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
God but now incarnate of whom Esay spake Rom. 14. 11. As it is written As I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow to me So that the saying of the Psalmist Psalm 97. 7. Worship him all ye gods is applied to Christ Heb. 1. 6. Let all the Angels of God worship him Neither doth the Scripture set forth this great truth onely by words but also by the visible type of the Iewish Tabernacle and Temple to teach the people of Israel where they should profitably seek and find that God whom they were appointed to worship and therefore God confined them to perform their worship of him at the Tabernacle or Temple lest they like other Nations should set up a God of their own invention or worship the host of Heaven seeing men naturally desire either a sensible object of their adoration or at least will fancie such an one in their brain The Israelites not yet weaned from idolatry before the Tabernacle was erected made a Calf or Oxe to worship just as they had seen the Aegyptians worship before the like figure in memory of Ioseph as Aug. de Mir. scrip l 1. n. 74. Ruff. 6. n. some thought who had preserved them by corn in the Famine because that beast doth usually work in Tillage and because in after-times the Jewes abhorred image-worship not admitting any such Statues in their Temple Therefore the Heathens thus usually twitted them Incerti Iudaea Dei And Iuvenal saith Lucan l. 2. Juv. sat 14. of them Quidam sortiti metuâ—ntem Sabbata Patrem Nil praeâ—er nubâ—s coeli numen adorant i. That either it was uncertain what God they worshipped or that they worshipped nothing but the Clouds or Heaven For the Heathens used to set up visible images before which they performed their adoration not intending to worship the Images terminativè or finally as our Commenters word is but they worshipped them just so as the Commenter saith Christ was worshipped For they terminated their worship in their gods whom they thought to be assistant and present in those images as Arnobius affirms from Arnob. l. 6. n. 115. the mouths of Heathens Nos nec aera nec auri argentive maâ—eâ—ias Deos esse decâ—â—nimus sed cos in hiâ— colimus quos dedicatio infert efficit inhaebitare simuâ—a hris i. We Heathens do not worship the brass or silver or gold image but we worship those gods which by Dedication-Charmes are invited and brought to inhabit the Images So Saint Augustine alleadgeth Aug. de Civ l. 8. c. 23. Trismegistus affirming that Images were as the bodies of their gods and that the spirit was by Art Magick invited to reside in them Simulachrum Id. ib. c. 26. pro corpore Daemon pro anima est i. The image was the body and a Spirit was the soul within it For so indeed Heathens used to do when they had made an image to represent their god they made a Ceremonious Vide Macrob. Satur. l. 3. c. 9. de evocatione Deorum Dedication of it to that god and so inviting him by Charms and Magicall Conjurations to shew himself to be present in that image as Conjurers they say have had the evill Spirit in a ring or boxe And this is diverse times affirmed by Origen the manner whereof is partly touched in the Story of the Dedication of Nebuchadnezzars image For the Devill apishly imitating God indeavoured to set up his own worship in such a manner as God hath appointed for himself For Psalm 96. 5. Dii Gentium Daemonia i. The gods of the Gentiles are Devils Therefore as God manifested his presence in the Tabernacle and Temple where the Israelites were required to worship God so the Devill manifested his presence in Idols and Idoll-Temples that so he also might be there worshipped and this appeareth by what we reade of Heathen Oracles and the Images of Iuno and Fortune which uttered words as Lactantiüs sheweth out of Valerius Lact de falf Relig. lib. 2. n. 6. CHAP. XIII The Godhead of Christ further proved from the typicall Tabernacle and Temple IT will not be impertinent to this business in hand to inquire why God confined the Jewish worship to the Tabernacle and Temple as it is manifest he did for Levit. 17. 3 4. the Israelites are required upon pain of death to bring their sacrifices to the doore of the Tabernacle So the publick Passeover is to be sacrificed onely in the place which the Lord shall chuse Deut. 12. 5. and what place that is we finde set down 2 Sam. 7. 13. The house that Solomon the sonne of David shall build and this building was performed by him 1 King 8. 20. and God declared his acceptation of that House or Temple 2 Chron. 7. 12. The Lord appeared to Solomon and said unto him I have heard thy prayer and have chosen this place to my self for an house of sacrifice Now the reason why the Israelites were confined to perform their worship in this place was because God would keep them in a perpetuall memory and confession of the Messiah to be incarnate of whole incarnation both the Tabernacle and the Temple were but Figures or Types Templum erat figura Corporis Dominici Aug. de Trin. l. 4. c. 5. saith Augustine i. The Temple was the Figure of our Lords Body for as God did manifestly shew his presence in the Tabernacle and Temple by a cloud and the Glory of the Lord filled both as we reade Exodus 40. 34. and 1 Kings 8. 10. So did he in the Body of Christ by his great Miracles Deus erat in Aug. de Consens Evang. n. 86. Templo Vâ—rbum caro factum i. When the Word was made flesh God was there as n his Temple So that the prudent and religious sort of Israeites in the Typicall Tabernacle and Temple did indeed worship their god who as yet was but Typically incarnate for the Tabernacle did represent an humane body Philo and Josephus both of them Jewes by birth and religion called the Tabernacle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jos Ant l. 3. c. 4. Phil. de vit Mosis l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. A moveable and a portable Temple as a mans body is the covering of it was with skins as mens bodies are covered Exodus 26. 14. and with Curtains as mens bodies are with Garments and it represented the Body of Christ Ath. Orat. 5. cont Ar. n. 4. Corpus Domini ist Amiculum saith Athanasius i. The Body of our Lord was the Garment of God And the two great Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul in allusion hereunto call their own bodies Tabernacles 2 Cor. 5. 1. and 2 Peter 1. 14. Hence it is no doubt that so often mention is made of worshipping towards the Temple of Jerusalem Psalme 5. 7. and 138. 2. I will worship toward thy holy Temple and Psalme 29. 2. Worship the Lord in the beautie of Holynesse that is in his glorious
is applied to a Man S. Basil saith Baptismus est similitudo Basil de Bapt. lib. 1. n. 18. Crucis mortis sepulturae râ—surrectionis i Baptisme is the similitude or representarion of the Crosse death burial and resurrection of Christ He that will have two Baptismes doth implie a similitude of two deaths Christ died but once and wee in our Baptisme dyed with him Christ dieth no more nor we by Baptisme can dye any more with him Theophilact so expoundeth Theoph. in loc these words He that will be twide Baptized doth therby make a representation of two Deaths and two Crucifyings of Christ And put him to an open shame Because it is ignominious and a great undervaluing of that one most precious and alsufficient Sacrifice of Christ to Imagine that his once dying is not Satisfactorie to the Justice of God for all our sins both before and after Baptisme Therfore it must needs follow that it is also Ignominious to his said death for any Man to represent or apply two deaths of Christ to himself by two Baptismes for as his once dying is a sufficient redemption so one application of it to our selves by one Baptisme is a sufficient application If therfore by sin we fall away from the benefit of Christs death by suffering sin to live and raigne in us having once died unto sin Sacramentally by Baptisme we must returne to the benefit therof by repentance and mortification of sin and not by a new or second Baptisme For the earth which drinketh in the raine c. vers 7. 8. Here is a second reason alleaged against re Baptization 2. Reason taken from the similitude of the earth with Man for the earth which hath bin watered by raine from Heaven and dressed by the husbandman if it bring forth good fruite answerable to its watering and dressing it is a signe that the blessing from God still continueth on it Even that blessing wherwith it was at the Creation blessed when it was said Gen. 1. 11. Let the earth bring forth grasse and the fruit tree But if after this watering and dressing it beareth only weeds thorns and briers then a new watering will not help it but make it worse by giving a new and fresh aliment whereby those Weeds and Thorns will be increased and grow stronger watering is not a meanes to kill them or to extripate them So that Christian whose soule hath been watered with Baptismall Grace and dressed with holy doctrines of repentance and faith toward God and hath been instructed in the certainty of the resurrection and of Judgment eternall and yet for all this bringeth no fruites of Righteousnesse and Holinesse but contratily aboundeth luxuriantly in all manner of carnall vâ—ces let him not think that these weeds and thorns of his soul can be mortified or killed by a second baptismall watering Which if it should be applyed would rather accumulate higher and increase his sins then diminish them even as rain doth weeds because such a second Baptism will be accounted â—s a second crucifying the Son of God and shaming him by undervaluing his own most precious death so as it is before said and as the Earth being cursed Bâ—ingâ—th forth thorns and thistâ—â—s Gâ—n 3. 18. So that baptized Ambro. in loc One who bringeth forth no better fruit is nigh unto cursing and like unto Thornes his end is to be burnt He saith but nigh unto Cursing not yet altogether accuâ—sed and whose end is to be burnt yet not presently thrown into the fire for as St. Ambrose expounds it Combustio non crit nisi quis in finâ—m permaneâ—t in peccatis suis In this exposition of this Scripture all this while the reader doth not find any imposibility of repencance of renuing or of remission and pardon of the grand blasphemy the impossibility here mentioned â—s only an impossibility of renovation and repâ—ntance by a second baptism If this exposition be admitted it will quit us of a great deal of trouble which some Expositors have occasioned and thereby much perplexed many mens mindes How well or ill other writers of late have expounded this place I take not upon me to censure nor am I so wedded to this as to propose it Magisterially but with submission to my Superiors this may be true though others are not false for the Character which St. Austin setteth on the Mosaicall Scriptures and Aug. confes lib. 12. c. 31. 32. their Expositors may serve for all other Scriptures Cum alius dixâ—rit hoc sensit Moses quod ego et alius dicit imò illud quod ego cur non utrumque dixero sensisse id ibid. utrumque verum est and again he saith Moses sensit quicquid veri hic potuimus invenire et quicquid nondum possumus invenire whatsoever truth may probably be gathered out of a Scripture agreable with the faith and profitable may with humility be submitted unto as if it were the true meaning of that most wise Spirit by whom it was inspired who hath so composed the Scriptures in such a temper as may be sutable to the various senses of men although some see more in them then others have discerned my humble prayer shall be with him Domine nec fallar in Scripturis nec fallam ex eis i Aug. confes l. 11. cap. 2. The Lord grant that I may neither be deceived in the meaning of Scriptures nor by Scriptures deceive others CHAP. VII A review of those words Heb 6. 4. and some doubts cleared â—concerning the former Exposition what moved the Apostle to handle the Doctrine of Baptism and so strictly to forbid Anabaptisme in this Epistle to the Hebrews THe summe of the former Exposition is That if a man fall from baptismall Grace he must nor expect a restoring thereunto by a Second baptisme this place being the chief in Scripture by which Anabaptism or Rebaptization is expresly inhibited though something obscurely It would now be inquired whether this Word Inlightned in this place may not signifie those that are instructed or chatechised onely and not those that are baptised and this because some think that instruction in the Christian doctrine is here principally meant for that the custome of the Church was that in Adulto baptism which was the baptizing of people when they were in yeares of discretion catechising ever went before baptism To this I answer that in the Ancient Church language it cannot appear to me that any were called Illumâ—nati i the Inlightned before they were actually baptized although they were ever so exactly instructed and known to be very learned in Christian Doctrine for we find that many were chosen and compelled to be Bishops before they were baptized as Eusâ—bius Naz. orat 19. 20. Soz. l. 7. c 8. Ruffin hist l 2. c. 11. Soz lib. lâ—b 6. c. 〈◊〉 Bishop of Caesaria in Caâ—padocia who was the Predecessor of St. Basil and after him Nectarâ—us was chosen Bishop of Constantinople by Theoâ—osius
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
you grant him onely to be Assimilated to God which is the same in English with the Arian word Homoiâ—â—sion i. e. of like substance so you would have Christ to be onely like unto God which is no more then the Scripture affordeth to our first parents who were made not onely after the Image but after the similitude of God Gen. 1. 26. and because the Nicene Fathers asserted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Arius therefore you are unreasonably angry with them also and in your passion you write rashly for you say The Nicene P. 331. Fathers are not to be thought to have hâ—ld that the Son is that one most high God who yet if they should appear in these times they would be condemned of an universal Council Your impudence is great in saying those Fathers did not hold so and your passion is unreasonable in saying they should now be condemned for if they held not so wherefore should an universall Arian Council condemn them We know that their doctrine was indeed condemned by no lesse then * Bishop Jewel f. 362. ten Councils of Arians †Sexâ—â—nti Episcopi Ariaâ—i consentiunt Ario. Hâ—â— in Epist Auxentii n. 7. and it was therefore condemned because as the principall businesse for which that renowned Council was called they asserted the Son to be Homâ—ousion that is to be of the same essence substance and Goâ—head with the Father which most true and wholesome doctrine all Orthodox Churches in the World have ever since and to this day do maintain and that Council is for this reason of most venerable estimation amongst all good Christians as being the best that ever was since the Aposties dayes and Epiphanius accounteth that Council to be one of the greatest and most memorable acts that the great Emperour Constantine did Constantinus duo maximâ— fâ—cit Nicaenam Epiph. haer 70. Synodum Conseâ—sâ—m de Paschaâ—e i. e. The two greatest acts that ever Constantine dâ—d were the calling of the Nicene Council and procuring the universal agreement for the solemnity of Easter If those Fathers had heard you denying the Godhead of Jesus and his eternal generation and vilifying him by placing him under some Angels they would have done before you as they did to Arius for when he said in that Council that God the Father was not alwayes a Father nor the Son a Son from eternity and that he was preferred to be a God or Deified as the word is those godly Fathers at the hearing of these words did all stop their eares from hearing any more of his blasphemies as Athanasius writeth and yet Arius may yield Atha cont Arian Orat. 1. n. 4. the buckler to you You tell us Christ as he is the Son of God is * pag. 80. pag. 320. Opposed to God and diverse from God This is a cast of your profound Logick indeed the rule in Logick at which you quibble is Oppositio relativa est inter relatum correlatum i. e. That there is an opposition between the Relative and Correlative Now in the Divine persons these terms Father and Son may be truly said to be opposed one to another in Recto So that we may say the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father but we cannot say the Father is not God or the Son is not God because the opposition lies between the two relative terms onely and not between the tearms and the subject For example A man that hath a son is a father but that father is not that son this is true Logick But you cannot say that this father is not a man If therefore by your new Logick you would prove that the Son of God is not God because he is not God the Father I will put this petition into my Letanie as St. Ambrose is reported to have done the like in his when St. Austin before his Conversion troubled the Church of Millane with his Manichâ—an disputes A Cor. lan in vita Aug. l. 2. c. 1. Logica Augustâ—ni lib ra nos Domine From the hereticall Logick good Lord deliver us CHAP. VI. Sheweth that the whole design of this Commenter is to confute or extenuate and darken the authority and evidence of this Epistle to the Hebrewes I Observe again that you have very improperly and perversly nick-named your book A Commentary my reason is because it is not an Exposition of that Text nor so intended by you but it is an Undoing of the Epistle an interversion and a confutation of it as much as you can for you have endeavoured to extinguish this great light by which the eternal Godhead of Jesus is so evidently illustrated You may as well blow out the light of the Sun but though you blow till your lungs crack that Sun and this light will still shine Tertullian saith That the Epistle to the Thessalonians is of such clearnesse and evidence as if Tert. de Resur n. 30. it had been written radâ—o â—oâ—is with a Sun-beam And this Divine Epistle doth so clearly demonstrate the Godhead of Jesus as if St. Paul had writ it whilest he was in his raptuâ—e in the third heaven or that it had been written immediately with the singer of God and therefore all your wit and Learning is employed to darken and blur this our grand piece of evidence there are many profound mysteries in this sacred Scripture the which you are so far from explicating that you have onely laboured to make them more difficult as Austin modestly fea ed in himself Vereor ne exponendo Aug. Expos in Levit. quaest 174. Tul. de Nat. Deor. l. 3. do siat obscurius and such places as are plain and easie you have laboured to hide Just as Tullâ— said of one Râ—m minimè dubâ—am dispuâ—ando duâ—iam facis Former hereticks used to perswade their heresies by alledging Scriptures positively but such Scriptures as did so clearly evince them that they could not gainsay those they rejected thus the Manichees slighted the whole Old a Aug. cont Faust l. 2. c. 1. Testament and the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luk calling them b â—b l. 4. c. 1. Genisidium because of the Genealogies and therefore Te tullian calls Marcion c Tert. cont Marc. l. 1. n. 39. Murem Pontiâ—um the Mâ—use of Pontus because he also rased out or rejected such Scriptures as made against him and the same Father giveth this character of two grand Hereticks d Tert. de praescript n. 30. Marcion ad materiam suam caedem Scripturarum confecit Valentinus materiam ad Scripturas excogitavit i. e. That Marcion pared and fitted the Scriptures to be suitable to his heresies but Valentinus invented heresies that might seem to agree with the letter of Scriptures But you have imitated both these first in your endeavour to null the authority of this Epistle and though you fail in that yet in a second place you have laboured to conform and new turkiss
the most principal to assert the Immortality of his humane Soul and thereby to set forth this true doctrine of the Immortality of all mens soules and the Church had great reason for it because all Christians for some Centuries of years generally believing this doctrine In the fag end of the primitive times many atheistical and Epâ—curâ—an professors sprung up and denyed this truth obstinately and then it became an heresie and was so recorded by St. Austin as is said before under the title of the Arabick heresie and so occasioned a new article of Christs descent although it was an old Scriptural received truth to be put into the Creed I am not ignorant that in Epiphanius the Epiâ—uâ—eans are set down Epiph. haer 8. among hereticks who denyed this truth and so are Sâ—oicks and Pythagoreans and Jewes which I take to be something unproper because none can be called hereticks except they at least professe Christianity and perhaps Epiphanius meant such Christians who in Philosophy were of those Sects or Jewes by birth CHAP. IX Of the most ancient Creed why so many additions have been made and particularly the article of Christs descent THe Reasons that move me to think that the new article of Christs descent was added to the Creed principally to set forth the Immortality of man's soule are now to be brought forth to the Readers view It was a long time before the Church-Creed went about in writing though some private men did so preserve it yet it was learned by oral tradition and so rehearsed Hil. de Synodis cont Arian n. 7. at baptismes and this is noted by St. Hilarie Fides Apostolica non scripta erat literis sed Spiritu Conscriptas sides hucusque nesciverunt Episcopi i. The Apostles Creâ—d or faith was not written by letters but by the Spirit untill these dayes about the Nicene Council the Bishops did not take notice of any written Creeds and the same Father findeth fault with the writing of Creeds Fides scribenda est quasi in corde non fuerit i. Hilar. contr Const l. 3. n. 6. Faith must now adayes be written as if it had no place in mens hearts and although this symbole or Creed were not written yet it is confessed that it went about traditionally and without additions from the Apostles as Terâ—â—llian for his time sheweth Ab initio Evangelii Tert. Cont. Prax. dâ—cucurrit ante priores quosque haereâ—icos i. The rule of faith spread from the beginning of the Gospel and before Praxea's herâ—sies began And again he saith Regulam Tert. de praescr haeret hanc Ecclesia ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Dâ—o tradidit i. The Church delivered the Creed as it came from the Apostles and the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God for there is nothing in that Creed but what is the expresse doctrine of Scripture Now the reason why the Apostolical rule of faith or Creed was not published then in writing is rendred by Ruffinus in Cyprian The Apostles did not deliver this Symbole Cypr in Symb. iâ— paper or parchment but by tradition oral to be laid up in the heart that so it might the better appear that the doctrine thereof was really from the Apostles for Infidels might have got it into their hands If it had been written and by that colour of rehearsing this Creed hypocritically mighâ— have undermined the Church therefore it was delivered rather vocally then in writing just as the Commander in War giveth the Word or sign vâ—cally and noâ— in writing by which friends are discerned from enemies which wate hword is called Symbolum as the Creed is that is a token or signal Thus far Ruffinus The most ancient record of the Christians Symbolâ— which I find written and without exception for that which is in the Constitutions of Clemens I believe is much later is in Tertullian who was a Writer as himself saith in the year after the birth of Christ 160. Tert. de Monoga which I have here inserted that the Reader may see how much hath been added to that first Creed untill these dayes as I find it in Tertullian lib de Veland Virgin principio Regula fidei una immobilis irreformabilis Tert. de Velan Virginibus Credendi in unicum Deum Omnipotentem mundi conditorem Vide Doctrinam praedicationis Apostolicae apud Irenae lib. 1. â— 2. Filium ejus Jesum Christum natum ex Virgine Maria Crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato tertia die resuscitatum à mortuis receptum in coelis sedentem nunc ad dextram Patris venturum judicare vivâ—s mortuis per carnis ctiam resurrectionem The onely Rule of Faith unmoveable and unreformable is To believe in one God Almighty maker of the World and his Son Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary câ—ucified under Pontius Pilate the third day raised from the dead received into heaven sitting now at the right hand of the Father that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead by the resuâ—râ—ction also of the flesh This is all in that place the same again in substance is rehearsed but in a few more words * Tert. de Praesc p. 92. Cont. Prax. p. 379. Lib. de praescriptionibus with the mention of the Mission of the Holy Ghost and the same again Lib. Cont. Praxean mentioning also the Mission of the Holy Ghost without any other considerable difference the same Father in the place above noted de praescript tells us Haec Tert. de Praescript regula nullas dubitationes habet nisi quas harâ—ses in ferunt i. that this rule of faith hath no doubts or dissensions among Christians but such as a e raised by heresies therefore what doubts and dissensions have been so raised is next to be considered CHAP. X. Of Heresies which occasioned neâ— additions to the old Creed THat the springing up of the tares of heresie gave occasion to the Church to enlarge the Creed thereby endeavouring to extirpate those errours it may appear by these instances whereof some are undeniable and the rest very probable and have been so thought formerly by †Erasm ad facul Theol. Sorbon others 1. In the Creed of Ruffinus in Cyprian is Credo resurrectionem hujus carnis i. e. the resurrection of this flesh because the Origenists would not believe that the resurrection should be of the same body but of another new body 2. By the Nicene Fathers to the words Jesus Christ was added Unum Dominum i. One Lord against the Arians who would not confesse the Father and the Son to be but one One Lord. 3. The same Fathers added the word Homoousion against the said Arians because they would not believe that the Father and the Son were both of one Godhead or substance 4. The Article of Remission of Sins was added after that the Novaâ—ian hereticks refused to admit any to their Communion though they were penitents which after baptisme
had lapsed into sin 5. Catholick Church was added because the Donatists had confined the true universal Church onely to be in the part or sect of Donatus and in Africk as is copiously shewed by St. Austin 6. The Lord and giver of life was added to the article of the Holy Ghost against the Sect of Eunomius who denyed the Godhead of the Holy Ghost 7. The Article of Christs Descent into hell was added later then the forenamed additions nor was it put into the Creed so as to be generally received untill the Arabick heresie grew ranck which denyed the Immortality of mans soul as this our Commenter doth and was therefore put into the Roll of heresieâ— by St. Aâ—stine as is said before because by this article the Immortality of mans soul is asserted in that the soul of Christ is confessed to descend to the same invisible condition that other dead mens soules do For what greater reason can be alledged or hath hitherto appeared to us mortals why this article of Christs descending into Hades should be so long after other articles received into the Church or what have we learned more by it then that his soul as other mens did subsist during its separation though in a state and condition which is not yet revealed to us There was no Creed which was generally received that had the Article of Christs descent till after St. Austin's time for ought can appear to me and though St. Austin oft mentions this Creed which is called Apostolical and disputes it quite through and before a Council also a Aug. de fid Symb. n. 57. yet never mentions the article of descent and besides that Creed in Tertullian before set down neither the Nicene hath it nor was this article anciently in that Creed which we call the Athanasian nor in the Symbolical hymn which goes under the names of Ambrose and Austin though it is ancient and hath been generally received in the Western Church nor was this Article in the Confession of the Councill of Chalcedon That it was not in the Creed of Athanasius at first hath been declared lately by the renowned Primate of Ireland nor doth it yet sufficiently appear that Athanasius was the writer of it onely we are sure that all the doctrinal Articles of that Creed are still to be found in the writings of Athanasius and there are some passages in the Fathers and Church-Histories that may incline us to think that when the Emperor Jovinian sent to Athanasius for an exquisite draught of the Orthodox faith b Theod hist l. 4. c. 4. Ruff. hist l. 2. c. 1. Naz. Orat. 21. in Athan. Athanasius answered That the Nicene Creed was to be observed and withall sent him as Ruffinus writeth a form or description of his faith and so also saith Nazianzen That he sent it in writing which Nicetos thinks to be this very Creed Indeed this article was in the Creed of the Church of Aquileia which Ruffinus expounded and also in some Arian Creeds before the death of St. Austin but not received generally till after his death as is said before and therefore I think it very probable that as other heresies occasioned other new articles to be added as is shew'n so this Arabick heresie occasioned this article of descent Now that it may appear that errours heresies and sects were the causes of not onely new articles but of a multiplying of new Symbols Confessions and Creeds the Fathers and Histories do evidently declare for in the dayes of Constantius and also of Valens both Arian Emperors when every Sect of Religion was tolerated except onely the Orthodox and they onely were persecuted whereof St. Basil complained who Basil Epist 38. n. 42. then lived and suffered affronts Occlusa sunt ora piorum reserata est quaelibet blasphema tingua i. All pious men are silenced and any blasphemer may open his mouth and prattle In these very times new Creeds did exceedingly encrease and multiply insomuch that St. Hilarie who then lived thus complained of them Hil. advers Const lib. 3. p. 277. Scribendae innovandae fidei usus in olevit Secundum annos scribitur miserabile est tot nunc fides quot voluntates c. annuas menstraus de Deo fides decernimus i. Now a fashion is brought in of writing and innovating Creeds now faith is subservient to the times rather then according to the Gospel and Creeds are dated with the note of the year and which is lamentable there are as many Creeds as are several minds we have yearly and monethly new Creeds decreed And Socrates writing of the same times calls those Soc. l. 2. c. 32. multituder of Creeds a labyrinth and observeth no lesse then nine new Creeds published in one Emperors dayes insomuch that some of them for distinction were dated not onely with the name of the then Emperor but also with the names of the Consuls of that year The same Socrates also setteth this mark upon Soc. l. 2. c. 29. those times That then Religion was most weak when so many Religions were afoot and Erasmus setteth Erasm de rat Relig. this brand upon those perfidious Arian times Vbi coepit esse minus fidei mox increvit symbolorum numerus i. The lesse Faith the more Creeds as Lipsius Lips de Const in praefat also observed of these later times Nullum saculum feracius Religionum steril us pietatis i. Never more Religions nor lesse godlinesse Thus may the Reader perceive the reason both why so many new Creeds were stamped and why so many new articles were added to the first Creed and particularly that to assert the immortality of Christs soul and so consequently of every mans soul the article of Christs descending into Hades or hell was with others added to the old Creed CHAP. XI What the word Hades signifies which we translate Hell that the place and condition of soules departed is unknown of the visions of S. Hierome and Curina and the apparition of Irene deceased IF it be examined what the meaning of those words in the Creed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it will appear that they signifie no more then that the soul of Christ during its separation from his body was existent in such an invisible state place and Condition as the soules of other dead men were but where and how it was I think all the Philosophers and Theologs in the world cannot by their reading certainly determine and yet these are the very same words which are used in Scripture Act. 2. 27. for this word Hades signifies Invisible Act. 2. 27. Psal 16. 10. and is a word which the heathens used to signifie that the soules of men deceased as they are truly and really existent so that the place and condition of them was unknown and invisible and although this word was used by heathens and with some mixture also of fabulosity yet the Scripture retained it to countenance so much
open Market-place cured diseases raised spirits presented to their view Magical banquets and seemed to release those that were possessed by devils therefore Celsus said that Jesus performed his miracles by art Orig. Cont. Cels lib. 1. n. 32. magick I say seemed onely for we learn from our Saviour that one devil is not cast out by another and Satan is not divided against himself and although when ignorant people imploy one Witch to help them against another some present ease may seem to be procured yet indeed as Austin observeth Non exit Aug. l. 83. quaest qu. 79 n. 88. Satanas per infimas potestates sed in intima regreditur regnat in voluntale corpori parcens i. Satan is not dispossessed by any infernal power but retireth himself into the more inward parts of the possessed and though he spare the body yet he â—yrannizeth more in the soul and maketh his possession stronger Because this is a dangerous apostasie to seek to or to attribute the work of God to him therefore Christ used divers arguments against it and so did the Ancient Fathers Origen Athan. Euseb Austin and others which having but touched I omit to avoid digressions The greatest difficulty in this question is what our Saviour meant by the words holy Spirit or holy Ghost when he said The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven for the understanding whereof I will lay down a few Considerations to the Reader that from them he may gather the true meaning of that hard saying First That in Christ there are two natures 1. His Godhead or Divine nature by which he is called God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. 2. His humane nature or manhood made of the seed of David according to the flesh Rom. 1. 3. The first of these is called Forma Dei the second is called forma Servi both are Philip. 2. 6 7. mentioned Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal to God but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant Secondly Consider that there are two spirits in Christ 1. His soul or humane spirit of which he saith Father into thy hands I commend my spirit Luk. 23. 46. Secondly his Divine Spirit of which it is said If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is noni of his Rom. 8. 9. Thirdly that according to his two natures there are two filiations in Christ for 1. He is called the Son of man the son of David 2. He is called the Son of God Fourthly That according to those two natures two spirits and two sonships the Scripture mentioneth two kinds of blasphemies against Christ thâ— one against him as he is the Son of man and this is pardonable Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him Matth. 12. 32. The other unpardonable But Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost â—t shall not be forgiven him Ibid. Fifthly That the appellation Holy Spirit in Scripture is taken two wayes 1. Pro deitate essentiae omnium personarum Paâ—ris Filii Spiritûs i. For the Godhead or divinity of all the Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost because all are one God as Matth. 12. 28. John 4. 24. 2. It is taken Personaliter i. properly for the third Person alone as Baptizing them in the Nâ—me of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Matth. 28. 19. and this distinction is acknowledged by divers late Divines of the Reformed Churches a Polan l. 3. c 6 Polanus b Bucan l. 3. p â—â— Bucan c Tilen p. 141. Tilenus and d Melan. in loc Com. de Spirit Ph. Melanthon From these plain and confessed Considerations I extract these two Propositions 1. That it is no inconvenience to affirm That those words hoâ—y Spirit or Holy Ghost in that place do signifie the Godhead of the second Person Jesus Christ 2. That to deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ is that blasphemy which in the Gospel is said to be unpardonable And this is my Conclusion which hereafter I hope I shall evidently demonstrate to the Readers satisfaction CHAP. III. That the Godhead of the Son is called Spirit and holy Spirit that the words Ghost and Spirit are of the same signification LEt it not seem strange that the appellation of one person is given to another for as in this place the Godhead of the Son is called the holy Spirit so in another place the Godhead of the Son is called the Everlasting Father Esa 9. 6. For unto us a child is born his Name shall be called wonderfull counsâ—llour the mighty God the everlasting Fâ—ther In that he saith a child is born it must needs be meant of the Son of God and the Son is called the everlasting Father because he is God for the Godhead of every person being but one in all is may be called the everlasting Father and so the holy Ghost is the everlasting Father also because the holy Ghost is God and yet this doth not confound the three persons or their severall and distinct prâ—prieties and personalities for albeit every Person is the everlasting Father in respect of men and of creatures because all concurred in the creation yet onely the first Person hath this Personall proprietie to be the Father of the sâ—cond Person and so the Father of God as the Son is the Father respectu Creaturarum i. in respect of the creatures so the first Person is Father of God and of Man as that in the Poet if it were in the singular number might illustrate Hominum sator atque deorum a Virg. Aene. l. 1. so God the Father is the Father of God the Son that is the Father of the Person of the Son but not the Father of the Godhead of the Son b Pater Personae non essentiae Pater Filii non deitatis We in our Creed confess the Son to be God of God that is God the Son of God the Father but we do not say Deitas de deitate Godhead of Godhead Neither could the Son of God call God the Father his Lord and his God but onely because the Person of the Son assumed the humane nature and form of a servant as St. Augustino hath observed upon that saying Ps 22. 10 Thou art my God from my mothers belly c Pater est Deus Dominus Filio quia in eo est forma servi De ventre matris Deus meus es tu Ps 22. 10. Sed antâ— omnia secula Pater est i. The Father is the Lord and God of the Son because the Son assumed the form af a servant therefore it is said in the Psalme Thou art my God from my mothers belly but the Father may be said to be his Father from eternitie As every Person is called a Father so as is said so also every Person is called Holy because the Godhead is holy
afterwards Is not this the Carpenters son Matth. 13. 55. disparaging him for his mean parentage this is the Exposition of St. Ambâ—ose a Ambr. de Spirit l. 1. c. 3. In Filium Hominis pâ—ccare est remissius sentire de carne Christi c. To sin against the Son of Man is to conceive too basely of the flesh of Christ and they that so sin are not utterly excluded from pardon 2. The Jewes blasphemed him now in his Godhead by denying it and ascribing the miracle to confederacy with Beelzebub and of this blasphemy which doth take away the very foundation of remission of sins it is said It shall not be forgiven 5. I may adde hereunto that those unbaptized Pharisees in probability did not intend any obloquy or blasphemy against the Person of the holy Spirit as it is the third Person of which they had never been instructed neither had they so much Christianity as those disciples at Ephesus who though they had been baptized unto Iohns baptisme yet they had not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost Act. 19. 2. Thus having shewed that in Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers and later Divines the Godhead of Christ is called a Spirit and holy and also an holy Spirit and that in St. Matthew those words holy Spirit are to be understood of the Godhead of Christ which is for ever united to and residing in the Holy Temple of his most sacrâ—d Body and Soul I now reassume my former Conclusion That the denying Christ to be God is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is there said to be unpardonable Now that in a Doctrine of so great moment and concernment the Reader may understand that I do not obtrude any novell and private opinion of mine own upon him I will heâ—e lay down the judgement of soâ—e of the Fathers in this very question and first of Athanasius one of the most profound and godly Divines that since the Apostles dayes the Church ever had who in his book De Communi essentia Patris c. aith b Arha to 3. p. 625. It is hard to conjecture what our Saviour means by those words He that speaketh against the Sod of Man shall be forgiven but he that speaketh against the holy Ghost shall not be so given So that the Son may seem â—o he infâ—riour to the Spirit and yet the So saith The Father and I are one If he that saith to his brother Thou fool shall be cast into hâ—ll â—n quam gehennà gehennarum conjiriâ—tur is qui â—ssâ—rit Deum creatu am â—sse Into what Hell of Hells will he be cast who calleth him that is God a Creature and a Servant and a Minister onely And a little after he saith Dâ—iâ—atâ—m Vâ—rbi ipse Christus Spiriâ—um Sanctum vocâ—t humanitatem suam Filium Hominis nâ—minavit i. Our Saviour called his own Godhead the holy Ghost and his own Manhood he called the Son of Man and of those that blaspheme his holy Spirit by blaspheming his Godhead is this sentence to be understood It shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come This is the judgement of Athanasius To him I adde the Opinion of St. Hilâ—râ— who was contemporary with Athaâ—asius who in his Exposition of that Text Matth. 12. 32. saith c Hil. in Mat. Can. 12. p. 731. Si negetur Dâ—us in Christo caret omni misâ—ricordia i. If a Man deny God to be in Christ that man shall finde no mercy And again he saith d Hil. ib. Can. 31. p. 426. Blasphemia in Spiritum â—st Christum Deum â—sse negare i The blasphemy against the Spirit is to deny Christ to be God The same Father in the place last quoted speaking of Saint Peters deniall of Christ saith Because to deny Christ to be God is that sinne which shall never be forgiven therefore Peter denied thus I know not the Man because a word spoken against the Son of Man may be forgiven The very same conceit hath Saint Chrysostome also in his Sermon of Peters deniall and upon these words I kâ—ow not the Man e Chrys to 6 p. 631. Non dixit non noâ—i Deum Verbum sic enim peccasset in Spiâ—itum Sanctum i. Peter said not I know him not to be God for so he had sinned against the holy Ghost but I know not the Man Now whether Saint Peter meant so as these two Fathers conjectured I cannot affirm for certain but by this I finde that the judgement of these two great Doctours was that the denying of the Godhead of Christ is indeed that great unpardonable sinne To this I adde the testimony of Saint Basil who deserved to be called the Great He in that excellâ—nt Book De Spiritu Sancto saith f Basil de Spirit c. 7. Testificer omni Homini Christum profiâ—enâ—i sed â—um neganti Deum â—sse quod Christus nihil â—i proderiâ— i. I testifie to every Man who professeth himself to be a Christian and yet deâ—â—ieth Christ to be God Christ shall nothing at all profit that man And if Christ do not profit us in the remission of our sinnes I am sure our sinnes shall never be forgiven in this world or in the world to come CHAP. V. The Opinions of later Divines concerning the unpardonable sin A brief Narration of the life and death of Arius and of Julian the Apostate TO the above-named Ancients I subjoyn the opinions of our later Divines who in their Expositions and Tractats where they inquire what particular sin this is although they do not agree therein yet when they inquire what persons have sinned this sin they do commonly affirm for one that Arius in his Heresie did sâ—n thus and this is the opinion of Polanus and also of Bucanus and others Now the Polan synt p. 340. Bucan Lo. Com. p 174. onely noted heresie of Arius was the denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ saying that he was not from everlasting and that he was but preferred to be a God Just as our Commenter would have him onely exalted and deisied This Arius was born in Africk and was a Presbyter or Priest of the Cathedrall Church of Alexandria in Egypt In that City in the dayes of the Emperour Constantine the Great there were ten Churches besides Epiph. haer 69. the Cathedrall Just such as we now call Paraecial or Parish-Churches wherein ten of the Presbyters of the Cathedrall Church were the incumbents and Preachers of these ten Arius was one and was more esteemed and followed then any of his brethren It fell out that the Bishop of Alexandria died Arius gaped for the place but mist it for one Alexander was elected then Arius raised a faction and revived the former Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus preaching this damnable doctrine that Christ was not God When Bishop Alexander was informed of this he convented Arius and upon examination discovering his
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his word Men indued with Gods Spirit are Deified because God is in them and as it were mingled with them and worketh in them And Athanasius saith Homines in quibus est Spiritus Deificantur Atha ad Serapion n. 26. vid. 2 Pet. 1. 4. Now in what sense our Saviour may be said to be Deified in the later times of the world who was the supream and onely God from all eternity would next be inquired CHAP. IX More concerning Deification and in what sense Christ may be said to be Deified THe Arians were in this Doctrine something more ingenuous then this Commenter though in them it was also most pernicious for they Ath. Hil. cont Arian n. 7. confessed that Christ was the Son of God because they knew that the Saints were so called and they said Christ was before time began because they believed that Angels and Devils were before the world and they called Christ by the Name of God because the Scriptures call some creature so But they would not confess him to have the same Godhead with the Father for they said that he was Deus factus made a God or Ambros de cil div c. 2. n. 26. deified and that he was the Son of God not by nature but by gift or grace and not by eternall generation but by power given as Kings are called Gods for so Saint Ambrose observeth Deus in Scripturis est Ambr. de fide l. 1. lib. 5. c. 1. n. 22 23. 1 Verus 2 Nuncupativus nam sunt qui dicuntur Dii non sunt 3 Falsus ut Dâ—mones i. In Scripture God signifieth 1 The true God 2 Such as 〈◊〉 but called Gods and â—re not so 3 False gods of 〈…〉 this Commenter when he was argued 〈…〉 learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈…〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessed that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But one of the â—â—â—pany â—â—quired him further to declare how long Christ had been God and whether from Eternity at which question he seemed very angry and for present left the room Now indeed the Fathers do oftentimes apply this word to Christ and say that he was Deified and that in time also and not before his incarnation for he could never have been said to have been deified if he never had been incarnate it is only his humane nature that is said to be deified and not his Spirit or divine nature for the Word cannot otherwise be said to be deified then as he is hominified if I may have leave to use that word for Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh signifieth that God was made man by his incarnation and man was made God by the person I union of the divine and humane natures for so he alcame Theanthâ—opos and Emmanuel The reason is because when God assumed a body by his incarnation that body then became the body of God as is shewed before out of Origen and so that Orig. in Mat. tract 21. n. 41. Father expresseth himself thus Christus deificavit humanam naturam quam suscepit Christ deified that humane nature which he assumed Neither may we think so grosly of this deification as if the flesh of Christ were turned into the Goâ—head but onely because it is joyned to the Godhead and assumed into a personall union with it therefore the Name of God is also stamped upon it so that we may truly say the man Christ is God and yet the body and soul of Christ still are and for ever will be creatures In Aug. Epi. 221. this sense St. Austin saith Homo versus est in Deum nâ—c amisit naturam Man is become God and yet man did not lose his humane nature and thus Athanasius saith Archangeli semper antea adorabanâ— Filium sed nunc Atha Orat. 2. cont 2. Arian n. 5. Jesum adorant incarnatum carne quâ—m deâ—fiâ—averat The Archangels did alwaies before the incarnation worship the Son of God but they worship him now in that flesh which by assuming it he now hath deified For now it is the flesh of God as the Scripture calleth his blood the blood of God Act. 20. 28. and so the same Father useth thâ—s word divers times in the same sense g Atha orat 2. cont Ar. n. 5. h. Id. ser 4. cont Arian n. 7. Non deificatus fuisset homo nisi verbum fuisset incarnatum And h. Christus carnem assumendo hominem deificavit The manhood could not have been deified if the Word had not been incarnate and Christ deified man by assuming flesh St. Austin writing upon those words Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ not of men nor by man Gal. 1. Gal. 1. 1. 1. Aug. exp in Gal. in praefaâ— n. 97. 1. saith 1. Paulus missus est per Christum jam totum Deum quia ex omni parte immortalem That Paul is said not to be called by man because Christ was at that time wholly God because now he was perfectly immortall so he fastned this deification or immortality 2. Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 21. only on his humane nature for his divine nature was the immortall God from all eternity and Theodoret upon those words God hath highly exalted him Phil. 2. 9. saith Est de carne quae deificata est nam dominus Theod. Dial. in confu n. 12. gloriae non dicitur glorificari 'T is meant of the flesh of Christ deified for as he is the Lord of glory he cannot be exalted deified or more glorified So Origen Orig. in Levit. hom 3. saith of a Levitical sacrifice that it signified Carnem Christi in coelis deificandam that the flesh of Christ in heaven was to be deified and this deifying the flesh of Christ is said to be done in heaven because there it was glorified and immortall and on earth he is said to be deified because of the Hypostaticall union of his 3. Pet. Diac. apul Fulg. n. 2. 2 natures whereby his flesh was indeed Caro Dei the flesh of God By thus distinguishing the two natures in Christ the ancient Fathers answered the objections of old hereticks made against the eternall divinity of Christ for in the same sense that the Son of God is said to be Phil. 2. 9. Eph. 1. 20. Mat. 28. 18. Act. 3. 13 15. deified he is also in Scripture said to be exalted to be set far above all Angels and Principalities to be made the head of the Church to sit at the right hand of God to have a name given him above all names that are named That all power is given him in heaven and in earth that God raised him from the dead and that Jesus is made an high Priest for ever all these sayings and many more of this â—ind are to be understood of the humane nature of Christ but cannot be verified of his divine nature Athanasius doth in generall give us this excellent rule m Athan. Ser. 4. cont Ar. n. 7. n. ib. Quae Christus
accepit à Patre non Filio verbo accepit sed carni and again n Quae Christus possidet ut Deus ea postulat ut Filius hominis Those things which Christ is said to have received of the Father he received not to himself as he is God the Word but by reason of his assumed flesh and such things as he required to his manhood he possesed before by his Godhead and in this sense onely is the Son of God said to be anointed and so only is he called Christ o Ath. orat 2. cont Arian n. 5. Vnctus est non ut Deus sed ut homo Heb. 1. 9. erat p Theod. Decret l. 5. n. 17. Luke 2. 52. Ath. ser 4. cont Ar. n. 8. n. 22. Erat Verbum Filius unigenitus ante incarnationem sed non nominaetur Jesus Christus nisi post incarnationem saith Theodoret He was anointed not as God but as man he was the Word the Son the Only begotton before his incarnation but is not named Jesus Christ till his incarnation so when it is said he increased in wisdom it is meant of his humane nature not of his Godhead as Athanasius expounds it Profecit non verbum sed caro So again Omnia mibi traditae sunt à Patre Nam antea non erat homo so again God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ Acts 2. 36. God cannot be said to make him but onely in respect of his incarnation for otherwise the Father is said to beget him but not to make him So again The Father giveth life to the Son that is to his flesh and as he is Man So Christ is said to receive the Spirit without measure that is his humane nature received the Divine Spirit for in him the Godhead dwelt bodily so The Father is greater then I That is as I am Man and he hath given him a Name still as he was Man and in this sense onely is Christ said to be Deified for nothing was in Christ before his Incarnation that could receive any new Title of God because his pure divine Nature was so before neither could that Title be really and properly ascribed to any other God because there is no God but he and therefore Epiphanius doth truly affirm Ante Epiph. haer 69. incarnationem non dicit Christus Deus meâ—s i. Christ did not say My God before his birth of the Virgin because he hath no God but onely in consideration of incarnation CHAP. X. How those words which signifie the abasing and minoration of the Son of God are to be understood of his delivering up the Kingdome and end thereof and of his subjection to the Father AS no Title of Majesty Exaltation or Deification could be newly added to the Son of God except he had humbled himself to incarnation So neither could any tearms or words of minoration and subjection be put upon the same Son of God if he had not determined before and actually afterward performed the assuming of flesh for by his incarnation he became capable of such infirm passions and thereby is as shewed Tert. cont Marc. l. 2. before he is said to be born to grow to weep to pray to thirst to suffer to die and yet to be truely called Deus mortuus Though dead yet God nevertheles S. Hilary upon these words The Father is greater then I saith Pater est Hil. de Trin. l. 9. n. 3. John 14. 28. major Filio respectu hominis assumpti sed Filius non est minor Patre respectu Deitatis The Father is greater then the Son in regard of the Sons assumed Manhood but the Son is not less then the Father in respect of the Sons Godhead For in consideration of the Divinity of the Son he saith The Father and I are one John 10. 30. They are one and that not onely in will or concurrence of consent as the Arians would have it but in Godhead for as the same Father answereth them Quasi divinae doctrinae inops sermo sit nec dici à Domino Hil. de Trin. l. 9. p. 185 potuerit Ego Patâ—â— unum volumus i. The Divine Scriptures wanted not words but Christ would have said The Father and I consent in will If he had so meant So St. Ambrose faith of his praying Christus vogat Ambr. de fide l. 3. n. 22. c. 3. ut Filius Hominis imperat ut Deus i. Christ prayed as he was the Son of Man for as he is God he commandeth And again he saith of the death of Christ Christus Id. de incarn l. c. 5. n. 25. moriebatur non moriebatur secundum hominem secundum Dium i. Christ died for he was a Man Christ was immortall for he was God So the minoration of the Son of God Fulâ—entius saith Exiâ—â—ni Fulg. de grat c. 2. n. 3. Phil. 2. 7. io fuit acceptio formae servilis the making of himself to be of no reputation was by assuming the form of a servant just as a King doth condescend below himself in the disguise of mean apparell But the principall doubt is how Christ can be believed and said to be the true onely supream and eternall God and all one with the Father in the Unity of Godhead seeing the scripture tells us I Corinth 15. 24. 1 That Christ shall deliver up the Kingdome to God the Father 1 Cor. 15. 24 25 28. 2 That Christ shall reigne till he hath put all his enemies under his feet 3 That then the Son himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him For how can it stand with a supream God and an eternall King to deliver up his Kingdome and so to reign but for a limited time untill and then to become a subject 1 For answer hereunto I say first that Christs delivering up the Kingdome to the Father doth not imply any resignation or annulling of his own interest nor excluding of himself or abdicating his own dominion but a communication of that power which he received as he was man to his Father who is the same God with him For as he is said to deliver the Kingdome to the Father so the Father is said to have delivered all things to the Son Luk 10. 22. All things are delivered to me of my Father and Matth. 28. 18. All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth Yet no man will say that the Father by this gift excluded himself from his own dominion still God is Lord of all things but by this gift he communicated his Domiuion to the Man Christ and yet reserved it to himself Now what is this Kingdome that shall be delivered the Kingdom of Christ is his Church his Saint his Elect and what kind of delivering is here meant were not the Church and Saints and Elect Gods Kingdom before and how are they said to be delivered up to the Father who never had been out of his hands
Son himself shall 1. Quaest be subject whereas in truth onely hâ—s Church is then to be subjected more then it was before and not his own Person no not his very humanity more I say then it was whilest he walked on the Earth For then he was not onely without sin but moreover he was obedient to death even the death of the cross Philip. 2. 8. For the understanding hereof I premise three considerable observations First the Apostle doth not say the Word shall be subject for then he must mean that the Godhead of Christ should be subject which is impossible but he saith the Son shall be subject Now we know nothing is more frequent in Scripture then that holy men are called the Sons of God as Matth. 5. 9. Luke 6. 35. so that the subjection of the Son of God doth here signifie the perfect subjection of holy men at the resurrection of the just as will more appeare anon Secondly I observe that whereas he saith The Son himself shall be subject and yet cannot mean the naturall and individuall Person of Jesus Christ but onely his Church it must needs declare that the appellation of tâ—e Son of God himself is given and communicated to his elect members who are his Body mysticall as being really united to his body naturall and with him who is the head they are One body so that Christ and his Church are called One Christ which by the Fathers is usually called Plenitudo Christi Christus â—â—tuâ— Christus Vniverisus Tertullian in his sense said Tertul. de Poenit. Aug. â—n Jo. Tract 21. of this mystery Ecclesia est Christus cum ad fratrum gâ—nuate proter dis Christum contractas and so Saint Austine Christi facti sumus non soâ—um Christani Plenitudo Christi est caput membra Câ—â—istus Ecclesi i. The Church is Christ so that when you are prostrate at the knees of the brethren you touch the knees of Christ We are not onely Christians but we are Christ the Fulness of Christ is the head and the members that is Christ and hâ—s Church Thirdly Observe that it is said Then shall the Son 3. be subject by which future expression it may clearly appear that the subjâ—ctâ—on here meant is not yet come to pass and therefore cannot be understood of the naturall proper and individuall Person of Jesus Christ for all manner of subjectâ—on that can be expected from him is already perfect in his own proper humanity because himself never rebelled against the Godhead Nazianzen saith of him Annon nunc subjectus est an Naz. Orat. 36. ut de Deâ— hoste loqueâ—is But though Christ in hâ—s own proper humanity ever was is and will be subject to the Godhead yet of Christ in regard of his â—ody Mysticall which is the Church of Elect â—s called by her Spouses Id. ibid. own name the same Father saith Pâ—ccaâ— a nostra sumpsit inobedientiam quamdâ—u egâ— inobediens sum Coristus per me inobediens est Cum subjectionem nostram implevâ—rit nosque adduâ—â—râ—t tum ipsâ— subjâ—ctus dicitur Christ hath taken our sins and dâ—sobâ—dience on himself so long as I am inobedient so long Christ by me is said to be inobedient when he hath wholly subdued us and presented us perfect to the Father then the Son himself is said to be subject The answer to this question How the Son himself Answer shall then be subject is this That in Scripture-language the Church or Saints and Members of Christ aâ—e called and really are with their head One whole Christ they are himself and therefore their subjection is his subjection and so long as they are not fully subjected the Son himself is not wholly subject For if the naturall body of Christ be called Christ as it is when we say Christ is buried when onely his body was buried much rather may his great Mystcall and Pâ—liticall Body be called Christ and so it is 1 Cor. 12. 27. The Body of Christ all the Members are but one Body so is Christ and Gal. 3. 2â— All are one in Christ Jesus see 1 Cor. 6. 15. If it were not for this reall union of Christ and his Church how could Christ truely say I was hungry Matth. 25. 30. and ye gave me meat for the meat is meant of that which is given to his poor Members and not to his own proper self and thâ—s is clearly and often explained by S. Austine a Aug. in Jo. Tract 28. Non enim Christus in capite non in corpore sed Christis toâ—us in capite in corpore and again b In Jo tract 108. Vnus est Christus caput corpus ipsi sunt ego and again c In 1 Epist Jo. tract 1. Carni Christi conjungitur Ecclesia fit totus Christas caâ—u corpus and again d Ibid. tract 10. Filâ—i Dei sunt câ—orpus unics Filii Dei â—um ille caput sit nos Membra unus ' est Fâ—lius Dei and more yet e De Verb. Dei Serm. 14. Caput cum corpore suâ— unus est Christus The Apostle saith Eph. 5. 31. We are memberâ— of his Body of his flesh and of his bones upon which words the same Father saith f De Temp. serm 234. Ipse Christus est spensur sponsa sponsus in capiâ—e sponsa in corpore The sum of what he saith is this We are not to imagine Christ to be onely in the head for the whole Christ consisteth of the head and body The head and body are but one Christ his Members are himself so there is but one Son of God for the whole Christ is both Bridegroom and Bride By reason of this Union Christ said Saul Saul why Acts 9. 4. persecutest thou me For Christ is in Heaven as head but his Body is on Earth If one tread upon the foot the head crieth you tread on me g Aug. de Verb. Dei ser 49. Vnitaâ— est à capite ad pedes head and foot are united as one Body and therefore by the Ancients h Prosp Psal 101. Those which are strong in Christ are called his bones The Apostle is the mouth of Christ Saint Ambrose wished would I were Ambr. n. 51 34 but his Foot Others are his Eyes as the Prophets Others his hands as those that do good and the poor are his belly yea the Prophet calls his people the apple Zach. 2. 8. of his Eye So it is said John 3. 13. No man hath ascended into Heaven but he that came down from Heaven For although holy men ascended into Heaven yet this is a Truth because such are included in the plenitude of Christ i Aug. de Verb. Apost ser 14. In Coeâ—um non ascendâ—t nâ—si Christus si vis ascendere â—sto in corpore He that will ascend must first be in Christ It is said Col. 1. 24. I fiâ—l up that which
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
si câ—imen est nimium legi Propâ—eâ—is Apostolis credidisse ignosce Omnipotens Deus quâ—a in his mâ—ri possum Emendâ—ri non possum Id est Lord why hast thou deceived me thy poore creature I believed thine own words concerning thine own self thy servant Moses David Solomon Daniâ—l and thine Apostles have misled me If it be a fault to give too much credence to thy Law thy Prophets and Apostles I beseech thee to have me â—xcused if in this Faith I live and die for I can never recant this Doctrine Finally this was also the constant Profession of that learned Bishop Saint Basil for when Valens the Aâ—ian Emperour had by a messenger threatned him with sequâ—stration of his Church and banishment of his person if he persisted in this Doctrine which he called a foolish doctrine The good Bishop answered uâ—inam sempiter na sit Theod. hist l. 4. c. 10. haec mea insipientia id est And so say I and I pray God I may never be withdrawen from that true and most wholsome Doctrine which I have here delivered and which our new fashion rationall animalls call folly but that I may persevere in the Faith and Confession of the Godhead of Jesus Christ unto my lives end And afterwards I doubt not but I shall so continue with the Angels and Elders Revelation 5. 13. saying Blessing Honour Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lambe for ever and ever Amen L. Deo FINIS THE THIRD BOOK Αâ—θÏωπâ—Ï‚ Θεâ—φόÏος THE Incarnation of GOD And the MYSTERIE Of Mans Redemption unfolded Tentemus animas quae deficiunt in fide naturalibus rationibus adjuvare Ruffin in symb apud Cyp. LONDON Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes Armes in St. Paul's Church-yard 1655. THE PREFACE HAving in the second Book shewed that Jesus Christ is the onely true supream and most high God and that there is no other God but he for that we are assured that Christian Faith cannot Hâ—l de Trin. l 7. admit of two gods And because we have learned the same in the Holy Scriptures Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord. And that the Prophet calls the Son of God Esay 9. 6. The mightty God the everlasting Father and that in the Gospell the Son of God saith John 10. 30. The Father and I are one and that all his are the Fathers and all that the Father hath are his John 17. 10. Which sheweth a perfect communion in one Essence and that the Son in Godhead is no way inferiour to the Father but both are equall and therefore the Scripture with great reason doth promiscuously sometimes name the Father before the Sonne and sometimes the Sonne is put before the Father as John 8. 16. I and the Father that sent me and Gal. 1. 1. By Jesus Christ and God the Father And 2. Thes 2. 16. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father For if Christ were absolutely under and subject to the Father how could this be endured when no Prince will suffer his subject though he be never so high and honourable to write Ego Rex I and my King as Chrysostome Chrys tom 6. ser 4. n. 55. notes In this third Book I am to shew that the same Onely true and most high God was incarnate by assuming humane flesh from the Virgin Mother and in that assumed nature was called Jesus Christ and in that assumed Manhood performed the great work of Mans redemption and therein suffered death on the Cross thereby satisfying the Justice and submitting to the Sentence of God as an expiation for our transgressions and by his most holy life and perfect righteousness in fulfilling the whole Law and so performing the Covenant of God for us and in our stead as our suretie and thereby according to the Covenant Do this and live hath obtained for his whole Mysticall Body the kingdom of Heaven and everlasting life To this discourse I am lead by the pernicious doctrine of this Commenter who denied Jesus to be the supreame God and to colour this blasphemy hath most apparantly misinterpreted and transverted the holy Scriptures and wronged the ancient Nicene Fathers as hath been shewed before and particularly that most learned Bishop and ancient Church-writer Eusebius as is next to be shewed THE INCARNATION of GOD. CHAP. I. The Vindication of Eusebius whom this Comment hath calumniated and falsified VPon those words Heb. 13. 2. Some have P. 331. entertained Angels the Commenter saith Eusebius in his first Book contends that one of the Angels was the Son of God for he will not have him the most high God c. You have not onely all to becommented the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Nicene Father but have written a loud Comment on Eusebius who never wrote or said for ought can appear that Jesus Christ was not the most high God But I am sure divers times in his most learned Books he teacheth true Doctrine quite contrary to yours when he saith Filius erat ante aeterna tempora Euseb de Demonst i. 4. 6. â— the Son of God was from eternity and also particularly condemneth this very Heresie which you have so belaboured under the name of Heresie Artemon Theodotus and Paulus Simosatenus as hath been shewed before Id hist l. 5. c. 28. lib. 7. c. 2. For this Eusebius was one of those renouned Bishops who at the Nâ—â—ene Councel against Arius decreed and subscribed the article Homossion id est that the Father and the Son are of the same essence and Godhead whereas some Arians at that Councel refused to subscribe and thereby insinuated as your selfe have done that there was a greater and a lesser God and so fell into the old heresie of Mercion who said Bas ho. 27. con sabel Soc. l. 2. c. 5. there were two Gods 2â— Saint Basil notes one of the refusers was also named Eusebius who was â—ishop of Nicomedia at that time and afterwards was preferred to the Bishoprick of Constantinople and their lived and dyed an Arian but we have no writings of this Eusebius now extant The Eusebius whom you mean lived and dyed Bishop of Caesaria a man of so great learning and worth that the Emperour Constantine said he was worthy to be the Vniversal Bishop of the Sec. l. 1. c. 18. world this man at first was unwilling to have the word homoâ—sion put into the Creed because it was new but afterwards when he perceived that it was but the expression of that Doctrine which is really contained in Scripture when it is said The Father and I are one he accepted of it and exhibitted his own Church-Creed to the Councel and the Councel confirmed it onely adding the word Homoâ—sion and so published it as Socrates saith so that it seemeth the Soc. l. 1. c. 5. creed which we call the Nicene Creed
was thus penned partly by Eusebius and partly by Hosiâ—s and yet we are sent to this Eusebius his first book but he doth not tell us to which of his first books for Eusebius hath many first books so I must trace him through Eusebius that I may hit on the place he meanes For I have observed that Eusebius hath no lesse then four times in severall places of his works set down his opinion concerning Gods visible appearing to the patriarks and in none of those places hath he said that which this Commenter would pin uppon him first he saith in his book de monsâ— lâ—b 1. c. 5. as Euseb de Demonst l. 1. â— 5. Ruffinui reads it Audi ut Moses cum qui amicis Dei seipsum ostenderet modo Deum modo Dei angelum appellet sic declarans non hunc fuisse ipsum patrem sed ejus filium qui idem et Deus ac Dominus amicorum Dei et supremi Patris Angelus dici consueverit id est Hear how Moses calleth him who used to appear to the friends of God sometimes he calls him God and sometimes the Angel of God and thereby Moses declareth that he was not the supream Father but his Son which son is usually called the God and Lord of the friends of God and also the Angell or messenger of the most high Father All that Eusebius in this place affirms is that he that appeared to Abraham and the patriarks was God in the person of the Son and not in the person of the Father that it was not the supream Father but it was the supream Son for both the Father and the Son are but one supream God the same supream God appeared which is both the Father and the Son and this he proveth because he that appeared is sometimes called the Angel of the supream Father which may be and is in Scripture said of the Person of the Son but not of the Person of the Father and yet he saith he that appeared was Deus Dominus id est the Lord God of the Patriarks But Eusebius doth not say as you would have him that he was not the most high God only he saith he was not the Father but the Son of the Father which no good Christan can find Euseb de Dem. l. 5. in prefat fault with in such a mystery the same Eusebius had said before in the preface of the same book Dei Verbum apud priora secula in hominis habitu apparuit id est The Word of God in former times appeared in the habit of a man Now we know that onely the Son or second Person is called the Word as Iohn 1. 1. and this the same Eusebius affirmeth again in the 19. Chapter of the said Book id est Idem est Dominus Euseb de Dem. l. 1. c. 19. Deus Christus qui Abrahoe visus habitu pacisico Iacobo tanquam Creator Mosen specie nubis ignis ducebat c. id est It was the same Lord and God and Christ which appeared to Abraham in a peaceable shape and to Iacob as a wrastler and lead Moses with a clould of fire You see that as yet Eusebius hath said nothing to confirm your opinion but let us see what he saith in his first book of his hystory for I guesse that is the first book Deus Abraâ—ae apparuit tanquam communis homo at ille adorat ut Deum veneratur ut Dominum dicens Eus hist l. 1. c. 1. Gen. 18. 25. dominator Domine qui judicas omnem terram quae omnia non ad â—aâ—â—em sâ—d ad fil um referenda sunt id est God appeared to Abraham as an ordinary man but Abraham adored him as God amd worshipped him as the Lord saying shall not the Judg of all the earth do right all which must be considered as spoken to the Son and not to the Father The result of all that Eusebius hath said in this businesse is That the most high God of all the earth appeared to Abraham in the person of his Son and not in the person of the Father But yet it was the same Lord God for Godhead and substance which is in the person of the Father and in the person of the Son therefore he that appeared was the same God with the Father but not the same person with the Father therefore Saint Austin saith very truly That the Father and the Aug. cont Epist Manâ—chae c. 6. n. 7. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. Son are to be called unum but not unus id est one God for essence but not one for person So he expresseth himself in another place upon these words I and the Fâ—thâ—r are one unum secundum essentiam non seeundum relatum id est One in Godhead but not so in personall relation it is very remarkable that in our Saviours prayer for his Church it is desired Iohn 17. Theod. hist l. 2. c. 8. Aug. n. 47 174. 22. That they all may be one as we are one he doth not say That they and we may be one because God and man are not of the same essence for unum cannot be said of two severall natures although they be united Aug. Epist 174. in one person or subsistence sine adiectione as Austin hath observed as the soul and body of man united are not unum except you understand animal you may call them one man one person one living creature but not absolutely One because they differ in essence or nature but the Father and the Son are therefore said to be one because they are but one God though severall persons just as Ensis gladius are unum they are the self-same thing So the Father and the Son are one and the same God though two persons Substanâ—iaâ—iâ— unâ—â—as personalis pluralitas id Rie de St. vict de Trin. l. 3. c 8. est unity of Godheâ—d plurality of persons Therefore the Scripture speaks of them with great caution both plurally and singly Gen. 1. 1. God câ—â—ated the the noune is the plurall but the verb is the singular number and let us make man and in our image this shewes a plurality but yet the persons are never called Gods or Lords Plurally but as he who intended to point at one particular man named Tertullius described him by thrice repeating Tullus Tullus Tullus Jul. cap. in Mar. Ant. c. 10. and as the Consulship of Caesar men used to say that these two Consuls were Julius and Caesar so when the Scripture would intimate the two distinct persons of the Father and the Son it doth it by Sugt in Julio c. 20. repeating the same word because there is but one Lord and but one God it will not say Lords or Gods but The Lord rained from the Lord and The Lord Gen. 19. 24. Ps 45. 7. Aug. Epist 37. said unto my Lord and God thy God hath anointted thee because the same God
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
of God the Son and the reason and purpose why he was Incarnate THe Mysterie of the Incarnation of God is frequently in Scripture set forth unto us when the Saviour promised is said to be the seed of the woman the seed of Abraham Emmanuel the Son of David the Word made flesh taking the form of a servant and most evidently of all Heb. 2. 14 taking part of the same flesh and blood with us men And yet this commenter tels us that Christ can not be said to be Incarnate 31. c. 2. v. 14. though both of them are confessed to partake of flesh and blood a bould assertion but false and dull untheological unphilosophical for here are two Propositions both false and one of them blasphemous also I. The faithful are not Incarnate Faithfulnes or unfaithfulnes doe not hinder Incarnation the question must be whether a man may be said to be Incarnate if every man prove Incarnate then must Christ also be so for he is a perfect man and more also a very smal matter will give a denomination a man that hath but a gowne on his back is denominated Tâ—gatus and shall not he who hath an immortal soule united with his flesh be called incarnate to be incarnate is to be in Carne i in the flesh I hope you will not denie that the soule of a man whilest it is in the bodie may be said to be Incarnate the soule of a man can exist without the body and is seperable and when it shall be parted from the body then it is Discarnated but when it is joyned with the body who will doubt to say it is incorporated or incarnated now from the Incarnation of this principal and essential part of man the whole man is said to be Incarnate S. Paule knew a man whether in the body or out the body he could not tell 2 Cor. 12. 2. surely a man in the body may be called Incorporate and so Incarnate and Gal. 2. 20. the life which I now live in the flesh S. Paule saith he lived in the flesh in Corne therfore he thought himself incarnate againe Phil. 1. 22. If I live in the flesh abide in the flesh is more needful for you S. Paule is one of the faithfull and he confessed that he lived abode in the flesh therfore he was in Carne incarnate I never read that a beast is called incarnate because the body and soule of a beast cannot both exist if seperated as mans soule and body doe therfore the fathers spake of them as of two distinct men Care anima duo homines exterior interior Amb. de Inst veig l. 2. n. 35. Naz. Epist 94 n. 38. Ath. de Incar n. 23. Tert. de anim c. 9. Mens cujusque is est quisque Tul in Som. Scip. Ro. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 2. 14. i. the soule and the body two men the outward and the inward man Apud nos Philosophus Anima vocantur externus internus homo i. The Philosopher with his soule are called by us the outward and the inward man just so saith Athanasius and Tertullian although he went too far in saying the soul was corporeal If any the soule a man be denominated Animatus shall he not as well from his flesh be called Carnatus I am sure in Scripture a man is called both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carnal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Animalis because he hath some of the natural inclinations of soule and body in him not wholly subdued by the Spirit If wee will speak strictly and properlie Incarnation must principally be said of the Soule because that part of us in its owne nature is incorporeal but being joyned with the flesh becomes Incarnate it seemes by Moses description of the Creation Gen. 2. 7. that the body of man was framed before the soule was insufflated and both Orâ—gen and divers Philosophers before him thought that the soule was more ancient then the bodie and they called the body the sepulcher and Theod. de div decret l. 5. n. 17. Ambr. Epist l. 4. n. 53. id in Hex l. 6. c. 6. Tert. de anim prison of the Soul and the Christian writers said of it to the like purpose one calleth it Tunicam Pelliceam Adami and againe Caro est amictus animae and another cals it Domum animae and another vestimentum animae and saith that the soule is but inquilinus corporis i. the body is the coat of skin the apparel the howse of Chrys ho. 5. Antioc the soule and the soule is but a temporary inmate of the body the departure of the soule is like the putting off the apparrel of the body the 2. souldier-martyrs in id Epist ad Olymp. n. 39. Chrysostome calleth their bodies Indusium ultimum i. the innermost garment of the soule and of the holy woman Olympics he said That she was more ready to put of her body for Christ then others were to put of their apparel wherfore as when our naked bodyes are invested with garments they are said to be apparrelled so our souls clothed with our flesh are said to be Incarnate the Apostle describes the reuniting of our souls and bodies at the resurrection by this phrase of putting on immortalitie then I think no Christian will denie that when our souls after a long discontinuance from our flesh shall be restored and reunited with our bodies they may be said to be Incarnate or re Incarnate and the same kind of reasoning will much more prove the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus against the Commenters second proposition viz. 2. Christ the Captaine of the faithfull is not Incarnate Because the Ingredients of which our Jesus the Emmanuel is Composed are two viz. the divine nature or Godhead and the humane nature or manhood and because one of these ingredients I meane the Godhead had a real and seperate being by it self without flesh and without a body from all Eternitie before the creation of the world and because the same divine nature in the fulnes of time did assume an humane body and so partake of our flesh and blood I may now well say that our God is Incarnate because he is in carne in the flesh so that his Godhead and manhood are as the principles and ingredients of one Compound for they are but one person one Christ one Emmanuel because that divine nature which before had bin entire and single by it self is now joyned with another inferior nature the Scripture expresseth the mysterie in this phrase Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh he saith the word rather then the Son because the word signifieth his pure Godhead but the Son may also signifie his humane nature and that alone too for if Christ were nothing but a mere man yet hee might be called the Son but he could not be called the Word This is that which in Scripture is called God manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16. and Christ is
not be iterated He mentioneth Baptismes in the plural not as if there were more baptismes then one to be applied to one Person but because of the multitudes of â—ersons Baptized There is but One â—aptism Eph. 4. 5. But that one given to many is called Baptismes yet but One because it may not be administred to one Person more then once and this the Apostle teacheth in these words It is impossible for those who were once enlightned if they fall to Renue them againe by Baptisme unto repentance For it is impossible this Word for sheweth that these following words are a reason rendred of the former words and particularlie of Baptismes as if he should say I will not againe lay the foundation of Baptisme in them that were baptized before because a Second baptisme is both impossible and unprofitable for as a man can not be twice borne naturally so can he not be twice regenerate or new borne And if a Man should be rebaptized it would doe him no good nay it would be an aggravation of his sin because it is a Contempt of the cross and death of Christ as will appear anon Impossible He doth not say only It is unprofitable or unseemly and unexpedient but Impossible Ne sperent se denuò posse Baptisma consequi Theoph. in loc i. That men might not imagine that they mâ—ght be acquitted of their sins by a new Baptisme For those who where once inlightned The Principal thing as I conceive which hath made this Scripture seem so obscure of late which the auncient expositors did most cleerly expound â—s the ambiguitie of this word Inlightned which certainly doth signifie in this place Baptized and so S. Ambrose Theodoreâ— and Theophilact do all unanimâ—uslie expound it And so did also even the Novatians who yet from a true exposition of that word did suck this poison That such as lapsed into notorious sin after baptism could not be admitted into the Church any more by repentance The Syriaâ—â— translation also reads for Inlightned Baptized as is acknowledged by Beza non inâ—pte i. as he thinketh noâ— unfiâ—ly and nothing was more ordinarie in the primitive Church then to call Baptisme Illumination and the Baptized Illuminatos Which appellation was no doubt taken from the words here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and againe Heb. 10. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the ancient Christians by this word Inlightned understood Baptized wich will evidently appear by what followeth Inlightned once Inlightned signifies Once Baptized amongst the Apostolical Constitutions in Clemens this is one In Illuminatione seminaâ—um Dâ—aconissa absâ—ergiâ— Clem. Rom l. 3 Const cap. 15. â—as ne mulieres aspiciantur a viris i In the Illum nation of women other women ministred because it was not comely for men to behold their nakednes here Illumination must needs signifie Baptisme for in those times and long after both men and women were Baptized naked as also it may seeme to be intimated by the Scripture Phrases of putting of the old man and putting on the new man which was represented by putting of their old apparrel and by putting on the white Baptismal garment which is so frequently mentioned in the Farhers and that people were baptized naked doth appeare in Dionisius Cyprian Cyril Hierosol Ambrose Dion Areo. n4 Cyp. 91. Cyr. 21. Aug. Epist 118. c. 5. Arnb. n. 49. Cuspinian in vita ejus Just Apol. 2. n. 13. Chrys n. 40. Cyril Catech. Chrys hom 60. Antio Epiph. n. 33. Naz Orat. 39. Naz. Orat. 39. and 40. and Austin And particularlie by the Historie of the Emperor Constantine the fift who for a certaine miscariage in his baptisme was Nicknamed Copronimus this by the way In Justin Martir baptisme is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Illumination and the baptismal Font is both by him and Chrysostome called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i an Illuminatorie for as we call it the Font because of the water in it the ancients would as readily have called it the Phont because of the Sacramental Illumination So both S. Cyril and S. Chrysostome call the Catechising of those who were already Baptized Catechesis Illuminatorum i The Catechesis of the Baptised and doe expressly expound those words Heb. 6. and. Heb. 10. to signifie the Baptized just so doth Epiphanius call the Font. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Gre. Nazian the festival of Christs Baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i The day of Illumination and he useth both words promiscuously Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i and Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Christ was illuminated Iesus was Baptized and that feast he calleth both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Illumination and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i The feast of Baptism Neither was this appellation used because of lights set up in the church at the time of Baptisme when it was performed in the night as in the Wakes or vigils of Easter which was the custome in S. Chrysostoms time But the Chrys n. 63. Baptized were called Illuminates who had bin Baptized in the day time and the fonts were called Illuminatories at other times when no Baptism was administred as S. Chrysostome tels That in an uprore in the Church such Chrys Serm post râ—ditum n 40. great store of blood shead was made that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or Font was fillâ—d with blood for then the Fonts were litle wels or cistems whose tops were no higher then the Church pavâ—ment To this I ad that the ordinarie gloss upon those words saith Ne quis existimet Lyra. in loc secundum vel tertium Baptisma post peccata posse fieri i the Apostle used those words least any Man should imagine that a second or third Baptisme might be used to release us of sins so doth Dionysius Cart expound them of Baptismal grace and our vulgar Concordance in the title of Illuminati adds Per Baptismum Why Baptism is called Illumination the words following declare viz. because with the Outward Sacrament of water the inward grace of the Spirit is as by a conduit convayed wherby Original and actual sins past are remitted and the strength of sin is abated by the same Spirit of regeneration and a new life kindled and the peacable and sweet tranquilitie of Christs Kingdome by the comfortable promises of the Gospel is tasted which is an heaven upon earth for Grace is the Inchoation of glorie All these things are expressed by these words following Tasted the heavenly gift made partakers of the holie Ghost tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the world to come For a man that is indued with the regenerating and illuminating Spirit of God may very well be said to be enlightned when as our meer natural soule and understanding is called a light of which and the common and ordinarie concurrence of Gods Spirit it is said Joh. 1. 9. It Inlightneth every Man that â—ommeth into
the Emperour immediately after the resignation of Nazianzen and then Nectarius was not baptized So was St. Ambrose before he was baptized chosen and compelled to be the Bishop of Millaine surely St. Ambrose and the other also were perfectly instructed in Christianity and known to be learned before they were chosen to those high pâ—aces especially in such a learned age of the Church wherein they liâ—ed and yet St. Ambrose after he was so chosen is stiled but Catecumenus and was never called Illuminaâ—us untill he was baptized And yet we find that those who were baptized in their infancy were then called Illuminatâ— before they were Catechised For St. Cyrils Catechismes are therefore called Catechâ—sis Illuminatorâ—m because they were imploied for the instruction of such as had been baptized in their minority and were therefore called both catecumeni because they were yet under the Catechiser and also illuminati because they had been baptized So that it is apparant that some were called Illuminates who were not sufficiently instructed and some were called Catecumeni who never had been baptized and therefore were not called Illumâ—nati St. Cyril saith Antebaptismum Catecmenus eras nunc fidelis vocaris Cyril Hiero. n. 4. i before baptism they were called Catecumens but after baptism if they were once admitted to the Eucharist they were stiled Fideles i the faithful but in case they had been baptized and not yet admited to the Lords Supper then their appellation was Neophyti i New plants yet both the Fideles and the Neophyti Paulin in vita Ambâ— n. 1. were called Illâ—minati St. Ambrose would fain have declined the office of a Bishop after he was chosen and alleadged for himself that the Scripture forbad that such a man as he was should be a Bishop for he was not so high as a Novice or Neophyte 1. Tim. 3. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for said he if a Neophite who hath been baptized may not be a Bishop much lesse may I who am inferior to a Neophite but in the rank or form of the Catecumenâ— not baptized and therefore inferiour to all that are baptized In a word the appellation of Illuminates was not given them because of their light of knowledge but onely because they had received the light of Grace baptismal In the next place I am to shew some reasons why our Apostle doth thus forbid second Baptismes and what occasioned him to handle this doctrine in this Epistle which is scarce found evidently any where else in Scripture especially to be so offensive and sinful as is here set â—orth to this query my answer is that the Apostle had great and weighty reasons so to do partly because of the Hebrewes or Jews unto whom he wrote and partly because of the Gentiles unto whom this doctrine would be needful as well as to the Hebrewes as will appear anon First For the Hebrews and particularly the Sect of the Pharisees in which St. Paul had himself bin brought up and accurately instructed The Hebâ—ewes in their legal religion used divers and frequent washings and Baptismes whereby they thought themselves to be acquitted of any former pollution and indeed God had commanded some washings whereby as by a tipe and figure of outward washing he signified what purenesse of life he required of his servants Exod. 19. 10. Sanctify the people and let them wash their clothes and of sanctifying the Priests he saith Exod. 29. 4 Thou shalt bring Aaron and his sonnes to the dore of the Tabernacle and shalt wash them with water and Exod. 30. 15. Aaron and his sonnes shall wash their hands and their fâ—et at the brazen laver when they goe to Minister that they dye not which washing was actually performed Exoâ—us 40. 31. To these Scriptural washings the Scribes and Pharisees added more traditional washings as we find in the New Testament thereby imaging that any pollutions attracted by touching any unclean thing were done away Matth. 15. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees said why do thy Disciples transgresse the tradition of the Elders for they wash not their hands when they eat And those traditional washings are called Baptismes Mar. 7. 3. The Pharisees and all the Jews when they come from the Marâ—â—t except they wash their hands oft they eat noâ— So they washed cups pots brazen vessels the original word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i unlesse they Baptizâ— and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers. 4. 1. i baptismes of vessels and so again Luk. 11. 38. the Pharisee marvelled rhat Christ washed not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suteable hereunto St. Ambrose speaketh Judaei baptizant Caliâ—es i the Jewes baptize cups Besides Amb. de Initiandis cap. 4. n 30. Epiph. hae â—7 there was a special sect of Jews before the birth of Christ mentioned by Epiphanius and called Hemerobaptistae qui quotidie etià m hieme in aqua mergerentur credâ—ntes se sic ab omni culpâ— ablui i the Hemâ—rohaptists were every day dipped in water even in winter also belâ—eving that thereby thâ—y were purgâ—d from their sinnes Now these traditional practises and erroneous opinions of the Jewes occasioned the Apostle to write this passage especially in this Epistle directed to the converted Hebrews This reason is rendred by Theodoret upon that place Theod. in loc Docet judaeos qui crederent ne existimarent sanctissimum baptismum â—sse similem baptismis judaicis illi enim non solvebant peccatum sed corporis sordes purgabant hinc frequentèr adhibebantur Baptismus autem noster unus est i he teacheth the believing Jews that they should not think our most holy Baptisme to be like to the Jewish-baptismes for by their sins were not remitted but onely the body was cleansed therefore their Baptismes were often reiterated but our Christian baptisme is but one the like reason is given by Theophylact i fortasse Theoph. in loc ills Hebraei ut qui legi affixi erant multos baptismos judaiâ—â— more etiam in Gratia predicabant i perhaps those converted Hebrewes held this dangerous opinion that although they fell into foul sins after Baptisme yet that a new Baptisme would acquit them from all their pollutions as they were once made believe rhe Jewish Baptismes did Therefore the Apostle giveth the Hebrews this seasonable and profitable monition to prevent their unreasonable presumption of sinning upon a false conceit that their new sins might be remitted by a new baptisme and this conceit was also amongst Christians who were Gentiles as is next to be shewed Secondly this doctrine against Re-baptization was useful to succeeding ages of Christians among the Gentiles by reason of abuses which probably would arise amongst them as may reasonably be thought were foreseen by the Apostolical Spirit For who is now ignorant of the great troubles and controversies that have bin in the Church about Clino-baptisme adulto-baptisme Rebaptization of Hereticks and Schismaticks paedobaptisme and to this day about Anabaptisme Such doubts in a matter of so great
the Church our Mother may poure out her teares for her Children and it is required as a Christian dutie of the people to shew compassion by prayers and teares for such penitents and he himself used to weep when he heard a penitents confession Amb. ibid. c. 8. Paâ—lin in vita Amb n. 2. for saith he Surely I ought at least to pray and weepe for him fâ—r whom my Saviour vouchsafed to die Thus the reader may perceive that the praying and not praying here mentioned is meant only of men living and not of the dead for neither the sins nor repentance of the dead can be seene by the living The Apostle's discountenancing prayer for the impenitent sinner is no more then what God himself had done before in the old Testament in forbidding man's intercession for averting temporall judgments from rebellious sinners as a warning and intimation what he intended to doe to obdurate and impenitent sinners concerning eternal judgement So he commanded Moses Exo. 32. 10. Let me alone and reproved Samuel 1 Sam. 16. 1. for mourning for Saul and Commanded his Prophet Jer. 7. 16. Pray not thou for this people Even as S. John will not approve of our praying for sinners during their impenitencie because he knew that from such God will not avert his eternal plagues But whether any man can be in such a forlorne and desperate condition in this life as that he may not at all be prayed for is the next thing to be examined CHAP. XIX That the greatest sinners during their natural life may be prayed for in some sence Certaine propositions of divines examined the practise of the Synagogue and Church in praying for all mankind for heathens Jewes infidels hereticks persecutors idolaters FOr the understanding of this needfull question I will first lay down to the readers view some propositions which I find dogmatically asserted by some divines both lately and heretofore First they say There is no sin so great that it can The Confess the assemb c. 15. l. p. 27. bring damnation upon those who truly repent This Proposition I doe assent unto as being very true if it be understood of Evangelical repentance before mentioned and not of that repentance wherwith Judas is said to have repented and that truly in that kind of repentance Secondly they say Prayer is not to be made for those ijdem c. 21. P. 38. of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death This proposition is verie dubitable For if this sin be particularlie determined to be one certaine sin as the denying Christ to be God or blaspheming the Holie-Ghost or apostasie or any one or all those sins mentioned Gal. 5. 19. Yet while the sinner is living his repentance is not absolutely to be despaired of and therfore he may be prayed for so as will be shewed anon Bur if by the sin unto death is meant any of those sins continued and persevered in obstinatly without repentance until the sinner be dead then amongst us there will be no question left for no man will affirme that such sinners are to be prayed for after they are dead Thirdly they say That it can not be certainly known Beza in loc p. 618. by us who doe commit this sin unto death until the sinner be dead therfore that we may not upon this pretence forbear to pray for any sinner whilest he liveth and so not for such sinners This I take to be very true if it be rightly understood in that sense which anon shall be discovered Fourthly That no sinner during this life is absolutely to be despaired of for be possibly may repeat and so be pardoned This Proposition is affirmed and asserted by S. Austin and by Prosper Quamdiu hic vivunt Aug. Epi. st 50. n. 31. Pros de vocat Gent. l. 2. c. 37. Aug. Retract l. 1. cap. 19. non sunt desperandi Dum in corpore vivituâ— nullius est desperanda reparatio nullius est negligenda correctio De quocunque pessimo in hac vita non est desperandum nec â—ro illâ— imprudentèr oratus de que non desperatur i. No man though the greatest sinner is utterly to be despaired of during his life time therfore his amendment must not be neglected neither is it any vanitie or foâ—ly to pray for him of whom we may not despair Now I proceed to the words I doe not say he shall pray for it This Scripture seems more difficult because other texts seem to speak the contrarie we may find in Scripture both precepts and practise for praying for all men even the worst of all 1 Tim. 2. 1. I exhort that requests Supplications Intercâ—ssions and giving of thankes be made for all men for Kings c. Here are as many and as full words as can be desired prayer for Kings even then when Nero raigned and persecuted the Church Just so Christ commanded Mat. 5. 44. Pray for them that persecuâ—e you and so himself did for his Crucifiers Luc. 23. 34. forgive them Father and Act. 7. 60. Lord lay not this sin to their chaâ—g In the old Testament the Temple is re built upon this reason that Sacrifices and Prayers might there be made for King Cyrus and Darius both heathen Kings Ezra 6. 10. So Josephus writes that in the Temple Josep Anti q. l. 11. c. 4. and lib. 13. and n. 21. Phil. de leg ad Caium n. 20. of Ierusalem and in Aegypt Sacrifices were dayly offered for Caesar and the people of Rome for Cyrus Darius Xerxes Ptolomie and Cleopatra who were all heathens and Philo reports that particularly every day a Bullock and two Lambs were Sacrificed in that temple for Augustus Caesar and further that therfore the foure Colours in the Priests Ephod represented all the Elements to signifie Sacrificaturus totum mundum introducit ut totum Philo. de vita Mosis l. 3. de Monarch l. 2. n. 11. 14. mundum deprecatorem allegare possit i. the Priest in his Sacrificing considered the whole world and did represent the whole world as a suppliant and delinquent before the Lord here is no particular sinner excepted either from the benefit of law sacrifices or Gospel prayers But let us see what the practise of the Church Catholick hath bin in this point of prayer for if both law and Gospel and the Church have in all ages prayed for all kinds and degrees of sinners Certainly S. Iohn's meaning was not to exclude any sinner whilest he lived from being prayed for I will instance in the most unlikely sinners and the most underserving our prayers as heathens and infidels who being no members of the Church yet were prayed for Cyprian Cyp cont Dem n 75. Fulg seu p. Diac. n. 3. Aug. Epist 107. haer 88. c. 6. saith Orant Christiani pro salute â—â—hnicorum i. Christians pray for the Salvation of heathens Fulgentius saith Tota ecclesia precatur ut infidelibus donetur fides i.
Porphyrian in denying the Godhead of Christ and followeth the Heresies of Cerinthus the Maniches and Arius and acteth for Antichrist and Turcisme The Charactor of Socinus Of the Grand Antichrist and his numerous Corporation which is the Mysticall body of iniquitie and of their preachers Chapter VIII Of the Vnion of the Godhead and Manhood in Page 52 the Person of Christ and that the two Natures once united continue for ever inseparable The difference between the Existence of the Godhead in Christ and its Existence in all creatures Of the mutuall communication of properties between the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ The Heresie of Nestorius his life condemnation banishment and exemplarie death How holy Men are said to be Deified by partaking of Divine Graces and conforming to Gods will Chapter IX The Commenters blasphemous conceit of Christs Page 33 Deification In what sense Christ may be truely said to be Deified in time who was the onely God from all Eternitie The true sense of diverse sayings in Scripture concerning Christs Exaltation How the Sonne of God comes to be called Christ Chapter X. How those Scripturall sayings are to be understood Page 37 which mention the abasing or minoration of Christ the Sonne of God An Exposition of 1 Cor. 15. 24. Concerning Christs delivering up the Kingdome and reigning till judgement and his subjection afterwards Of which see more in the 2 Section of this Chapter Chapter XI Why the unpardonable Sinne is fastned rather Page 52 on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons in the Scriptures Expression Of the form of words used at Baptisme diversly mentioned in Scripture and the reason of that diversitie That Christ mediateth for us in Heaven not verbally as the Commenter would have it but by a reall presenting that Person who in our stead did perform and suffer what was required of his mysticall Bodie Chapter XII The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scriptures Page 55 Propheticall and Evangelicall by the Type of the Tabernacle which was as a visible habitation of God representing the Body of Christ How the Heathens immitated this by setting up visible images wherein they thought their God was resident Chapter XIII Reasons why the Jewish worship was confined to Page 58 the Tabernacle and Temple that these were Types of God to be Incarnate Why the People of God worshipped with their faces towards the Temple That the Church is more Ancient then the Temple That notwithstanding the Commenters cavill the Patriarches belived in the same Sonne of God that that we Christians do though the appellation Christ could not then be used Chapter XIV That the Christian when he prayeth prayeth to Page 61 God whom he considereth to be resident in Jesus Christ as in his Temple As the Israelites considered God resident in the Tabernacle and Temple and so prayed toward that place That God so intabernacled in the Body of Christ is the finall or ultimate Object of The Christians prayer and worship Chapter XV. How the onely and most high God became a Priest Page 65 and a Mediatour That Christ is prayed to and yet is a Mediatour How Christ is said to pray and yet is the supream God That every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed to Chapter XVI The Godhead of Christ shewed from the Adoration Page 68 of his Person that his Godhead is worshipped and not his Body alone considered without the Godhead That the Godhead united with a creature for so is the Body of Christ doth not hinder us from worshipping our God Of the worship of Jesus performed and yet without worshipping a creature Chapter XVII That the custome of bowing when the Name Page 71 Jesus is mentioned was appointed principally to set forth his Godhead and to keep Christians in a continuall Confession and memorie thereof being the main foundation of our Religion Chapter XVIII That Jesus Christ is Jehova Of the Name Page 74 Jesus that it is a proper Name of God No Person in the Trinitie hath any name proper but onely the Sonne Of divers appellative Names of God Chapter XIX An enquirie whether the pure Godhead considered Page 77. as not incarnate hath any proper Name The distinction of Names Proper and Appellative The opinion of Philo the Jew therein and of the Fathers that their judgement is That there is no proper Name of God but onely the Name Jesus The Authours submission hereof to the learned Reader Chapter XX. The Godhead of Christ shewed from his appellation Page 79 Jehova That no meere creature can be called Jehova The signification of that word The reverend esteem of it by the Ancients That by the word Tetragrammaton Jehova is meant both in Jewish and Christian Writers Chapter XXI The Conclusion of this second Booke with the Page 82 Authours resolute Confession of Jesus Christ to be the most High and the Onely Lord God The Table THE THIRD BOOK Containing an Assertion of the Incarnation of the most High and Onely God in the Person of Jesus Christ Chapter I. THe vindication of Eusebius against the Page 1 false aspersion of the Commenter That Eusebius consented to the Eternall Godhead of Christ and to the Article Homo-ousion His judgement conâ—erning Gods visible appearance to the Patriarches in the Person of the Sonne That the supream God appeared to Abraham in the Person of the Sonne The Vnitie of the Godhead in the Persons of the Father and the Son Chapter II. How in the Scriptures the most high God is said Page 6 to have been seen and yet that no man hath seen God and both very truely Two questions propounded concerning the visibilitie and invisibilitie of God Chapter III. The first question How God is invisible What Page 8 is meant by the Face of God some places of Scripture which seem Opposite are reconciled Chapter IV. More concerning the first question How God Page 10 hath been and may be seen What the word Angel signifieth Of the appearing of God by assuming a corporeall shape Of Gods walking in Paradise That the apparitions of God in corporeall shapes were but Preambles and Prefigurations of his Incarnation Chapter V. That the Incarnation of God was foreshewed in Page 13 words and by promises The meaning of the Image of God wherein Man was made The meaning of the oath under Abrahams thigh The mysterie of Abrahams entertaining God at meat and of Jacobs wrastling with God unfolded What is meant by the Back-parts of God A rejection of the errors of the Anthropomorphites and an Explication of the first Article of Englands Religion Chapter VI. The second question Why the Fathers said Page 16 that onely the Sonne was seen by the Patriarchs and not the Father seeing both persons are but one God An exception of the difference between seeing God in this life and in the other life Whether God in the Person of the Father was ever seen in an assumed shape the judgement of
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