Optat. lib. 6. Donatists Dum pro vestro arbitrio quaeritis puritatem c. That they sought for purity by scraping breaking and digging up Altars he wisheth them not to digg too deep lest they digg to hell and there find the Grand Patrons of Schisme Korah Dathan Abiram Numb 16. 9. In the last place the Reader is desired to foreknow That in this Book we affirm Jesus Christ to be the Supream or most high God The Jehova and the Only God But with this Caution That albeit we confidently affirm him to be the Only God yet we say not that Only Jesus Christ is God for thereby we should impiously deny the gracious and comfortable Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead We therefore acknowledge that the Father and the Holy Ghost as well as Son are also the most high and Onely God so that not onely the Father nor only the Son nor only the Holy Spirit are the Supream God But that All and every one of them are but One Onely most high God I have no more to premise but to pray that God would give to the Reader the knowledge and love of his truth And to the Author or Translator of that Commentary I tender the advice of St. Austin Aug. De Anima Orig. l. 3. c. 15. To. 7. Considera quam sit horrendum ut Omnes hae Haereses sint in uno homine quae damnabiles sunt in singnlis singulae The most profound Clerks may and have erred It is an honour rather then disparagement to revoke and recant heresies St. Hierom writes thus to Ruffinus Hier. cont Ruff. l. 1. c. 2. Non es tantae authoritatis famae ut te errasse pudeat For by revoking Errors Truth will be advanced and the God of truth glorified and no need will be of hiding your name you will be known by conformity to truth unto those that know not your face and also in the end will be acknowledged by Christ himself and not otherwise as one saith Plaut in Rud. Act. 4. Sâ— 3. Si adhibebit Fidem etsi ignotus est notus est Si non notus ignotissimus est THE PREFACE WEE are informed by a late Writer Mr. Cheynel that the Sâ—ciâ—iâ—â— party would have us to deny Christ to be God for an accommodation and compliance with Jewes and Turks that by such an insinuation we may have opportunity to convert them But we are better taught by the Apostle Not to â—â— evil that good may come of it and also by St. Austin Aug. in Epist ad Gal. to 4. Qui homini de falso bono placere studes de vero malo displices Deo and if by this slight a Socinian should convert a Turk or Jew to his own religion the Turk or Jew would not be thereby a Christian but the Socinian would more declare himself to be of the Turkish or Jewish Religion for whosoever shall professe Christianity and yet un-God the Lord Jesus his Religion shall profit him no more then the Jewish infidelity doth them The devout man St. Bernard was much troubled with the heresies of Petrus Abailardus who I think was a principal Patriarch of the now Socinian tenents and declared them more fully then the more ancient hereticks had done this Abailardus would fain have perswaded men that Plato the Heathen Philosopher was a Christian But St. Bernard sets this mark upon Bern. Epist 190. him Abailardus dum multùm sudat quomodo Platonem faciat Christianum se probat Ethnicum If Jewes and Heathens will be contented to be instructed in Christianity in the Name of God let us teach them the truth without flattering them in their false tenents It is observed by Paulus Orosius That when the heathenish P. Oros l. 7. c. 19. Goths petitioned Valens the Arian Emperour to appoint them Christian Preachers to instruct them in Christianity this Emperor sent Arian Priests who poysoned the poor Goths with their heresie but it came to passe afterwards by the just Judgment of God that those Goths put the said Emperour to flight in battel and pursued him so that they burnt him alive Indeed St. Paul writeth that 1 Cor. 9. 20. To the Jewes he became as a Jew and to the Gentiles as one without Law But this was a compliance Compatiendo non mentiendo Aug. of Compassion onely without any transgression of the Moral Law of God With the Jewes he complied in Act. 16. 3. Gal. 5. 2. Circumcising Timothy onely as it was a national custome but not as a Sacrament for if so himself declared that Christ should profit them nothing so he purified himself he went to their Feasts and ascended into their Temple these were unsinful compliances The like he did with the Gentiles he conversed with them and did eat with them and cited their own Writers but we find not that ever he sacrificed to their Idols In our dayes a Lecture is set up for the Conversion of the Jewes as is said and for an harmlesse compliance with them it is performed on the Jewish Sabbath our Saturday but we are weil perswaded that none of the Lecturers will so far temporize with Jews as to deny the Eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ or teach That the Messiah is not yet come or blaspheme the ever blessed and holy Trinity which is the Character by which Christians are discerned from Jewes and Turks who with us confesse the Vnity of the Godhead but will not believe ae plurality of Persons therein In which unchristian errour the Socinian agreeth with the Jew and this Antitrinitarian doctrine is the Cracovian Leaven wherewith this new Commentary on the Hebrews is Leavened The Reasons why the Church-Catholick hath constantly held fast the doctrine of the most holy Trinity are weighty First For the evidence and authority of holy Scripture which would be too long to insist on here it being clearly declared by very many Theological Writers Secondly To refute the Heathens cavill against the Unity of the Godhead for they could not conceive how there could be but one God from Eternity and yet that this one God should not be solitary which opinion must needs take place except we acknowledge this mysterious doctrine of a Personal plurality in the substantial Vnity of God therefore to avoid this sadnesse of solitude they fansied a plurality of Gods for as God said It is not good that man should be alone so man on his own behalf may truly affirm as Bishop Goodman hath observed It is not good that God should be alone as will appear in the reason following Thirdly Because this doctrine of the Trinity is the main and prime foundation of mans Redemption Justification and Salvation by the Son of God which we believe and hope and expect by vertue of that most gracious Covenant made between God the Father and God the Son and secretly transacted between them before the Creation Which Covenant is called Ephes 3. 11. The eternal purpose of God and Heb. 13. 20.
open Market-place cured diseases raised spirits presented to their view Magical banquets and seemed to release those that were possessed by devils therefore Celsus said that Jesus performed his miracles by art Orig. Cont. Cels lib. 1. n. 32. magick I say seemed onely for we learn from our Saviour that one devil is not cast out by another and Satan is not divided against himself and although when ignorant people imploy one Witch to help them against another some present ease may seem to be procured yet indeed as Austin observeth Non exit Aug. l. 83. quaest qu. 79 n. 88. Satanas per infimas potestates sed in intima regreditur regnat in voluntale corpori parcens i. Satan is not dispossessed by any infernal power but retireth himself into the more inward parts of the possessed and though he spare the body yet he â—yrannizeth more in the soul and maketh his possession stronger Because this is a dangerous apostasie to seek to or to attribute the work of God to him therefore Christ used divers arguments against it and so did the Ancient Fathers Origen Athan. Euseb Austin and others which having but touched I omit to avoid digressions The greatest difficulty in this question is what our Saviour meant by the words holy Spirit or holy Ghost when he said The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven for the understanding whereof I will lay down a few Considerations to the Reader that from them he may gather the true meaning of that hard saying First That in Christ there are two natures 1. His Godhead or Divine nature by which he is called God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. 2. His humane nature or manhood made of the seed of David according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. The first of these is called Forma Dei the second is called forma Servi both are Philip. 2. 6 7. mentioned Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal to God but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant Secondly Consider that there are two spirits in Christ 1. His soul or humane spirit of which he saith Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. Secondly his Divine Spirit of which it is said If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is noni of his Rom. 8. 9. Thirdly that according to his two natures there are two filiations in Christ for 1. He is called the Son of man the son of David 2. He is called the Son of God Fourthly That according to those two natures two spirits and two sonships the Scripture mentioneth two kinds of blasphemies against Christ thâ— one against him as he is the Son of man and this is pardonable Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him Matth. 12. 32. The other unpardonable But Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost â—t shall not be forgiven him Ibid. Fifthly That the appellation Holy Spirit in Scripture is taken two wayes 1. Pro deitate essentiae omnium personarum Paâ—ris Filii Spiritûs i. For the Godhead or divinity of all the Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost because all are one God as Matth. 12. 28. John 4. 24. 2. It is taken Personaliter i. properly for the third Person alone as Baptizing them in the Nâ—me of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Matth. 28. 19. and this distinction is acknowledged by divers late Divines of the Reformed Churches a Polan l. 3. c 6 Polanus b Bucan l. 3. p â—â— Bucan c Tilen p. 141. Tilenus and d Melan. in loc Com. de Spirit Ph. Melanthon From these plain and confessed Considerations I extract these two Propositions 1. That it is no inconvenience to affirm That those words hoâ—y Spirit or Holy Ghost in that place do signifie the Godhead of the second Person Jesus Christ 2. That to deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ is that blasphemy which in the Gospel is said to be unpardonable And this is my Conclusion which hereafter I hope I shall evidently demonstrate to the Readers satisfaction CHAP. III. That the Godhead of the Son is called Spirit and holy Spirit that the words Ghost and Spirit are of the same signification LEt it not seem strange that the appellation of one person is given to another for as in this place the Godhead of the Son is called the holy Spirit so in another place the Godhead of the Son is called the Everlasting Father Esa 9. 6. For unto us a child is born his Name shall be called wonderfull counsâ—llour the mighty God the everlasting Fâ—ther In that he saith a child is born it must needs be meant of the Son of God and the Son is called the everlasting Father because he is God for the Godhead of every person being but one in all is may be called the everlasting Father and so the holy Ghost is the everlasting Father also because the holy Ghost is God and yet this doth not confound the three persons or their severall and distinct prâ—prieties and personalities for albeit every Person is the everlasting Father in respect of men and of creatures because all concurred in the creation yet onely the first Person hath this Personall proprietie to be the Father of the sâ—cond Person and so the Father of God as the Son is the Father respectu Creaturarum i. in respect of the creatures so the first Person is Father of God and of Man as that in the Poet if it were in the singular number might illustrate Hominum sator atque deorum a Virg. Aene. l. 1. so God the Father is the Father of God the Son that is the Father of the Person of the Son but not the Father of the Godhead of the Son b Pater Personae non essentiae Pater Filii non deitatis We in our Creed confess the Son to be God of God that is God the Son of God the Father but we do not say Deitas de deitate Godhead of Godhead Neither could the Son of God call God the Father his Lord and his God but onely because the Person of the Son assumed the humane nature and form of a servant as St. Augustino hath observed upon that saying Ps 22. 10 Thou art my God from my mothers belly c Pater est Deus Dominus Filio quia in eo est forma servi De ventre matris Deus meus es tu Ps 22. 10. Sed antâ— omnia secula Pater est i. The Father is the Lord and God of the Son because the Son assumed the form af a servant therefore it is said in the Psalme Thou art my God from my mothers belly but the Father may be said to be his Father from eternitie As every Person is called a Father so as is said so also every Person is called Holy because the Godhead is holy
and is in every Person and therefore it is said holy Father Joh. 17. 11. And thy holy child Ieâ—us Acts 4. 27. as well as the third Person is called the holy Spirit and all Persons together are so stiled Holy Holy Holy Esa 6. 3. Revel 4. 8. and yet the third Person hath a property and personality in holiness not communicable But now we must distinguish thus Holyness in God is either the holyness of Nature and so every Person is holy or holyness of Office that is to be a Sanctifier and thus it is the property of the third Person for although the Father and the Son do sanctifie yet they sanctifie mediately by the Spirit but the Spirit sanctifieth immediately by himself so that when sactification is said to be the work of the whole Trinity you must thus understand it Paâ—er est fons Filius exemplar Spiriâ—us impressor Sanctâ—â—aâ—is i. The Father is the Fountain the Son is the Pattern the Holy Ghost is the Stamper or Communicator of holyness in us and to us as the whole man is said to see but he seeth onely by the eye Next I am to shew that every person is called Spirit for John 4. 24. God is a Spirit and every Person is God and it is not you that speak but the Spirit of my Father which speaketh in you Matth 10 20 and the last Adam was made a quickning Spirit 1 Cor 15 45 We see there is mention of the Spirit of the Father of the spirit of the Son for the last Adam must needs be meant of Christ neither are these observations new but are the old Collections of the Primitive Church writers St. Basil saith d Basil cont Euno l. 3. Spiritus appellatio est communis tribus personis i. The appellation of Spirit is communicable to the three Persons and before him Tertullian saith e Tert. de Orat. c. 1. Iesus Christus est Spiritus Dei i. Jesus Christ is the Spirit of God Athanâ—sius speaketh more home f Atha de Com. essen 625. to 3. Dâ—â—taâ—â—m verbi Christus inse Spiritum sanctum vocat i. Christ himself calleth his own Godhead the holy Spirit and St. Hi râ—me doth also as punctually observe the same g Hier cont Pala. l. 2. c. 6. n. 23. Spiriâ—us sanctus vocatur Spiritus Iâ—su i. The holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Jesus Neither let the English Translation of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trouble thee because they are in some places translated holy Spirit and in others holy Ghost and sometimes they signifie onely the third Person as Matth. 28. 19. But in another place they signifie the Spirit or Godhead of the second Person as he breathed on them and sâ—ld Receive the holy Ghost John 20. 22. of which he also saith I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world Matth. 28. 28. which is meant of the comfortable presence of his Godhead by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts for so also the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it signifieth the soul or humane Spirit of Christ it is sometimes translated Spirit and other times Ghost as Luk. 23. 46. Father into thy hands I commend my spirit that is my soul and having said thus he gave up the Ghost that is his soul and life Now for as much as the Godhead of Christ or God in Christ is a Spirit and also is holy it may be truely said without any fallacy both Logicaâ—ly and Theologically not onely disjunctively but compositively and joyntly the Godhead of Christ is an holy Spirit for of him it is said Rom. 1. 4. that he was declared to be the Son of God according to the Spirit of holyness which surely is an holy Spirit by which he is said to sanctifie the Church Ephes 5. 26. Heb. 2. 11. Heb. 13. 12. And to this St. Austine speaketh very pertinently and plainly h Aug. de Trin. l. 5. c. 11. n. 62. Quia Deus est Spiritus potest dici Pater Spiritus Filius Spiritus Pater sanctus Filius sanctus Trinitas potest appellari Spiritus Sanctus i. Because God is a Spirit it may be said the Father is a Spirit and the Son is a Spirit and the Father is holy and the Son is holy and the Son is holy the whole Trinity may be called an holy Spirit CHAP. IV. That the blasphemy against the holy Spirit mentioned Matth. 12. was meant of the denying and blaspheming the Godhead of Iesus Christ FOr the right understanding of this question I desire the Reader to take notice of these few observations following 1. That this Pharisaciall blasphemy was uttered and intended onely against the Person of Christ and therein onely against his Godhead and therefore the answer of Christ must needs be a Vindication of his Person and of his Godhead for otherwise Christ might seem not to have answered punctually to the slander and blasphemy objected if we shall confess that the blasphemy was against the Person of the Son and yet imagine that his answer is onely concerning another Person viz. the Person of the holy Ghost 2. Observe again that Christ doth not there make any mention of the blasphemy against the Person of the Father though there was as much reason that he should as to mention a blasphemy against the third Person But he keeps himself punctually to the second Person himself against whom onely this blasphemie was spoken and intended neither did he at this time go abour to assert and vindicate the honour either of the Person of the Father or of the Person of the holy Ghost against which Persons nothing was expresly said or meant but be did onely declare the power and Truth of his own Godhead in his own Person and therefore he said If I cast out divels by the Spirit of God the kâ—ngdome of God is come unto you Matth. 17. 28. By the Spirit of God he meaneth the Godhead residing in his own Person 3. Thirdly observe that as in his Arguments he spake onely of his own Person like a good disputant confining himself exactly ad idem to the same thing the Pharisees spake of so in his answer and in denouncing judgement against those blasphemers by the rule of right reason he must still continue his speech of the same Person therefore in effect he saith thus Although a word spoken against me as I am a man and the Son of man may be forgiven yet a blasphemy or word spoken against me as I am very God cannot be forgiven Or thus The villifying depraving blaspheming or speaking against my humane nature may be pardoned but the depraving denying or blaspheming my Godhead my divine Nature my divine and holy Spirit shall not be forgiven 4. Observe again that the Jewes had indeed depraved him in both his Natures 1. In his manhood thus Behold a glutton a wine-bibber a friend of publicans and sinners Matth. 11. 19. and
afterwards Is not this the Carpenters son Matth. 13. 55. disparaging him for his mean parentage this is the Exposition of St. Ambâ—ose a Ambr. de Spirit l. 1. c. 3. In Filium Hominis pâ—ccare est remissius sentire de carne Christi c. To sin against the Son of Man is to conceive too basely of the flesh of Christ and they that so sin are not utterly excluded from pardon 2. The Jewes blasphemed him now in his Godhead by denying it and ascribing the miracle to confederacy with Beelzebub and of this blasphemy which doth take away the very foundation of remission of sins it is said It shall not be forgiven 5. I may adde hereunto that those unbaptized Pharisees in probability did not intend any obloquy or blasphemy against the Person of the holy Spirit as it is the third Person of which they had never been instructed neither had they so much Christianity as those disciples at Ephesus who though they had been baptized unto Iohns baptisme yet they had not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost Act. 19. 2. Thus having shewed that in Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers and later Divines the Godhead of Christ is called a Spirit and holy and also an holy Spirit and that in St. Matthew those words holy Spirit are to be understood of the Godhead of Christ which is for ever united to and residing in the Holy Temple of his most sacrâ—d Body and Soul I now reassume my former Conclusion That the denying Christ to be God is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is there said to be unpardonable Now that in a Doctrine of so great moment and concernment the Reader may understand that I do not obtrude any novell and private opinion of mine own upon him I will heâ—e lay down the judgement of soâ—e of the Fathers in this very question and first of Athanasius one of the most profound and godly Divines that since the Apostles dayes the Church ever had who in his book De Communi essentia Patris c. aith b Arha to 3. p. 625. It is hard to conjecture what our Saviour means by those words He that speaketh against the Sod of Man shall be forgiven but he that speaketh against the holy Ghost shall not be so given So that the Son may seem â—o he infâ—riour to the Spirit and yet the So saith The Father and I are one If he that saith to his brother Thou fool shall be cast into hâ—ll â—n quam gehennà gehennarum conjiriâ—tur is qui â—ssâ—rit Deum creatu am â—sse Into what Hell of Hells will he be cast who calleth him that is God a Creature and a Servant and a Minister onely And a little after he saith Dâ—iâ—atâ—m Vâ—rbi ipse Christus Spiriâ—um Sanctum vocâ—t humanitatem suam Filium Hominis nâ—minavit i. Our Saviour called his own Godhead the holy Ghost and his own Manhood he called the Son of Man and of those that blaspheme his holy Spirit by blaspheming his Godhead is this sentence to be understood It shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come This is the judgement of Athanasius To him I adde the Opinion of St. Hilâ—râ— who was contemporary with Athaâ—asius who in his Exposition of that Text Matth. 12. 32. saith c Hil. in Mat. Can. 12. p. 731. Si negetur Dâ—us in Christo caret omni misâ—ricordia i. If a Man deny God to be in Christ that man shall finde no mercy And again he saith d Hil. ib. Can. 31. p. 426. Blasphemia in Spiritum â—st Christum Deum â—sse negare i The blasphemy against the Spirit is to deny Christ to be God The same Father in the place last quoted speaking of Saint Peters deniall of Christ saith Because to deny Christ to be God is that sinne which shall never be forgiven therefore Peter denied thus I know not the Man because a word spoken against the Son of Man may be forgiven The very same conceit hath Saint Chrysostome also in his Sermon of Peters deniall and upon these words I kâ—ow not the Man e Chrys to 6 p. 631. Non dixit non noâ—i Deum Verbum sic enim peccasset in Spiâ—itum Sanctum i. Peter said not I know him not to be God for so he had sinned against the holy Ghost but I know not the Man Now whether Saint Peter meant so as these two Fathers conjectured I cannot affirm for certain but by this I finde that the judgement of these two great Doctours was that the denying of the Godhead of Christ is indeed that great unpardonable sinne To this I adde the testimony of Saint Basil who deserved to be called the Great He in that excellâ—nt Book De Spiritu Sancto saith f Basil de Spirit c. 7. Testificer omni Homini Christum profiâ—enâ—i sed â—um neganti Deum â—sse quod Christus nihil â—i proderiâ— i. I testifie to every Man who professeth himself to be a Christian and yet deâ—â—ieth Christ to be God Christ shall nothing at all profit that man And if Christ do not profit us in the remission of our sinnes I am sure our sinnes shall never be forgiven in this world or in the world to come CHAP. V. The Opinions of later Divines concerning the unpardonable sin A brief Narration of the life and death of Arius and of Julian the Apostate TO the above-named Ancients I subjoyn the opinions of our later Divines who in their Expositions and Tractats where they inquire what particular sin this is although they do not agree therein yet when they inquire what persons have sinned this sin they do commonly affirm for one that Arius in his Heresie did sâ—n thus and this is the opinion of Polanus and also of Bucanus and others Now the Polan synt p. 340. Bucan Lo. Com. p 174. onely noted heresie of Arius was the denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ saying that he was not from everlasting and that he was but preferred to be a God Just as our Commenter would have him onely exalted and deisied This Arius was born in Africk and was a Presbyter or Priest of the Cathedrall Church of Alexandria in Egypt In that City in the dayes of the Emperour Constantine the Great there were ten Churches besides Epiph. haer 69. the Cathedrall Just such as we now call Paraecial or Parish-Churches wherein ten of the Presbyters of the Cathedrall Church were the incumbents and Preachers of these ten Arius was one and was more esteemed and followed then any of his brethren It fell out that the Bishop of Alexandria died Arius gaped for the place but mist it for one Alexander was elected then Arius raised a faction and revived the former Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus preaching this damnable doctrine that Christ was not God When Bishop Alexander was informed of this he convented Arius and upon examination discovering his
Christ hath put down all carnall and sinfull rule authority and power for where the Apostle saith 1 John 3. 9. Hâ— that is bâ—rn of God sinâ—eth not He meaneth that the seed and fountain of sinning is not in his regenerating and Spirituall part by which he is born of God but he is also born of flesh and by that onely he sinneth CHAP. XI Why the unpardonable sinne is rather fastened on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons BUt why should the denying of the Godhead of the Son be so especially said to be a blasphemy unpardonable when as the denying of the Godhead of the other Persons is also damnable for first Saint Basil saith expresly more then once Qut Spiritum sanctum Crâ—â—turam vocant incidunt inblasphâ—miam Basil epist 387. n. 17. 43. illam irremissiâ—item He that calleth the Holy Ghost a creature falleth â—nto the unpardonable sinne so that Eunomius the Heretâ—cke who said the Spirit was the Creature of the Son was involved in Basil cont Euno n. 20. this blasphemy as well as Arius who said the Son was but a Creature of the Faâ—herâ— and therefore called him Mâ—ttendarium onely an Emissarie of the Father as Ruffinus reporteth and Saint Cyprian calâ—eth the Devill Ruff. in symb apud Cyp. n. 91. who is under the pressure of eternall unpardonableness both Antichristum Antispiritum an Antichrist and an Antispirit intimating as much danger in the one as in the other For we â—earn in Scripture that without holyness no man shall see God Heb 12 14. Therefore how can that man expect the gift of Holyness who denieth the Author of Holyness which iâ— the Holy Ghost Secondly He that denieth the Godhead of the Father is an Atheist for all sorts of Religions which confess 2. a God do also confess a Fatherhood in that God even the Heathens called their Jupiter a Father but how can an Atheist expect salvation from God who denieth that there is any God For answer hereunto it may be said that although the denying of the Godhead of any Person in the Trinity be destructive to salvation yet this sin is rather fastned on the deniers of Christ then the deniers of the other Persons First because the confession of the Father and the holy Spirit is not salvificall without the Confession of Christ for even Heathens confessed both a Fatherhood and a Divine Spirit of God as appeareth by the confession of Neâ—u hadnezar Dan. 4. 9. but the Confession of Christ is alone salvificall because he is not alone as himselfe saith John 8. 16. I am not alone but I and the Father which sent me for the confession of Christ includeth Basil de 〈◊〉 c. 12. the whole Trinity as Saint Basil affirmeth Christi appâ—llatio est professio totius trinitatis deâ—larans Deum Patrem qui unâ—it Filium qui unctus est Spiâ—itum qui est unctio and Saint mbâ—oâ—e affirmeth the same Amb. de 〈◊〉 c. 3. Christus implicat Paâ—rem unguentem Filium unctum Spiritum unctionem i. The appellation of Christ is the profession of the whole Trinity declaring the Father anointing the Son anointed and the Spirit who is the ointment and therefore albeit the form of Baptisme was precisely set down to be in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost yet because the Name Jesus Christ implyeth all these Saint Peter mentioneth onely this name Acts 2. 38. Be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for remission of sins so doth Saint Paul also Rom. 6. 3. Galatians 3. 27 Secondly the unpardonable sin is fastned on the deniers of the second Person rather then on the deniers of the other Persons because the work of redemption was immediately wrought by the second Person For it was the Person of the Son onely that became a Surety for us and not onely a bare Witness or Testifier as the Commenter affirmeth the Son onely took upon him our nature and therein fulfilled the Law for us and suffered death in our stead for our transgressions he onely was our Surety and Mediatour and he onely was incarnate and died and rose again and carried our flesh into Heaven with him and there still continueth a Mediatour for us not by any verball pleading or intreating for our salvation but by presenting there in the glorious Sanctuary of Heaven that humane body and soul which had actually and perfectly performed the whole Covenant of God and therefore even in the most strict Justice of God shewing that Heaven is due by the said Covenant to all his mysticall Body for which his naturall Body was sacrificed on the Crosse for the expiation of all their sinnes which was prefigured by the High Priests entering into the Sanctum Sanctorum All these dispensations and actions which conduced to our salvation must be ascribed onely to the Person of the Sonne but cannot be said of the Father or of the Holy Ghost For that was the Heresie of the â—oc l. 2. c. 15. Sabellians who were therefore called Patripassiani for these workes are proper to the Sonne alone Filius natus passus resurrâ—xisse ascendâ—sse dicitur non Aug. de Trin. l. 1. c. 5. n. 60. Pater As Augustine saith i. The Father cannot be said to be born or suffer or to rise again or to ascend but onely the Sone Therefore Kisse the Son lest he be angry and ye perish Psalme 2. 12. For the denying of him is the renouncing of salvation CHAP. XII The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scripture and by the type of the Tabernacle BEcause the apprehension and believing of this great Mystery of God Incarnate is a wonderfull consolation to the Christian and the denying thereof pertinaciously a certain note of eternall perdition therefore the Scripture hath very evidently and frequently declared this weighty truth both by express words and otherwise for the child to be born of a Virgin must be called Emmanuel Esay 7. 14. that is God with us or God incarnate and the same Prophet Esay 9. 6. giveth that childe such Titles as cannot be attributed to any meer creature as The mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of Peace This Prophets words do so agree with the Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine as the Word was made flâ—sh and the Word was God John 1. and God manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16 and of whom as concerning the flâ—sh Christ came who is over all God blessed for evermore Rom. 9. 5. that Saint Jerome called this Prophet Hier. proaem in Isai n. 33. Esay Non solum Prophetam sed Evangelistam Apostolum Not onely a Prophet but an Evangelist and an Apostle for as the Prophet before the incarnation bringeth in God saying I have sworn by my self to me every knee shall bow Esay 45. 23. So the Apostle applieth that saying to Christ being the same
cannot be said to pray because there is none greater to be prayed unto therefore God must be incarnate before he can be a Priest or pray but as he was a perfect Man so might he pray for us and as he was perfect God so we may and must pray to him For all Prayer is directed to God onely but not to the Father onely and because the Godhead is in every Person so that every Person is God therefore Prayer may be made to any Person and Christ will yet still continue our Mediatour both to the Father and to the Holy Ghost and to himself also for he that prayeth to one Person prayeth to all three Persons for they are all inseparately involvd one in another The Father is in me I am in him Joh. 14. 11. and the Father and I are one Joh. 10. 30. But this is warily thus to be understood That the Godhead or Essence of the Father is in the Son whereby the Son is called God but the Pâ—rsonality or Propriety of the Father is not in the Son for the Father cannot be called the Son nor the Son the Father otherwise then as is shewed before that the Godhead in any Person is the Eternall Father Divines have observ'd upon that place Io. 16. 23 Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my Name He saith the Father not my Father for if he had said My Father then the asking had been confined to one Person for onely one is the Father of the Son of God but in that he saith The Father he doth not debar us from praying to the other Persons because as hath been shewed out of Esay 9. 6. every Person is the eternall Father because every one is one God There is but one God in the three Persons and that one God the second Person being God Incarnate is our Mediatour and though he be Mediatour because Incarnate yet neither his Mediatourship nor his Incarnation do nullifie his Godhead so that our Saviour is Mediatour for us to himself to his own Godhead so that we may pray to the Son to hear us for his own sake For Iohn 14. 14. Where it is said If ye aske any thing in my Name The old reading was as may be yet seen in Sâ— Hieromâ— If you aske me any thing in my Name and Beza confesseth as much though he imagined that it was taken out of the Margin into the Text. So Christ is prayed to as he is God and he is Mediatour as he is Emmanuel Every Person is God therefore every Person is to be prayed unto and he that nameth but one Person in Prayer doth not exclude the rest because all are but one God This was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church delivered singularly and profoundly by Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine Vnus Deus in tribus haec tria Amb. in symb n. 20. unus Dâ—us One God is in three Persons and three Persons are but one God And Vnus est Ommipotens Tripotens Deus Paâ—er Filius Spiritus There is but one Omnipotent and Tripotent God the Father Son and Holy Ghost And again Singulus horum Deus simul Id. de Doct. Chr. l. 1. c. 5. omnes unus Deus singulus horum plena substantia simul omnes una substantia Every Person is God and all are one God Every one is perfect God and all together are but one God And again Singula sunt in singulis omnia in singulis singula in omnibus Id. de Trin. lib. 6. c. 10. omnia in omnibus unum omnia Every one is in every one and all in every one and every one in all and all in all and One is all Hence it is that every Person may be prayed unto and glorified as in Scripture the Seraphims crie Holy Holy Holy Esay 6. 3. Rev. 4. 8. and the Christian Church both ancient and modern in her Doxologies used to glorifie the three Persons alike Gloria Patri Filio Spiritui and in her prayers invoked all and in her Creeds confessed all CHAP. XVI The Godhead of Christ shewed from the adoration of his Person and how God is to be worshipped being incarnate IF it be again demanded how we can perform Divine adoration to Jesus in the Temple of his Body being now God Incarnate except at the same time we adore a creature because his Body still is a creature for though it be indeed the Body of God yet nevertheless it is a body and therefore a creature Or shall we therefore adore his Body because it is the Temple wherein God dwelleth If so then as Athanasius Ath. de incar n. 22. objecteth Adora quoque Sanctos ob Deum inhabitantem By that reason you may worship the Saints on earth because their Bodies are the Temple of God and God is in them and then why should we not worship the Sun and Moon and other creatures as well for God is in them because he is every where The Manichees worshipped the Sun because they thought the Aug. Cont. Faust l 20. c. 2. Son of God was there For answer hereunto we are to understand that God is in another manner existent in holy men and other creatures then he is existent in the humane nature of Christ as is shewed before chap 8 For the Godhead and Manhood in Christ are one Person but not so in other creatures God dwelleth in a Saint 1 Iohn 4. 16. yet you cannot say that God and the Saint are one person for if so then that Saint must be called God and should be worshipped as God but we profess Hier. cont Vigil n. 17. with Saint Hierome that we are so far from worshipping a Saint or a martyr that we will not worship an Angell or an archangel nor Cherubim nor Seraphim but neither do we refuse to worship God though he be invested with his humane nature his humiliation by taking the form of a servant upon him doth not ungod him neither can we separate his Godhead from his manhood that so we might worship the pure Godhead alone Fidelis veneratur Domiâ—um in corpore latentem saith Athanasius the faithfull worship Ath. 26. n. Theod dial in conf n. 12. God though veiled in his body as we may perform civil worship to our King though he be clad in vulgar apparell yet not worship his apparel and No man will say to the King First put off thy Robe and Crown Epiph. in Anc. n. 27. o King and then I will do obeysance to thee and if the King should put off his Robe yet none would worship the Robe So no man can say to Christ Lay aside thy Body and then I will adore thee but we adore God in Christ although God be there united unseparably with his body and if we could separate his body really from his Godhead we should not worship it alone because it is a creature and this also is the determination of Athanasius Quis
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
Emmanuel as being one with us Let us next see what the Ancient Doctors conceived of this Union to avoid prolixity I will instance onely in St. Austin who saith Aug. in Psal 17. Christus Ecclesia est totum Christi caput corpus And upon those words My God my God why hast thou forsaken me and I cry in the day time and thou hearest not and Let this Cup passe from me and Not my will but thy will be done he saith In Psal 21. Christus dicit de te de me de illo corpus suum gerebat scilicet Ecclesiam membrorum vox erat non timebat mori sed pro his dixit qui mortem timent And again he saith in Ps 26. Omnes in illo Christi Christus sumus totus Christus caput corpus And upon those words Saul Saul why persecutest thou me he saith in Ps 30. Sic vâ—cem pedis suscipit lingua clamat calcas me in membris Christi Christus est Christus est multa membra unum corpus And in Ps 100. Christum induti Christus sumus cum capite nostro cum Christo capite unus homo sumus And in Ps 103. Omnes nos in Christo credentes unus homo sumue And in Ps 127. Multi Christiani unus Christus unus homo Christus caput corpus And in Ps 119. Omnes Sancti sunt unus homo in Christo The summe of all is That Christ and his Members are united so that they are one body and as one person for as the head and inferiour parts in one man are but one body so Christ and his members are but one Christ which the same Father calleth in Ps 36. Ser. 2. Ps 37. Christum plenum And Corpus Christi diffusnm Neither is the Church of England silent in this great mystery of our union with Christ for to shew that the grand reason and the intent and purpose for which Christ ordained the holy Supper was especially to set forth this Union of himself and members to be such as our food is to and with our bodies bread and wine unite themselves to us they grow into one body with us So she saith to faithful Communicants The Exhortat at the Commun That we dwell in Christ and Christ in us We be one with Christ and Christ with us And this also was the reason of instituting Baptisme as St. Paul expresseth it to be baptized Rom. 6. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Christ and 1 Cor. 12. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one body Baptisme is the mysterious sign of our entrance into Christ But the Eucharist is the mystery of Christs entring into us for so St. John maketh the like distinction 1 Joh. 4. 13. Hereby we know that we dwell in him and he in us and after him St. Austin Aug. in Joh. Tract 48. Si benè cogitemus Deus in nobis est Si benè vivamus nos in Deo sumus and indeed this union is principally meant in the Article of the Communion of Saints which in our Creed we professe to believe This Union in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Communion The great Sacrament thereof is therefore called by St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Communion of the body and blood of Christ and because our union with Christ doth unite us with the whole Trinity the Apostle tells us 1 Joh. 1. 3. 1 Cor. 1. 9. Our fellowship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and this is also called 2 Cor. 13. 13. Philip. 2. 1. The fellowship of the Holy Ghost the fellowship of the Spirit But there is a great difference between our common or general union with the whole Trinity and our speciall and particular union with Christ alone for with all the three Persons we are united only by the Spirit because to us is given the Holy Ghost which is the Spirit of the Father and the Son But with the Son we are joyned and united in a threefold bond 1. Spiritu 2. Carne 3. Vadimonio Not onely by his Spirit in us but also in Nature for he assumed flesh with us from the self-same lump of the first man and moreover he is joyned to us in the strong bond of Vadimonie or Suretiship in that everlasting Covenant of Grace before mentioned Concerning the manner of our union with Christ one scruple is to be removed for if we say that we are really and substantially one body with him this doctrine may seem to affirm a personal or hypostatical union of us men with God such as is the union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ so we should make our body the body of God as Christs natural body is and so we make our selves God as Christ is God but this must be confessed to be intolerable blasphemy Our answer is That though Christ and his Church are indeed one body yet they are not one body natural and consubstantial but a body mystically Political as a Corporation a Society a Fraternity not Corpus continuum but Collectivum or aggregativum thus thousands of Souldiers are One Army many graines of corn are but One heap Unae quinque Minae Plaut in Pseud many pieces of money are One summe many letters and lines in one Epistle we call Vnas literas Tully calls one suit of apparel consisting of many parcels Cic. Orat. pro L. Flacco Vna vestimenta and we read Plaut in Trinum Vnos sex dies in Plautus Just so St. Austin expresseth this mystery of Christs body upon those words Psal 11. 1. Salvum me fac Domine Aug. de Unitate Eccles Cap. 13. To. 7. Sic est unus homo qui ait salvum me fac ut ex multis constet for though Christ and his members are many Ones and many Severals which are not united by any internal or natural form yet because they all have one and the same Spirit of Christ in them they are united and made one body or mystical corporation by that one Spirit of Christ of which it is said 1 Cor. 12. 13. By one Spirit ye are all baptized into one body and of these many severals it is said Ro. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ So a body Politick consisting of a multitude of individuals is made one Corporation by the Charter of the Prince and their own agreement but if upon dissension they be tumultuously gathered we rather call them a tumult then a Corporation Aug. De verb. Domini Ser. 26. Da unum populus est tolle unum turba est Touching the last clause of this first Proposition That the same that offended the same is punished whereby our sins seem to be charged upon Christ as if Christ himself had committed sin in whom we are assured no sin was either original or actual as is fully declared in my third Book Chap. 11. Sect. 2. Yet that this is true I am to shew in the explication of
Basil cont Eunom l. 4. n. 20. hath given him a name In humoniâ—aâ— non in divinitate the gift was given to the humane Nature of Christ which it had not of it self but not given to the divine nature that honour was naturally due to it that is to the Godhead of Christ So that the meaning of the Church and the intent and purpose for which she appointed reverence to be done to Jesus was onely the acknowledgment and confession of his Godhead in detestation of â—ewes Turks end Arians which deny the saâ—e therefore it will seem strange to any learned or intelligent Christian if this adoâ—ation shall be by any Christian authority forbidden or Jesu-worshâ—p as some have in derision called it shall be made an aâ—ticle of accusation and obloquie seeing it hath been practised in the Primitive Church long before there was any direction for it by any Ecclesiastical Canon except only the Canon of Scripture But if it be said that the bowing of the knee mentioned Rom. 14. â—1 be cleaâ—ly said and meant of the time when Christ shall sit in judgment I say so too and it is true but therefore not before for then Heathens Atheists Apostates Persecutors Tyrants yea and devills and all the damned shall be compelled by the rod of iron to confesse and acknowledge and submit to his Almighty Power and Godhead when the Saints both then and before have and shall with willing and cheaâ—full submission acknowledge Hier. in Ruff. inâ—ect â—n 42 him as Ruffinus in Saint Hierome writeth upon these words Evâ—ry knâ—e shall bow â—l qui voluntate alii necessitate the blessed ones will submit willingly and the very damned shall be thereunto compelled good Christian wilt thou not worship thy God without force CHAP. XVIII More of the adoration of our Saviour of his names Jesus Christ Emmanuel Jehova and other names of God IF it be demanded why this adoration is required rather under this name Jesus then under his other names seâ—ing Jesus is also a name given to meer creatures as to â—oshua Act. 7. 45. Hâ—brewes 4. 8. and others I answer if the adoration were intended to the bare name I think the exception were jâ—st but because we prosâ—sse to worship onely the person Jesus and yet not every person so named but onely the person of our Lord Jesus Christ in whom the Godhead for ever resideth who can blame us for worshipping our onely Lord God and that in time of publick worship for if we should therefore for bear to worship lesus because some meer creatures are so named then by the like reason we should forbear to worship God because some creatures are called gods as Moses Exo. 7. 1. and Magistrates Psa 82. 6. and 1. Cor. 8. 5. but we worship God onely and no creature and to God all possible adoâ—ation is due Basil hom 14. n. 14. whether by genuflection or otherwise Saâ—nt Basil saith Ad cultum â—ei Domini Iâ—su flectâ—reoportet genua id est in the worship of Iesus our Lord God it is meet we should bow our knees But yet if we must worship our God upon the naming of him it would be inquired why this name Iesus is so especially insisted upon why not at the name Iehâ—va or Emmanuel or Christ and why not in the naming of the Father or the Holy Ghost To this I say if none other answer could be given it might satisfie any humble Christian that the great Apostle Philip. 2. 10. hath insisted onely in that name yet for the Readers further satisfaction let him consider that no Person in the Trinity hath any pâ—opâ—r Name but onâ—ly the second Person and the second Peâ—son hath no proper Name but onely the Name Iesus For who can tell me what is the proper Name of the Person of God the Father or of God the Holy Ghost For every Person is God and Lord every one is Iehova every one is Iâ—h and Eheih and Adonai for these names signifie but Lord and I am and which was Every Person is El Potent and Hâ—â—ion most High and Schaddai Omnip otâ—nt and all the Pâ—rsons together are Eâ—o im that is Potâ—nt Gen. 1. 1. in the plurall number And all these names are mostly represented by Interpreters in the words God and Loâ—d and therefore these names are not proper names of any one Person in the Trinity but common to all the three Persons yet there are other appellations that are severally peculiar to each severall Peâ—son as the woâ—d Father Sonne or Word and Holy Ghost in some places of Scripture though the word Father and Holy Ghost or Spirit in other places is said of all Persons as is shewed before The rule of Saint Austine is Omnia noâ—ina naturae seu essâ—ntiae Dei de Aug. to 3. n. 76. singulis Personis dici possunt sed non nomina reâ—aâ—iva ut Pater Veâ—bum Fiâ—ius id est Every name which signifieth the Essence and Nature of God may be said of every Person but the Names which import a relation of one Person to another are not so said â—o P. 332. c. 13. v. 2. our very Commenter could not deny that Iesus Châ—ill is callâ—d Iâ—hova For it is a Name of Essence or Godhead And for the word Christ it is not to be taken as a proper name but as Cognomen a sirname i. a superadded name as added to his proper name and signifieth Annointed for we cannot imagine that those Kings and other Holy Persons which in Scripture are called Christi i. Gods anoâ—nted were so called as by a proper Name so here our Saviours prâ—per Name was Jesus his surname Christ this Title Christ being added as for other reasons so for this to distinguish him from other men who had the same proper Name Iesus as you reade Coloss 4. 11. of another that being named â—esus is also sirnamed Justus for distinction and of Bar-Iâ—sus Acts 13. 6. Now for the word Emmanuel we are to understand that it is not the proper Name of our Saviour no more then the word Christ is for where it is said Esay 7. 14. Thou shalt call his Name Emmanuel The Prophers meaning was not to set forth the proper Name of the Messiah But to set forth the wonderfull and reall property of his Person to be by the hypostaticall union of two natures in one Person Theanthropos id â—st God Incarnate for so the word Emmanuel signifieth God with us Therefore Tertullian writing both against the Jews and also against Marcion the Heretick severally when it was objected that our Jesus was not that Messiah which was foretold by Esaias because he was not named Emmanuel He answereth Non solum sonum nominis expâ—ctes sed Tert. cont Judaeos l. 3. contr Mar. sensum quia quâ—d significat Emmanuel venit id est we were not to expect a meere sound and name onely but the thing signified by that word Emmanuel for though his Name was not named
the Holy Ghost can be seene becase the Godhead of every and all Persons is one and alike invisible for God is a spirit and a spirit cannot be seene and therfor S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa triâ—itâ—s intellâ—giâ—ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist 112. Aug. Epist 111. Tert. cont Prax. Pater i. The whole trinitie is invisible and not only the Father and again he saith The whol trinitie is of a nature invisible and again he saith out of Ambros. and Hierome Neither the Father nor the Son can be seen in their divine nature For so noe Eye can see them and therfore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis i. Patriarks saw God not in the plenitude of his Majestie but according to the capacitie of man and to this both Ahanasius and Atha ad Antio n. 28. Chrys. ho. 48. Antio n. 17. Chrisostome agree Nemo essentiam invisibilis i. The essence of God is to all mortalls invisible The divine nature and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture somtimes calls the face of God of which God said to Mooses Thou canst not see my face and live so Theodoret expounds those words divina natura Theod Dialog immutat Atha quest ad Antioch n. 28. Aug. de Trin. l. 2. sub aspectum non cadit i. the divine nature can not be seen so doth Athanasius 1. Anteriora dei significant divinitatâ—m i. the foreparts of God signifie the Godhead and so S. Austin often tels us that the face of God signifies the form of God and the afterparts signifie the form of a servant which is the humane nature But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spake unto Moses face to face and how could Jacob say I have seene God face to face if the pure Godhead can not be seene And how could Moses tell the Israelites Deut. 5. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount and yet before he had said Deut 4. 15. yee saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb I answer that as in one place of those Scriptures alleaged the face of God signifies his divinitie or Godhead which can not be seen so in the other place it signifieth Gods presence manifested by words or signes wherby God declare th himself present as on mount Horeb by fier and thunder and in the tabernacle by a cloud or by a sound and words so Gods face or presence may be where there is no sight of him and so he spake to the people face to face because they knew for certaine that God was there present But Iacob saw the face of God because he saw the face of that man or that shape which wrastled with him when God appeared to him in the forme of a man although Iacob could not see the pure Godhead and this kind of appearing in an assumed shape is called by Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The appearing of God from hence the Dion Areop Caelest Hier. c. 4. Eus de Dem. l. 5. c l. 14. aforementioned Ensebius argued that because Iacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him in which man was God therfore he said it was the person of the Son and not the Person of the Father because Eusebius was persuaded that the Person of the Father did never shew himself in a visible shape â—nd for this Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons of which more hereafter CHAP. IV. More concerning the first question how God hath bin and may be seen FOr the further explanation of this question it would be inquired how it is said that God is visible and hath bin seene and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible which in their owne Spiritual nature are as invisible as the divine nature is for because a spirit hath nothing in it self which can be an object for mortal Eyes therfore whensoever Spirits or Angels good or bad are seen of men it must be by assuming some shape or body and mingling themselves with it that so they may become a fit visible object because only such things are visible for ever so many invisibles whether they be good or bad spirits Angels or devils cannot make one visible Object and therfore when we read in Scripture that God appeared in an Angel it is not so to be understood as if the invisible God became visible by taking uppon him the invisible nature of an Angel for an Angelâ—â—al nature is of it self as invisible as the divine nature as is said because both are Spirits but when God is seen in an Angel the Angel meant is the corpoâ—â—al visible shape which God assumeth and imployeth and useth for that purpose to be seen and to converse with man by for the word Angel doth not alwayes signifie a spiritual nature but any officer imployed by God as a Messenger so S. Iohn the Bapâ—ist is called Gods Angel Mat. 11. 10. in the Original So that the visible creature which is used as a Medium to present God visible is and may very fitly be called the Angel of God As Moses therfore put a Veile over his shining face which otherwise the people could not behold and as the Sun by our weak Eyes is better seen through the veil of a thâ—n mist then in its Cleer brightnes so in this life God is visible Only as in a glosse â—arkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightneâ— is invisible but the Invisible things of God are seen by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinitie can â—ot be sâ—â—e except it be clothed and allayed with some moâ—e grosse and Material veil and therfore at what time God shewed himself visibly to men he took some corpâ—real Creature and shape unto him that so he who by nature is invisible might in that assumed habit be seen and this was the resolution of the Fathers a Filius Atha de uniâ— Tâ—in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Maâ—â— iâ— Filius vâ—sus est Patriarchis in specie hâ—minis i. The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material and visible shape as â—â— a Man So S. Chrisostome saith The Prophets which saw Chrys ho. 10. Antâ—o Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id Epist 11â— God had not otherwise the expresse sâ—ght oâ— him sed figuras viderund i they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conveâ—sing with man in Paradise saith Deus locutus est cum pâ—imâ—s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali and againe Deus non est visâ—â— nisi assumptione creaturae i God talked with first parents in some bodily shape for God can not be seen but by assuming some Creature and
the Father â—ohn 5. 37. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time noâ— any time noâ— seen his shape and yet his voice was certainly heard at Christs Baptisme but Saint Hilary reconcileth both places telling us Pater nec visus nâ—â— audiâ—us est ab illis â—udaeis quibuscum Christus loquebatur i. Those Jewes to whom Hil. de Trin. lib. 9. Christ then spake were not present when the Fathers voice was so uttered yet this doth not hinder but that as others heard his voyce so others might see his Person presented in some visible shape besides who can tell what Person it was that said Let there be Genesis 1 light If it were the Person of the Father then why may we not say it was the Father which walked in Paradise and talked with Adam Saint Austine moves the question Aug. de Trin. l 2 c. 12. Whâ—n three men appeared to Abrabam why may we noâ—â—â—r they were â—â—e thrâ—e Pâ—â—sons of the Triâ—iâ—ie seeing neither of those that appeared is there said or so much as intimated to be greater or lesse then the other It is but a vain cavill of this Commenter in p 332. saying they were noâ— God but Angâ—ls created because it is said Heb 13. 2. some have entertained Angels for who knows not that in Scripture very often the Son of God is called the Angel of the holy Ghost is said to be sent which is all one and this is enough to verifie that Abraham might entertain God and Angels in those Persons albeit the Father cannot be called an Angel but yet that creature or shape which the Person of the Father did or might assume may be called his Angel as is sâ—id before ch 4. p 119. That the onely and most high God did then appear to Abraham I do nothing doubt and our Commenter confesseth him to be called Jehova which he also confesseth to be an appellation proper to God himself and in that eighteenth Chapter and the five and twentieth verse He is called the Judge of all the Earth and yet he will afford this Jehova no better honour then to be a Creature an Angell and Minister and Delegate though he doth not take upon him to shew us any such Delegation or Commission whereby any creature is ordained to be a Jehova how many Jehovah's would this Commenter have But it was indeed Jehova that is the onely Lord God which appeared but whether in the Person of the Father or the Sonne or the Spirit or All Saint Augustine thought it was an uncertain and an Aug. ib. occult question This was his judgement which seemeth to incline to a probability of the apparition of the three Persons Origen in Gen. ho. 4. Epiph. in Ancor n. 27 1 Ful. de praedest lib 2. though divers other Fathers differ from him as Origen and Epiphanius who thought that the apparition to Abraham was of the Sonne of God and two created Angels with him and Fulgentius saith flatly id est That the Sonne appeared and not the Father By what hath been said it appeareth that in the judgement of the Ancient Church Writers it was the true Jehovah which appeared to Abraham even that onely Jehovah who is the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Spirit in Essence although in a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost they all agree in the apparition of the same God but they doubt to pronounce what Person it was neither will I but leave this question to the judgement of the learned Reader and proceed to shew some reasons why Eusebius alledged by the Commenter and our Fathers thought that onely the Son appeared to the Patriarchs and not the Father Because the Orthodoxe or Catholicke Church did constantly believe and confesse that onely the Sonne of God or second Person did take upon him our nature and became the Sonne of Man and that onely he was God Incarnate he onely was born of the Virgine and converâ—ed with the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Iacob on earth and onely that Person suffered on the Crosse and died for us and that neither the Perâ—on of the Father nor the Person of the Holy Ghost can be aid or truely believed to have taken our nature on them and to be boâ—n of the Virgine nor to be the seed of the woman oâ— the seed of Abraham or the Sonne of David nor to have suffered for Mans redemption And because all the apparitions of God in the shape of Man mentioned in the Old Testament were but Types and prefigurations of the reall Incaâ—nation of the Sonne of God to be exhibited upon promise in the fulnesse of time Therefore Eusebius and other Fathers thought and said that it was God in the Person of the Sonne onely which appeared Typically for that onely the Person of the Sonne was really to be Incarnate and that neither the Person of the Father nor the Person of the Holy Ghost did appear to the Patriarches in humane shapes because neither of theâ—e Perâ—ons were to take our Nature on them for the work of redemption And that this is a faire probable reason may appeare in that the Orthodoxe Church condemned the Heresie of those that were called Paâ—rispassiani which is called by Saint Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est The confounding Cyr. Hier. car 4 of the Persons of the Father and the Sonne which Heresie is recorded not onely by this Eusebius Eus hist l 7. c. 4. 5 and by him called the Heresie of Sabellius but also before him and before Sabâ—llius by Tertullian and called the Heresie of Praxeas and after Eusebius Tert. de haer contr Prax. Soc. l. 2. c. 15 by Saint Basil Nazian Epiphanius and Augustine The Heresie is described by Socrates The Sabellians are condemned for saying that the Trinitie is only three Names and but One Person for so they affirme that the Father suffered Now I desire the Commenter to tell us why Eusebius might not say that it was at least sometimes the Person of the Sonne which appeared to the Patriarches and not the Person of the Father as well as all true Christian Churches doe to this day affirm and believe that the Person of the Sonne was â—ncarnate and suffered and not the Person of the Father For though the Church doth acknowledge that the Father and the Sonne are the same God because we doe not divide the Substance yet we say that the Father and the Sonne are not the same Person because we will not confound the Persons The poyson which this Commenter would infuse to weaker soules by saying that Eusebius would not have the Angell which appeared to Abraham to be the supreame God which Eusebius never said is to make men believe that there is a great and lesser God or else that Jesus Christ is not the One Onely and very God the affirming whereof is that blasphemy which himself saith shall not be forgiven unto men CHAP. VII Of the Incarnation
weight are worthy of an apostolical determination which is here set down with great gravity and severity when we are told that such as will be re-baptized do to themselves re-crucify Christ Rebaptization is not so light a matter as some take it to be Sr. Austin said upon great Aug. epist 163. utrum rebaptizari an non baptizari perniciosius sit difficile est judicare Aug. cont donatist l. 2 n. 37 vide Epiph. n. 29. 1 Maccab. 1. 15 1 Cor. 7. 18. vide Joseph Ant l. 12. c d Martial l. 7. 29. Aug. Epist 203. deliberation Rebaptizator peior â—sse potest quam intersector i he that rebaptizeth may be far worse then he that murthereth God so ordered the Sacrament of Circumcâ—sion that it could not twice be administred to the same person the two differing sects in Palestine I mean the Jews and the Samaritans could nor recircumcise one another neither was it ever attempted that I find upon the apostate and impure recuâ—iâ—eâ— among them but onely on Symmachus as Epiphamus saith Christian Baptisme is the Circumcision of the heart therefore he that will be twice baptized must first get two hearts as St. Austin saith Wherefore I think it will not be overmuch impertinent to this businesse in hand of expounding that place Heb. 6. 4. to discourse a little the question of Anabaptisme or Re-baptization upon what reasons and grounds it was practised by old Hereticks and by that worthy man St. Cyprian and in some cases by the Church Catholick but most especially because our Apostle even St. Paul himself is alleaged by some as a countenancer and practiser thereof by that story related Act. 19. CHAP. VIII The distinction of Baptisms into true and false the formes of pseudobaptismes among Hereticks after their dippings a true baptisme may be administred yet is not to be accounted Anabaptism the Novatian baptisme was a true baptism St. Cyprian in part is excused BEcause this impossibility of renuing appeareth to bâ— mâ—ant onely of renuing by a new baptism and that a new baptism is not onely uselesse but sinful also I am now to discourse the reasons that have moved old and new Anabaptists to attempt second baptisms Epiph. hae 76. The word Baptisme is Vox dualis an aequivocall word of a double signification First it is taken improperly and abusively when 1. that is called baptisme which indeed is not so but onely hath some outward similitude thereof yet wanteth the Essentials of true baptism Secondly it is taken properly for that baptism which 2. was prescrâ—bed by God for Sacramenta sunt de â—aelo God must be the author of Sacraments properly so called and administred so with the essentiall part thereof as by the author of it is prescribed For the first kind I have shewd that the traditional washings of the Jewes are called baptismes but improperly and so the very Heathens had their baptisms for they imitated the Christians in initiating their Novices by washing as Tertullian oft observeth Ecclesia Tert. de prescript and Advers Quintil. n. 30. and 10. diaboliâ—mitatur illam Christi in lavacro c. and again Ethntci per aquas imitantur sacris Ecclesia diaboli bâ—ptismum exâ—râ—et in suis i The worshipers of the divel imitate the Church of Christ in their laver for heathens are initiated in their rites by a baptism and Just apol 2. n. 13. the same relation was before delivered by Justin Martyr Now such false and nominall Baptisms as these do not at all bar either Iewish ot heathenish converts from a true Christian baptism Besides these there were other false and aequivocall baptismes or Pseudobaptismes among Hereticks who professed Christianity which they called Baptisms although in truth they were not so because they wanted the very essentialls of true Christian baptism of which we have very frequent mention in the Church-writers as namely of the Valentinians who thus baptized In nomine ignoti paâ—ris in ve itaâ—e Matris and in nomine Iren. lib. 1. c. 18. n. 107. Iesu as Irenaeus saith i in the name of the unknown Father in the truth of the Mother and in the name of Jesus So the baptism ministred by the Marcionites was vain and null for this reason as St. Basil thought because they thought God was the Author of evill and Basil Epist 2. ad Amphi. n. 35. therefore they would not baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and for this reason the baptism of the Pepuzian Montanists was by the same father adjudged void because they Bafil Epist 1. ad Amphican 1. n. 34. baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of Montanus Pâ—isâ—illa So also the baptismes administred by Eunomius the heretick were by the Church adjudged void and null because he baptized in nomen Epiph haer 76. Dei incarnati Filii Creati Spiritus Sanotificativi i in the name of God uncreated of the Son created and the sanctifying Spirit Such false baptismes as these cannot disable any who have been dipped in this form from receiving the true baptism of the Church upon their conversion and desire of the same If our Commenter should dip one in the words of the same faith which himself hath professed in his book viz. In the name of the Supream God his deified Son not Supream God being in this profession a manifest Antitrinitarian who can doubt but that such a dipping will not be a baptisme but the party is for all this unbaptized and by reason of the same Doctrine which our Commenter hath commented the baptisines by Photinus the heretick were adiudged void because he Baptized Sozo l. 4. c. 5. not into the Eternal Son of God for he thought hâ—m to have had his beginning from Marie his Mother Upon these reason's Origen expressly saith Baptismus fit Otig in Eze. hom 7. in nomine Patris Fiâ—â—i Spiritus Sancti si quis pauca commutans unxerit quemquam is Oleum dei ponit ante idoâ—um i Baptisme is to be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holie Ghost If any shall but a litle alter this forme and so Baptize he doth therby lay downe the Baptismal Oil of God before an idol Quod vult Deus in S. Austin proposeth a very pertinent Aug. to 6 de haeres Epist 1. n. 3. question to this matter now in hand in these words Post quas haereses ecâ—lâ—sia Baptizet non rebaptizet i He would know after what heretical Baptisme the Church might Baptize such as had bin dipped before and yet that the Church shall not be charged with rebaptizing To which question S. Austin in Aug de eccles dog c. 52. n. 73. another booke returned this good answer Those that have bin Baptized by hâ—reâ—icks without invocation of the hoâ—ie Triniâ—ie and returning to the Church doe receive baptisme in the name of
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
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
ABout four years sithence Christian Reader there was brought unto me a Comment or Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews written by a Namelesse and unknown Author to the end that having perused and allowed it it might be Printed and published the which I also undertook and finding as â— then conceived that for the most part it was Learned and Judicious plain and profitable I did so passe it with my Approbation Yet there were divers passages against which I took as I thought just exceptions as disagreeing with the Scriptures and the received Doctrine of Our and all other Reformed Churches which I would not let passe before by my Letters I had acquainted the Author with them that I might receive satisfaction in those things which I objected from whom I received a sober modest Answer wherein he did not at all maintain those errors but left me to my liberty to expunge what I misliked the which I also accordingly did as I thought fit But the Work being long and my time but short divers other faults and errours escaped unobserved by me they being comprized in few words and short passages and so the more easily passed over without my observation The which Errors I the rather fell into because the Author was wholly unknown unto me who am naturally of this disposition that I neither am nor desire to be more scrupulous and curious in observing other mens errors and faults then I have evidence of truth for it whereas otherwise if knowing the Persons with whom I have to deal to be Heterod and Erronious in their Doctrine I should be more wary and observe their words and works with a more vigilant eye All which I speak not wholly to clear my self from all blame for I ingeniously acknowledge my inadvertency and want of due and serious consideration in so weighty a matter and therefore being convinced of my errour by divers Letters from men of great Eminency both in respect of Place Learning and Piety and by mine own more serious observation but especially by the Labours of this Learned Author chiefly intended to lay open and confute these dangerous Errors and Heresies I could do no lesse and indeed in respect of my old age and infirmities accompanying it I could not do much more then revoke my Approbation of that otherwise Learned Commentary so far as it maintaineth these pernicâ—ous doctrines that detract any thing from the Lord Christs Divinity and his Supream and Eternal Godhead For far be it from me to derogate any thing from my blessed Saviour and Redeemer by not acknowledging him the Supream God Co-essential Co-equal and Co-eternal with the Father seeing the Evangelical Prophet in the Old Testament calleth him the Mighty God Esay 9. 3 and the blessed Apostle St. Paul affirmeth that Christ who took upon him our flesh is over all not Deus factus but God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. and therefore seeing this Learned Book intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asserteth and maintaineth this truth and confuteth the opposite errors I do most willingly approve it and allow it to be Printed and published John Downam Θεὸς ' Αâ—θÏωπâ—φόÏος OR God Incarnate SHEWING That JESVS CHRIST Is the Onely and the most HIGH GOD. In Four BOOKS Wherein also are contained a few Animadversions upon a late namelesse and blasphemous Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrewes published under the Capital Letters G M. Anno Dom. 1647. In these Four Books the great mystery of man's Redemption and Salvation and the wayâ—â—â—â—d means thereof used by God are evidently held out to the Capacity of humane reason 〈◊〉 ordinary understandings The Sin against the Holy Ghost is plainly described with the Cases and Reasons of the Vnpardonablenesse or pardonablenesse thereof Anabaptisme is by Scriptur and the Judgment of the Fathers shewed to be an heinous sin and exceedingly injurious to the Passion and blood of Christ There were false Prophets among the people even as there shall be among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction 2 Pet. 2. 1. Contra rationem nemo Sobrius contra Scripturas nemo Christianus Contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus 〈◊〉 Aug. de Trinit lib. 4. cap. 6. By EDM. PORTER â— D. sometimes Fellow of St. John's 6. Colledge in Cambridge and Prebend of Norwich London Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1655. TO The Right Honourable THOMAS Lord Coventry Bron of Ailesbury Peace and Truth My Lord I Humbly beg leave to use your honourable name in the dedication of this Book thereby to present the expression of a thankful Soul to my deceased Patron your most Honourable and prudent Father who even from my Childhood continued his manifold favours to me and ceased not untill he had planted me in an imployment and probable subsistence in the Church where I continued peaceably during his life and untill the pressures of these unhappy Times dislocated not onely me though too low God wot to be an object of publick wrath but also the strongest bones and principal joynts and nerves of our once most renowned Church To his memory do I owe the first fruits of my publick Labours nor can I offer them at any other shrine so proper as your self my Lord who are his living Image whose Name and Title you worthily bear whose Honour is revived in you and the pious and thankful memory of him during my life will not be obliterated in me seeing the very Heathens fansied their Sen. de Benef l. â— c. 3. Charites which were but the Emblems of gratitude to be Virgins and alwayes Young to teach us that thankfulnesse should not be Corrupted or decayed by time and age and their great Orator although he was one of the most deadly enemies of Caesar who had been newly murthered in the very Senate-house yet he confessed that he could not find fault with the faithfulnesse of Cic. lib. 11. Epist 240. Matius for honouring him that was dead who whilest he lived had been his Friend and Patron The Church hath tâ—â—ght us further that death it self doth not dissolve Christians Communion Hier. in Proaem l. 18. in Esa Viventium Dormientium eadem Charitas est Aug. de Civit l. 20. c. 9. Animae piorum mortuorum non seperantur ab Ecclesia hâc The Church Triumphant and Militant are but one Church and therefore did the Primitive Christians honourably by name Commemorate their pious and worthy Benefactors at the very time of their Sacred Eucharist although they were long before departed out of this life So seeing I have not any other meanes to commemorate my deceased Lord I have maâ—◠〈◊〉 if this to professe hereby Mihi erit nomen 〈◊〉 benedictionibus but to you my Lord do I present the Book because possibly it may do some good to the Living For the subject
The everlasting Covenant and Rev. 14. 6. The Eternal Gospel and must needs be meant in those places of Scripture where mention is made of Eph. 1. 4. Electing us in Christ before the foundation of the World and of 2 Tim. 1. 9. Calling us according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the World began and of 1 Pet. 1. 20. Christ ordained for our Redemption before the foundation of the World Of which there is a full discourse in my Third Book and eighth Chapter This Covenant doth necessarily imply a plurality of persons in the Godhead One to require and injoyn another to restipulate and which is requisite in all Covenants a third Person distinct from the Contractors as a stander-by and Witnesse thereof So in this Covenant First God the Father requireth obedience upon pain of death Secondly God the Son undertaketh for man's performance or penalty or both Thirdly God the holy-Holy-Ghost is witnesse between the Father and the Son for oftentimes in Scripture we read of the Spirit bearing witnesse For though the Father the Son and the Spirit are all said to bear witnesse for our assurance as Joh. 8. 18. I am one that bear witnesse of my self and my Father that sent me and 1 Joh. 5. 7. There are three that bear witnesse in heaven and Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our Spirit But before the Creation who could be a witnesse between the Father and the Son save onely the Eternal Spirit of the Father and the Son Nor can it be imagined that this Covenant and restipulation could be enacted by One single Person for the Law-giver must be considered as a Soveraign onely and the persons upon whom the Law is imposed are as subjects so it will be dissonant from right reason to fasten the Legislation and subjection upon the self-same person Now supposing the Law made and the penalty determined and set down it cannot be denyed that the Supream Law-giver hath naturally and absolutely a power of relaxation and dispensation so that he may remit the punishment for breach of his own Law and of meer grace without any satisfaction forgive the offender but if the said Law-giver do decree and by his Word bind himself to punish the offender as he did when he said Gen. 2. 17. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye hereby he doth confine and restrain himself from using the Imperial prerogative of free pardon which otherwise he might have granted and hence it is that a Satisfaction must needs be exacted necessitate hypothetica as Divines say upon supposal of the said decree and upon this reason Jesus Christ our Surety becomes liable to his dreadfull Passion and death Touching the Passion of Christ in Satisfaction of Gods Justice for the sins of men the Socinian Writers do utterly deny it as being unjust to punish one for another and especially an innocent for a malefactor and they call this doctrine of Christ's satisfaction as Vossius reporteth Ger. Joh. Vossii Defens Grotii c. 13. Dogma nugatorium frigidum falsum injustum et horribilitèr blasphemum Their reasons are very considerable for they say that God hath by his Prophets and Apostles declared the contrary as Deut. 24. 1◠Every man shall be put to death for his own sin Jer. 31. 30. Every one shall dye for his own sin he that eateth sower grapes his teeth shall be set on edge Eze. 18. 4. The soul that sinneth it shall dye Gal. 6. 5. Every man shall bear his own burthen 1 Pet. 1. 17. God judgeth according to every mans work The Answer hereunto usually given is That because God doth actually punish one for another it must needs be just because God doth it but this answer doth not satisfie the Adversary neither doth it I confesse satisfie me for God doth not so Therefore for the better satisfaction of my self in this weighty question and perhaps of others also I offer to the consideration of the Learned Reader these two Propositions following First The Passion of Christ neither is nor ought to be accounted the punishment of one for another but the same that offended the same is punished Secondly The sins of the elect Members of Christ are not to be accounted onely the sins of the Elect but are justly charged on the score of Jesus Christ being their Surety and Redeemer These two Propositions may perhaps seem at first Paradoxical but I trust I shall prove them to be truly Catholick and Orthodox For the first That Christ's Sufferings are 1. Proposition not the punishment of one for another I have learned from St. Bernard Bernard Epist 190. Omnium peccata unus portavit nec alter jam inveniatur qui forefecit alter qui satisfecit quia caput corpus unus est Christus satisfecit caput pro membris i. One bare the sins of all so that we cannot say One forfeited and another satisfied because the head and body are but one Christ the head satisfied for the members So the Husband and Wife are but one person in Law an action of debt is not brought against the wife but the husband so the principal debtor and the Surety are in Law but one person and either of them are liable to payment or penalty This first Proposition is grounded on the doctrine of Christ's Vnion and conjunction with his members which Vnion is of such weighty concernment that without it it is impossible to salve or unfold the mysterious riddles of Gods operations and words in the businesse of man's Salvation and therefore the holy Scriptures and ancient Doctors have with very great abundance of testimonies asserted this necessary truth See first what the Scriptures say Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ Eph. 5. 30. We are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Gal. 3. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 6. 17. He that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit 1 Cor. 12. 2. By one Spirit ye are all baptized into one body Eph. 4. 4. There is one body and one Spirit This is because the same Spirit that is in Christ is also in his members and because there is but one Spirit uniting the head and members therefore the head and members are but one body having the same Spirit residing in both for so it is said Eph. 3. 17. Christ dwelleth in your hearts and 2 Cor. 13. 5. Jesus Christ is in you 1 Cor. 6. 19. Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost Joh. 15. 1. I am the vine ye are the branches This Union of the members with Christ the Head is called by the Apostle a recapitulation Eph. 1. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Bishop Andrews observeth Andr. de Nativ Serm. 16. A gathering of all to the head for as God is one with Christ as Christ is God so we are one with Christ as Christ is man who is therefore called
in Cron. as Prosper writeth yet the Manichees did not more deprave the Passion of Christ then you have done and therefore your book cannot expect a better fate then its fore-runners for of all the great Volumes which former hereticks writ there is little or nothing at this day to be found except such fragments as remain in the Fathers who confuted them and a few Creeds and Ep stola fundamenti in St. f Aug. Conâ— Epist fund 10. 6. c. 5. Austin and nothing else of Controversie considerable and yet I must tell you that the books of the Arians were written with far greater art and learning then your loose writings shew and I assure you that many Judicious Divines have said that they find nothing in your book fiâ— to be observed but onely the errours and heresies and yet those are so poorly proved that I may truly say of your book as Austin did of the books of Faustus the Manichee g Aug. Cont. Faust lib. 16. c. 26. Faustus scribit tanquam libellus ejus surdos auditores vel caecos lectores esset habiturus O hominem dictorem alium non cogitantem contradictorem i. Surely you imagined that your Readers and bearer should be deaf or blind and that none would contradict you but all acquiesce in your opinion yet your writings are so blasphemous as if they had been written by him that was the Author of that Libel which Mr. Fox calls h Acts Mon. n. 40. Lucifers Letter and so insipid as if they had been i Erasm f. 359. Suibus Scripti as Erasmus said of such kind of Writers in his time I wish they had been dedicated to Vulcan or strangled with a spunge in their birth because I see that they are like the fry of Serpents and other Vermin and are by you made onely to do mischief untill they be catcht and then the height of their preferment will be as Martial merrily writes of his own Poems k Mart. l. 3. ep 2. Libelle Festina tibi vindicem parare Ne nigram citò raptus in culinam Cordyllas madida â—egas papyro Vel thuris piperisque sis Cucullas Make haste and get a Patron pretty book Before the Black guard or the Master-Cook Snatch thee as waste-paper for his Kitchin To put Spice Sprats Frankincense or Pitch in But if they misse this yet they will not fail of such an end as Arius himself came to or of the fate of Volusius his Annals in Catullus Pleni ruris inficetiarum Catul. car 37. Mart. lib. 12. p. 62. Annales Volusi c. carm 37. So I leave them for present to be put into the Black Bill at Cambridge or the black Catalogue of the late Gangrana CHAP. IV. The Commenters temporizing in unsainting the Apostles in condemning Tombs and in short hair THe next thing to be observed in you and your Comment is your great Compliance with the tender Consciences of these Times which they that formerly observed your very zealous conformity with the then garb must needs judge that you intended this new change onely as a bait to invite the brethren more chearfully to swallow your deadly hook First you will not afford the title of Saint to the holy Apostles but they are plain John Peter Paul only James is beholding to you for Sainting him if not an erratum of the Printer Is not this to shew your conformity with the Plague-bill of London and yet there is the title Allhallowes though not the word Saint and there the word Saint is withdrawn but from places and Churches but you will not allow it to the persons of Apostles the Bill had some colour for it self for it was once ordered in a Council a Concil Constantinop sub Const 5. An. Domini 755. That Churches should not have the appellation of Saint because of the great abuse in Image-worship and because people did then give the title of Saint to those places not because the Churches were so named in their dedications but because the Images of Saints were set up in Churches and the name of the Saint was painted on the Image So that when men said Let us go to St. Peters they meant it of the image when perhaps the Church was not so named but it was never ordered by any Christian Council that the title Saint should be denyed to the persons of the holy Apostles and Evangelists you see the Scriptures give that â—itle to whole Companies of people professing Christ b 1 Cor. 14. 33. who were much inferiour to the high Office and sanctity of the Apostles I think you would be offended with him that should not stile you Doctor and yet the Apostles have a better title to Saint then you to your Doctorship And because some are offended with Images of men lately set upon Tombs as they have as just cause perhaps to find fault with them as to be offended with the memories of Apostles and Martyrs in glasse-windowes if all imagery in Churches be unlawful you more zealously condemn all Tombs built for memory of men departed though they deserved well of us and therein you condemn the practice of holy men in Scripture in preserving the Sepulâ—hâ—â— of David even the accursed Jews did adorn the Tombs of the Prophets whom Matth. 23. 29. their fathers slew yea and all Christian Churches in all ages did allow and with great cost set up Tombs of holy men and Martyrs and called them Memorias Martyrum i. e. the Memories of Martyrs the Sepulcher of Christ was much esteemed by Constantine the Great and a fair Church built over it as we read in Eusebius and that for the memories of twelve Apostles Euseb de vit Const l. 3. lib. 4. Hier. Epist 53. c. 3. n. 17. Aug. de Civ l. 22. c. 8. he built twelve several Tombs in one Church as Constantinople and in St. Hieromes time the Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul were of great esteem in Rome In St. Austin's time and in his Church at Hippo was the Tomb of St. Stephen set up though far remote from the place of his stoning and we find a Tomb set up or the blessed Virgin Mary in Judaea as some in Diâ—nysius and St. Hierome tell us Nonna the holy woman Vid. Dionys vit Hier. to 9. P. 39. and Mother of Greg. Nazianzen devoted the whole estate which her son Caesarius left to build a costly Monument for his memory as her own son Nazian in his Funeral Oration to her great praise reporteth Naz. Orat. 10. and in the Canons of the Primitive Church recorded by St. Basil The violaters of the Tombs of the dead are Basil ad Amphil c. 64. n. 36. ordered to stand excommunicate the space of eleven yeares even as long as adulterers were This Commenter surely hath an higher conceit of his own wisdome then any other men have discovered to be in him that presumeth to controul the Practice of
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
â—â—tu i. that he was in the light of God and company of Saints and St. Austin prayed thus for his godly Aug. Confes l. 9. c. 13. Mother deceased Pro peccatis matris mea deprecor te Deus demitâ—e illi debita sua c. i. I beseech thee O God for the sins of my Mother that thou wouldst forgive her and yet immediatly he saith Credo jam feceris quod rogo i I beleeve thou hast alreadâ—y done what I now pray for Notwithstanding the Church did so pray and Epiphanius gives this reason why the names of the dead were Epiph. hae 75. mentioned in the Church-prayers Quia hoc magis fuerit utile quid commodius quod credunt praesentes quòd bi qui decesserunt vivunt non sunt nulli i. What can be more profitable to the living then to be assured that the dead persons commemorated do still live and that they are not annihilated So we see the Church had other reasons which moved them so to commemorate the dead though the deceased received no benefit thereby As 1. To commend unto the living and in their mindes to preserve the wholesom doctrine of our Souls immortality 2. Their prayers did challenge the performance of Gods promises to those deceased who had lived and died in the Lord as is declared Rev. 14. 13. Blessed are the dead that dye in the Lord saith the Spirit 3. For the coâ—solation of the living the Priest declared that the sins of such holy men which had lived and died in the faith of Christ were forgiven 4. The Church gave thanks for their departure to rest as acknowledging the mercy of God by which they were saved and not by their own merits Some Divines think that when St. Paul prayed for Onesiphorus The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. that Onesiphorus was at that time dead because in the end of the Epistle in the salutations there is no mention of Onesiphorus but of his familie only 2 Tim. 4. 19. And because there is no state or condition of men in this life though never so sinful which excludeth them from the benefit of being prayed for therefore some Expositors have thought that when St. John said There is a sin unto death I do not say he shall pray for it 1 Joh 5. 16. his meaning is that such an one who liveth and dieth in a soul-destroying sin such as shall in this book afterwards be discovered without repentance for such a mans prayers are unprofitable and vaine not excluding others that die in the Lord to be commemorated in the prayers of the living as Onesiphorus before mentioned and in that sense as is before said and this is St. Heromes exposition in his objurgatory Hier 10. 9. Epiad Evang. Epistle to Evangius if it be his own and so also saith the interlineal glosse with Lyra. St. Austin being hard put to it to give an account why the Church prayed for the dead and what benefit the dead had by the prayers of the living by the questions of Dulcitius and Paulinus confesseth most inge Aug. lib. de Cur promortâ— c. 1. nuously that the dead can have no benefit at all by our prayers here except by their good life they were capable of good before their death and again he saith Because the Church knoweth not unto what dead men Aug. ib. c. 17. her prayers are profitable therefore she prayeth pro omnibus regeneratis i. for all the regenerate that none may be omitted CHAP. XV. That the Fathers did not beleeve that Souls departed were insensible as if they were dead or asleep because the Saints departed do pray for the Church Militant as the Fathers thought HAving shewed before what the Church Militant did here below for the Triumphant part above it would now be considered what the Triumphant Church above doth for us that are on earth in the judgement of the Fathers The ancient Church were so far from thinking that our souls died with our bodies that they affirme and verily beleeve that the souls of holy men departed and being in rest did pray for the Church on earth for so St. Hierom tels us the Saints deceased pray for the living Hier. Epist 53. n. 17. for they that had so much charity on earth as to pray even for their enemies and persecutors much more will they now in heaven pray for the Church St. Paul is not lesse charitable after his departure then he was before and so he wished Heliodorâ—â— that if he died before Hier. Eipst 1. n. 1. Hierom to pray for him when he was in heaven so likewise he desireth a Id. Epist 27. n. 7. Principia and b Id. Epist exeg 140. n. 30 Paula to remember him when they are in heaven And St. Ambrose professeth c Amb. de fide Resur n. 30. That he expecteth the intercession of his brother Satyrus deceased for the speedier deliverance out of the miseries of this life and that he hoped the godly Emperour d Id. de Obit Theod. n. 47. Theodosius departed did yet pray to God for his surviving Children and that the dead Emperor e Id. de Obit Valent. n. 46. Gratian did pray for his brother Valentinian Of the same Judgment is St. Chrysostom f Chrys ser de uno Legisl to 6. n. 55. for he doubteth not to affirm that the Martyrs and Prophets Apostles deceased do actually pray for the living and before him St. Cyprian in his life-time contracted with Cornelius g Cyp. l. 1. Epist 1. Qui prior è vita discesserit oret pro sratribus i. That which of them should first dye must pray for the survivers and in an Epistle written to some Martyrs who were very speedily to suffer death for Christ he desireth †Cyp. ad Marty n. 98. Naz. Orat. 24. them to be mindful of him when they were in the honour of Martyrs with the Lord. Greg. Naz. tells us that Athanasius though deceased yet as he was perswaded did still help and assist the Church and that his friend St. Basil deceased and now in heaven yet Naz. Orat. 20. even there poured out prayers for the people And of his reverend old father deceased who had been a long time Bishop of Nazianzum he saith That he doubteth Id. Orat. 19. not but though he were in heaven yet the same Pastoral care which he had on earth remaineth still with him and now that he is approached nearer to God he doth more good for that flock by his prayers in heaven then he could do by his doctrine on earth This is enough to shew what the Fathers thought of the Immortality of the soules of men and the same opinion was so generally received of Christian people in those dayes that as St. Chrysostome reporteth they Chrys Ser. 4. de Laz. n. 42. would commonly boast that they should
find great friends and assistants in the other life because they had many pious friends gone before them one would say My father was a Martyr and another My Grandfather was a Bishop and a third Such and such a holy man was my dear friend on earth therefore we shall find friends in the other world Thus far St. Chrysostome Notwithstanding all this that hath been said of which this Commenter cannot be ignorant yet against all this evidence he denyes the Immortality of the Soul Like another Vrbicus Potentinus an heretick to whom Athanasius thus writeth O Potentine adversus Scripturas Athan. cont Poten n. 30. divinas vel totum mundum tu solus sentis i. Potentinus held an opinion heretical against the holy Scriptures and also against the whole world CHAP. XVI Of the departure of our soules from our bodies and the Conductors or leaders of them to the other world and of the places or mansions of dead mens soules IN the last place it will not be amisse to set down what the Scriptures and the Ancient Fathers have said concerning the departures and mansion-places of dead mens soules which will be also a strong argument against the Epicurean doctrine of this Commentary The Angels in Scripture are called ministring spirits to the heires of salvation Heb. 1. 14. their charge is to keep such in all their wayes Psal 91. 11. therefore as Angels conducted Peter out of prison Act. 12. 7. and Lot out of Sodom Gen. 19. 16. so likewise Angels are imployed no doubt in the conveying and placing and settling departed soules in such mansions as are by God appointed for them for so the Scripture declareth in the Parable of the begger which for substance is indeed but parabolical yet for the Circumstance of the conducters of his soul the persons are really set forth so as is usual in the passage of other mens soules even as the burial of the rich man is mentioned because it was the common custom of other rich men to be buried It is therefore said The begger dyed and was carried by the Angels into Abraham's bosome Luk 16. 22. And of another sort of Angels conducting soules it is said Thou fool this night shall they take â—â—y soul from thee Luk. 12. 20. So of the place or mansion of a blessed soul it is said it was carried into Abraham's bosome and This day shalâ— thou be with me in Paradise Luk. 23. 43. but of the mansion of a reprobate soul it is said that it was placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. a place secret hidden invisible and of torment this is the summe of what we find in Scripture for the present condition of soules departed untill the last judgment And of the last Judgment it is also said The Angels shall gather his Elect from one end of heaven to the other Matth. 24. 31. In correspondence to these overtures of Scripture the Church-Writers have set down at large their expositions and opinions both for the several sorts of Conductors and also for the distinct mansion-places of the soules of Pious and of Impious Just quaest n. 31. men First Justin Martyr saith Animae hominüm ducuâ—tur ad condigna loca ab angelis ubi servantur usque ad resurrectionem i. The soules of men are conducted by Angels to convenient mansions and there are kept untill the resurrection and we read in the Constitutions of Clemens that the Church in the office of the godly deceased Clem. Const l. 8. c. 47. prayed thus Deus Collocet â—um in regionâ— piorum Angelos placidos ei constitute i. That God would place them in the region of the godly and appoint them gentle Angels and Irenâ—â—s saith Discipulorum animae Iren. l. 5. prope finem abibunt in invisibilem Loâ—um definitum eis à Deo ibi usque ad resurrectionem â—ommorabuntur i. The soules of Christians shall go into a place invisible appointed by God and there abide untill the resurrection St. Hierom Hier. Epist 25. n. 26. saith Moâ—tuos nos Angelorum turba coâ—itatur when we are dead a multitude of Angels accompanieth us And again he saith of the Martyrs soules against Vigilantius Hier. cont Vigil to 2. p. 159. Senatoriae dignitatis sunt ut noâ— inter homicidas teterrimo carcere sed liberâ honestâ—que custodid vecluduntur i. The soules of Martyrs are not committed to dark prisons as men-slayers are but like unto Senaâ—ors they are placed in a free and honourable Custody and this also is the doctrine of St. Chrysosto◠†Chrys hom in laud. Mart. to 1. Martyres in caelum ascendunâ— Angelis comitantibus i. The soules of Martyrs ascend into heaven accompanied with Angels but of the soules of the reprobate he saith Malorum animae Chrys de Laz. Ser. 2. to 5. n. 41. Atha de Virgin n. 24. Basil exhort ad bapt hom n. 14. Macar hom 22. à metuendis virâ—utibus repetuntur sunâ—que doctores viae i. The soâ—les of evil men are taken and conducted by terrible and affâ—ighting powers which also Athanasius calls Inclementes angelos i. Churlish and unkind angels and of them St. Basil saith Veniet angelus tristis animam tuam rapiet ad Tartara i. A sad dâ—smal angel will seize on thy soul and convey it to hell and the same is yet more particularly set forth by Macâ—â—ius of Egypt Cum animapeccatirea è corpore exierit accedunt Chori daemonum sinistâ—i angeli c. animam ad partes suas trahuntâ— when a guilâ—y soul deparieth troops of evil and unhappy angels drag it to their ownquarters These are the Messengers which are sent for mens soules some terrible and feared others of pleasant appearance and desired the slight apprehension of this truth and such Messengers hath occasioned men to fansie and to paint a meager raw-bon'd thing with a dart to be the summoner of mens soules to the other world which of these several â—orts of Angels is true Now whatsoever common or distinct and severall mansions there are for pious soules respectively correspondent to their qualities and demeanures on earth and so likewise for impious soules in their severall degrees as they are in bundles gathered which Lâ—ctantius Lact. de Div. Cult c. 21. n. 25. Aug. de Dulc. quaest n. 89. qu. 2. calls Communis custodia i. e. their common lodge and St. Austin Abdita receptacula i. Secret receptacles and the Scripture calleth them The spirits in prison 1 Pet. 3. 19. yet the Ancient Church did as we do reduce all those mansions to these two appellations of heaven and hell * Ath. de Incarnat n. 23. although there may be several different mansions in hell for the damned as well as we read of the blessed in heaven Joh. 14. 2. In my Fathers house are many mansions CHAP. XVII Of the blasphemies contained in the Commentary against the Godhead of Christ and the Incarnation thereof and his Redemption of man Good Reader be
will be unfolded CHAP. XVIII The Conclusion of this first Book with a friendly Caution to the Commenter BEfore I close up this Book I desire the Commenter who denyeth the Godhead of Christ and the Works of Creation and Redemption by him to lay to his heart that saying of St. Austin Domine qui In Vita Aug. pro Cor. lanâ— lib. 3. c. 42. non amat te propter opus Creationis dignus est inferno quid dicam de to qui non amat te â—ropter Redemptionem i. Lord he that doth not love thee for thy work of Creation is worthy of hell but what shall I say of him that doth not love thee for the work of Redemption And when the same Father heard an heavenly voice saying unto Idem ibid. him Augustine amas me Dic quantum amas me i. Austin lovest thou me declare how much thou lovest me This holy man returned answer thus Si ego Deus essem tu Augustinus vellem fieri Augustinus ut tu Deus fieres i. If I were God and thou wert Austin I would desire to be Austin that thou might'st be God I do not marvel that he which denieth the Godhead of his Saviour doth labour to prove and also earnestly desire that mens souls may die with their bodies and more yet that they may be for ever annihilated or if a resurrection and judgment must needs be that hell-torments may continue but three dayes for although some School-men argue that it is better to be in the state of eternal torment then to be annihilated and so not be at all yet I am sure the Scriptures and Fathers speak otherwise as of Judas Matth. 26. 24. It had bin good for that man if he had not bin boâ—ne Then they shall say to the mountaines Fall on us Luk. 23. 30. And I doubt not but the devils whose continuance is but Misera aeternitas Aug. de Civ l. 9. c. 13. Minut. Foel p. 330. n. 102. as Austin speaks Eâ—eâ—lasting misery would willingly have an end of being wish an end of torment Minutius Foelix saith of some Malunt extingui penitùs quam ad suppliâ—ia reparari i e. They would rather be for ever dead then to be restored to a living torment and Nazianzen saith Optandum est imprâ—bis hominibus igne Naz. Orat. 10. aeterno dignis ut corpus â—orum protiâ—us extingueretur i. e. They that have earned eternal fiâ—e may wish that they may never reâ—urn from death but More perire serae †Idem poem 14. n. 42. Prosp iâ— Sent. 170. to be like the beasts that perish because as the first death taketh mens soules from them against their wills so the Second death as Prosper saith Animan nolentem tenet in corpore i. In hell the soules of the damâ—ed shall be kept in their bodies against their wills I have read of one in despair that wished that he had been a toad rather then a man and St. Ambâ—ose saith Ambr. ad virg laps n. 36. to such kind of men Beatae vos serae volueres quibus nullus meâ—us est de inseris i. Happy are the silly beasts and birds in whom there is no fear of hell yea some have been so affrighted with the thought of those infernal torments that they feared to leave this present life as Seneca reports of Mecaenas a noble but a very Sen. Epist n. 17. voluptuous Heathen that he wished Deformitatem debiâ—â—tatem crucem acuâ—am modo vita prorogetur i. That with continuance of this life he would be content to suffer deformity diseases yea and the sharp pain of the Crosse and of such despairing men St. Austin saith Si Aug. de lib. arbit l. 3. c. 6. quis dixerit non esse quam me miserum esse mallem respondebo mentiâ—is If I should hear such a man say I would rather dye then live in this misery I would give him the lie Now I heartily wish and pray that this Commenter may live to see and revoke and repent these blasphemies because I am verily perswaded that they are such of which it is said in the Gospel that he that so blasphemeth and therein liveth and Matth. 12. 32. dyeth impenitent shall never be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come of which I shall have occasion to speak at large hereafter Now that this first Book may not swell to the Readers too much tediousnesse it shall here end for I am apprehensive by mine own reading of other mens Books as they will be of mine and as Austin said of Aug. de fide cont Man c. 24. his own Ita â—ibri termino reficitur lectoris intentio sicut labor viatoris hospitio i. The end of a book refresheth a weary Reader as an Inne doth a weary Traveller L. Deo FINIS THE Second Book Wherein is shewed THAT JESVS CHRIST is the True and Onely Supream and most High GOD. Qui stabilimenta fidei Christianae subvertere nititur Stantibus eis ipse subvertitur Aug. Cont. Julian l. 6. c. 1. Qui fidem incertam habent certam infidelitatem ostendunt Athan. Cont. Arian Orat. 1. LONDON Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes Armes in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1655. THE PREFACE HAving in the first Book transacted some of the lighter errours of this Commentary I now proceed to the weightier blasphemies therein contained and particularly to that of the denial of the Divine nature and eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ which I conceive to be that blasphemy which the Scripture saith shall never be forgiven And because the diligent discussion thereof will give a great light to the Mystery of our Saviour's Godhead I have resolved to make my entrance into that Discourse by handlingt this blasphemy as it is described by three of the Evanglists Matth. 12. 31. Mar. 3. 29. Luk. 12. 10. And because the Exposition of those places in my way may perhaps to others seem new though in truth it is not so I do here humbly submit mine own opinions therein unto the Judgment of the Church and her more Learned and grave Divines The GODHEAD OF Jesus Christ CHAP. I. Of divers doubts and difficulties concerning the sin against the holy Spirit and divers opinions thereof IF this question be loosely and negligently handled what man can be found free from this sin for every sin against God may be called a sin against the holy Spirit because as Athanasius Atha de Commu essent p. 625. noteth Contumelia unius Personae est blasphemia universae plenitudinis deitatis i. A Comumelie against any one Person in the Trinity is the blaspheming of the fulnesse of the Godhead But if you say that by this sin is meant some particular sin or blasphemy onely against the third Person I ask Did not Ananias and Sapphira thus sin Act. 5. 3. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost Yet I
the Church as it was long before the time of Nestorius recorded by Gregorie of Neo-Cesaria qui Greg. Thaum de 12. cap. fidei n. 2. dicit Christum esse perfâ—ctuâ— hominâ—m divise Deâ—m divise non unum Domiâ—uâ— ei aâ—aâ—hâ—ma i. Cursed is he that calleth Christ a perfect man separately and that calleth him God separately so denying him to be one Lord God For this erroneous doctrine is destructive to the work of redâ—mption if the Person who died for us was not in his very death very God so that he by reason of that Personall union before mentioned might truely be called Dâ—us crucifixus God crucified and therefore our Commenter is also in this errour who will afford Christ no better Title then a Divine Man p. 136. which is no more then â—ay be said of a Prophet an Apostle or any holy man whereas he should acknowledge him to be Dâ—us homo God and Man united So St. Austine in one of his Books had said that Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. Christ was Dâ—miniâ—us homo but he retracted it Quia Dâ—mâ—nusest saith he because he is more then a Man of the Lord for this Man is the Lord. For this hypostaticall or Personall union must be in and go through all the great dispensations of our Saviour's Medâ—atourship both in his active and passive obedience for otherwise his fulfilling the Law had been beneficiall to none but himself and his passion could not have sufficed for the whole world therefore the Personall union was most necessary to that great work and is declared both in the Scriptures and in the Fathers For whereas we now reade 1 Iohn 4. 3. Every spirit that confesseâ—h not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is Soc. l. 7. c. 32. not of God This place is thought by Socrates to have been corrupted by the Nestorians for indeed the old reading was as we to this day find both in Hierome and Prosper Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jeâ—um Every Prosper de vocat Gent. l. 1. c. 23. Spirit that divideth Iesus that is which separateth his Divine from his humane nature The Scripture joyneth both in a communion of properties as is said before for Elizabeth calleth Mary Luk 1. 43. The Mother of my Lord no doubt but she meant the mother of her Lord God for otherwise how was Christ her Lord but as David calls him Lord and as St. Ambrose noteth upon the words One Lord In Ambr. de Spir. sanct l. 3. c. 17. Dominatione diviniâ—as est in diviâ—iâ—ate Dominatus That in the title Lord the Lord God is meant So again Acts 20. 28. Feâ—â— the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood that is with the blood of God for it cannot otherwise be understood So likewise 1 Cor. 2. 8. They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory Now I ask who is the Lord of glory but onely God Consider now that to have a mother and to have blood and to be crucified though they be such things as properly belong to the humane nature yet you see that these humane infirmities are said of God because the same Person is both God and Man To this Doctrine of the Scripture agreeth the doctrine of the Fathers concerning this communication of propertics for because in Scripture Christ is called the Son of David therefore St. Chrysostome without any scruple saith that David is a Chrys serm de pseudopro n. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because the Scripture calleth Iames the brother of our Lord Gal. 1. 19 the same Father saith that Iames was b Chrys serm de poenit n. 49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that David was the Father of God Iames was the brother of God and also St. Austine saith that David was c Aug. de 5. haeres c. 2. 10. 6. n. 6. Parens Dei the Parent of God and Oâ—igen saith d Orig cont Cels l. 1. n. 33. Corpus Iesu est â—orpus Dei that the Body of Jesus is the body of God This Doctrine was held by the Church to be of such great weight and concernment that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Councill of â—halcedoâ— added this to the Creed as an Article of Faith e Evangrius l. 2. c. 4. Mary the mother of God and afterwards in another Creed ratified by the edict of Justinus the Emperour f Evag. l. 5. c. 4. The Virgin Mary is again called the Mother of God And the Emperour Justinian built a Church and called it g Evag. l. 5. c. 21. Templum Deâ—paâ—ae the Church of the mother of God and Gregory Nazianzen long before in an Epistle written to Cledonius had affirmed h Naz. Orat. seu Epist 51. Si quis Mariam non credi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that doth not believe Mary to be the mother of God himself is an Atheist and without God Nestorius for denying this Doctrine was summoned to the Councell of Ephesus which was called Soc. l. 7. c. 33 by the authority of the Emperour Theodosius the younger where Cyril of Alexandria sate President the Councell deposed Nestorius out of his Bishoprick and the Emperour banished him In his banishment his blasphemous tongue rotted in his mouth and was eaten out with worms so he died with a mark of Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Evag. ib. Gods vengeance on him as Arius did and the Church History passeth this hard sentence on him Ex his miseriis ad sempiterna supplicia migravit that he departed out of this misery into eternall torments Notwithstanding all this Thalâ—ia Arii this pretty Ath. cont Arian or 2. n. 5. Commentary tells us that Christ is not the supream God nor ever was a God till he rose from the dead for then he was Consequently Deified so if he be God he must be but of a late Edition This Doctrine harmoniously agreeth with the Heathens Theology which also tells us of Dii superi inferi Medioxumi Magni Minuti Plaut in Cist Patellani i. High and low and middle gods great and small and Pint-pot deities The deifying of heathen Emperours hath as good authority from Scripture I have said ye are Gods Psal 82. And Romulus Mart. l. 5. Ep. 8. Julius Augustus Dominus Deusque noster Domitianus are as well God deified as Christ himself by this Comment And in the Church-Writers Deification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word used by Dionysius is ascribed to mortall men for that Father sheweth that an holy Man indued with the Spirit of God may be said to be Deified that is assimulated to God indued Dâ—ony Areop de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. id epist 2. n. 10 Naz. or 37. n. 29. with sanctified and united to God And in another place he tells us Deificatio est imitatio i. Deification is the imitating of God and to the same purpose Nazianzen saith Spiritus nos deificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Sanctuary and King Solomen prayeth Hearken to the supplication of thy people Israel when they shall pray toward this place 1 Kings 8. 30. And Daniel prayeth with his windows open toward Jerusalem where the Typicall Temple hâ—d been and where the true Antitypicall Temple of Christs body was to be manifested So in effect the Object of the Israelaticall worship was God present in his Temple thereby feeding their faith in the promised Messiah who was afterwards to reside in his Tabernacle of the humane nature So that the ultimate Object of their adoration was the Sonne of God God incarnate even the same God whom we Christians now worship The Christian Religion was before the Jewish in time and the Church is older then the Temple or Synagogue Amb. de sacram l 1. c. 4. Aug. Ret. l. 1. c. 13. Priora sunt Sacramenta Christianorum quam tudaeorum For the adoration of the Sonne of God did not first begin when he was incarnate but as Saint Augustine truely saith Christian Religion was in former times but it began to be called Christian in latter times when the Son of God took our flesh and again Aug. confes l. 10. c. 43. he saith The ancient Saints were saved by Faith in Christ to be crucified as we now are by Faith in Christ crucified Christ was the same God before his incarnation that he is now and was worshipped by the holy Patriaâ—chs and Prophets before he was incarnate as truely as he is by us Christians since Before Abraham was I am Iohn 8. 58. and Abraham rejoyced to see my day and saw it and was glad It is therefore a vain and false cavill of this Commenter who tell us Faith in Christ is nor contained in all Faith 1 Pag. 251. c. 11. v. 6. in God because in the description of the Faith which was in the ancient Elders Hebrewes 11. there is no mention of Faith in Christ Indeed there is no mention of the word Christ but the Sonne of God was believed in by those Patriarchs before the same Sonne of God could be called Christ for in their dayes the Sonne of God was not yet Christ for he was not anointed nor could he be capable of anointing before he was incarnate as is shewed before The Sonne of God was God from everlasting but this God was not Christ as yet because he was not anointed otherwise then in the purpose and Decree of the same God and typically in the annointing of the Tabernacle Exodus 30 26 27. and in the unction of Kings Priests and Prophets But faith in God must needs signifie faith in the Sonne of God who is now the Christ because there is no other God but he for the Father and the Son are the self same One and onely God Now if it be demanded why the holy Israelites worshipped toward the Tabernacle or Temple as if God were there onely seeing it cannot be denied that God was then every where Filling Heaven and Eâ—â—th Ieremy 23. 24 I answer in the words of Fulgentius When God Fulgen. ad Thras l. 2. n. 9. is said to be in a place or to descend and come to it it is not to be thought that God changeth place so as to leave one place and to goe to another but Significat manifestationâ—m ejus i. It signifieth that God doth then manifest his presence in that place wherein he was before but did not shew and declare his presence so as when he is said to descend So S. Chrysost me expoundeth the Mission of the Sonne Missio Filiâ— qui ubiqu erat â—nâ—eà corpoream apparâ—ntiam Chrys ser de Pastor n 58. significat non migâ—at à loco in locum i. When the Sonne of God is said to be sent who was every where before it signifieth his Corporeall appearing and not a change of place And because the Godhead did manifest its presence in the Tabernacle and Temple therefore the Israelites did there and toward that place perform their worship yet we finde that sometimes sacrifices were offered to the Lord in other places as by Gideon Iudges 6. 26. but it was by expresse command of God So did Elias also 1 Kings 18. 36. but it was not in Judaea but in Israel amongst Idolaters yet with some conformity with the Temple as is there mentioned Eliâ—s offered at the time of the Evening Sacrifice which was the Figure of Christs death to be at the ninth houre and this also not without an instinct of Gods Spirit for he was a Prophet CHAP. XIV That the Christian when he prayeth setteth his minde on God in Christ as the finall Object of his Prayer as the Jewes prayed to God then residing in the Tabernacle or Temple because the now glorified Body of Jesus is the Temple wherein the Godhead will for ever dwell AS the Israelites prayed to God whom they conceived to be present in the Tabernacle or Temple so the Christian when he prayeth setteth his minde on Jesus Christ conceiving him to be the Object of his Prayer for he believeth and considereth him to be the Temple wherein his God is for ever resident and in that Temple he seeketh his God where his mercy hath been manifested and wherein the great work of Mans Redemption hath been acted and performed and so looketh on his God through Christ The rubricks of the ancient Church Lituâ—gies as we finde in severall ages of the Church directed men to pray thus Sacerdos ante Oâ—ationem dicit Sursum Cyp. 82. Cyril 23. Prosp 3. corda i. Before Prayer the Priest said to the People Lift up your hearts on high and so they confessed they lifted them up unto the Lord that is to Christ in Heaven sitting on the right hand of the Father for where the carcase is there will the Eagles be gathered Matthew 24. 28. In prayer we lift up our eyes to Heaven because our God is in Heaven Psalmâ— 115. 3. And we say Our Father which art in Heaven as himself taught us to whom we must pray because as his Godhead is and was alwayes there so his glorious Body was to be in Heaven and is and for ever shall be the Temple wherein the Godhead is to be sought to and found For in Christ dwelleth all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily Colossiâ—ns 2. 9. He saith bodily in comparison of Types and Figures the Tabernacle was but the shadow of Gods residence but the Body of Christ was the Substance and Truth of that shadow The inhabitation of the Godhead of Christ in his Body is described by Saint John most significantly to this purpose John 1. 14. The Word dwelt amongst us where dwelling is expressed by the tearme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. God was intabernacled which signifieth that his Body was the Tabernacle of the Godhead as Theodoret Theod. Dial Imm. n. 12. observes The Leviticall Law is still in force though not literally yet in the spirit or meaning of it for we must
his back parts signifie his later dispensations in assuming our nature of the Virgin Mother his birth his conversation with men his passion death resurrection ascention so that the meaning is that Moses viz. the Mosaical people should in after times see God when God should be incarnate So Athanisius expounds it posteriores Ath. ad Antio quaest 23. n. 28. dei partes carnen intellige quam assum sit ex Virgine per quam conspectus est i by the back-parts of God you must vnderstand his flesh taken of the Virginâ— Marie in which flesh he was seen and this also is the exposition of Origen on Psal 36. hom 4. and Austin giues a reason why the incarnation is callâ—d the after parts of God Propter posteritaâ—em mortalitatis vel Aug. de Trin. l. 2. 17. quia poster ùs â—arnem assumpturus erat i. because his mortal or humane nature was to be assumed long after Moses time and later then his divine nature which had bin from all Eternitie Neither doth this Doctrine by asserting the incarnation of God any way countenance the heresie of the Anthropomorphites who ascribed corporeal lineaments and parts to God and because it is said Esa 66. 1. heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool they thought the divine nature was a vast body teaching from heaven to earth as Origen relates of them Orig in Gen. ho. 1. and because they read of the hand and arme and eyes of God simple monks as they were they ascribed those parts literally to the divine nature which are spoken of in Scripture but figuratively these were the Andian Enrors as wee read in Epiphanius The odoret Sozomen these men thought a body to be essential to God as if God could not be God except he had a body but wee say the body or humane nature is not essential to God no not to the person of the Son of God but it is an accessarie assumed and not into the essential union with the Son but into personal union with him being now God incarnate for he was God and the Son of God before his incarnation so that although the divine nature in its owne essence or pure Godhead is incorporeal yet the same Godhead now considered in the Person of Christ cannot be said to be without a body for as Theodoret noteth Christus Theod. dial 3. n. 13. significat Deum incorporatum non incorporeum id est Christ signifieth God incarnate and not God incorporeall because the Son of God who is the One and onely true God is now Emmanuel the Godhead and the Manhood in him are inseparably united for ever and in this sence I conceive the first Article of Religion in the Church of England is to be p. Art 1. understood which saith p. God is without Body because albeit God never will be without his assumed Body yet this Body is not of the Essence of God for although the Son of God never had assumed a Body nor ever had been incarnate yet nevertheless he had been and shall be God and the Sonne of God from everlasting to everlasting This I hope is enough concerning the first question of Gods visibility and invisibilitie CHAP. VI. The Second question why the Fathers said that 2 Question onely the Son was seen by the Patriarks and not the Father IT being granted that the Father and the Son are but one onely and the same God allthough distinct in proprieties and Persons it would be inquired why the Fathers before mentioned said that the Son appeared and was seen when the Father did not appear nor was seen for how can one be seen and not the other when both are one Before I enter upon this question I desire the Reader to take notice of two things First that this discourse is intended to be onely concerning such a sight of God as mortall men are capable of in this life because it is not revealed to us how man shall see God in the life to come of which it is said Marth 5. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God and yet also the impure shall see God for every eye shall see him and they also which pierced him Rev. 1. 7. Saint Austine expounding the words Zach. 12. 10. They shall Aug. de Trin lib. 1. c. 13 look upon me whom they pierced saith The wicked shall not see him in thâ— form of God but in the form of a servant because God shall sit in judgement as he is clothed with his humane body that so the judge may be visible to all that shall be judged for even Satan conversed with our God on earth being in his flesh when he tempted him Matt. 4. But the righteous when they once are in the possession of the joyes of Heaven shall see God as he is in his Divine nature which Divines call facialem visionem the beatificall vision seeing God face to face as it is said 1 Cor. 13. 12. and then happily the distinct Person of the Father will be visible to eyes glorified for then the Saints shall be equall to the Angels Luke 20. 36. of whom we shall read Matth. 18. 10. Their Angels do alwayes behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven Secondly that I do not take upon me peremptorily to affirm that the Person of God the Father hath never presented himself in any corporeal or visible shape for how should I know such a Mystery And because I find that Saint Austine saith Nâ—mis temerarium est dicere Aug. de Trin l. 2. c. 17. 18 patrem nunquam visum patâ—ibus credibile est Patrem solitum fuisse apparere mortalibus i. It is too much rashnesse to affirm that the Father was never seen Nay it is credible that he used to appear to the Patriarchs And Atbanasius saith that although God was sometimes seen in the Person of the Son when he was not seen in the Person of the Father yet he saith also that at another time all the three Persons Athan. lib. de Com. essentia n. 24. were seen by Abraham Tres Personae sedebaent apud Abraham i. All the three Persons sate at Abrahams tent For what inconvenience will follow if God shew his presence at the same time both in severall places and also in severall assumed shapes for he that is at all times really present in all places may also manifest his presence where and when and how he pleaseth It is confessed that the Person of the Sonne assumed an humane body and was seen and at the same time the Person of the Holy Ghost descended in the likenesse of a Dove Matthew 3. 17. and then also the voyce of the Person of the Father was heard and again Matthew 17. 5. which Divines say must needs be from the Person of the Father because the Sonne of God is not the Sonne of any other Person but onely of the Father Indeed it is said of
progenitor Therfore Christ sinned in Adam This consequence is false because Christ did not so proceed from Adam as Levi did from Abraham that is by way of carnal generation and therfore Christ did not attract sin from Adam as Levi did from Abraham so as is said before But yet because Christ took flesh from Adam therfore all the pressures included in the curse on Adam were intayled on Christ sin only excepted as mortalitie and the consequences therof sorrowâ— labour wearines hunger abasement and subjection Tâ—â—e it is that Abraham paying tithesâ—oo Melchisedech which was in the nature of an homage or political submission and acknowledgment as holding the Land of promise to him and his seed by the donation of the Lord of Heaven who is the Messiah he did in this act include all the tribes which were to proceed from him to submit as homagers to the said Messiah represented in his type Melchisedech even as earthly Lords their successors do homage to their superior princes for lands held of them But what is this to intayling of sin Original sin is not derived to posterity by any such external acts I doubt not but Christ himself as man and as the seed of Abraham was involved in this homage Mat. 17. 27. See beneath l. 3. c. 17. and therfore did actually pay tribute and submit to the law as other Israelites did Of which tribute paying and also of the difference between Levies and Christ's being in the loins of Abraham I shal say more in the last chapter at the close of this third book Now for conclusion that it may appeare that our saviour is a compleat high-priest every way accomplished with all abilities and requisits needful to the great work of mans redemption of him it is spoken Psal 89. 19 I have laid help upon One that us mighty who Psal 89. 19. Psal 132. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 19. Act. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 15. 47. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Isa 9. 6. Joh. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Heb. 7. 26. is no lesse then the mighty God of Jacob. The blood which he shed for us is justly by S. Peter called Precious for it was the blood of God This second Adam Incarnate for us is no less then The Lord from Heaven and God manifest in the flesh and The mighty God the everlasting Father the prince of peace he that was wounded for us is called by the Apostle my Lord and my God he that was crucified for us was no less then the Loâ—d of glory and in his very humiliation of the humane nature he was holy harmless undefiled and seperate from sinners To him be all honour and glorie and thanksgiving for ever CHAP. XII That the unregenerate man is redeemed by Christ and that the Spirit of Christ is communicated to him BUt in the second place it would be inquired what Interest the unregenerate man hath in Christ how he can lay any claime to Christs sufferings for although it be true that Christ hath taken the unregenerate man's nature on him yet may wee or can we truly say that the unregenerate man hath received the Spirit of Christ into him If this will not be granted Christ cannot be a person idoneous or fitly qualified to be his redeemer because as such a redeemer must take somthing from man so man must also receive somthing from him that by giving and taking the redeemer and redeemed may be united and so considered as one bodie and that must be by receiving the Spirit from Christ as Christ received flesh from man which is elegantlie expressed by Prosper in his poem Vt nos insercret Summis se miscuit Imis That man Prosp de Ingrat n. 41. might be joyned unto God God joyned himself with man Now it seemeth that the Spirit of Christ is also communicated to the unregenerate man because wee find in Scripture that he also hath an interest in Christ and a claime and title to him for the Scripture declareth that the benefit of Christ's death and by it redemption is offered to all men of what condition soever whether good or bad regenerate or unregenerate beleevers or unbeleevers for the Gospel is sent to all the world and to every creature Mar. 16. 15. and One of the maine points of the Gospel is the offer of the benefit of redemption by the death of Christ of which the Scripture saith 2 Cor. 5. 15. that he died for all so Rom. 8. 32. 1 Tim. 2. 6. and againe Heb. 2. 9. He tasted death for every man here is the benefit of Christs death offered Omnibus singulis i. to all and every man and more particularly it is offered to the ungodly Rom. 5. 6. Christ died for the ungodly and more plainly yet it is offered to them that shall perish and be destroied for S. Paule saith 1 Cor. 8. 11. Through thy knowledg shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ dâ—ed and againe he saith Rom. 14. 15 Destroy not him with thy meate for whom Christ died And to put it out of all doubt that Christ did indeed offer the benefit of redemption to them that not only may possibly perish but even to such as actually shall perish S. Peter saith 2 Pet. 2. 1. There shall be false teachers which denie the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction false teachers are the most unlikely to have any benefit by Christ for Rev. 20. 10. the devil the beast and the false Prophet are joyned in the lake of fire and brimston and yet wee see the benefit of redemption was offered to false Prophets This is the Doctrine of the Church of England and so it was of the Church Primitive as appeareth by diverse testimonies for S. Ambrose saith Ethnicus haereticus peccator sanguine Amb. in symb Apost c 25. Christi redempti sunt i Not only the sinner but the heathen and the heretick are redeemed by the blood of Christ and Athanasius delivereth the same doctrine not only as being his single opinion but as the judgment of the Council of Sardice Deus pro illis Arrâ—anis Ath. in Epâ—st synodi Sardic â— n. 15. and pro nobis omnibus mortem subiit i God who is the president of the Church did suffer death both for the Arrians and for all us and yet no heresie is more opposite to redemption by Christ then the Arrian and this is also set forth by Nazianzen Arriani divinitatis acerbi Naz. Orat. 38 expensores diaboli figmenta pro quibus Christus mortuus ingratae Creaturae i the Arrian's are the most malicious examiners of Christ's divinitie and yet Christ died for these unthankfull creatures who are the figment of the devil but most home is the judgment of S. Chrysostom Christus mortuus est pro inimicis pro tyrannis Chrys hom 76. Constant n 24. pro maleficis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Osoribus pro crucifigentibus atque pro his ipsis
the Triniâ—ie such we pronounce Baptized but not rebaptized for we may not account such to be baptized who were not dipped in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holie ghost and such were those who were dipped by the Photinians Montanists Manichees and by Maâ—cion Cerdon thus he And in this S. Cyprian may so far be justly excused in requiring that those who had bin so dipped by those hereticks should be againe re dipped by the Church in lawfull baptisme for saith he Haeretici illi non possunt Cyp. de haer Bapt. n. 85. baptizare qui negant dietaâ—em Paâ—ris aut Filii aut Spiritus nam Marcion non poterat qui negabat Trinitatem i Those hereticks can not minister true baptisme who therein denie the Godhead of the Father or the Son or the Holie ghost for therfore Marcions was no baptisme because he denied the Trinitie And therefore such pseudo-baptismes as were Ministred by such hereticks so as is shewed before Cyprian will not call Baptismes Non est Baptismus sed tinctio i It must not be called a baptisme but a dipping And of those whom the Church baptized after they had bin formerlie dipped by those hereticks he saith Nâ—n est râ— Baptizaâ—io Cyp. ibid. ad Quint. n. 86. â—aeâ—eticorum sed haptizatio i We can not say such hereticks are rebaptized but that they are baptized If Cyprian had held himself to this Doctrine and gone no further in his zeal againâ—â— the hereticks and schismaticks of his time he had escaped much blame where with succeeding ages have charged him and not without Cause as will appeare anon Upon Cypâ—ians grounds of Baptizing Aâ—tiâ—rinitarians who had bin so fouly dipped before the Canons of the first Nicene Council as they are recorded by Ruffinus direct that when any heretick of the sect of Paulus Samosatâ—nus would forsake that heresie and joyne with the true Church that such an one should not be entertained before he were new baptized this is in the 21 Canon of Ruffiâ—us But before in the ninth Ruff. n. 16. Canon it is ordered that if any Catharist or Novatian leave that sect to joyne with the Church he should be received and for such there is no mention or direction of a new baptisme because the baptisme of the Novatians was a true baptisme but the Samosaâ—eniâ—n dipping was but a Pseudobaptisme because Samosatenus denied the Godhead of Christ as is before declared Also before the Nicene Council and Cyprians time amongst the Canons of the Apostles recorded by Clemens one is Ordinati vel Paptizati ab haeâ—eticis reordinandi and râ—baptizandi suntâ— i Those that have bin ordained and baptized by hereticks must be re ordained and re baptized this was not intended to countenance a Second Baptisme but because the tinctions or dippings of those who would not confess the Trinitie were not to be esteemed Baptismes And therfore Athanasius also after the Nicene Council had condemned the Arrian heresie for denying the Eternal Godhead of the Son saith plainly Arâ—iani verum Baptismum Athan. cont Arrian serm 3. n. 6. amittunt quiâ— verum filium negant i The Arrians in denying the Son of God doe therby cease to administer true Baptisme for we find that after that Council the Arrians denying the Trinitie would neither use the same forme of Doxologie which the Church Catholick used nor the same forme of invocation of the Trinity in Baptisme but glorified and baptized thus Gloria Patri cum filio in Spiritu and In nomine Patris Basil de Spirit c. 25. n. 27. per filium in Spiritu Because they would not acknowledg the Son and the Spirit to be aequal to the Father CHAP. IX That the disciples of Ephesus Act. 19. who had bin Baptized by Johns disciples before were re-baptized because Johns Baptisme was then out of date and null THe principal president of a Second and a true Baptisme after an imaginaâ—ie and pseudobaptisme is cleerly set foâ—th by that passage of the great Apostle and recorded Act. 19. of the Ephâ—sian disciples who had bin baptized unto Johns Baptisme but because that baptisme was out of date at the time when they were first dipped therfore when they heard S. Paules words they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus For although Iohn Baptisi's baptisme was a true Baptisme whilest the time of his Baptismal office lasted in so much that our saviour never that we find caused any to be re baptized who had bin baptized by Iohn yet we know that Iohn's Baptisme was to have a period and not to last alwaies But how long it was to last and to be in force is the cheif question material for the exposition of this passage To this question I will set downe the answer given Optat. lib. 5. by Optatus That Iohns baptisme being to repentance and beleife in him that was to come even Christ to be manifested especiallie to his death and resurrection this baptisme must last till then and further also until Christ had ordained a new forme and law of baptisme to be perpetual in his Church So that until Christ after his resurrection had given a new rule and precept of baptisme the ould baptisme of Iohn was accepted but after Christ had once said Goe and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son c. I say after this Iohn's baptisme was expired nor could he or his Disciples baptize any longer in that forme of beleeving in him that was to come because now he was come and manifested and gone out of the world Christs new law and precept of baptisme was the bounds and limits of Ioâ—n's baptisme from that time all baptismes must be In the name of the Father and of the Son c Now these Disciples of Ephesus were indeed Baptized with Iohn's Baptisme but they were so baptized when it was to late and when that forme of baptisme was quite expired and out of date for their baptisme was after Christ had setled the new law of baptisme In the name of the Father c Without the observation wherof a thousand dippings or duckings will not make one baptisme so that those Ephesians can not be properly said to have bin baptized because the very essence of that Sacrament was wanting Optatus speaketh Opt. lib. 5. home to this purpose Hiqui apud Ephesum post legâ—m Iohannis Baptismaâ—e baptizaâ—i leguntur in Sacramento erraverunt quia jamintroductum fuerat baptisma Domini exclusum fuerat seâ—vi i Those Ephesians who are said to have bin baptized with Iohn's baptisme greatly erred in that Sacrament because then the Baptisme of the Lord Christ was brought in the baptisme of his servant Iohn was shut out Briefly that baptisme which before Christs new precept was good and usefull after the precept became useless and void So saith the same Father of the same question Post hodiernum non licebat quod
13. 13. and 1 Corinthians 14. 47. The second man is the Lord from Heaven Thus did some of the old Hereticks believe as the l Basil n. 37. Valentinians and m Naz. n. 34. Apollinarius n Aug. to 6. n. 9 the Manichees and o Epiph haer Apelles said that Christ made himselfe a body of the Elements and did not take it from Marie And this they professed in a pretended honour 44. of Christ p Aug. to 6. n. 10. Iusipienti honorificentia as Saint Augustine calleth it id est foolishly thinking thereby to honour Christ and this was also one of the Tenents of the late Anabaptists as we finde in the sixteenth Centurie Now to affirme these things is to gainsay the Doctrine and promise of Redemption by the seed of the woman and the promised seed of Abraham and the sonne of David for Christ is not from their loyns if his body came from Heaven and although a simple well meaning soul should live and die in this errour who hath alwayes adhered to the main principall Doctrine viz. God in Christ and God incaruate believing Vide supra lib. 3. cap. 10. 11. that Christ performed the Law actively for him and also suffered death on the Crosse for him in a body howbeit not in such a body as descended from Adam shall we affirm that such a misbeliever must necessarily perish I answer that I dare not so pronounce because this sinfull and erroneous conceit of the incarnation is at most but one of these sinnes which our Saviour called A word spoken against the Sonne of Man Matthew 12. 32. For it is onely against this humane nature and no blasphemy against his Holy and Divine Spirit or Godhead and of such sinnes he saith It shall be forgiven him viz. If such a sinner with an humble heart make an acknowledgement and general confession of his secret and unknown sinnes wherein this will be included so as is before said with a resolution to decline any thing that he knowes to be sinfull so much as by assistance of Gods Grace he can still holding himself close to the main foundation which the forenamed old Hereticks did not but vented many blasphemies against the Divine Nature and also polluted themselves with many fowle Morall vices I say when Jesus Christ hath said It shall be forgiven how dare any Man presume to say It shall never be forgiven For although the Erroneous conceits of Christs Body comming down from Heaven doe disturb the Order of Gods dispensation and the congruitie of the work of Redemption and correspondence thereof with the words of the Covenant yet it doth not take away and root up the foundation This doth not un-God our Redeemer nor deny utterly the gracious work of Mans Redemption So as this most blasphemous Commentarie hath none which I now together with my weak endeavours in opening the dangerous Doctrines thereof leave and submit to the censure of the learned and to the namelesse Anthor thereof I say of both our Writings as Saint Cyprian did Cyp. lib. 4. Epist 9. to Paptanus In die judicii ante Tribunal Christi utrumque recitabitur To God the Father God the Son God the Holy Ghost three Persons one onely God be ascribed all honour and glory for ever and ever Amen Qualitèr haeretici pro falsae opinione in die judicii puniendi sunt nullus potest scire nisi Judex patiens est Deus quia affectis piae opinionis errant Salvian degub l. 5. p. 163. FINIS THE TABLE Of the Contents of each several CHAPTER THE FIRST BOOK Containing General Animadversions upon the Commentarie and Commenter and the assertion of the Souls Immortalitie Chapter I. CErinthus Artemon Theodotus and Page 1. Natalis Authors and spreaders of the blasphemie of the denying Christ's Godhead The Divine warning of Natalis That after these Paulus Samosatenus and Arius were maintainers of the same Heresie The spreading of it in severall parts of the known world even in our Britain That it was here discovered in Queen Maries dayes And punished by fire in the reign of Queen Elizabeth and of King James That the same is now revived by this Commenter the qualitie of G. M. who negotiated in the Printing and publishing this Commentary Chapter II. That the Commenter though he carefully concealed Page 4 his own name yet caused this his Book to be presented to divers persons of quality That this Commenter is the first that ever published this Heresie in our English Print Three reasons conceived why he concealeth his own name Chapter III. Of the licensing of this Comment the Licensers Page 7 censure of it and an Apologie for him in that he called this Commentarie a Comment and in his letter to an honourable Person declared it to be erroneous The copy of the Letter a parallel passage of Libanius concerning Julian and the Manichees concerning their Founder Manes the ancient practice of burning such hereticall books Chapter IV. The Commenters compliance in unsainting the Page 10 Apostles The reason why the Title of Saint was of old withdrawn from Churches by the decree of a Council That the abuse of images occasioned it and yet that the Title of Saint was not denied to the persons of Holy men Of his condemning Tombes Something concerning Hypocrisie in long hair and short Of the reason of the Nazarites long hair and the hypocrisie of their imitators Chapter V. The Commenters compliance with the old Arians Page 15 The judgement of the Ancients concerning the Authour of the Epistle to the Hebrewes A Vindication of Eusebius concerning the words Homo ousion and Homoi ousion and also of the Nicene Fathers falsly charged by the Commenter as if they favoured his own Heresie How the Father and the Sonne are said to be Opposite and yet both are but one God The Commenters Errour in the Logicall Doctrine of Relatives Chapter VI. That this Commenters principall designe was by Page 16 his pretended Commentarie to darken and extenuate or confute the clear Evidences of this Divine Epistle onely because therein are many great Testimonies of Christ's Godhead That herein he imitateth the practices of the old Hereticks Marcion Valentinus and the Manichees The Commenters misexpounding Hebrewes 1. 6. in allowing Divine Adoration to Christ and yet will not acknowledge him to be more then a creature and in applying the appellation Jehova to one whom he denieth to be the Supream God contrarie to Psalme 83. 18. what prostration signifieth Chapter VII That this Commenter mis-expoundeth Hebrewes Page 21 2. 2 3. That the Gospel is therefore preferred before the Law in that the Gospel was delivered by God himself immediately for it was delivered by Christ himself who is the Supream and onely God whereas the Law was delivered indeed by the same God but mediately by the Ministery of Angels or Creatures A true Exposition of Acts 7. 53. and of Gal. 3. 19. and Exodus 20. 21. Moses and Paul reconciled That
Olympius p. 22 l. 15 r. Gratâ— justitia p 26 l. 19 r. also p. 28 l. 8 r. Son of David l. 12 no r. nor p. 32 ib. r. so in S. Chrysost is called p. 29. l. 28 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 32 l. 22 r. Patellarii l. 27 r. Goddified l. 34 r. Deificatio est Dei imitatio p. 34 l 11 r. became p. 37 l. 14 r. As is p 39 l 2 r Saints p. 42 l. 33 r. the p. 43 l 6. r. contrectas l. 8 r. Christus p 49 l 20 r. not at all p. 54 l. 15 r. Vngentem p 58 l. 9. r. sacrifice p. 59 r. Dei p. 65 l. 27 r. orat p. 73 l. 19 r. before p. 83 l. 1. 38 r. 83 l. 3 r. Decepâ—i In the 3. Book p. 1 uli r. of the hâ—resie of Artemon p. 2 l. 13 r. there l. 39 r. de Demonstraâ—ionâ— p. 3 l 34 idem p. 4 l. 2 you mean p 4. l. 5. r c. l. 8 r. and p. 5 l. 9 Tertullus l. 11 r. as in the l. 12 these r. the p. 7 l. 37 â— that the p. 8 l 33 r. Majâ—stie p. 9 l. 15 r. Nemo essentiam Dei vidâ—t Deus essentia invisibilis p. 11 l 34 r. viderunt l. â—9 r. with our first Parents p. 12 l. 33. r. figura veritatem p. 15 l. 15 r. Posterio itatem l. 31 r. Audian errors p. 7 l 18 r. we read p. 18 l. 33 r. and the holy Ghost l. 38 p. 119 r. p. 11 p. 19 l. 22 leave out id est l 35 r. other fathers p. 22 l. 12 r. Christ cannot be said to be Incarnate for neither can thâ— faithfull be said to be incarnate though p. 23 l. 8 r. and to p 25 l. 30 r. is p. 26 20 r. were p. 29 l. 3 r. sum p. 31 l 26 r. it p. 37 l. 21 r est p. 42 l 33 r. 3 r. Son p. 43 l. 8 r. is also put p. 51 l 17 â— 1. 2 ae p. 52 l. 4 r. to p. 56 l. 26 r. thep 58 l. 30 r. as p. 62 l. 3 r. implicitly Lio 3 p. 78 l. 26 r intimated Lib. 4 p 6 l. 34 r. converted p. 9 l. 35 r. Arian p. 20 l. 23 r. jacientes ib l. 33. r. her p. 21 l. 11 r. the Son p. 22 l. 15 r. twice p 23 l. 19 r. highn p. 25 l 20 r. Adulto-Baptism p. 28 l. 21 r. them p. 30 l. 32 r mitiantur p. 38 l. 31 r. but from but to supper p. â—9 l. 17 r. Marcion ibid. l 27 r. there p 41 l 32 r. Cornelius p 43 l 10 r. caused p 45 l 27 r infants p 73 l 10 r ad mortem ib. l 30 p 201 r. p 62 87 l 30 r. sinner p 90 l 39 r. of p 92 l 12 r. such Saints p 94 l. 22 r. to renue them p 99 l 25 r. Iohn 3 Iohn 6 38 that he came down from heaven p 101 l 6 r. Pupianus Errors in the Margine The Preface p 8 l 5 r. 1 Cor 12 13 The 1 Book p 1 l 2 Euseb lib. 5 r. cap. 28 p 23 l 9 r. Tull. Epist 69 lib. 5 p 33 l 3 r. Euseb de Demonst p 46 l 8 r. n. 6 The 2 Book p 9 l r. Pelagian p 31 l 17 r. lib. 4 p 33 l 4 r. dofilii Divinitate p 38 l 2 nu r n. 27 p 44 l 11 r. de verb. Domini l 16 p 45 l 7 p 45 l 9 r. serm 48 p 80 l 10 r. 5 n 13 The 3 Book p 2 l 3 r. 23 p 5 l 7 r. Sueâ— p 7 l 7 r. lib. 5 n 17 p 12 l 4 r. c. 7 p 23 l 3 r. 64 p 24 l 3 add id homil 40 Antioch p 41 l 7 r Ambrose p. 44 l. 1 r Aug in Ps 21 The 4 Book p 8 l 4 r. vide infrà cap. 21 p 15 16 r n 50 p 29 l 16 l 12 c d r lib. 12 c 6 p 30 Ambr de sacram lib 4 c 4 p 33 l 3 r 1 c 6 p 41 l 5 lib 6 c 36 r lib 7 c 2 p 44 l r Episcop Nor p 4 9 l 2 r cap. 1 â— 78 p 67 l 14 Des 1 l 1 â— Dec 1 lib. 1 p 69 l 4 r Augustini p. 72 l 4 â— 18 r n 28 l p 73 l 2 to 6 r August n 5 to 6 p 85 l 10 r. Haeres 88 to 6 ibid l 12 r ad Genuenses p 86 l 9 r de p 91 l 2 r suprÃ
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