—acious the clouds and tempests of Gods anger are asswaged by the serenity of the Countenance of Jesus Vulâ—u quo Coelum tempestatesque sâ—renat Virg. Aâ—n 1. Are we not therefore called Christians because we worship God in Christ To him Saint Stephen directed his Prayer Acts 7. 57. Lord Iesus receive my spirit And Saint Paul also Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father comfort your hearts for so Christ had given direction before Iohn 14. 13. Whatsoever ye shall aske in my Name that will I doe that the Father may be glorified in the Son By what hath been said I trust the danger of this Commentors bold assertion will be discovered who tells us that Christ is not to be believed P. 54. in finally but God in Christ not believing or not considering that the Godhead is in Christ And therefore Christ in respect of this Gohead is to be believed in and prayed to finally and â—erminaâ—ely as the utmost object of our Faith and the Manhood of Christ so endowed with and united to the same Godhead is to be believed in and prayed to Mediately for by the Incarnation of the Godhead in Jesus he became our Advocate and Mediatour and a Priest which is next to be discoursed CHAP. XV. That the most high God became a Mediatour and a Priest and that Christ is prayed unto and yet is a Mediatour Every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed unto THe Commentor tells us That the supream God P. 80. c. 5. v. 5. can no way be a Priest and therefore Christ is not supream God because he is maâ—e a Priest This assertion is most false and blasphemous he that affirmeth it either never was Christian or else must be an Apostate because to say that the most high and onely God cannot be a Priest is all one as to say This God cannot assume flesh or be Incarnate For in the same manner the supreme God became a Priest in which he became a Mediatour and both by assuming humane nature For if it be demanded how we can pray to Christ seeing he is our Mediatour and Priest who interceedeth and prayeth for us and that by him we approach to God so that we may seem rather to pray by him then to him and if Christ be the finall Object of our Prayer who is our Mediatour To this it may be answered that Christ is a Mediatour in the same sense that he is a Priest and in that sense he prayed Now he became a Priest and a Mediatour by assâ—ming Manhood for Saint Chrysostomâ— Chrys Hom. Ant. 32. n. 12. saith truely Christus orabaâ— ut homo nam Deus non â—rat i. Christ prayed in that he was a Man for God doth not pray And Saint Austine saith Christus Aug. de Civit. â— 20. c. 10. est Sacerdo quatenus est Filius hominis i. Christ is not a Priest but by being the Sonne of Man For although it be said Rom. 8. 26. The Spi it maketh intercâ—ssion for us though the Spirit as it signifieth the third Person was not Incarnate the meaning is onely that the Holy Ghost helpeth our infirmities in prayer as is there said and nos intâ—rpellare facit It enableth and stirreth us up to pray as Saint Austine Aug. expos in Ro. n. 96. expounds it not that the Spirit it self prayeth for us When Eudoxius the Arian was newly placed in the Episcopall seat of â—onstanâ—inople the first sentence that he uttered was this blaâ—phemy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. l. 2. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father is impious the Sonne is pious at which words when the people began to raise a tumult he appeased them by saying that his meaning was that the Father never prayed but the Son did often pray his intent was hereby to insinuate that because Chrâ—st prayed therefore he was not God but was onely a creature which â—s the Argument which our Commenter useth against the Priesthood of God for indeed the pure Godhead
Emmanuel at his Circumcision yet himself and his Person were really that thing which the word Emmanuel signified God with us though his proper Name was 〈◊〉 And therefore when our God is named so and by his proper and peculiar Name then surely we may without offence by us given adore our God CHAP. XIX That the Name Jesus is the onely proper Name of God because the pure Godhead can have no proper Name as the Fathers affirmed IF it may appear that the Name Jesus is the proper Name of God and so proper that God hath no proper Name at all but onely the Name Jesus thâ—n I trust no Christian will either dis believe his Godhead or be offended with them that do adore this Jesus for the better understanding whereof I will premise two considerations First a distinction of Names which I borrow both from the Ancient and the Modern Grammarians For Saint Auâ—ustâ—â—â— in his Grammer doth thus distinguish Names Est Noâ—â—â— appellativum ut ligo Proprium Aug. Gram. p. 90. ut Nero id est There is a Noune or Name appellative as the word Plough and a name proper as the word Nero. And this distinction is in our vulgar Grammer which I apply thus In the words King David King is a name appelâ—â—â—ive David is a name proper So Caesar was at first a name proper but afterwards it grew an appellative of those Princes which succeeded and jâ—st so dâ—d 〈◊〉 and Pharaoh as some think Just so doth 〈◊〉 tell us of the words Jesus Christ Jesus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christus est appellatio siâ—ut vestiâ—us id est that Jesus Tert. advers Prax. n. 55. is a Name proper but Christ is an appellative 2. The second consideration is that the pure Godhead hath no proper name This I will not presume to dictate magisterially but submit it onely as a consideration to the judgment of the learned Reader nor would I at all have so affirmed if I had not first consulted with and obtained the resolution of the Ancients Philo the Jew from those words Exod 3. 14 I am that I am saith it is as much as if he had said Natura mea est â—sse non dicâ— the nature of God is to be and not to be named And he saith further Philo de mutat nom n 20. that God can have no proper name his own words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Dionâ—sius Arep saith that God is Anonymus id est without any name and so saith Dionys Ar. de Divi. nom c. 7. Justin Martyr â—mpossibile est nomen de Deo proprié dici 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est it is impossible to give Just paaenet 1. n. 4. any proper name to God the reason why the pure Godhead can have no proper name is rendred by Lactanâ—ius and that out of Trismegistus God saith he is Anonymus and therefore hath no name because Lact. de fal relâ—g l. 1. c. 6. he that is but one needeth no propriety of name proper names are for distinction when there are many such and therefore the heathens who thought there were many gods did call them by severall proper names as Saturn Jupiter Mars Venus c. And this is also observed by Tertullian and the Tert. de Test anim c. 2. Euseb hâ—st l. 5. c. 3. same reason was given by the famous Martyr Attalus when he was asked in the middest of his torments what the name of his God was answered God is but One and needeth no name names are needful there onely where plurality is You see the judgment of these Ancients is clear that God the pure Godhead neither hath nor needeth nor can have any proper name If it be said that although God needeth no proper name to distingush him from other gods because there is no God but one yet a proper name may be usefull to separate him from creatures I answer that an appellative name is sufficient for that purpose even as the common appellative word Homo doth separate man from other kinds of creatures so the appellative word God not taken â—equivocally may distinguish God from his creatures CHAP. XX. That no creature is called Jehova the signification of that word and the reverend esteem of it by the Ancients OF all the appellations which are attributed to the onely and most high God Jehova is and hath been esteemed the most fit and adâ—â—uate Our Commenter doth truly confesse that Jesus is called Iehova but yet he doth most profanely and falsly indeavour to apply this appellation to a created Angell and that against the unanimous consent both of the ancient and our modern Divines who constantly affirm that this word Iehova is not communicable to any creature as other appellations of God sometimes are for the word Iehova as it doth imply the Lord and Which is so our Divines do ordinarily interpret it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Philo by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it signifieth Philo. de Abrah n. 7. The Lord Eternall Saint Austin tells us that if there were any such Latine word he would translate it essence Being and in Dâ—onysiuâ— Areop God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est as he is both the independent Aug. l. 3. locut de Levit. n. 56. Dio. de div nom c. 5. n. 8. Being and because all the essence and being of creatures is given by him the same word also doth imply eternity for therefore is our Lord Jesus called Rev. 1. 1. Which is which was and which is to come because as Prosp saith Quia nunquam defuit nunquam Prosp in Sent. n. 38. and Justin Mart. parae 1. p. 18. decrit semâ—er est id est he never was wanting never will be for he is alwaies which cannot be affirmed of any meer creature and therefore the Iewes had this word in such reverend estimation that it was accounted as a crime capicall to pronounce this word Philo. devit Mos. l. 3. n. 11. except onely in time of divine worship as Philo. testifieth and Iosephus also said he thought it unlawfull to Joseph Antiq. l. 2. n. 5. speak that word otherwise then is said befoâ—e and therefore the Iewes when in their writings or discourse they desired to signifie thâ—s word they used to call it Philo. do vit Mosis l 3. n. 11. Tetragrammaton And to me it seemes that the Christian Writers had the like high and reverend esteem of this word for Nazâ—anzâ—ne and Hiâ—rom call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id â—st unnameable and ineffable not onely for the difficulty of expressing Naz. Orat. 36. Hier. Epist exeg 136. n. 29. the word but as it may seeme in â—egard of the reverence thereof for this word Iehova is very rarely to be found in the writings of the Fathers but when they had cause to speak of it they signified what word they meant by calling it
Teâ—ragrammaton id est the word of 4. Letters just as the Jewes did for so I find that Eusebius calls it and so doth Origen and Euseb 26. k. Orig. 11. l. Hier. 29. Clem. stro n. 14. Diodorus Sic. l. 1. sect 94 so doth Hierâ—me But Clemens Alex. hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his interpreter renders Iehova the name of four letters and perhaps the Gnostick hereticks from this word Iehova borrowed the name of their chief heavenly Prince whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which we read both in Irâ—naeus and in Epiphaâ—â—â—s Now albeit this word I hova signifie no other thing but onely God yet it is not therefore to be called the Iren. l. 1. c. 18 Epiph. hae 62. hae 34. proper name of God no â—oâ—e then Logical definitions or descriptions may be said to be the pâ—oper name of the thing defined or described though they be adaequate nor in Divinity do we say that the words Omnipotent or Eternall Lord are the proper name of God though onely God is so called Maximus an heathen in his Epistle to Saint Aussin confesseth Nomâ—n Dei proprium ignoramus id est although the Aug. Epist 43. Godhead had a proper name yet man is ignorant what that name is and if we did know any proper name of the Godhead yet as Philo. observeth It were a sign of greater reverence to call upon him by a name Philo. de vita Mo. n. 11. lib. 3. appellative for saith he when we speak to our parents we do not use to call them by their pâ—oper names but appellatively Father Mother And so we may with reverence call upon the Godhead using the word Jehova because it is not a proper but an appellative name For this word Iehova being rendred Lord if a man should ask you what is the proper name of your God would you answer that his proper name is Lord It is said Isai 9. 6. His name shall be called wonderful and Luk. 1. 49. Holy is his name If I ask you what is the proper name of your God would you answer that his proper name is wonderful or holy No these are not proper names but appellations Just apol 1. n. 7. Vniversali rerum patri nomen non est imposiâ—um saith Iustin Martyr the universall Father of all hath no name for though we call him God and Father and Creator and Lord c. Non sunt nomiâ—a sed appellationes id est these are not names but appellations saith he just as the titles of our King are His Majesty his Highnesse his Grace our Soveraign which no man will say are the Kings proper name these are the reasons which moved the Ancients to say that the pure Godhead for so they meant by the most high God neither hath nor needeth any proper name But when the Word was made flesh that is when the Godhead was incarnate and when God was so made man then good reason that he should with our flesh assume also a proper name to distinguish him from other men as he did and that name is Iesus So the result of all that hath been said is that the onely proper name of our only and most high Lord God is Iesus and this is the reason that both the Scripture requireth adoration of God under the name of Iesus and the Church also for the perpetuall memory and confession of his Godhead doth require adoration at such times as his proper and only Name Iesus is mentioned For although we do not say that those which refuse to worship the Lord Jesus in that manner which the Church prescribeth when this name is named do commit the grand sin yet they may be truly Si tu neglexeris nomen Dei delet ipse nomen tuum August in Psa 91. D. said that they which do therefore refuse to worship the Lord Iesus because they do not believe nor will confesse and acknowledge him to be the only true and most high God such men do fall into that sin of which it is said It shall never be forgiven CHAP. XXI The Conclusion of this second Booke with the Authours resolute Confession of Jesus Christ to be the most High and onely Lord God BY this time the Christian Reader doth perceive why the denying of the Godhead of â—esus Christ hath been said to be that grand unpardonable sin and therefore what great cause and reason we have to be rightly instructed in and to be frequently put in mind of this weighty Doctrine because if Jesus be not the true and onely and most high God and be not so by us confessed and believed we can obtain no Redemption but must necessarily perish everlastingly In this Confession therefore I set up my rest and to him in this Faith I fasten my soul for all my hope of salvation is included in this Doctrine which if it should prove untrue I might with trembling say as an Heathen did on his death-bead Animula vagula blandulâ— c. Adrian ap Spart Sect. 14. Quae nunc abibis in loca I know no other way in which redemption and salvation can be expected for Christ is the way and the onely way and in this bottome onely do I trust and venture that which to me is most precious even my soul and the eternall state thereof This is that necessary Doctrine which I have laboured all this while to set forth and which our God hath taught us both by himself and by his Prophets from the beginning of the world In this therefore I conclude with such Christian boldness as becometh us in the very foundation of Christian Religion in the words of Rich. de Sâ— Victore Nonne cum omni confidencia Ri. de St. Vict de Trin. l. x. c. 2. Jer. 20. 7. Deo dicere poterimus Domine fi error est à â—â—ipso deâ—â—pri â—umuâ— c. id est Lord if our Christian Faith be false and erroneous thou thy self hast deceived us for those wonderfull works which have wrought this Faith in us could be done by none other but thy self With like confidence Athanasius also in a disputation by him held with Aâ—ius at the Nicene Councell when he affirmed that the Father and the Sonne were At h in disp cum Ario. n. 27 but one God Arius told him Tu Sabellius es qui Patrâ—m Filium uâ—um dâ—â—â—â— i Thou art another Sâ—bellius â—n confounding the Father and the Sonne But Athanasius replied TumDominus Sabellius est qui it a dixit Egâ— Paâ—er unum sumus i If I be a Sabellian foâ— saying the Father and the Sonne are one God then must Christ himself be a Sabellian for himself hâ—th so said The like boldnesse and resolution in this very Doctrine Hilâ—le Trin. lib. â—â— n. 2. doth Saint Hilary expresse Domine quid me misâ—rum de â—e â—â—â—ellisti Verbis tuiâ— credidi de â—pit me Moses David Solomon Daniel Apostoli
si câ—imen est nimium legi Propâ—eâ—is Apostolis credidisse ignosce Omnipotens Deus quâ—a in his mâ—ri possum Emendâ—ri non possum Id est Lord why hast thou deceived me thy poore creature I believed thine own words concerning thine own self thy servant Moses David Solomon Daniâ—l and thine Apostles have misled me If it be a fault to give too much credence to thy Law thy Prophets and Apostles I beseech thee to have me â—xcused if in this Faith I live and die for I can never recant this Doctrine Finally this was also the constant Profession of that learned Bishop Saint Basil for when Valens the Aâ—ian Emperour had by a messenger threatned him with sequâ—stration of his Church and banishment of his person if he persisted in this Doctrine which he called a foolish doctrine The good Bishop answered uâ—inam sempiter na sit Theod. hist l. 4. c. 10. haec mea insipientia id est And so say I and I pray God I may never be withdrawen from that true and most wholsome Doctrine which I have here delivered and which our new fashion rationall animalls call folly but that I may persevere in the Faith and Confession of the Godhead of Jesus Christ unto my lives end And afterwards I doubt not but I shall so continue with the Angels and Elders Revelation 5. 13. saying Blessing Honour Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lambe for ever and ever Amen L. Deo FINIS THE THIRD BOOK Αâ—θÏωπâ—Ï‚ Θεâ—φόÏος THE Incarnation of GOD And the MYSTERIE Of Mans Redemption unfolded Tentemus animas quae deficiunt in fide naturalibus rationibus adjuvare Ruffin in symb apud Cyp. LONDON Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes Armes in St. Paul's Church-yard 1655. THE PREFACE HAving in the second Book shewed that Jesus Christ is the onely true supream and most high God and that there is no other God but he for that we are assured that Christian Faith cannot Hâ—l de Trin. l 7. admit of two gods And because we have learned the same in the Holy Scriptures Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord. And that the Prophet calls the Son of God Esay 9. 6. The mightty God the everlasting Father and that in the Gospell the Son of God saith John 10. 30. The Father and I are one and that all his are the Fathers and all that the Father hath are his John 17. 10. Which sheweth a perfect communion in one Essence and that the Son in Godhead is no way inferiour to the Father but both are equall and therefore the Scripture with great reason doth promiscuously sometimes name the Father before the Sonne and sometimes the Sonne is put before the Father as John 8. 16. I and the Father that sent me and Gal. 1. 1. By Jesus Christ and God the Father And 2. Thes 2. 16. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father For if Christ were absolutely under and subject to the Father how could this be endured when no Prince will suffer his subject though he be never so high and honourable to write Ego Rex I and my King as Chrysostome Chrys tom 6. ser 4. n. 55. notes In this third Book I am to shew that the same Onely true and most high God was incarnate by assuming humane flesh from the Virgin Mother and in that assumed nature was called Jesus Christ and in that assumed Manhood performed the great work of Mans redemption and therein suffered death on the Cross thereby satisfying the Justice and submitting to the Sentence of God as an expiation for our transgressions and by his most holy life and perfect righteousness in fulfilling the whole Law and so performing the Covenant of God for us and in our stead as our suretie and thereby according to the Covenant Do this and live hath obtained for his whole Mysticall Body the kingdom of Heaven and everlasting life To this discourse I am lead by the pernicious doctrine of this Commenter who denied Jesus to be the supreame God and to colour this blasphemy hath most apparantly misinterpreted and transverted the holy Scriptures and wronged the ancient Nicene Fathers as hath been shewed before and particularly that most learned Bishop and ancient Church-writer Eusebius as is next to be shewed THE INCARNATION of GOD. CHAP. I. The Vindication of Eusebius whom this Comment hath calumniated and falsified VPon those words Heb. 13. 2. Some have P. 331. entertained Angels the Commenter saith Eusebius in his first Book contends that one of the Angels was the Son of God for he will not have him the most high God c. You have not onely all to becommented the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Nicene Father but have written a loud Comment on Eusebius who never wrote or said for ought can appear that Jesus Christ was not the most high God But I am sure divers times in his most learned Books he teacheth true Doctrine quite contrary to yours when he saith Filius erat ante aeterna tempora Euseb de Demonst i. 4. 6. â— the Son of God was from eternity and also particularly condemneth this very Heresie which you have so belaboured under the name of Heresie Artemon Theodotus and Paulus Simosatenus as hath been shewed before Id hist l. 5. c. 28. lib. 7. c. 2. For this Eusebius was one of those renouned Bishops who at the Nâ—â—ene Councel against Arius decreed and subscribed the article Homossion id est that the Father and the Son are of the same essence and Godhead whereas some Arians at that Councel refused to subscribe and thereby insinuated as your selfe have done that there was a greater and a lesser God and so fell into the old heresie of Mercion who said Bas ho. 27. con sabel Soc. l. 2. c. 5. there were two Gods 2â— Saint Basil notes one of the refusers was also named Eusebius who was â—ishop of Nicomedia at that time and afterwards was preferred to the Bishoprick of Constantinople and their lived and dyed an Arian but we have no writings of this Eusebius now extant The Eusebius whom you mean lived and dyed Bishop of Caesaria a man of so great learning and worth that the Emperour Constantine said he was worthy to be the Vniversal Bishop of the Sec. l. 1. c. 18. world this man at first was unwilling to have the word homoâ—sion put into the Creed because it was new but afterwards when he perceived that it was but the expression of that Doctrine which is really contained in Scripture when it is said The Father and I are one he accepted of it and exhibitted his own Church-Creed to the Councel and the Councel confirmed it onely adding the word Homoâ—sion and so published it as Socrates saith so that it seemeth the Soc. l. 1. c. 5. creed which we call the Nicene Creed
the Holy Ghost can be seene becase the Godhead of every and all Persons is one and alike invisible for God is a spirit and a spirit cannot be seene and therfor S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa triâ—itâ—s intellâ—giâ—ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist 112. Aug. Epist 111. Tert. cont Prax. Pater i. The whole trinitie is invisible and not only the Father and again he saith The whol trinitie is of a nature invisible and again he saith out of Ambros. and Hierome Neither the Father nor the Son can be seen in their divine nature For so noe Eye can see them and therfore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis i. Patriarks saw God not in the plenitude of his Majestie but according to the capacitie of man and to this both Ahanasius and Atha ad Antio n. 28. Chrys. ho. 48. Antio n. 17. Chrisostome agree Nemo essentiam invisibilis i. The essence of God is to all mortalls invisible The divine nature and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture somtimes calls the face of God of which God said to Mooses Thou canst not see my face and live so Theodoret expounds those words divina natura Theod Dialog immutat Atha quest ad Antioch n. 28. Aug. de Trin. l. 2. sub aspectum non cadit i. the divine nature can not be seen so doth Athanasius 1. Anteriora dei significant divinitatâ—m i. the foreparts of God signifie the Godhead and so S. Austin often tels us that the face of God signifies the form of God and the afterparts signifie the form of a servant which is the humane nature But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spake unto Moses face to face and how could Jacob say I have seene God face to face if the pure Godhead can not be seene And how could Moses tell the Israelites Deut. 5. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount and yet before he had said Deut 4. 15. yee saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb I answer that as in one place of those Scriptures alleaged the face of God signifies his divinitie or Godhead which can not be seen so in the other place it signifieth Gods presence manifested by words or signes wherby God declare th himself present as on mount Horeb by fier and thunder and in the tabernacle by a cloud or by a sound and words so Gods face or presence may be where there is no sight of him and so he spake to the people face to face because they knew for certaine that God was there present But Iacob saw the face of God because he saw the face of that man or that shape which wrastled with him when God appeared to him in the forme of a man although Iacob could not see the pure Godhead and this kind of appearing in an assumed shape is called by Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The appearing of God from hence the Dion Areop Caelest Hier. c. 4. Eus de Dem. l. 5. c l. 14. aforementioned Ensebius argued that because Iacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him in which man was God therfore he said it was the person of the Son and not the Person of the Father because Eusebius was persuaded that the Person of the Father did never shew himself in a visible shape â—nd for this Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons of which more hereafter CHAP. IV. More concerning the first question how God hath bin and may be seen FOr the further explanation of this question it would be inquired how it is said that God is visible and hath bin seene and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible which in their owne Spiritual nature are as invisible as the divine nature is for because a spirit hath nothing in it self which can be an object for mortal Eyes therfore whensoever Spirits or Angels good or bad are seen of men it must be by assuming some shape or body and mingling themselves with it that so they may become a fit visible object because only such things are visible for ever so many invisibles whether they be good or bad spirits Angels or devils cannot make one visible Object and therfore when we read in Scripture that God appeared in an Angel it is not so to be understood as if the invisible God became visible by taking uppon him the invisible nature of an Angel for an Angelâ—â—al nature is of it self as invisible as the divine nature as is said because both are Spirits but when God is seen in an Angel the Angel meant is the corpoâ—â—al visible shape which God assumeth and imployeth and useth for that purpose to be seen and to converse with man by for the word Angel doth not alwayes signifie a spiritual nature but any officer imployed by God as a Messenger so S. Iohn the Bapâ—ist is called Gods Angel Mat. 11. 10. in the Original So that the visible creature which is used as a Medium to present God visible is and may very fitly be called the Angel of God As Moses therfore put a Veile over his shining face which otherwise the people could not behold and as the Sun by our weak Eyes is better seen through the veil of a thâ—n mist then in its Cleer brightnes so in this life God is visible Only as in a glosse â—arkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightneâ— is invisible but the Invisible things of God are seen by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinitie can â—ot be sâ—â—e except it be clothed and allayed with some moâ—e grosse and Material veil and therfore at what time God shewed himself visibly to men he took some corpâ—real Creature and shape unto him that so he who by nature is invisible might in that assumed habit be seen and this was the resolution of the Fathers a Filius Atha de uniâ— Tâ—in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Maâ—â— iâ— Filius vâ—sus est Patriarchis in specie hâ—minis i. The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material and visible shape as â—â— a Man So S. Chrisostome saith The Prophets which saw Chrys ho. 10. Antâ—o Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id Epist 11â— God had not otherwise the expresse sâ—ght oâ— him sed figuras viderund i they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conveâ—sing with man in Paradise saith Deus locutus est cum pâ—imâ—s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali and againe Deus non est visâ—â— nisi assumptione creaturae i God talked with first parents in some bodily shape for God can not be seen but by assuming some Creature and
so said to be in the body of his flesh Col. 1. 22. And after his incarnation the time is called the dayes of his flesh Heb. 5 7. And he is said to be sent in the likenes of sinfull flesh Rom. 8. 3. not that his flesh was not real or but a meer similitude or phantasme as the Manichees said but it was real and pure without sin yet like unto our flesh which is sinfull surely S. Peterâ— thought Christ to be incarnate when he said Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh 1 Pet. 4. 1. I desire this Commenter who denieth this to consider Soberlie what the divine Apostle S. John hath said to this point more then once 1 Ioh. 4. 3. Every Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist wherof you have heard that it should come and even now already it is in the world Thus is this place now read and againe he saith 2 Ioh. 7. Many deceivers are entred into the world who confess not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh this is a deceiver and an Antichrist The fathers spake in the same manner of the Godhead to be Incarnate in the flesh of Christ as they spak of the incarnation of an humane soule in an humane bodie Corpus Domini est vestis regia Chrys to 5. ser 65. Atha Disp in Nic. Concil n. 27. Aug. de Civit. l. 18. c. 35. Euseb Emiss n. 32. i. the bodie of the Lord his garment royal Corpus Domini est amiculum dei Caro est amictus verbi i. the flesh of the Lord is the garment of God and upon those words Mal. 3. 1. The Lord shall suddenly come to hisâ— Temple S. Austin expounds thus In Templum id est in Carnem i. by coming into his temple is meant his coming in the flesh and â—hristi vestimentum humanitas est qua divinitas induta videri non poterat i. The garment of Christ is his humane nature which covered his divinitie as garments doe our bodies The reason why our Commenter denieth the Incarnation of an humane soule is as I imagine because he thinketh the soule dieth wiih the body And shall rise againe at the resurrection of the body and that it hath no existence but only in the body and the reason why he denies the Incarnation of Christ is because he doth not believe Christ to be God from Eternitie but that he hath his beginning from his humane birth and that after his resurrection he was Deified for his fore-runners the Arians said that Christ was but a God made that is all one with Deified that this Son of God was not equall to the Father in Eternitie in his answer I trow he will resolue that question which S. Austin asked the Arians Quot annis precedit Deus Pater Aug. de 5. her to 6. n. 6. filium suum i. how many yeares was God the Father older then God the Son or how long was the Father God before the Son was God in the meane time we will rest satisfied in the sure word of God who saith Esa 43. 10. Before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me wee read that by God the Word all things were made Joh. 1. 3. time is a creature therfore it was made by him and he was before for if time time were before the Son of God then could he not be called The first borne of every creature Coloss 1. 15. The reason why rhe Son of God did take upon him our nature was because he would in our stead as a suretie and undertaker both performe the whole Law and also sustaine all the penaltie of our transgressions of which more hereafter CHAP. VIII More reasons why the Son of God was Incarnate how and when he became our suetrie the Aeternal covenant explained distinction of Persons in the Godhead THe Supream and Eternal â—od in the person of the son did for mans redemption â—â—kâ— man's nature upon him not because God had no other way by which he could have saved us but because he would not save us any other way for wee know that the same God who saveth man by taking man's nature did and still doth preserve the blessed angels in their estate of glorie and from falling by his power and gracious goodnes although he did not take upon him the naâ—ure of Angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham Heb. 2. 16. The Church never taught thaâ— God could not have saved man without the Incarnation of his Son but the contrarie Athanasius saith a Poterat Deusâ—sine adventu Atha cont Aria ser 3. n. 7. Christi peccatum solvâ—re verbulo suo i. God could have remitted our sins with the least word though Christ had not come in the flesh for if an earthly King can save his subject who hath by the law forfeited his life could not the Omnipotent King have saved mankind by his power for who can resist his will But then why did God give his Son to take our nature on him To this it may be answered that albeit the Son of of God was Originally a meer gift and from the free grace of God to mankind yet accessarily it became a debt and due to man so that God was bound in Justice ro give his Son because God had by his promise and Covenant ingaged and bound himself so to doe for although his meer mercy and goodnes moved him to make such a promise yet when he had once promised his justice and truth required the performance of that promise Deus dignatur promissionibus suis debitor Aug Confes. l. 5. c. 9 fieri i. God vouchsafed to make himself a debtor to or by his owne promises and having so made himself a debtor to man how could he without violating his word and promise forbeare the performance But where doth this promise appeare and how shall wee know that the Son of God became an undertaker and suert â— for us men and when was this Covenant made for the mysterie of man's redemption doth depend upon the Covenaâ—t and by it the Son of God did engage and bind himself out of his free and meer grace to become a suertie for man therfore before I proceede any further this Covenant must be inquired after as the cheife evidence of Christs ingagment It was an old question moved either by some scoffers or curious persons what God did before he made heaven and earth unto which some made answer with a jocular reproof Gâ—hennas parabat alta Scrutâ—ntibus i. he made hel for such seekers but S. Austin liked not Aug. Conf. l. 11. c. 12. this answer but said libentius respondeo nescio quod nescio i. I would rather answere that I know not So in that book of Cicâ—ro which was called Hortensius but is now lost this objection was made against the unitie of God Si Deus unus est
Christ was fore ordained before the foundation of the World 1 Pet. 1. 19. 20. But I ask how could the blood of Christ with righteousnes and equitie be so ordained If Christ had not freely and voluntarile thus ingaged himself who could compel him therunto or did not he who is the wisdome of the Father fore see the bloody Passions which such an undertaker must undergoe or what claime could the Sons of men have to chaleng any interest in his actions or Passions but only by this covenant and ingagement and how could it be said Eph. 1. 4. God hath Chosen us in him before the foundation of the World And how can in be said 2 Tim. 1. 9. God hath saved us and called us according to his purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Iesus before the world began Unles man be considered and looked upon in Christ through this Covenant because therby the Son of God did ingage and oblige himself to the Father in man's behalf to performe the whole will of God which should be required of man for therfore is the Son called the Angel or messenger of the covenant Mal. 3. 1. Because he was the Mediator sent interested and imploied both in the undertaking and in the performance of that secret Covenant of whom it is also written Psal 40. 7. In the volume of thy booke it is written of me that I should performe thy will or that I delight to doe thy will Thus because Christ had undertaken for us and therfore was by his promise to performe the will of God for us hence it is that all our salvation is in and by and through him and all the promises of God to man are in him and for this reason it is said Tit. 1. 2. That God promised Eternal life before the world began But to whom could it be promised before any Creature was made except only to the Son of God and why to him but because he only had ingaged himself in this Eternall Covenant and becauâ—e our transgressions were fore seen that they would deserve death and that our suertie in the payment of our debt must needs suffer death therfore this our suertie is called Rev. 13. 8. The Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world see Iohn 17. 5. CHAP. IX The Covenant between God and Man the Legall and Evangelicall Covenant are but one the reasons why Christ was Circumcised and Baptized BY what hath bin said it appeareth that the Son of God was indeed secretly ingaged to the Father for mankind before the world was made and so secretly that it is said Col. 1. 26. That it had bin hâ—d from ages and generaâ—ions But how shall it appear that this Sonne of God ingaged himself to Man Where shall we find his word and promise to be an undertaker and surety for us so that we may faithfully and boldly lay hold on and chalenge his promise I answer that after the Creation God the Son entered into the same Covenant wirh Man that he had ingaged himself in to the Father before the Creation and by this renuing the same Covenant he bound Mankind to himself as himself had bin bound before to the Father and that divers and sundry times For first the words of the Covenant between God and the Son and Mankind before the fall were these Gen. 2. 17. Of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evill thou shalt not eat of it for in the day thou eatest thou shall surely die In this Covenant on Gods part life is promised implicitely and on mans part obedience is reftipulated or covenanted for to this condition Man had submitted and given consent as appeareth Gen. 3. 3. So that this was a perfect Covenant on both sides the Tree of Knowledge standing as a visible figne for mans obedience and the Tree of Life as a Sacramentall sign of Gods promise But after the fall of Man the same God did again more evidently and particularly ingage himself when he said of the seed of the woman Gen. 3. 15. It shall bruise the Serpents head In this promise the Incarnation of God in the seed of the woman was meant and that therein he should take upon him the curse and death formetly denounced by offering himself a sacrifice for sin the outward signs of this Covenant were the sacrifices wherewith the Patriarks did signifie and nourish their faith in that promise 3. After this the same Covenant was again renued to Abraham more particularly Gen. 12. 3. In thee shall all Families of the earth be blessed c. and then came in the Sacrament of Circumcision 4 After this again the same Covenant was more largely given to and published by Moses in the Law Morall containing Mans duty and in the Law Ceremoniall declaring Gods promise of Redemption by the Figures Types signs and shadowes of Tabernacle Priest and sacrifices 5 After this again the same Covenant was more clearly delivered in the Gospel by the same Lord God and most graciously explained and the vail taken off from it for then it was shewed who was that seed of the woman and that seed of Abraham and that sacrifice Lamb of God which should take away the sins of the world and how man should be enabled to perform the Covenant and Law of his God namely in that Christ his surety should perform all in mans behalf with this condition onely required of man to believe in this Jesus his God and Saviour for so the Evangelicall Covenant declareth John 3. 16. God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believed in him should not perish but have everlasting life And again Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be sav'd but he that believeth not shall be damned This is the one and onely and everlasting Covenant of Grace there are not two Covenants but onely this one both before and since the world began Now if any man ask why there is mention of a new Covenant I answer it is called a new Covenant because the old Covenant is renued just as we say there is a new Moon when it is but the old Moon newly enlightned which is but Nova lunatio i. a new illumination Tert. cont Marc. l. 5. Id. cont Marc. l. 4. So the same Father said of Christ O Christum in novis veterem i. Christ in the New Testament is the same with Messiah in the Old Testament We may as well say that the Sun-rising is a new Sunne which being but one and rising dayly and diversly Catul. car 5. Virg. An. 1. is called Soles as if there were many Suns Soles occidere redire possunt Quid tantùm Oceano properent se tingere Soles Hiberni For the same Covenant which before was clouded with obscurity and with Types in the time of the Law shineth brightly in the time of the Gospel But why then do Divines call this Law-Covenant the Covenant of works whereas the
5 20. 〈…〉 grace did much more abound and that God is rich in mercie and the Father of 〈…〉 and that his mercie is over all his workes and especially his mercy is seen and excercised on mankind even in such as have sinned with an high hand against him if they doe penitentlie turn unto him no Father or â—ender Mother can so much pittie their owne children as our heavenly Father pittieth us Non sic insâ—mus Chrys 77. hom Constant n. 25. 〈…〉 Deus paenitentem animam i no young man sick for love is more inamored with his beloved than our loving God is with a penitent soule Chrys 31. hom Antioch n. 12. and againe the same Father saith Ego testifiâ—or fide 〈◊〉 si quts discedit à peccâ—to nihil aliud requirit Deus i testifie and will be bound that if a sinner will forsake his sin God requireth no more of him The gate of Gods mercy is never shut against a penitent sinner S. Cypriâ—n saith most comfortably Nulla paenitent Cyp. cont Demet. n. 75. Id de Caena n. 95. a in muâ—â—o seâ—a â—st And againe Animâ—m egredientem and in lubiâ— paenitentem non aspernatur Clementissimus Dominus i no repentance can be to late in this life when our Soul is pearched on our lips ready to take her flight even in that moment our most mercifull Lord will not reject her repentance no though her sins have bin never so detestable Prosper saith Nulla Pros de vocat Gent. l. 1. c. 17. sunt tam detestanda â—â—elera quae possun gratiae donum arcâ—re i No wickednes is so detestable which can utterly exclude the mercie of God S. â—asil sets this down as an infallible mark whereby a man may be assured of remission of sins Ceâ—tâ—â—o rem â—ssiâ—nis est peccata abhorrere Basil in Ascet n. 31. i if yow would be assured that your sins are remitted leave your sins The Psalmist saith Psal 33. 5. The earth is full of the goodnes of the Lord Because in this life his mercy is more perceived then his justice which he doth for the most part defer til the judgment in the next life by his patience and long suffering yet even then his very judgments are not void of some mercy in Teâ—tullâ—an it is but Ironically said O deum ad Tert. cont Marc. l. 3 n. 44. inferos usqu◠〈…〉 i O the mercy of God which extendâ—th even to hel but S. Austin delivers the same seriously and dogmatically i Dei misericordia Aug de Civit. l. 21. c. 24. extenditur damnatis mitiùs puniens illos quà m mereantur i The mercy of God is in some measure shewed to the damned in that he punisheth them lesse rigorouslie then they deserved Upon these reasons grounded on the mercies of a most mercifull God an Al sufficient Redeemer I dare not pronounce this sin against the Holie Ghost to be absolutely unpardonable CHAP. II. That the sin against the Spirit possibly may be pardoned and that by repentance Gods threatnings are conditional and not alwayes executed yet the truth of God is not violated Threatnings are but provâ—cations to repentance But dare any Man say this sin is Pardonable when Christ hath said it shall never be forgiven I answer that neither I nor any one that feareth God would presume to affirme it pardonable except wee were assured that God himself had so affirmed for the same God who is the author both of the old and new Testament hath so declared in both that all his threatnings how peremptorilie or absolutely soever they seeme to be delivered yet they are ever to be understood with this limitation or exception except ye repent For although it be not openly expressed in every particular Commination yet God hath more then once given us to understand that whensoever he threatneth destruction to a sinner his threatning is alwaies to be understood with this limitation Except that sinner repent And this truth hath bin long ago discovered by our owne divines and long before them by the ancient Fathers That al threatnings of God are to be understood with the condition of impenitencie for example God had by his prophet said Fortie dayes Jonah 3. 4. and Nineve shall be desâ—â—oyed Yet Nineve was not so destroied neither was his word false because Gods meaning was with this reservation Except they repented and Gods threatning averting or inflicting temporal plagues in the time of the law were signes what he would doe in the like case either with or without repentance in remitting or inflicting eternal punishments since the Gospel was published If you aske me how wee shall know that when God threatneth destruction without any mention of this exception of repentance that yet he so meaneth I answer that we know it because God hath so tould us once or twice that all his threatnings must be so understood and this we learne from two of his great Prophets both for general threatnings against a whole nation and for particular threatnings against any wicked person for Jer. 18. 7. As what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a Kingdom to pluck up and to put down and to destroy it If that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil I wil repent of the evil that I thought to doe unto them So againe Ezech. 33. 14. When I say to the wicked thou shalt surely die If he turne from his sin c he shal surely live he shal not die these two are the general rules of all Gods threatnings in the whole Scripture so that if we lay these to any threatning that was executed or not executed yet we shal find that both the mercy and truth of God wil be hereby cleered as in the differing cases of Sodom destroied and Ninâ—ve saved The same Rules are also to be observed in the threatnings mentioned in the New Testament even where the exception is not expressly mentioned yet it is alwaies to be understood and there we find evident and personal presidents of Gods mercy in sparing those whom he threatned when the threatning seemed to be absolute without any limitation for what threatning can be more peremptorie then that Luc. 12. 9. He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the Angels of God But we know Peter denied him before men yet Mat. 26. 74. we doubt not of Peters Conversion and Salvation And we know that the Jewes unto whom the same Peter preached Act. 3. 14. had denied the Holie One and the Just moreover killed the Pâ—ince of life Yet Sâ— Peter did not think them absolutely unpardonable but exhorted them to repentancâ— and shewed that therby their sin might be pardoned for â—aith he v. 19 Repent yet therfore and be convertâ—d that youâ— siâ—s may be blotted out What threatning seemeth more peremptorie then that 1 Cor. 6 9 Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaâ—eâ—s nor adulteâ—â—rs nor tâ—eves nor
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
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
the very least sin is liable to eternall death except it be confessed and in this life in some measure repented But I proceed CHAP. XVII Whas is meant by a sin unto death the judgment of the Fathers and the Ancient expositdrs therein and the discipline of the primitive Church therunto correspondent that the greatest sins both have bin actuallie and so may be pardoned in what sence the Fathers called some sins venial and some Mortal THere is a sinne unto death I do not say he shall pray for it If any words in the whole sacred Scripture will bear this exposition and make good this Doctrine That there is any sinne at all which once committed cannot possibly upon any terms or condition whatsoever be remitted not upon confession or repentance and forsaking and renouncing it and after it adhering to Gods Truth and his Precepts and that even to death and martyrdome nor upon all these together This saying is most likely to bear it A sinne unto death and not to be prayed for which words require a very diligent Explication being of so great weight and concernment Lord Jesus send thy Light and thy Truth A sinne unto death This sin unto death I conceive not to be intended of any particular sin whether it be absolute Atheisme or the blasphemy of Arâ—us denying the Godhead of Christ or of Eunâ—mius denying the Holy Ghost or totall Apostacie from Christianity or Adultery Idolatry witchcraft murther sedition or any of these grand sins mentioned Gal. 5. 19. such as the Fathers do usually â—in som sence call sins Mortall Mortiferous and Capitall My reason is because it may be made apparant by Scriptures and the Records of the Church that particular men who have sinned these sins severally have bin by Gods mercy and his castigations reduced to renounce their errours and to forsake their sins For many of those sins were seen in King Manasses 2 Chron 33. Who yet was converted and humbled himself greatly and God was intreated and we know that many Heathens Atheists Apostates and â—rrians have Paulinus in vita Ambrosii n. 3. Athan. to 2 page 448. n. 17. bin reduced to Confession of their sins and to repentance of their Arrianismâ— and those who have not bin actually reduced yet during their naturall lives were in a condition reducible if grace sufficient and prevalent had bin given so that their conversion was not absolutely impossible Beza finding fault with distinction of sinnes into Beza in loâ— veâ—iall and mortall as the Schoolmen sometimes use it for which he had good reason affirmeth that it is absurd to say that mortall sins are utterly left without all hope of pardon and yet he thinketh the sinnâ— unto death here meâ—tioned to be that sinne against the holy Ghost and that it is lethiferous and that the commitrers thereof cannot possibly repent which I dare not assent unto but yet he most truly affirmeth that if those who have once committed that sinne against the Holy Ghost would and could repent Certè veniam consequerentur i. certainly they would and might obtain pardon Thus he Vnto death The old Exposition of the Fathers and ancient Expositors surely is the truest and plainest and being received will quit us of many unnecessary doubts and anxiâ—tics and is most agreeable with the Analogie of Faith particularly with the Article of forgivâ—nâ—sse of sinnes and coâ—respondeth best with the justice and mercifulnesse of God for thus they write A sinne unto death is any grand or capitall sinne such as is before mentioned out of Gal. 5. 19. in which a man liveth continueth and dieth impenitently And that it is therefore onely so called a sinne unto death because it is obdurately and impenitently continued and persevered in unto the end of our life and expiration of our souls So Oâ—cumâ—nius saith Solum hoc peccatum ad mortem Oâ—â—um in loc est quod ad paeâ—tentiam non respicit id est Onely that sinne is a sinne unto death which never is repented Beda â—n loc And Beda saith Peccaâ—um ad morâ—em peccatum usque ad tempora mortis protractum diximus râ—cte posse intelligi est de tali magno peccato quale David commisit si proâ—ractum sit usque ad mortem id est A sinne unto death may truely be understood of a sinne continued in untill the time of our death such a great sinne as David committed if we persevere in it till death So doth Saint Hierome understand it Peccâ—tum ad Hier. in Evag. objurg n. 41. moâ—tem est cum tempus râ—â—â—ssionis in vitio inueniâ— id est A sinne unto death is when death cometh and findeth us continuing in sin So doth Saint Austine expound this very Text Peccatum Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. ad morâ—â—m est si in hac perversitate finierit â—anc uiâ—â—m id est The sinne unto death is when a man continueth in sinne obstinately and therein endeth his life and in another place he just so expounds the sin against the holy Ghost which shall never be forgiven Non absurde intelligunt â—um peccare in Spiritum â—sse sine Aug. de fide oper c. 16. n. 79. venia reum aeterni peccati qui usque ad finem vitae â— oluerit credere in Christum id est It is no inconvenience â—o understand it thus that he sinneth against the Holy Spirit and shall not be forgiven for ever who will not at all believe in Christ as long as he liveth Just so Lyra and both glossâ—s expound it Ad mortalem i. usque ad morâ—em vitae quod in hac vitâ— non corrigitur est finalâ—s impaenitentia si quis perseveret in eo usque ad finem vitae inclusivè i. unto death signifies to the end of our life natural that sin which is not amended in this life it is finall impenitencie when a man persevereth in sin unto the end of his life inclusively not repenting at the time of his departure but dieth impenitent By all which it appeareth that in the judgement of these Expositors the sin unto death is some of those grand sins in which a man liveth and dieth impenitently and that it is not called the sin unto death in respect of the sin it self but for the sinneâ—s continuance therein unto his death for the same sin which in one man is a sin unto death and shall never be forgiven in another man proves a sin not unto death but is repented of and so is pardoned that this is the judgment of St. Austin I have divers times shewed before and especially in that place alleaged by me before pag. 201. cap. 14. whâ—reafter after a long discourse concerning the sin called the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit he concludeth That no sin against Vide supra â— 14. the Holy Ghost is unpardonable but only in case a man doth obstinately persevere in it without any hope or desire of pardon or care of
not see sin in such pretty black Saints Now albeit in the prayers of our Saviour and the Protomartyr S. Stephen the words run Forgive them Father Luc. 23. 34. Act. 7. 60. and Lord â—ay not this sin to their Charg without any explicit and overt mention of their Conversion and repentance yet we are not so to understand them that those grand sins should absolutly be pardoned without any conversion or repentance but that the prayers for forgivenes must presuppose and implie an inclusive prayer for the meanes leading to forgiveness which are faith conversion repentance and amendment as if our Saviour had said Father Open their eyes that they may know and confess me and adhere to me and repent and so that their sin may be forgiven and never laid to their charg So S. Chrysostome understandeth Chry n. 48. Fulg. n. 14. the words of Christ for saith he upon these words hinc tria quinque millia conversa and so Fulgentius noteth upon S. Stephens prayer Paulus converticur per orationem Stephani i. That these prayers did implie the conversion of these sinners for by vertue of them 3. and 5. thowsands yea and S. Paule was converted and this is cleerly expressed in S. Peters sermon Act. 3. 17. 19. as an exposition of our Saviours words And now brethren I wot that through ignorance ye did it repent ye therfore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out to signifie that the blotting out of sins ever presupposeth repentance Finally wheras some object that we may nor pray for the Conversion of the malicious enemies of the Church because they say S. Paule did not pray for Alexander the Copper smith mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. but said The Lord reward him according to his work To this we say First It doth non appear that S. Paul did not at all pray for his conversion Secondly S. Paul did not hereby forbid prayer for him Thirdly That as those words are no prayer for his conversion so neither are they accounted by the best expositors any imprecation but an Apostolical commination and a leaving of him to the judgment of Theoph. in Loc. Theod. in Loc. Anselm in Loc. God Theophilact expounds it thus Reddat pro reddet verbum pronunciantis est non imprecantis and so saith Theodoret and Anselm i. He saith the Lord reward him for the Lord shall or will reward him it is not the wish but the forewarning of the Apostle and therfore S. Ierome to express rather the meaning then the letter of those words for reddat reades Reddet ei Deus i. God will reward him which is no more then is said of other sinners Heb. 13. 4. Whâ—remongeâ—s and adulterers God will judg CHAP. XXI A recapitulation of the former Expositions of the foure places That finall Impenitencie cannot properly be called the grand sinne The difference of Repentance required to the grand sinne and to other inferiour and unknown sinnes The danger of misunderstanding the solifidian doctrine Of the misbeliefe of the Incarnation of Christ censured with Charitie The Conclusion IT is now high time to ease the Reader and to release him from my tediousnesse and to draw to a conclusion by summing up what hath been delivered concerning this grand sinne against the Holy Ghost in the Expositions of all those difficult places of Scripture the breviate whereof I do here represent in a few conclusions First To that saying Matthew 12. 31. It shall not be 1. forgiven The meaning is that it shal not be forgiven to that man who liveth and dieth in that blasphemie impenitently Secondly to that saying Heb. 6. 4 6. It is impossible 2. to Repentance The meaning is that they cannot be restored to newnesse of life and remission of sinnes after Baptisme by any new or second Baptisme but yet Repentance is not impossible as a second remedy to them that have fallen after Baptisme neither is it during life absolutely denied Thirdly To that saying Heb. 10. 26. If we sinne wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the 3. truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinne The meaning is he that wilfully rejecteth Christs onely and all-sufficient sacrifice for sinne by accounting his blood Commoâ— that is by esteeming it to be but the blood of a meer man a meer creature and therefore to be no better nor of more worth then the blood of another man and in this blasphemous conceit and infidelitie liveth and dieth that man must look for nothing but judgement of condemnation and fiery indignation because there is none other sacrifice for sinne possibly to be found but Christ crucified who then was and is and ever will be Emmanuel Fourthly to that saying 1 John 5. 16. There is a sinne 4. unto death I do not say that he shall pray for it The meaning is that whosoever shall commit the grand sinne and in that sinne shall persist continue and persevere obdurately stubbornly and impenitently his whole life time and die therein without repentance and without speciall revocation recantation or retraction therof that man must needs perish everlastingly All prayers for that man so living dying will be unprofitable for his souls health For though whilest he liveth we may pray for his conversion and perhaps beheard for ought we know yet to pray for his pardon and salvation immediately without praying for and desiring his conversion as being necessary in order to his pardon and salvation is a foul abuse of Gods Truth and righteousness Fifthly That if all these Expositions prove true and 5. be so found and approved by the Christian Reader then my former conclusion will necessarily follow that neither this sinne which is called the sinne against the holy Spirit nor any other sinne how great soever is absolutely unpardonable but upon speciall and particular repentance thereof the sinner may finde mercy and forgivenesse From this doctrine of the necessity of repentance to go before forgivnesse some divines suspect that the grand and onely unpardonable sin is final impenitence because it is true that this grand in is pardonable if it be timely repented and as true that when it is accompanied with final impenitence it shall never be forgiven and indeed such a conceit did fall from the pen of Saint Hierom Impenitentiae crimen solum est quod Hier. Epist 4. 8. n. 9. veniam consequi nou potest i. impenitence is the only fault which cannot obtain pardon To this conceit the answer is that impenitencie cannot be called properly the sin unpardonable because of it self it is not alwaies to be called a sin for impenitency is blamlesse where no sin is the holy and unspotted quire of heavenly Angels as they are impeccant so are they not penitent and yet offend not thereby But impenitency in grand and capital offenders is a weighty and an aggravating circumstance then when it is the perpetual concomitant of sin and a consequent finally it makes the
Porphyrian in denying the Godhead of Christ and followeth the Heresies of Cerinthus the Maniches and Arius and acteth for Antichrist and Turcisme The Charactor of Socinus Of the Grand Antichrist and his numerous Corporation which is the Mysticall body of iniquitie and of their preachers Chapter VIII Of the Vnion of the Godhead and Manhood in Page 52 the Person of Christ and that the two Natures once united continue for ever inseparable The difference between the Existence of the Godhead in Christ and its Existence in all creatures Of the mutuall communication of properties between the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ The Heresie of Nestorius his life condemnation banishment and exemplarie death How holy Men are said to be Deified by partaking of Divine Graces and conforming to Gods will Chapter IX The Commenters blasphemous conceit of Christs Page 33 Deification In what sense Christ may be truely said to be Deified in time who was the onely God from all Eternitie The true sense of diverse sayings in Scripture concerning Christs Exaltation How the Sonne of God comes to be called Christ Chapter X. How those Scripturall sayings are to be understood Page 37 which mention the abasing or minoration of Christ the Sonne of God An Exposition of 1 Cor. 15. 24. Concerning Christs delivering up the Kingdome and reigning till judgement and his subjection afterwards Of which see more in the 2 Section of this Chapter Chapter XI Why the unpardonable Sinne is fastned rather Page 52 on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons in the Scriptures Expression Of the form of words used at Baptisme diversly mentioned in Scripture and the reason of that diversitie That Christ mediateth for us in Heaven not verbally as the Commenter would have it but by a reall presenting that Person who in our stead did perform and suffer what was required of his mysticall Bodie Chapter XII The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scriptures Page 55 Propheticall and Evangelicall by the Type of the Tabernacle which was as a visible habitation of God representing the Body of Christ How the Heathens immitated this by setting up visible images wherein they thought their God was resident Chapter XIII Reasons why the Jewish worship was confined to Page 58 the Tabernacle and Temple that these were Types of God to be Incarnate Why the People of God worshipped with their faces towards the Temple That the Church is more Ancient then the Temple That notwithstanding the Commenters cavill the Patriarches belived in the same Sonne of God that that we Christians do though the appellation Christ could not then be used Chapter XIV That the Christian when he prayeth prayeth to Page 61 God whom he considereth to be resident in Jesus Christ as in his Temple As the Israelites considered God resident in the Tabernacle and Temple and so prayed toward that place That God so intabernacled in the Body of Christ is the finall or ultimate Object of The Christians prayer and worship Chapter XV. How the onely and most high God became a Priest Page 65 and a Mediatour That Christ is prayed to and yet is a Mediatour How Christ is said to pray and yet is the supream God That every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed to Chapter XVI The Godhead of Christ shewed from the Adoration Page 68 of his Person that his Godhead is worshipped and not his Body alone considered without the Godhead That the Godhead united with a creature for so is the Body of Christ doth not hinder us from worshipping our God Of the worship of Jesus performed and yet without worshipping a creature Chapter XVII That the custome of bowing when the Name Page 71 Jesus is mentioned was appointed principally to set forth his Godhead and to keep Christians in a continuall Confession and memorie thereof being the main foundation of our Religion Chapter XVIII That Jesus Christ is Jehova Of the Name Page 74 Jesus that it is a proper Name of God No Person in the Trinitie hath any name proper but onely the Sonne Of divers appellative Names of God Chapter XIX An enquirie whether the pure Godhead considered Page 77. as not incarnate hath any proper Name The distinction of Names Proper and Appellative The opinion of Philo the Jew therein and of the Fathers that their judgement is That there is no proper Name of God but onely the Name Jesus The Authours submission hereof to the learned Reader Chapter XX. The Godhead of Christ shewed from his appellation Page 79 Jehova That no meere creature can be called Jehova The signification of that word The reverend esteem of it by the Ancients That by the word Tetragrammaton Jehova is meant both in Jewish and Christian Writers Chapter XXI The Conclusion of this second Booke with the Page 82 Authours resolute Confession of Jesus Christ to be the most High and the Onely Lord God The Table THE THIRD BOOK Containing an Assertion of the Incarnation of the most High and Onely God in the Person of Jesus Christ Chapter I. THe vindication of Eusebius against the Page 1 false aspersion of the Commenter That Eusebius consented to the Eternall Godhead of Christ and to the Article Homo-ousion His judgement conâ—erning Gods visible appearance to the Patriarches in the Person of the Sonne That the supream God appeared to Abraham in the Person of the Sonne The Vnitie of the Godhead in the Persons of the Father and the Son Chapter II. How in the Scriptures the most high God is said Page 6 to have been seen and yet that no man hath seen God and both very truely Two questions propounded concerning the visibilitie and invisibilitie of God Chapter III. The first question How God is invisible What Page 8 is meant by the Face of God some places of Scripture which seem Opposite are reconciled Chapter IV. More concerning the first question How God Page 10 hath been and may be seen What the word Angel signifieth Of the appearing of God by assuming a corporeall shape Of Gods walking in Paradise That the apparitions of God in corporeall shapes were but Preambles and Prefigurations of his Incarnation Chapter V. That the Incarnation of God was foreshewed in Page 13 words and by promises The meaning of the Image of God wherein Man was made The meaning of the oath under Abrahams thigh The mysterie of Abrahams entertaining God at meat and of Jacobs wrastling with God unfolded What is meant by the Back-parts of God A rejection of the errors of the Anthropomorphites and an Explication of the first Article of Englands Religion Chapter VI. The second question Why the Fathers said Page 16 that onely the Sonne was seen by the Patriarchs and not the Father seeing both persons are but one God An exception of the difference between seeing God in this life and in the other life Whether God in the Person of the Father was ever seen in an assumed shape the judgement of
Baptisme That the principal scope of that place is against the presumption of Anabaptisme or a second Baptisme Chapter V. That the word Renue is to be understood onely of Page 16 renovation by a new Baptisme That sinners after Baptisme may have the remedy of repentance but not by a new Baptisme The distinction of renuing 1 Baptismall 2 Morall or penitentiall Four Propositons by which the meaning of these words is collected In what sense sinnes originall or actuall are said to be taken away in Baptisme Chapter VI. How a second Baptisme is said to be a new crucifying Page 19 of Christ That it is ignominious to the All-sufficient sacrifice of Christ That a second Baptisme doth no good but much harm it aggravates sins even as rain maketh weeds to grow that these words do not prove an impossibilitie of repentance but onely an impossiblitie of renewing by a new Baptisme Chapter VII A review of those words Heb. 6. 4. and some Page 25 doubts cleared That none were anciently called illuminate but onely the Baptized That Catechising was not then called illumination What moved the Apostle to handle the Doctrine of Baptisme and so strictly to forbid Anabaptisme in the Epistle to the Hebrews rather then in other Epistles Chapter VIII The distinction of Baptismes into true and false Page 30 The formes of Pseudobaptismes among Hereticks That after their dipping a true Baptisme may be administred and yet cannot be accounted Anabaptisme The Novatian Baptisme was a true Baptisme Saint Cyprian is in part excused Chapter IX That the Disciples of Ephesus Acts 19. who Page 34 said they had been baptized to Johns Baptisme were notwithstanding then Baptized by Saint Pauls appointment yet that this example doth not warrant Anabaptisme because Johns Baptisme was then out of date and Null Johns too late Baptisme compared with the now Jewish Circumcision and both found unlawfull Chapter X. Of true Christian Baptisme that it may not Page 38 be twice ministred No Heretick maintained two Baptismes but onely Marcion What Marcion was the reason why he multiplied Baptisme The reasons why Novatians Donatists and the late Anabaptists rebaptized answers to their reasons Of baptizing Infants of Saint Cyprians error and Athanasius his ludicrous Baptisme Chapter XI That the ancient Church allowed but one Baptisme Page 46 is shewed by the then frequent deferring it till ripe years or old age That their delaying was mostly for carnall respects The danger of delaying Baptisme The Story of a Jew Anabaptist An example upon an Arian Pseudobaptisme The summarie meaning of that Scripture and the Exposition concluded Chapter XII A full Exposition of Heb. 10. 26. The particular Page 52 sinne against the Holy Spirit is shewed to be the blasphemous denying Christ to be God What is meant by accounting his blood common or unholy The unsufficiencie of legall sacrifices and the sufficiencie of Christs sacrifice Chapter XIII Of severall degrees of this sin of denying and rejecting Page 57 Christ and salvation by him First some deny him outwardly onely by compulsion and terror of torments Secondly Others wilfully uncompelled Thirdly Others both willfully and also after-knowledge as Arius Julian and this Commenter The concurrence of Theophilact and Saint Anselm in the sence of this place Chapter XIV That the remedy of repentance is not absolutely Page 61 taken away from them who have sinned the grand sin of denying and renouncing Christ That such possibly may repent That this sin is then onely unpardonable when it is accompanied with small impenitencie The Conclusion of this Exposition Chapter XV. Whether such blasphemers if they repent may Page 64 possibly find mercy The difference of repentance Legall and Evangelicall The repentance of Judas The difference of Repentance and Rescipiscence The Conclusion that true repentance is never totally rejected Objections out of the Old Testament answered Why temporall pressures are not alwayes removed upon true repentance Chapter XVI A full and large Exposition of 1 John 5. 16. Page 70 That the Fathers called some sins Veniall and some Mortall albeit every sinne in its own nature and merit is mortall or deadly What is meant by a sinne unto death and a sinne not unto death That sins are not equall Chapter XVII The judgement of the Fathers and ancient Expositors Page 74 concerning sinne unto death The Discipline of the Primitive Church correspondent to their judgement That the greatest sinnes may be and actually have been pardoned The true sence of the Fathers in calling some sinnes veniall and some mortall Chapter XVIII The meaning of those words I do not say he shall pray for it That the praying or not Page 79 praying mentioned is to be understood of the living and not of the dead The practice of the Church in praying for penitents The manner of Ecclesiasticall or outward pennance shewed in the pennance of the Lady Fabiola In what case God forbad praying for sinners in the Old Testament Chapter XIX That no condition of any grand sinner is so desperate Pag 83 during life but that he may be prayed for in this sence that he may have the grace of conversion Certain Propositions of Divines concerning the matter now in hand are examined The practice of the Synagogue and Church in praying for all Mankind the concurrence of the Church of England therein praying even for Heathens Idolaters Persecutors and Hereticks Chapter XX. The meaning of those words I do not say he Page 89 shall pray for it set down positively and conclusively The difference between praying for the Person and praying for the sin The different prayers for a sinner penitent and a sinner not yet penitent The practice of this Church in praying for persecutors and yet against them The prayers of Christ and Saint Stephen explained The case of Alexander the Copper-smith Chapter XXI A Recapitulation of the former Expositions of Page 94 those foure places That finall impenitency cannot be called the Grand sinne The difference of repentance required for the inferiour and unknown sins Of the Solifidian doctrine The particular sin of misbelieving the Incarnation of God censured with Charitie The conclusion of this fourth Book FINIS Errors of the Press In the Title page line 12 for 1647 read 1646. In the advertisement to the reader p. 3. l. the last to Joh. Hen. Bistersâ—ldius add and published An. 1639. In the preface p. 12. l. 29 r. only In the 1. Book p. 18 l. 10 r your word is p. 28. l. 7. r. mortuos p. 29 l. 18 r. one Lord p. 30 l. 38 r. Nicetas p. 33 l. 41 r. a dead p. 34 l. 32 r. Sentence p. 47 l. 19 soul r. joul p. 51 l. 29 pro r. per in the margin In the 2 Book p. 3 l. 8 fur r for p. 6 l. 27 Lucan r. Bucan p 8 l. 33 Ehat r. That p. 12 l. 16 aith r. saith l. 18 sod r. Son l 23 conjicietur r. conjicietur p. 17 l. 19 r. how can p 18 l. 37 Olympus r.
Christians in all ages even to his own time But because he thinks his soul shall dye with his body as soules of other Animals do let him for my part provide such a burial for himself as they have of which we read Jer. 22. 19. Also the hair of your head for the greater conformity is as we hear shorn most affectedly close but the wickednesse of your doctrine may well make men fear that you have made a fishing-line of your cut hair with a dangerous hook at the end of it In Aug. de oper Mon. n. 71. Viros fuge â—â—tenatos quibus fâ—minei crines hircorum barba nigrum pallium haec Omnia argumenta sunt diaboli Hier. Ep. ad Eustoch c. 12. p. 53. Acts Mon. n. 55. former times there was as great hypocrisie in long hair as is now in short St. Austin found fault with Monks in his time for wearing long hair in hypocrisie So did St. Jeromâ— and afterwards when in a Synod where St. Anselm sate President it was decreed that the hair of Clergy-men should be rounded short yet because of their hypocrisie and wickednesse it grew to a proverb Quà m primum Clericus suscipit rasuram statim intrat in eum diabous as Mr. Fox hath noted Long hair in Sampson and in Nazraites was honourable it was Propheticum velamen as Austin calls it Instead of a Mosâ—ical veil to signifie that there was some holy mystery covered in their typical persons but yet when hypocrites masked themselves with it then King * Josephus Ant. l. 19. Agrippa caused those Pharisaical Nazarites Aug. de Oper. Mon. n 71. to be shorn and now also that we perceive that the very shortest hair is degenerated into hypocrisie and that this Tonsa Sanctiâ—as as St. Austin's word is doth not prove much more holinesse then hair I shall advise Aug. de Opere Monach. c. 31 â— 71. the Reader with merry Martial's words Brevibus nec crede 〈◊〉 lib. 5. ep 49. Neither is this intended to deride short hair but to reprove thâ— hypocrisie of it when 't is made an hair-net to catch men withall which is no new observation but was of old discerned in Heathens as hypocrital Atque supercitio breviâ—r Coma Juv. Sat. 2. Cicero Orat. pro Roscio Comaedo and also suffered to continue written and painted in those very Monasteries where short hair-hypocrisie was then mostly practised witnesse those old riming Verses Quod fueram non sum frater caput aspice â—ousum Poenas profundi fraudes capâ—tisque rotundi Et Judae suavium det Deus ut caveam Upon those words of our Saviour Matth. 10. Th. Matth. 10. 30. Isych in Levit. c. 13. very haires of your bead are numbred Isychâ—us writeth That haires signifie our thoughts and imaginations which are therefore said to be numbred because by them we shall be judged CHAP. V. How the Commenter complieth with the Arians of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews of the Nicene Fathers and how the Father and the Son may be said to be opposites NExt your compliance and correspondence with the old Arian Hereticks is to be observed for first you will not acknowledge this Epistle to the Hebrewes to be written by St. Paul but it must be the Authors onely so that both the Author and the Commenter must be alike unknown just so dâ—d the Arians Epiph. hae 69. as Epiphanius observes Ariaâ— Epistolam ad Hebrâ—os rejiciunt 〈◊〉 ipsam Pâ—uli non â—sse .i. The Arians râ—jâ—cted the Epistle to the Hebrews and said that it was not St. Paul's but you go further and tell us that it appears that Nâ—ither Paul nor any Apostle was P. 20. the Author and this because you would make this most Divine Epistle seem invalid as indeed you have great reason because it doth so evidently declare against your heresie your chief argument is drawn from the Postscript because it is there said to be written by Timothy but yet uncertain it is by whom the Postscript was written as is confessed and uncertain again whether it be meant that Timothy was St. Paul's amanuensis or his Messenger the words will bear both neither is it any extraordinary or vain thing as you would have it to send Letters by one of whom mention is made in those Letters witnesse Davids Letter sent by Vriah 2 Sam. 11. 14. 2 Sam. 11. 14. yet such is your frivolous cavil But to the Point This Epistle is by Judicious Divines thought to be asserted for St. Pauls by the testimony of Scripture for St. Peter mentioneth his very name 2 Pet. 3. 15. himself also then writing to the dispersed Jewes so as Beza thought this very Epistle is there meant and St. Hâ—â—rome though he would not conclude for St. Paul Hier. Epist 129. n. 29. yet confesseth that this Epistle was received of the Eastern Churches and generally acknowledged to be St. Paul's which we find to be true for in the Canons called the Apostles which go with the works of Clemens Clem. Can. Apost n. 16. Cyril cat n. 8. Naz. Poem 33 Chrys to 5. Ser. 61. Euseb hist l. 6. c. 11. there are 14 Epistles of St. Paul mentioned therefore this must be one Just so doth St. Cyril of Jerusalem reckon and so also doth Greg. Nazâ—anzâ—n in his Poems and so doth St. Chrysostome and Eusebius tell us that St. Paul writ it in the Jewish Language but that it was translated either by St. Luke or by Clemens for that it agreeth with the stile of the Acts of the Apostles written by St. Luke and that the stile of Clemens agreeth with this Epistle Who doubteth but that * Hier. descript in Petro. St. Peter was the Author of that Gospel which goes under the name of St. Mark or that †Euseb hist l. 3. c. 4. St. Paul was the Authour of that Gospel which goes under the name of St. Luke onely St. Mark and St. Luke were the Scribes that from the Apostles mouthes set the Gospels down in writing Tert. de Pudic. in 25. Aug. de Civ l. 16. c. 22. De doct Christ l. 2. c. 8. Exposit in Rom. P. 321. therefore it is no marvel that some Latines called this Epistle by another mans name just as we call those Gospels by other names and so Tertullian calleth this Epistle to the Hebrews The Epistle of Barnabas But St. Austin doth constantly and often assert it to be St. Paul's and so is it at this day in this Kingdome acknowledged by the best authority by which the translation of the Bible was ratified yet this self-conceiied Commenter will be wiser then all like another Abailardus of whom St. Bernard writes that he would Bern. Epist 190. say Omnes sic Ego non sic â—ll say so yet I say not so Again to shew your conformity with the Arians you reprove Eusebius his Muâ—tiple Error for thinking Christ to be consubstantial with the Father and
who is in three distinct persons or properties is one in Godhead and in that one Godhead the three persons are one and as Austins word is Vnissimi this was the judgment of Eusebius touching the apparition and the Godhead of the Son and Eusebius said no more in this point then divers other Fathers said also both before Eusebius and after him as is next to be shewed CHAP. II. That the most high God appeared visibly to the Patriarchs in the Person of the Son and not in the Person of the Father as the Ancients thought THe Fathers in their Expositions of these places in Scripture where it is said No man hath seen God at any time John 1. 18 and yet Iacob said I have seen God face to face Gen. 32. 30. who was therefore called Israel i. Seeing God or prevailing with God and the place Peniel i. the presence of God these seeming contradictions are by them thus reconciled Tertullian Tert. de Trin. n. 28. saith Deus Pater inuisibilis sed Deus Filius visibilis descendere solitus God the Father is invisible but God the Son is visible and used to descend If it be objected that the Book de Trinitate was not Tertullians which is an excellent and learned book Yet that this was Tertullions opinion appeareth in another Id. cont Marc. lib. 3. undoubted book where he saith Christus Abrahamo apparuit in veritate carnis sâ—d nâ—ndum nata i Christ appeared to Abraham in the flesh which flesh or body was not then born of the Virgin Clemens Alex. saith as much of the apparition of God to Iacob Clem. in Paedag l. 1. c. 7. Jacob luctatus est cum Deo Verbo nondum homo facto Iacob wrastled with God the Word before he was Incarnate Now we know that onely the second Person is called the Word and Christ And this was also the opinion of Origen who saith that our Lord Iesus Christ before Orig. in Eze. ho. 6. he assumed our flesh descended to the holy Patriarks and was with Moses And again he saith That Esaias was therefore sawn asunder by the Iews because Id. in Esa ho. 1 he had said I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne Isay 6. 1. Iustin Martyr also saith Deus Pater non dicitur venire Just dial cum Try n. 26. in locum sed Deus Filius the Father is not said to come into a place but God the Son is said and that God the Son was seene by the Patriarks and this was also the Opinion of Irenaeus and he giveth a reason Iren. l 4. c. 37. for it thus God the Son was often seen by men least men should not beleeve that there were any god at all but God in the person of the father was never seen least men by reason of familiaritie should contemne God or think that there could be no God but such an one as is corporeal and visible Thus you see that this opinion was not new in Eusebius time nor was by him first invented or singly mointained for many his Contemporaries were of the same judgment and they also which lived and writ after the death of Eusebius for this was the Doctrine of Athanosius and Atha Orat. Cont. Arion n. 8. Hil. de Trin. l. 4. Epiph. haer 65. Theod. hae f. 6. l. 5. n. 17. Mat. 11. 27. 1. Hilarius who both of them lived at the same time with Eusebius and the same was afterwards delivered by Epiphaâ—ius and Theodoret and the scripture seems to favour this exposition for it is said Ioh. 6. 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God i none have seen the Father but the Son of God but it is no where said that no man hath seen the Son for the Father is not seen but in the Son and God the Son was seen in his assumed manhood and therefore when the disciples desired to see the Father our saviour tould them he that hath seen me hath seen the Father Ioh. 14. â— that is God who is the father can not otherwise be visible but in the Son not in him but by the assuming of humane nature by which God becomes visible who in his pure God head is invisible and he that seeth God the Son in the flesh seeth the self same God who is the Father although the person of the Father was not incarnate yet the same God is incarnate in Christ for Col. 1. 15. Christ is the image of the invisible God that is as Beza noteth Christ is he in whom only the Father doth manifest and shew himself visible so he that sees God the Son sees God the Father for both persons are one God By what hath bin said it may appeare common that opinion of the primitive Christians was that it was the person of God the Son which appeared to the Patriarks not the person of God the Father Now because these ayings are hard to understand I think it will not be amisse to discourse the 2 questions following first how God is said to be invisible and how yet he hath bin and may be seen by mortal men Secondly seing there is but one God how it may be said that the Father hath not bin seen and yet the Son hath bin seen In which discourse I will not promise the reader full Satisfaction but â— doe promise him my indeavour CHAP. III. How God is said to be invisible What is meant by the face and the after parts of God HOw the Invisible God hath bin seen by mortal Eyes and in what sence he is said to be both Invisible 1. Quest and Visible will be worthy of our inquisition because the right understanding therof is pertinent to the doctrine of Man's redemption by the incarnation of God and will serve for reconciliation of some Scritures which at the first hearing may seeme to contradict one another for in the old Testament it is said Ex. 33. 11. The Lord spake unto Moses race to face But presently after in the same Chapter ver 20. God saith Thou canst not see my face for no man shall see me and live and it followes ver 23 thou shalt see my back-parts Yet before this Iacob had said Gen. 32. 30. I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved but in the new Testament it is said No man hath seen God at any time Joh. 1. 18. And againe 1 Joh. 4. 12. And S. Paul cals God invisible Col. 1. 15. and 1 Tim. 1. 17. For explication of these Scriptures it is to be understood that when God is called Invisible it is meant of the pure Godhead because the Essence Nature substance or divinitie is not visible by mortal Eyes in this sence S. Cyprian saith Deus est visu clarior tactu purior i the Majestio of the Godhead dazeleth all mortal Cyp. de idoorum vanitate â— 77. eyes and senses and thus neither the Father nor the Son nor
no more pray for them then for the devil CHAP. XX. The meaning of those words I doe not say that he shall pray for it the difference between praying for the person and praying for the sin the different prayers for a sinner penitent and a sinner impenitent the practise of the Church in praying for her persecutors and against them the prayers ef Christ and S. Stephen explained the case of Alexander the Copper-smith HAving shewed that the Charitie of Christian prayer is so largly extended unto all sinners of what height-soever I am now to set downe positively what I conceive to be the meaning of the Apostle in these words I doe not say he shall pray for it Surelie here is somthing forbidden to be prayed for or at least somthing that we have no warrant to pray for For the understanding hereof I desire the reader to observe that S. Iohn doth not forbid that the sinner unto death should be prayed for but that the sin must not be prayed for and this observation may very easily be discerned in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answereth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so our English translation taketh notice of this meaning this I do not say he shall pray for it for it that is not for the sin but S. John doth not say he shall not pray for him that is for the person sinning so for all that is here said the person may be prayed for only the sin must not be prayed for According to this exposition the reader may observe that in the words going before the Apostle directeth us to pray for the brother that sinneth not unto death but not for the sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall give him â—â—se the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answereth to the person either of him that prayeth or of him that sinneth not unto death but it can not be meant of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sin for so he had written incongâ—uously All difficultie will be taken away if we doe but distinguish the act from the person and the sin from the sinner thus The person may be prayed for but the sin may not be prayed for But then If the person sinning unto death may be prayed for as well as the person sinning not unto death where is the difference which the Apostle here intendeth to shew between the prayer for a penitent and the prayer for an impenitent sinner To this I answere that the difference is very great and very evident for we pray for the penitent that he may be forgiven and this we pray absolutlie but for the impenitent sinner we doe not pray that he and his sin may be forgiven absolutelyâ— but conditionally that he may be converted and may have the grace of repentance and amendment and so may be forgiven and live we pray for the persons conversion and forgivenes but we pray not that his sin may be forgiven without conversion and therfore the Apostle directeth not to pray for it For if we should pray that the sin may be remitted without any consideration or pre supposition of repentance then we should also with prayer for remission pray for the permission of sin and therby we should imply that we would have God to give leave and allowance and libertie to sin nay to give tolleration commission countenance and approbation to sin as if we would desire that God would grant to man a licence to sin impune the very imagination wherof would be an high impietie and therfore the Church in her prayers for sinners not yet penitent prayed for them with mention of her desire their conversion as hath bin fully shewed and may to this day appeare The Church of England upon this very reason prayeth for Turks and infidels that they may be saved but for their salvation she doth not pray immediatlie and unconditionally as if she desired their salvation together with their continuance in living and dying in their infidelitie but thus she prayeth Take from them Collect. ut Super on Good Friday ignoâ—ance hardnes of hart contempt of the word and fetch them home to thy flock then after these conditions comes in That they may be saved This is to pray for the persons of sinners but not for their sin pray not for it The true Church never prayeth against the persons of the greatest sinner on earth or her greatest enemies Only the prayeth against their sins without breach of charitie toward their persons S. Austin thus prayeth Aug. Epist 16â— Idem to 6. n. 8. against the Donatist's heresies Deus errorem vestrum occidat in vobis and of the Manichees he saith Non vos sed errores odimus and S. Ierome said the like of the Pelagians Hier. proaem in Jere. p. 270. Non hominum sed errorum â—imicus sum i. That God would kill their errors that their persons are not hated but their heresies only Now to hate and detest and indeavour the extirpation of sin and to pray against it without hatred of the person is just bona persecutio quae non hominem sed peccatum ejus Prosp in Psal 100. insectatur i. It is a good persecution when the sin only and not the person is oppressed just so did our Church pray against her enemies Abate their pride asswage their malice and confound their devices This may well stand with Christian charitie without any hinderance of our prayers for the amendment conversion and salvation of their persons For it we pray fot our enemies but it is ut Convertantur Aug. n. 28. idem n. 31. for their conversion and for infidels but ut Credant i. That they may become beleevers but we doe not pray that they may be saved in their sins they living and dying in their infidâ—litie S. Austin writing upon those words Joh. 17. 9. I pray not for the world Aug. n. 102. saith Pro non credentibus non postulatur ut illis diffidentibus ignoscantur peccata sed ut bonitas patâ—entia dei expectet si sorte vellent corrigi ut dilationem longâ—m accipiant i. We pray not for unbeleevers that their sins may be pardoned whilest they continue in their unbelief but that the goodnes and patience of God would for beare them a long time that so happilie they might amend For to pray absolutely for the salvation of a grand scandalous sinner without respect had to his conversion were to abuse the truth and righteousnes of our most righteous judg Beza saith Profaâ— sunt qui Beza in 1. Joh. 5. 16. hoc peccatum petunt remitti non resipiscentibus i. They are profane who desire pardon to impenitents I have heard of some hypocrites who made their silly proselites beleeve that God was so far from being angrie that he took pleasure in seeing such of Saints sinning as Fathers smile when they see their young children playing or els that God winketh and can