The everlasting Covenant and Rev. 14. 6. The Eternal Gospel and must needs be meant in those places of Scripture where mention is made of Eph. 1. 4. Electing us in Christ before the foundation of the World and of 2 Tim. 1. 9. Calling us according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the World began and of 1 Pet. 1. 20. Christ ordained for our Redemption before the foundation of the World Of which there is a full discourse in my Third Book and eighth Chapter This Covenant doth necessarily imply a plurality of persons in the Godhead One to require and injoyn another to restipulate and which is requisite in all Covenants a third Person distinct from the Contractors as a stander-by and Witnesse thereof So in this Covenant First God the Father requireth obedience upon pain of death Secondly God the Son undertaketh for man's performance or penalty or both Thirdly God the Holy-Ghost is witnesse between the Father and the Son for oftentimes in Scripture we read of the Spirit bearing witnesse For though the Father the Son and the Spirit are all said to bear witnesse for our assurance as Joh. 8. 18. I am one that bear witnesse of my self and my Father that sent me and 1 Joh. 5. 7. There are three that bear witnesse in heaven and Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our Spirit But before the Creation who could be a witnesse between the Father and the Son save onely the Eternal Spirit of the Father and the Son Nor can it be imagined that this Covenant and restipulation could be enacted by One single Person for the Law-giver must be considered as a Soveraign onely and the persons upon whom the Law is imposed are as subjects so it will be dissonant from right reason to fasten the Legislation and subjection upon the self-same person Now supposing the Law made and the penalty determined and set down it cannot be denyed that the Supream Law-giver hath naturally and absolutely a power of relaxation and dispensation so that he may remit the punishment for breach of his own Law and of meer grace without any satisfaction forgive the offender but if the said Law-giver do decree and by his Word bind himself to punish the offender as he did when he said Gen. 2. 17. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye hereby he doth confine and restrain himself from using the Imperial prerogative of free pardon which otherwise he might have granted and hence it is that a Satisfaction must needs be exacted necessitate hypothetica as Divines say upon supposal of the said decree and upon this reason Jesus Christ our Surety becomes liable to his dreadfull Passion and death Touching the Passion of Christ in Satisfaction of Gods Justice for the sins of men the Socinian Writers do utterly deny it as being unjust to punish one for another and especially an innocent for a malefactor and they call this doctrine of Christ's satisfaction as Vossius reporteth Ger. Joh. Vossii Defens Grotii c. 13. Dogma nugatorium frigidum falsum injustum et horribilitèr blasphemum Their reasons are very considerable for they say that God hath by his Prophets and Apostles declared the contrary as Deut. 24. 1◠Every man shall be put to death for his own sin Jer. 31. 30. Every one shall dye for his own sin he that eateth sower grapes his teeth shall be set on edge Eze. 18. 4. The soul that sinneth it shall dye Gal. 6. 5. Every man shall bear his own burthen 1 Pet. 1. 17. God judgeth according to every mans work The Answer hereunto usually given is That because God doth actually punish one for another it must needs be just because God doth it but this answer doth not satisfie the Adversary neither doth it I confesse satisfie me for God doth not so Therefore for the better satisfaction of my self in this weighty question and perhaps of others also I offer to the consideration of the Learned Reader these two Propositions following First The Passion of Christ neither is nor ought to be accounted the punishment of one for another but the same that offended the same is punished Secondly The sins of the elect Members of Christ are not to be accounted onely the sins of the Elect but are justly charged on the score of Jesus Christ being their Surety and Redeemer These two Propositions may perhaps seem at first Paradoxical but I trust I shall prove them to be truly Catholick and Orthodox For the first That Christ's Sufferings are 1. Proposition not the punishment of one for another I have learned from St. Bernard Bernard Epist 190. Omnium peccata unus portavit nec alter jam inveniatur qui forefecit alter qui satisfecit quia caput corpus unus est Christus satisfecit caput pro membris i. One bare the sins of all so that we cannot say One forfeited and another satisfied because the head and body are but one Christ the head satisfied for the members So the Husband and Wife are but one person in Law an action of debt is not brought against the wife but the husband so the principal debtor and the Surety are in Law but one person and either of them are liable to payment or penalty This first Proposition is grounded on the doctrine of Christ's Vnion and conjunction with his members which Vnion is of such weighty concernment that without it it is impossible to salve or unfold the mysterious riddles of Gods operations and words in the businesse of man's Salvation and therefore the holy Scriptures and ancient Doctors have with very great abundance of testimonies asserted this necessary truth See first what the Scriptures say Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ Eph. 5. 30. We are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Gal. 3. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 6. 17. He that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit 1 Cor. 12. 2. By one Spirit ye are all baptized into one body Eph. 4. 4. There is one body and one Spirit This is because the same Spirit that is in Christ is also in his members and because there is but one Spirit uniting the head and members therefore the head and members are but one body having the same Spirit residing in both for so it is said Eph. 3. 17. Christ dwelleth in your hearts and 2 Cor. 13. 5. Jesus Christ is in you 1 Cor. 6. 19. Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost Joh. 15. 1. I am the vine ye are the branches This Union of the members with Christ the Head is called by the Apostle a recapitulation Eph. 1. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Bishop Andrews observeth Andr. de Nativ Serm. 16. A gathering of all to the head for as God is one with Christ as Christ is God so we are one with Christ as Christ is man who is therefore called
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
ABout four years sithence Christian Reader there was brought unto me a Comment or Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews written by a Namelesse and unknown Author to the end that having perused and allowed it it might be Printed and published the which I also undertook and finding as â— then conceived that for the most part it was Learned and Judicious plain and profitable I did so passe it with my Approbation Yet there were divers passages against which I took as I thought just exceptions as disagreeing with the Scriptures and the received Doctrine of Our and all other Reformed Churches which I would not let passe before by my Letters I had acquainted the Author with them that I might receive satisfaction in those things which I objected from whom I received a sober modest Answer wherein he did not at all maintain those errors but left me to my liberty to expunge what I misliked the which I also accordingly did as I thought fit But the Work being long and my time but short divers other faults and errours escaped unobserved by me they being comprized in few words and short passages and so the more easily passed over without my observation The which Errors I the rather fell into because the Author was wholly unknown unto me who am naturally of this disposition that I neither am nor desire to be more scrupulous and curious in observing other mens errors and faults then I have evidence of truth for it whereas otherwise if knowing the Persons with whom I have to deal to be Heterod and Erronious in their Doctrine I should be more wary and observe their words and works with a more vigilant eye All which I speak not wholly to clear my self from all blame for I ingeniously acknowledge my inadvertency and want of due and serious consideration in so weighty a matter and therefore being convinced of my errour by divers Letters from men of great Eminency both in respect of Place Learning and Piety and by mine own more serious observation but especially by the Labours of this Learned Author chiefly intended to lay open and confute these dangerous Errors and Heresies I could do no lesse and indeed in respect of my old age and infirmities accompanying it I could not do much more then revoke my Approbation of that otherwise Learned Commentary so far as it maintaineth these pernicâ—ous doctrines that detract any thing from the Lord Christs Divinity and his Supream and Eternal Godhead For far be it from me to derogate any thing from my blessed Saviour and Redeemer by not acknowledging him the Supream God Co-essential Co-equal and Co-eternal with the Father seeing the Evangelical Prophet in the Old Testament calleth him the Mighty God Esay 9. 3 and the blessed Apostle St. Paul affirmeth that Christ who took upon him our flesh is over all not Deus factus but God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. and therefore seeing this Learned Book intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asserteth and maintaineth this truth and confuteth the opposite errors I do most willingly approve it and allow it to be Printed and published John Downam Θεὸς ' Αâ—θÏωπâ—φόÏος OR God Incarnate SHEWING That JESVS CHRIST Is the Onely and the most HIGH GOD. In Four BOOKS Wherein also are contained a few Animadversions upon a late namelesse and blasphemous Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrewes published under the Capital Letters G M. Anno Dom. 1647. In these Four Books the great mystery of man's Redemption and Salvation and the wayâ—â—â—â—d means thereof used by God are evidently held out to the Capacity of humane reason 〈◊〉 ordinary understandings The Sin against the Holy Ghost is plainly described with the Cases and Reasons of the Vnpardonablenesse or pardonablenesse thereof Anabaptisme is by Scriptur and the Judgment of the Fathers shewed to be an heinous sin and exceedingly injurious to the Passion and blood of Christ There were false Prophets among the people even as there shall be among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction 2 Pet. 2. 1. Contra rationem nemo Sobrius contra Scripturas nemo Christianus Contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus 〈◊〉 Aug. de Trinit lib. 4. cap. 6. By EDM. PORTER â— D. sometimes Fellow of St. John's 6. Colledge in Cambridge and Prebend of Norwich London Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1655. TO The Right Honourable THOMAS Lord Coventry Bron of Ailesbury Peace and Truth My Lord I Humbly beg leave to use your honourable name in the dedication of this Book thereby to present the expression of a thankful Soul to my deceased Patron your most Honourable and prudent Father who even from my Childhood continued his manifold favours to me and ceased not untill he had planted me in an imployment and probable subsistence in the Church where I continued peaceably during his life and untill the pressures of these unhappy Times dislocated not onely me though too low God wot to be an object of publick wrath but also the strongest bones and principal joynts and nerves of our once most renowned Church To his memory do I owe the first fruits of my publick Labours nor can I offer them at any other shrine so proper as your self my Lord who are his living Image whose Name and Title you worthily bear whose Honour is revived in you and the pious and thankful memory of him during my life will not be obliterated in me seeing the very Heathens fansied their Sen. de Benef l. â— c. 3. Charites which were but the Emblems of gratitude to be Virgins and alwayes Young to teach us that thankfulnesse should not be Corrupted or decayed by time and age and their great Orator although he was one of the most deadly enemies of Caesar who had been newly murthered in the very Senate-house yet he confessed that he could not find fault with the faithfulnesse of Cic. lib. 11. Epist 240. Matius for honouring him that was dead who whilest he lived had been his Friend and Patron The Church hath tâ—â—ght us further that death it self doth not dissolve Christians Communion Hier. in Proaem l. 18. in Esa Viventium Dormientium eadem Charitas est Aug. de Civit l. 20. c. 9. Animae piorum mortuorum non seperantur ab Ecclesia hâc The Church Triumphant and Militant are but one Church and therefore did the Primitive Christians honourably by name Commemorate their pious and worthy Benefactors at the very time of their Sacred Eucharist although they were long before departed out of this life So seeing I have not any other meanes to commemorate my deceased Lord I have maâ—◠〈◊〉 if this to professe hereby Mihi erit nomen 〈◊〉 benedictionibus but to you my Lord do I present the Book because possibly it may do some good to the Living For the subject
the very least sin is liable to eternall death except it be confessed and in this life in some measure repented But I proceed CHAP. XVII Whas is meant by a sin unto death the judgment of the Fathers and the Ancient expositdrs therein and the discipline of the primitive Church therunto correspondent that the greatest sins both have bin actuallie and so may be pardoned in what sence the Fathers called some sins venial and some Mortal THere is a sinne unto death I do not say he shall pray for it If any words in the whole sacred Scripture will bear this exposition and make good this Doctrine That there is any sinne at all which once committed cannot possibly upon any terms or condition whatsoever be remitted not upon confession or repentance and forsaking and renouncing it and after it adhering to Gods Truth and his Precepts and that even to death and martyrdome nor upon all these together This saying is most likely to bear it A sinne unto death and not to be prayed for which words require a very diligent Explication being of so great weight and concernment Lord Jesus send thy Light and thy Truth A sinne unto death This sin unto death I conceive not to be intended of any particular sin whether it be absolute Atheisme or the blasphemy of Arâ—us denying the Godhead of Christ or of Eunâ—mius denying the Holy Ghost or totall Apostacie from Christianity or Adultery Idolatry witchcraft murther sedition or any of these grand sins mentioned Gal. 5. 19. such as the Fathers do usually â—in som sence call sins Mortall Mortiferous and Capitall My reason is because it may be made apparant by Scriptures and the Records of the Church that particular men who have sinned these sins severally have bin by Gods mercy and his castigations reduced to renounce their errours and to forsake their sins For many of those sins were seen in King Manasses 2 Chron 33. Who yet was converted and humbled himself greatly and God was intreated and we know that many Heathens Atheists Apostates and â—rrians have Paulinus in vita Ambrosii n. 3. Athan. to 2 page 448. n. 17. bin reduced to Confession of their sins and to repentance of their Arrianismâ— and those who have not bin actually reduced yet during their naturall lives were in a condition reducible if grace sufficient and prevalent had bin given so that their conversion was not absolutely impossible Beza finding fault with distinction of sinnes into Beza in loâ— veâ—iall and mortall as the Schoolmen sometimes use it for which he had good reason affirmeth that it is absurd to say that mortall sins are utterly left without all hope of pardon and yet he thinketh the sinnâ— unto death here meâ—tioned to be that sinne against the holy Ghost and that it is lethiferous and that the commitrers thereof cannot possibly repent which I dare not assent unto but yet he most truly affirmeth that if those who have once committed that sinne against the Holy Ghost would and could repent Certè veniam consequerentur i. certainly they would and might obtain pardon Thus he Vnto death The old Exposition of the Fathers and ancient Expositors surely is the truest and plainest and being received will quit us of many unnecessary doubts and anxiâ—tics and is most agreeable with the Analogie of Faith particularly with the Article of forgivâ—nâ—sse of sinnes and coâ—respondeth best with the justice and mercifulnesse of God for thus they write A sinne unto death is any grand or capitall sinne such as is before mentioned out of Gal. 5. 19. in which a man liveth continueth and dieth impenitently And that it is therefore onely so called a sinne unto death because it is obdurately and impenitently continued and persevered in unto the end of our life and expiration of our souls So Oâ—cumâ—nius saith Solum hoc peccatum ad mortem Oâ—â—um in loc est quod ad paeâ—tentiam non respicit id est Onely that sinne is a sinne unto death which never is repented Beda â—n loc And Beda saith Peccaâ—um ad morâ—em peccatum usque ad tempora mortis protractum diximus râ—cte posse intelligi est de tali magno peccato quale David commisit si proâ—ractum sit usque ad mortem id est A sinne unto death may truely be understood of a sinne continued in untill the time of our death such a great sinne as David committed if we persevere in it till death So doth Saint Hierome understand it Peccâ—tum ad Hier. in Evag. objurg n. 41. moâ—tem est cum tempus râ—â—â—ssionis in vitio inueniâ— id est A sinne unto death is when death cometh and findeth us continuing in sin So doth Saint Austine expound this very Text Peccatum Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. ad morâ—â—m est si in hac perversitate finierit â—anc uiâ—â—m id est The sinne unto death is when a man continueth in sinne obstinately and therein endeth his life and in another place he just so expounds the sin against the holy Ghost which shall never be forgiven Non absurde intelligunt â—um peccare in Spiritum â—sse sine Aug. de fide oper c. 16. n. 79. venia reum aeterni peccati qui usque ad finem vitae â— oluerit credere in Christum id est It is no inconvenience â—o understand it thus that he sinneth against the Holy Spirit and shall not be forgiven for ever who will not at all believe in Christ as long as he liveth Just so Lyra and both glossâ—s expound it Ad mortalem i. usque ad morâ—em vitae quod in hac vitâ— non corrigitur est finalâ—s impaenitentia si quis perseveret in eo usque ad finem vitae inclusivè i. unto death signifies to the end of our life natural that sin which is not amended in this life it is finall impenitencie when a man persevereth in sin unto the end of his life inclusively not repenting at the time of his departure but dieth impenitent By all which it appeareth that in the judgement of these Expositors the sin unto death is some of those grand sins in which a man liveth and dieth impenitently and that it is not called the sin unto death in respect of the sin it self but for the sinneâ—s continuance therein unto his death for the same sin which in one man is a sin unto death and shall never be forgiven in another man proves a sin not unto death but is repented of and so is pardoned that this is the judgment of St. Austin I have divers times shewed before and especially in that place alleaged by me before pag. 201. cap. 14. whâ—reafter after a long discourse concerning the sin called the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit he concludeth That no sin against Vide supra â— 14. the Holy Ghost is unpardonable but only in case a man doth obstinately persevere in it without any hope or desire of pardon or care of
the Church as it was long before the time of Nestorius recorded by Gregorie of Neo-Cesaria qui Greg. Thaum de 12. cap. fidei n. 2. dicit Christum esse perfâ—ctuâ— hominâ—m divise Deâ—m divise non unum Domiâ—uâ— ei aâ—aâ—hâ—ma i. Cursed is he that calleth Christ a perfect man separately and that calleth him God separately so denying him to be one Lord God For this erroneous doctrine is destructive to the work of redâ—mption if the Person who died for us was not in his very death very God so that he by reason of that Personall union before mentioned might truely be called Dâ—us crucifixus God crucified and therefore our Commenter is also in this errour who will afford Christ no better Title then a Divine Man p. 136. which is no more then â—ay be said of a Prophet an Apostle or any holy man whereas he should acknowledge him to be Dâ—us homo God and Man united So St. Austine in one of his Books had said that Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. Christ was Dâ—miniâ—us homo but he retracted it Quia Dâ—mâ—nusest saith he because he is more then a Man of the Lord for this Man is the Lord. For this hypostaticall or Personall union must be in and go through all the great dispensations of our Saviour's Medâ—atourship both in his active and passive obedience for otherwise his fulfilling the Law had been beneficiall to none but himself and his passion could not have sufficed for the whole world therefore the Personall union was most necessary to that great work and is declared both in the Scriptures and in the Fathers For whereas we now reade 1 Iohn 4. 3. Every spirit that confesseâ—h not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is Soc. l. 7. c. 32. not of God This place is thought by Socrates to have been corrupted by the Nestorians for indeed the old reading was as we to this day find both in Hierome and Prosper Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jeâ—um Every Prosper de vocat Gent. l. 1. c. 23. Spirit that divideth Iesus that is which separateth his Divine from his humane nature The Scripture joyneth both in a communion of properties as is said before for Elizabeth calleth Mary Luk 1. 43. The Mother of my Lord no doubt but she meant the mother of her Lord God for otherwise how was Christ her Lord but as David calls him Lord and as St. Ambrose noteth upon the words One Lord In Ambr. de Spir. sanct l. 3. c. 17. Dominatione diviniâ—as est in diviâ—iâ—ate Dominatus That in the title Lord the Lord God is meant So again Acts 20. 28. Feâ—â— the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood that is with the blood of God for it cannot otherwise be understood So likewise 1 Cor. 2. 8. They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory Now I ask who is the Lord of glory but onely God Consider now that to have a mother and to have blood and to be crucified though they be such things as properly belong to the humane nature yet you see that these humane infirmities are said of God because the same Person is both God and Man To this Doctrine of the Scripture agreeth the doctrine of the Fathers concerning this communication of propertics for because in Scripture Christ is called the Son of David therefore St. Chrysostome without any scruple saith that David is a Chrys serm de pseudopro n. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because the Scripture calleth Iames the brother of our Lord Gal. 1. 19 the same Father saith that Iames was b Chrys serm de poenit n. 49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that David was the Father of God Iames was the brother of God and also St. Austine saith that David was c Aug. de 5. haeres c. 2. 10. 6. n. 6. Parens Dei the Parent of God and Oâ—igen saith d Orig cont Cels l. 1. n. 33. Corpus Iesu est â—orpus Dei that the Body of Jesus is the body of God This Doctrine was held by the Church to be of such great weight and concernment that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Councill of â—halcedoâ— added this to the Creed as an Article of Faith e Evangrius l. 2. c. 4. Mary the mother of God and afterwards in another Creed ratified by the edict of Justinus the Emperour f Evag. l. 5. c. 4. The Virgin Mary is again called the Mother of God And the Emperour Justinian built a Church and called it g Evag. l. 5. c. 21. Templum Deâ—paâ—ae the Church of the mother of God and Gregory Nazianzen long before in an Epistle written to Cledonius had affirmed h Naz. Orat. seu Epist 51. Si quis Mariam non credi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that doth not believe Mary to be the mother of God himself is an Atheist and without God Nestorius for denying this Doctrine was summoned to the Councell of Ephesus which was called Soc. l. 7. c. 33 by the authority of the Emperour Theodosius the younger where Cyril of Alexandria sate President the Councell deposed Nestorius out of his Bishoprick and the Emperour banished him In his banishment his blasphemous tongue rotted in his mouth and was eaten out with worms so he died with a mark of Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Evag. ib. Gods vengeance on him as Arius did and the Church History passeth this hard sentence on him Ex his miseriis ad sempiterna supplicia migravit that he departed out of this misery into eternall torments Notwithstanding all this Thalâ—ia Arii this pretty Ath. cont Arian or 2. n. 5. Commentary tells us that Christ is not the supream God nor ever was a God till he rose from the dead for then he was Consequently Deified so if he be God he must be but of a late Edition This Doctrine harmoniously agreeth with the Heathens Theology which also tells us of Dii superi inferi Medioxumi Magni Minuti Plaut in Cist Patellani i. High and low and middle gods great and small and Pint-pot deities The deifying of heathen Emperours hath as good authority from Scripture I have said ye are Gods Psal 82. And Romulus Mart. l. 5. Ep. 8. Julius Augustus Dominus Deusque noster Domitianus are as well God deified as Christ himself by this Comment And in the Church-Writers Deification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word used by Dionysius is ascribed to mortall men for that Father sheweth that an holy Man indued with the Spirit of God may be said to be Deified that is assimulated to God indued Dâ—ony Areop de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. id epist 2. n. 10 Naz. or 37. n. 29. with sanctified and united to God And in another place he tells us Deificatio est imitatio i. Deification is the imitating of God and to the same purpose Nazianzen saith Spiritus nos deificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
who is in three distinct persons or properties is one in Godhead and in that one Godhead the three persons are one and as Austins word is Vnissimi this was the judgment of Eusebius touching the apparition and the Godhead of the Son and Eusebius said no more in this point then divers other Fathers said also both before Eusebius and after him as is next to be shewed CHAP. II. That the most high God appeared visibly to the Patriarchs in the Person of the Son and not in the Person of the Father as the Ancients thought THe Fathers in their Expositions of these places in Scripture where it is said No man hath seen God at any time John 1. 18 and yet Iacob said I have seen God face to face Gen. 32. 30. who was therefore called Israel i. Seeing God or prevailing with God and the place Peniel i. the presence of God these seeming contradictions are by them thus reconciled Tertullian Tert. de Trin. n. 28. saith Deus Pater inuisibilis sed Deus Filius visibilis descendere solitus God the Father is invisible but God the Son is visible and used to descend If it be objected that the Book de Trinitate was not Tertullians which is an excellent and learned book Yet that this was Tertullions opinion appeareth in another Id. cont Marc. lib. 3. undoubted book where he saith Christus Abrahamo apparuit in veritate carnis sâ—d nâ—ndum nata i Christ appeared to Abraham in the flesh which flesh or body was not then born of the Virgin Clemens Alex. saith as much of the apparition of God to Iacob Clem. in Paedag l. 1. c. 7. Jacob luctatus est cum Deo Verbo nondum homo facto Iacob wrastled with God the Word before he was Incarnate Now we know that onely the second Person is called the Word and Christ And this was also the opinion of Origen who saith that our Lord Iesus Christ before Orig. in Eze. ho. 6. he assumed our flesh descended to the holy Patriarks and was with Moses And again he saith That Esaias was therefore sawn asunder by the Iews because Id. in Esa ho. 1 he had said I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne Isay 6. 1. Iustin Martyr also saith Deus Pater non dicitur venire Just dial cum Try n. 26. in locum sed Deus Filius the Father is not said to come into a place but God the Son is said and that God the Son was seene by the Patriarks and this was also the Opinion of Irenaeus and he giveth a reason Iren. l 4. c. 37. for it thus God the Son was often seen by men least men should not beleeve that there were any god at all but God in the person of the father was never seen least men by reason of familiaritie should contemne God or think that there could be no God but such an one as is corporeal and visible Thus you see that this opinion was not new in Eusebius time nor was by him first invented or singly mointained for many his Contemporaries were of the same judgment and they also which lived and writ after the death of Eusebius for this was the Doctrine of Athanosius and Atha Orat. Cont. Arion n. 8. Hil. de Trin. l. 4. Epiph. haer 65. Theod. hae f. 6. l. 5. n. 17. Mat. 11. 27. 1. Hilarius who both of them lived at the same time with Eusebius and the same was afterwards delivered by Epiphaâ—ius and Theodoret and the scripture seems to favour this exposition for it is said Ioh. 6. 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God i none have seen the Father but the Son of God but it is no where said that no man hath seen the Son for the Father is not seen but in the Son and God the Son was seen in his assumed manhood and therefore when the disciples desired to see the Father our saviour tould them he that hath seen me hath seen the Father Ioh. 14. â— that is God who is the father can not otherwise be visible but in the Son not in him but by the assuming of humane nature by which God becomes visible who in his pure God head is invisible and he that seeth God the Son in the flesh seeth the self same God who is the Father although the person of the Father was not incarnate yet the same God is incarnate in Christ for Col. 1. 15. Christ is the image of the invisible God that is as Beza noteth Christ is he in whom only the Father doth manifest and shew himself visible so he that sees God the Son sees God the Father for both persons are one God By what hath bin said it may appeare common that opinion of the primitive Christians was that it was the person of God the Son which appeared to the Patriarks not the person of God the Father Now because these ayings are hard to understand I think it will not be amisse to discourse the 2 questions following first how God is said to be invisible and how yet he hath bin and may be seen by mortal men Secondly seing there is but one God how it may be said that the Father hath not bin seen and yet the Son hath bin seen In which discourse I will not promise the reader full Satisfaction but â— doe promise him my indeavour CHAP. III. How God is said to be invisible What is meant by the face and the after parts of God HOw the Invisible God hath bin seen by mortal Eyes and in what sence he is said to be both Invisible 1. Quest and Visible will be worthy of our inquisition because the right understanding therof is pertinent to the doctrine of Man's redemption by the incarnation of God and will serve for reconciliation of some Scritures which at the first hearing may seeme to contradict one another for in the old Testament it is said Ex. 33. 11. The Lord spake unto Moses race to face But presently after in the same Chapter ver 20. God saith Thou canst not see my face for no man shall see me and live and it followes ver 23 thou shalt see my back-parts Yet before this Iacob had said Gen. 32. 30. I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved but in the new Testament it is said No man hath seen God at any time Joh. 1. 18. And againe 1 Joh. 4. 12. And S. Paul cals God invisible Col. 1. 15. and 1 Tim. 1. 17. For explication of these Scriptures it is to be understood that when God is called Invisible it is meant of the pure Godhead because the Essence Nature substance or divinitie is not visible by mortal Eyes in this sence S. Cyprian saith Deus est visu clarior tactu purior i the Majestio of the Godhead dazeleth all mortal Cyp. de idoorum vanitate â— 77. eyes and senses and thus neither the Father nor the Son nor
the Holy Ghost can be seene becase the Godhead of every and all Persons is one and alike invisible for God is a spirit and a spirit cannot be seene and therfor S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa triâ—itâ—s intellâ—giâ—ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist 112. Aug. Epist 111. Tert. cont Prax. Pater i. The whole trinitie is invisible and not only the Father and again he saith The whol trinitie is of a nature invisible and again he saith out of Ambros. and Hierome Neither the Father nor the Son can be seen in their divine nature For so noe Eye can see them and therfore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis i. Patriarks saw God not in the plenitude of his Majestie but according to the capacitie of man and to this both Ahanasius and Atha ad Antio n. 28. Chrys. ho. 48. Antio n. 17. Chrisostome agree Nemo essentiam invisibilis i. The essence of God is to all mortalls invisible The divine nature and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture somtimes calls the face of God of which God said to Mooses Thou canst not see my face and live so Theodoret expounds those words divina natura Theod Dialog immutat Atha quest ad Antioch n. 28. Aug. de Trin. l. 2. sub aspectum non cadit i. the divine nature can not be seen so doth Athanasius 1. Anteriora dei significant divinitatâ—m i. the foreparts of God signifie the Godhead and so S. Austin often tels us that the face of God signifies the form of God and the afterparts signifie the form of a servant which is the humane nature But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spake unto Moses face to face and how could Jacob say I have seene God face to face if the pure Godhead can not be seene And how could Moses tell the Israelites Deut. 5. 4. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount and yet before he had said Deut 4. 15. yee saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb I answer that as in one place of those Scriptures alleaged the face of God signifies his divinitie or Godhead which can not be seen so in the other place it signifieth Gods presence manifested by words or signes wherby God declare th himself present as on mount Horeb by fier and thunder and in the tabernacle by a cloud or by a sound and words so Gods face or presence may be where there is no sight of him and so he spake to the people face to face because they knew for certaine that God was there present But Iacob saw the face of God because he saw the face of that man or that shape which wrastled with him when God appeared to him in the forme of a man although Iacob could not see the pure Godhead and this kind of appearing in an assumed shape is called by Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The appearing of God from hence the Dion Areop Caelest Hier. c. 4. Eus de Dem. l. 5. c l. 14. aforementioned Ensebius argued that because Iacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him in which man was God therfore he said it was the person of the Son and not the Person of the Father because Eusebius was persuaded that the Person of the Father did never shew himself in a visible shape â—nd for this Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons of which more hereafter CHAP. IV. More concerning the first question how God hath bin and may be seen FOr the further explanation of this question it would be inquired how it is said that God is visible and hath bin seene and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible which in their owne Spiritual nature are as invisible as the divine nature is for because a spirit hath nothing in it self which can be an object for mortal Eyes therfore whensoever Spirits or Angels good or bad are seen of men it must be by assuming some shape or body and mingling themselves with it that so they may become a fit visible object because only such things are visible for ever so many invisibles whether they be good or bad spirits Angels or devils cannot make one visible Object and therfore when we read in Scripture that God appeared in an Angel it is not so to be understood as if the invisible God became visible by taking uppon him the invisible nature of an Angel for an Angelâ—â—al nature is of it self as invisible as the divine nature as is said because both are Spirits but when God is seen in an Angel the Angel meant is the corpoâ—â—al visible shape which God assumeth and imployeth and useth for that purpose to be seen and to converse with man by for the word Angel doth not alwayes signifie a spiritual nature but any officer imployed by God as a Messenger so S. Iohn the Bapâ—ist is called Gods Angel Mat. 11. 10. in the Original So that the visible creature which is used as a Medium to present God visible is and may very fitly be called the Angel of God As Moses therfore put a Veile over his shining face which otherwise the people could not behold and as the Sun by our weak Eyes is better seen through the veil of a thâ—n mist then in its Cleer brightnes so in this life God is visible Only as in a glosse â—arkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightneâ— is invisible but the Invisible things of God are seen by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinitie can â—ot be sâ—â—e except it be clothed and allayed with some moâ—e grosse and Material veil and therfore at what time God shewed himself visibly to men he took some corpâ—real Creature and shape unto him that so he who by nature is invisible might in that assumed habit be seen and this was the resolution of the Fathers a Filius Atha de uniâ— Tâ—in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Maâ—â— iâ— Filius vâ—sus est Patriarchis in specie hâ—minis i. The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material and visible shape as â—â— a Man So S. Chrisostome saith The Prophets which saw Chrys ho. 10. Antâ—o Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id Epist 11â— God had not otherwise the expresse sâ—ght oâ— him sed figuras viderund i they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conveâ—sing with man in Paradise saith Deus locutus est cum pâ—imâ—s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali and againe Deus non est visâ—â— nisi assumptione creaturae i God talked with first parents in some bodily shape for God can not be seen but by assuming some Creature and
the Father â—ohn 5. 37. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time noâ— any time noâ— seen his shape and yet his voice was certainly heard at Christs Baptisme but Saint Hilary reconcileth both places telling us Pater nec visus nâ—â— audiâ—us est ab illis â—udaeis quibuscum Christus loquebatur i. Those Jewes to whom Hil. de Trin. lib. 9. Christ then spake were not present when the Fathers voice was so uttered yet this doth not hinder but that as others heard his voyce so others might see his Person presented in some visible shape besides who can tell what Person it was that said Let there be Genesis 1 light If it were the Person of the Father then why may we not say it was the Father which walked in Paradise and talked with Adam Saint Austine moves the question Aug. de Trin. l 2 c. 12. Whâ—n three men appeared to Abrabam why may we noâ—â—â—r they were â—â—e thrâ—e Pâ—â—sons of the Triâ—iâ—ie seeing neither of those that appeared is there said or so much as intimated to be greater or lesse then the other It is but a vain cavill of this Commenter in p 332. saying they were noâ— God but Angâ—ls created because it is said Heb 13. 2. some have entertained Angels for who knows not that in Scripture very often the Son of God is called the Angel of the holy Ghost is said to be sent which is all one and this is enough to verifie that Abraham might entertain God and Angels in those Persons albeit the Father cannot be called an Angel but yet that creature or shape which the Person of the Father did or might assume may be called his Angel as is sâ—id before ch 4. p 119. That the onely and most high God did then appear to Abraham I do nothing doubt and our Commenter confesseth him to be called Jehova which he also confesseth to be an appellation proper to God himself and in that eighteenth Chapter and the five and twentieth verse He is called the Judge of all the Earth and yet he will afford this Jehova no better honour then to be a Creature an Angell and Minister and Delegate though he doth not take upon him to shew us any such Delegation or Commission whereby any creature is ordained to be a Jehova how many Jehovah's would this Commenter have But it was indeed Jehova that is the onely Lord God which appeared but whether in the Person of the Father or the Sonne or the Spirit or All Saint Augustine thought it was an uncertain and an Aug. ib. occult question This was his judgement which seemeth to incline to a probability of the apparition of the three Persons Origen in Gen. ho. 4. Epiph. in Ancor n. 27 1 Ful. de praedest lib 2. though divers other Fathers differ from him as Origen and Epiphanius who thought that the apparition to Abraham was of the Sonne of God and two created Angels with him and Fulgentius saith flatly id est That the Sonne appeared and not the Father By what hath been said it appeareth that in the judgement of the Ancient Church Writers it was the true Jehovah which appeared to Abraham even that onely Jehovah who is the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Spirit in Essence although in a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost they all agree in the apparition of the same God but they doubt to pronounce what Person it was neither will I but leave this question to the judgement of the learned Reader and proceed to shew some reasons why Eusebius alledged by the Commenter and our Fathers thought that onely the Son appeared to the Patriarchs and not the Father Because the Orthodoxe or Catholicke Church did constantly believe and confesse that onely the Sonne of God or second Person did take upon him our nature and became the Sonne of Man and that onely he was God Incarnate he onely was born of the Virgine and converâ—ed with the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Iacob on earth and onely that Person suffered on the Crosse and died for us and that neither the Perâ—on of the Father nor the Person of the Holy Ghost can be aid or truely believed to have taken our nature on them and to be boâ—n of the Virgine nor to be the seed of the woman oâ— the seed of Abraham or the Sonne of David nor to have suffered for Mans redemption And because all the apparitions of God in the shape of Man mentioned in the Old Testament were but Types and prefigurations of the reall Incaâ—nation of the Sonne of God to be exhibited upon promise in the fulnesse of time Therefore Eusebius and other Fathers thought and said that it was God in the Person of the Sonne onely which appeared Typically for that onely the Person of the Sonne was really to be Incarnate and that neither the Person of the Father nor the Person of the Holy Ghost did appear to the Patriarches in humane shapes because neither of theâ—e Perâ—ons were to take our Nature on them for the work of redemption And that this is a faire probable reason may appeare in that the Orthodoxe Church condemned the Heresie of those that were called Paâ—rispassiani which is called by Saint Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est The confounding Cyr. Hier. car 4 of the Persons of the Father and the Sonne which Heresie is recorded not onely by this Eusebius Eus hist l 7. c. 4. 5 and by him called the Heresie of Sabellius but also before him and before Sabâ—llius by Tertullian and called the Heresie of Praxeas and after Eusebius Tert. de haer contr Prax. Soc. l. 2. c. 15 by Saint Basil Nazian Epiphanius and Augustine The Heresie is described by Socrates The Sabellians are condemned for saying that the Trinitie is only three Names and but One Person for so they affirme that the Father suffered Now I desire the Commenter to tell us why Eusebius might not say that it was at least sometimes the Person of the Sonne which appeared to the Patriarches and not the Person of the Father as well as all true Christian Churches doe to this day affirm and believe that the Person of the Sonne was â—ncarnate and suffered and not the Person of the Father For though the Church doth acknowledge that the Father and the Sonne are the same God because we doe not divide the Substance yet we say that the Father and the Sonne are not the same Person because we will not confound the Persons The poyson which this Commenter would infuse to weaker soules by saying that Eusebius would not have the Angell which appeared to Abraham to be the supreame God which Eusebius never said is to make men believe that there is a great and lesser God or else that Jesus Christ is not the One Onely and very God the affirming whereof is that blasphemy which himself saith shall not be forgiven unto men CHAP. VII Of the Incarnation
quos tales fore ante mundum conditum sciÌ„ebat praescientiam vincente bonitate i Christ died for his enemies for tyrant-persecutors for witches and conjurers for those that hated him for those that crucified him and for those whom he foresaw before the world that they would be such yet his foreknowledge did not hinder his goodnes toward them but that he offered to them the benefit of his death Now if yet any man desire to know upon what ground the unregenerate man can lay claim to any benefit by Christ I answer that the reason and ground of this claime is because the unregenerate mans nature is taken into Christ as well as the regenerate mans and I say moreover that the Spirit of Christ is communicated to the unregenerate man as truly as it is to the regenerate man although with a great deale of diversitie in operation as shall be shewed hereafter That the Spirit of God which is the spirit of Christ is communicated to men unregenerate the Scripture evidently declareth for if the Spirit of God doe fill heaven and earth as the Prophet Jeremie saith Jer. 23. 24. Who can imagine that the same Spirit is not in man which is in Creatures inferior to man and the Gospel saith Joh. 1. 9. He enlightneth every man that commeth into the world Therfore unregenerate men are not without the light of the Spirit of Christ and againe Act. 17. 28. In him wee live and move and have our being for infinitenes of Gods Spirit doth include all ereatures Deus est in Creaturis intra extrà supereminens Hil. de Trin. lib. 1. circumsusus infusus Saith Hilarie i. God is within us and on our outside and over us and round about us whersoever any life or motion or but being is there is God for God is not only a being of himself but he is the Essentiator that communicateth being to all Creatures Eusebius giues this excellent reason of it Eus de praep l. 15. c. 11. If there were not saith he one lively power which insinuateth it self into every creature in the world this vast universe could not be so rightly and prudently ordered by such uniforme and mutuall correspondence of one part with another when the whole consisteth of such contrarietie of parts S. Paule in his sermon at Athens Act. 17. above mentioned approveth of the saying of an heathen poët who said that men are the off-Spring of God he said so no doubt because even heathen's confessed that our very being is from him and our soules and motions are actuated by his Spirit It is worth our observing that as the genealogie of S. Matthew deriveth Christ from Mat. 1. Luc. 3. men descending downe from Abraham so S. Lukes Genealogie deriveth men from God by ascending upward and whereas S. Mathew useth the words begate and the Son S. Luke useth not these words in the Original because men are not the natural Sons of God so as they are of their carnal parents but yet they are of God so as â—s said in effect S. Mathews Genealogie deriveth the flesh of God from man and S. Luke deriveth the Spirit which is in man from God this was the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers S. Besil saith Omnia Basil cont Euno lib. 5. creata participant de creatore nam mâ—sâ—ra essent si a creatore dirimerentur i. all Creatures participate of the Creator for most miserable would the Creatures be if they were Dionis de diu no. c. 3. served disjoyned from their Creator Dionysius Areop saith Deus est in Omnibus rebus sed extra omnia i God is within all Creatures and yet he is also on the Theod. de Prov. Ser 10. n. 27. Clem. Rom. Recog l. 8. outside of those Creatures and Nulla mundi pars deo destituta est i no part of the world is destitute of God and againe Deus est intra nos sed infidelibus dormit absens dicitur quia non creditur i God is within us men and is even in infidels although he is said to sleepe or to absent himself from them because they Fulg. ad Thras l 2 n. 8. doe not with faith apprehend him Fulgentius also saith Deus adesâ— ubâ—que per potentiam sed non ubique per gratiam substantialiter nullibi deest i God is every where by his power his substance or Godhead 〈◊〉 no where absent though his grace Sanctifying grace he id ibid. n. 9. meanes be not eveâ—y where and 〈◊〉 Substantialitèr ubique est 〈◊〉 i Th◠〈◊〉 trinitie is every where by their substances and Godhead for when it is said â—oh 14. 23. Wee will come unto him anâ— makâ— our abede with him The meaning is that the Father and the Son will manifest their gratiousnes and propitiousnes to be present then when their Godhead is never absent the divine Spirit alwayes filling all things hence it is Atha cont Apollinar n. 22. that Athanâ—siu dâ—th call men 〈◊〉 as he called Christ Deum Carnigerum i. as God the Son beareth man's flesh so the Sons of men beare his Spirit in them From hence it is that both Saint Cyprian and Saint Cyp. ser De Resur Aug. de Civit. l. 4. c. 12. Austine say from the Confession of Heathen Philosophers Deus est anima Mundi Mundus est Corpus Dei i. God is as the Soul of the World and the World is as the Body of God and of the presence of God in Men. The same Father saith Deus implet populum Aug. de Civ l. 17. c. 12. suum pâ—pulus plenus est Deo suo i. God doth fill his people and the people are filled with their God This truth was seen and confessed by the wiser Heathens Prope à te Deus est tecum est intus est i. Seneca ep 41. Ovid. God is near thee he is with thee yea he is within thee and Est Deus in nobis agitante calescimus illo id est God is in us and produceth those warm Spirits in us And because there is but one God and that one God is now Incarnate and beareth the Name of Jesus Therefore it must needs be the Spirit of our Lord Jesus which is thus said to be in Man even in the unregenerate sort of men whereby all Mankinde have at least a common interest in this Jesus This truth is of so great concernment and evidence that it could not easily be denied and therefore both Heathens and some Hereticks because they could not gain say it sought onely to deprave it by an impious suggestion For the Stoick Philosophers perceiving that there was something of Divinitie in Man said That the Soul of Man was a part of God and are therefore by Epiphanius reckoned amongst the number of Epiph. haer 5. haer 66. Theod. diu decret l. 5. Hereticks and so said also the Manichees and before them so did Marcion teach us as Theodoret
our whole Man in our Redemption Thus having said so much concerning this question I submit the determination thereof to the Judicious Reader onely adding this that if Christ did indeed take not onely his Body but the whole man by traduction from Adam we may most comfortably entertain a more evident and reasonable Argument of the Redemption both of our bodies and soules by him because hereby we may conceive our selves to be joyned and united unto Christ in a more noble tie then onely in our flesh that as he hath communicated his Divine Spirit to Man as is shewed before so our humane Spirit is communicated to him CHAP. XV. That the Spirit of God is communicated to the unregenerate and of the diversitie of the Measures and the graces therof IN the next place I am to shew how the Spirit of God is said to be communicated to men unregenerate as I promised before and this because many men are apt to beleeve that to have the Spirit of God is a grace proper and peculiar only to those that are the the Sanctified holy ones but the contrarie will appeare a none for a man may have Gods Spirit in him yea and divers common gifs and graces of that Spirit and yet remaine unsanctified and void of vertue and holines Aug. de beat vita n. 16. S. Austin saith Omnis homo deum habet nec tâ—mâ—n omnis beatus est i. every man hath God in him and yet every man is not in a state of blessednes so there is in every man a natural goodnes for every creature is good and where goodnes is there is God though this natural bonitie may be mixed with a great deale of moral pravitie and the same Spirit of God worketh in all men but yet to several purposes and with several Naz. Orat. 44. operations and in diverse degrees Spiritas spirat quando vult super quos vult quantum vult i The Spirit bloweth when it will and on whom it will so much as it will and though the Spirit of God be alwayes in man yet men doe not alwayes perceive it Aug. Confes. lib. 9. c. 4. Id. n. 88. or consider it S. Austin confessed Christus miserat spiritum in me Ego nesciebam i Christ had sent his Spirit into me and I knew it not and againe he saith â—git Spiritus Domini per bonos malos per Scientes nescientes ut per Caipham i The Spirit of the Lord worketh by good and bad by men that know it and by men that know it not as it did by Caiphas Men may have the Spirit of God and Operations of that Spirit in them and some graces also of that Spirit and yet those graces possibly shall not be operative so high as to Sanctification neither are they such high graces as divines call Gratum facientes But yet graces they are for grace is but a free gift and therfore is it called grace because it is Gratis data i freely given There may be grace in those persons who are not therby rendered favourable gracious or acceptable in Gods sight for even our natural endowments and temporal blessings and our very Creation rightly considered will appeare to be an act of Gods grace and therfore men do usually give thanks to God for their very Creation This doctrine of the great variety of graces and workings of Gods Spirit is most evidently set forth 1 Cor. 12. There are diversities of gifts and diversities of operations but the same Spirit the same Lord the same God And you may find mention of many graces there which are not saving or sanctifying graces but are Common even to reprobates as knowledge healing prophecie toungs c. Which wee know may be and are found in men not Sanctified even the knowledg and skill of manual arts are the operations of Gods Spirit in man which no divine will say are saving or sanctifying graces as wee read of Bâ—zaleel Ex. 35. 31. That he was filled with the Spirit of God in wisedome and in all manner of workmanship to devise Curious workes and to worke in Gold Silvâ—â— and brass Philosophers use to say If heaven stood still man could not move so much as his litle finger but surely if God were not Primus Motor in us to be as the soule of our soules we could not live or move and though God be in man and operateth in him yet his operations are diversified by divers degrees in some he worketh but weakly and low in others higher and stronger even to produce holines and happines but though the Spirit of God be in every man yet this Spirit is not a Sanctifier in every man as he is not Paracletus i a Comforter in every man this doctrine hath bin taught of old by the ancients Deus in est multiformiter Richard de S. Vict. de Trin. l. 2. c. 23. secundum participationem Gratiae aliis per participationem potentiae aliis vita aliis sapientiae aliis bonitatis aliis beatitudinis imanum suam parcius vel largius extendens i God is in us by distributing his graces in great diversitie some partake of power some of life only others have wisdome others goodnes others blessednes for so doth he open his hand more or less as he pleaseth The Spirit of God in Scripture is often resembled to water because as the same water falling from heaven in raine upon several Creatures produceth in them great diversitie and varietie of effects Aqua in spiâ—is alba in rosis rubra in Cyril Hieroâ— n. 18. hyacinthis purpurea i The same raine in the thorne produceth a white flower on the rose bush a red and on the hyacinth a purple Colour So doth the Spirit produce diversitie of effects in men so againe Aqua in Aug. de Mirab. script l. 1. c. 18. vite vinum â—it in apibus mel in Oliva olâ—um i Water in the vine is made wine in the Olive tree Oyl in bees honie in man blood teares c. And the like illustration is used by Epiphanius Chrysost To shew Epiph. in Ane Chrys ho. 4. Antioch that the same Spirit of the same God in some mea produceth but life or understanding in others it produceth those effects and more also as wisdome judgment counsel in others more also as faith hope charitie fortitude even to martyrdome and to blessednes the effect of Gods Spirit in Samson was seen eminently in his great strength in Solomon it was great wisdome in Moses mâ—eknes in the Prophets foresight all these are gifts of one and the same Spirit though in such great varietie and when the Scripture mentioneth divers Spirits as Esa 11. 2 Rev. 1 4 It meaneth severall gifts and graces of one and the same Spirit wee may observe that Elisha 2 Kings 2. 9. did not pray for two Spirits but duplex Spiritus that the same Spirit of Eliah might be doubled on him that is increased
and againe he saith Tota civitas dei est unus homo in Capite Corpore i Id. in Psal 131. The whole Citie of God is one man in the head and in the bodie being as one corporation And concerning Christs Prayers and the Churches Prayers the same Father saith Ad deum clamaâ— Caput in Corpore Id. in Psal 142. Corpus in Capite i Christ prayeth in his Church and his Church prayeth in him for otherwise how could wee say to God Abba Father and this neareness and intire unitie betweene God and man in Christ is principallie from this ground that because there is but one God and that one God is in all men therfore doth he make al to be one and also men with Christ are Commembers Aug. cont mendacium c. 2. n 77. Chrys in S. Theophaniam to 6. n. 59. as S. Austin cals them i. fellow members of his bodie because wee with him were made of one blood as we read Act. 17. 26. for as S. Chrysostome noteth Deus ideo incarnatus ut ingeret opus cum opifice i God was therfore Incarnate that therby he might unite the Creature with the Creator all communicating both in flesh and in Spirit hence all Christians are called one anothers brethren and sisters because all have the same Spirit of one heavenlie Father Anima fratris est Hier. n. 41. soror tua S. Hierom saith i Thy brothers soule is thine owne sister a sister but it is only in Christ because the same Spirit of Christ is in both upon the same grounds it is that Christ becomes so neare of kindred to us men that he takes upon himself the names of other Men to implie an â—dentity with Man for 1 Cor. 15. 45. he is called Adam and the Prophets call him David Jer. 30. 9. Ezech. 34 23. Ose 3. 5. And this long after Adam and David were dead and is therfore meant of Christ for when David is called a Man after Gods owne heart 1 Sam. 13. 14. Act. 13 22. which is very hard to be said or understood of any sinfull man but de Aug de Dule quaest q 6. n. 89. Christo intellige and nullus nodus erit i if you will understand it to be spoken of Christ there will be no difficultie at all So also I think that saying Num. 23. 21. He hath not beheld iniquitie in Jacob is meant of Christ who is called Jacob with as greate reason as the other posteritie are called by the name of their patriarch Israel and Iacob very frequently in Scripture and namely Psal 41. 7. Because the Creator at the first intended this union to be a ground and preparative of mans redemption therefore he extracted all mankind even the woman also out of one Man that so all might come into the unitie of Christ which is the reason that is alleaged by Prosper and that theâ—eby christs obedience active and Prosper De Provid n. 39. passive might be in stead of all Adâ—m and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not believe there were any 〈◊〉 although he knew the earth was scated in the midst of the woâ—â—d Aug. de Civ l. 16 c 9. l aâ—â— de fal Rel. l. 3. c. 24. but it was least he should grant that the e was any one man in the whole world which came not out of the loins of Adam Now as all Mankind hath its interest in Christ so more especially hath the Church whâ—ch is joyned to her head in a more sweet and loving matâ—imonâ—all bond Matth. 22. 2. The Kingdome of Heaven is like unto a Certain King which made a marriage for his son and this is set forth more Emphatically Eph. 5. 30. For wâ— are member of his body â—f his flâ—sh and of his â—ones this is a great Mystery but I spâ—ak conâ—â—â—ning Christ and his Church For the union of Christ and his Church doth not onely consist in this that Christ assumed the flesh of his holy ones for so he did of all nor in that he communicates hi Spiâ—it to his Elect â—nd holyenâ—s for so also he doth to all But in that he gives to his Church his Divine Spirit with all the sweetnesse of his love and goodnesse and with such high graces as make her lovely acceptable and gracious in the eyes of her Lord and head This great mystery of Mans Redemption by the Incarnation of God was imitated early at the Creation of the woman It is observed by S. Ambrose that at Ambr. de Paradiâ—o n 9. the Creation of the Man it is not said God saw that it was good but when it is said Male and Female created he them Gen. 1. 27. Immediately it followes God blessed them and verse 31. It was verâ— good and this because from the Womans fruitfulness the Redeemer was to come and this is the meaning of St. Paul 1 Tim. 2. 15. She shall be saved in child-bearing That is by the Son of God now born of a woman if she continue in the Faith and for the comfort of all sorts of men unto whom the benefit of the Gospell and with it the inestimable benefit of Christs death is offered the Gospell hath set forth our Saviour descending from the first man and extracted through holy and unholy Ancestors through Jews and Gentiles by noble and ignoblâ— births as appeareth in the Genealogâ—â—s of S Luke and of â— Matthew where there is mention of â—amar and of 〈◊〉 a Moabiâ—â— and Gentile to shew that all sorts of men have an interest in Christ for all men in the world were united with Christ himselâ— also in the loyns of Adam Before I clâ—se this Book I think it very pertinent to the business in hand to explain that place Heb. 7. 9. which our Commenter hath most slightly passed over yet warily because if he had rightly expounded it it had clâ—aâ—ly made against his blasphemy the words are these Levi 〈◊〉 Tithes in Abraham For he was in 〈◊〉 of his Fatâ—â—r when Melchiâ—edech met him The collection from these words is that therefore Meâ—chisâ—aechs and so Christs Priesthood is greater then Leviâ—â— Pâ—iâ—stâ—ond But against this Argument it may be objected that Christ was also in the loins of Abraham at that time as well as Levi for thâ—n 〈◊〉 was not begot and therefâ—re in this respect both Levi and Christ paid tithes in Abraham and neither are to be for this cause preferred before the other except we can shew that Christ was not then in the loins of Abraham Secundum aliquem modum in some manner as Levi was For answer hereunto S. Austine thought it sufficient to say that the difference between â—â—vies and Christs being in the loins of Abraham was this Christus Aug. de Gen. ad lit l. 10. c. 19 non 〈◊〉 secundum animam seâ— Levi ficit i That Christs Soul was not derived by propagation from Abrâ—haâ— as Lâ—viâ—s soul was But this answer will not satisfie because it is uncertain to us
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
sin far worse and as it is said Rom. 7. 13. By it sin becomes exceeding sinful Chrys de fato lib. 3. n. 21. Non â—am tetra res est peceare quam peccati non pudere i. It is not so bad a thing to sin as not to be ashamed of sin There is a received Maxime Duo si faciant idem non est idem i. Two men may commit the same sin which yet may be far worse in one then in the other for surely if the circumstance of person may varie the sin much rather may a greater circumstance as when a rich man and a poore man commit the like theft who doubts but the theft is more sinful in Aug. to 6. n. 10. the one then in the other two blasphemers do alike blaspheme the Son of God one repenteth the other persisteth the penitent shall be pardoned when the other by reason of this circumstance of impenitency will be condemned If the Reader desire yet to be further satisfied why I have said that this grand sin is not absolutely unpardonable but onely in case it be accompanied with finall impenitencie seeing that other sins also which are not of so high impiety cannot be pardoned without repentance according to our Saviours words Excepâ— ye repent ye shall all lik wâ—se pâ—rish To this my answer is with submission to better judgements First the grand blasphemy of denying the Godhead 1. of Jesus Christ doth utterly root up the very foundation of Chriâ—tian religion it nullifieth the wonderfull and gracious work of redemption for if the Lord Jesus be not the only Jehova the Supream and most high God then he hath not nor could redeem us and if we do not firmly believe this and adhere to him in this most necessary faith we cannot receive the end and benefit of his redemption Without this confession all other doctrines of our Christian faith will be unprofitable for our soules health for this is the anchor of our faith he that once offendeth in Apostatizing from his confession of faith cannot be recovered or restored to his benefit of Christianity but by a particular and special revocation and renouncing of that damning error and blasphemy whereas for the remission and pardon of other siâ—s of inferior rank I conceive a generall confession and penitency will be accepted through Christ by our most mercifull and compassionate God For secondly there are many sins which although of 2. themselves in their own nature and merit as they are sins are sufficient to produce the fruit and wages of sin which is death eternal yet they are unknown sins sins of ignorance and such as we do not account or think so and such as we cannot possibly take particular notice of and not onely passing the reach of our understanding Euseb Em. 24. but of our will also Multi peecant qui peccare nolunt i many sin who desire not to sin the evil that I would not that do I the sin of non age children yea and of infants too as Saint Aug. n. 8. 9. 67. Austin accounts them a secret concupiscence an angry wish or word to our brother an error in some point of christian doctrine not fundamental in which a man liveth and dieth in opinion of the truth of it besides thousands of unknown sins and as many sins of Omission called by Saint Austin delâ—ctâ— and so called as being derelicta i delinquencies or desertion of that Aug. quaest in Levit. n. 8â— which is good and might have been performed Now either such offenders must perish for those unknown sins or else it must follow that a general confession in the lump af all our sins and a deprecation for Gods mercy in Christ to forbear the punishment due to them with a purpose to decline all sin to our power and as much as we can by Grace assistant will be by Gods Mercy accepted through Christ and therefore the holy Psalmist thus confesseth and thus praieth Psalm 19 12. Who can tell how oft he offendeth O cleanse thou me from my secret faults we know how graciously our God did approve of the Publicans generall confession God be merciful to me a sinner Salvianus saith Veniam peto etsi delictum nescio i I pray Salv. Epist ad Par. p. 322. for pardon though I know not my particular sin For when there is an impossibility of knowing all our several sins how can there be a particular confession or repentance in this case the advice of Lactantius is good Nihil aliud precetur homo nisi peccata remitti i Lact. l. 6. de verâ— cultu c. 25. n. 21. Let a man pray that his sins may be forgiven though he pray for nothing else in this sense I understand those words of Saint Austin Justam non impediunt à vita Aug. de Spir. lit c. 28. aeterna peccata quaedam venialia sine quibus vix vivitur i there are certaine pardonable sins without which a man can hardly live which shall nor hinder a godly righteous man from heaven provided that the generally confesse and deprecate them in the lump and such an acknowledgment is most necessary But to such Pharisaical and presumptuous Solifidean hypocrites who will not be induced to a confession and penitence for their sins presuming either on an historicall faith or a bold ungrounded conceit that they are elected to heaven and shall be saved by this fancie therein abusing the most comfortable and wholsom doctrine of justification by faith alone acting and operating by love and therefore making no scruple in their conscience of doing injuries and oppressing their despised brethren Tertullian shall speak as sometimes he did to such as themselves Qui aiunt se salva fide peccare salva Tertul. de paen â— 15. venia in Gehennam detrudâ—ntur i those that presume to act all manner of unrighteousnesse and yet tell us they shall certainly be saved because they hold fast and reserve their Faith Let them know that God also will held fast and reserve his pardon from them and then they will be condemned There remaineth yet one scruple more to be examined concerning Erronious Opinions and misbelief of the Incarnation of God which I thus state If the deniall of the Godhead of Christ persevered in impenitently untill death For after death none of the damned are Atheists or Arians will certainly bring upon such a blasphemer eternall perdition because this blasphemy utterly disclaimeth the grand and principall means of Redemption and so of salvation I aske What shall be thought of them that believe not rightly in the Incarnation of cur Lord Jesus Christ For many which confessed Jesusto be God and also to be Incarnate yet they would not believe that he took his flesh from the Virgine Mary as conceiving it to be too great an abasement of the mighty God to passe through and suffer the pollutions of the womb And also because they reade in Scripture John
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
whence either Levi or Châ—â—st had their humane souls and so it was to St. Austine himself as I have shewed before The surer answer therefore is this that it being granted that the humane nature of Châ—ist was every way in the loins of Abraham as well as Levi was yet this grand difference is between them That Christs Divine nature or eternall Godhead was not derived from Abrahams loins Although as Christ was in the form of a servant so he came from Abraham and so he paid tithes in Abraham to his type Mâ—lchisedech just as he paid tribute to Caesar or to the Temple because he was a man and a subject to Caesar as S. Ambrose truely saith Christus est servus quatenus incarnatus i. Ambr. in Epist con Aquil. n. 49. When Christ is called a Subject or Servant it is understood of his Incarnation But as he was in the form of God he neither came from Abraham nor was tithed in him nor owed any tribute to Caesar or the Temple Of this nature it is said John 8. 58 Before Abraham was I am Yet in respect of his humane nature I may truly say that Christ before his birth in the loins of Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech which is all one as to say Christ paid to Christ Christus homo Christo Deo i. The Man Christ to Christ our God This Scripture thus expounded doth clearly set forth the Incarnation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ who for his assumed flesh is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas de Spir. sanct c. 5. by St. Basil i. flesh-bearing God and in Greg. Nazian and Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God Incarnate Thus was he every way as hath been shewed a Person fitted to stand in steed of mankind as an undertaker and surety for performance of the Bond Law and Covenant which was laid upon us Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for he hath visited and redeemed his people and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David Laus Deo FINIS THE FOURTH BOOK Of the Vnpardonable SINNE OR The sinne against the Holy Ghost wherein this question is discussed Whether the sinne against the Holy Ghost be absolutely unpardonable Together with a plain Exposition of those places in Scripture which concern that sin viz. wherein the question of Anabaptisme is clearly discussed Matth. 12. 31. Heb. 6. 4. Heb. 10. 26. Epist 1 John 5. 16. Qui legit haec ubi certus est paritêr pergat mecum ubi haesitat quaerat mecum ubi errorem suum cognoscit redeat ad me Aug. de Trinit l. 1. c. 3. 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 IN my second Book I propounded two questions to be discussed First what sin that 1. is which three of the Evangelists call the sinne against the Holy Ghost and to me it appeared to be the blasphemous denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ For albeit some other sin may be so called yet that this also is that sinne there meant I nothing doubt Secondly Why the denying the Godhead 2. of Christ is said especially to be unpardonable and to me it seemed that the reason is because he that so sinneth doth thereby renounce the sole and onely means of redemption and pardon for Jesus Christ by vertue of his Godhead inseparably united with his Manhood is the onely All-sufficient Expiatory Sacrifice for sinne There is yet a third Question to be discoursed 3. which is very needfull to be rightly understood lest the former Doctrines should lead such men into desperation who have fallen into this sinne and for the comfort of those particularly who have been misled into this most dangerous blasphemy by reading This new Commentary on the Hebrewes I do thus state this third Question Of THE UNPARDONABLE SINNE CHAP. I. Whether those who have once fallen into the blasphemy 3. Question of denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ are absolutely unpardonable and left without all hope of assoilment or remedie and forgiveness so that they must be certainly and eternally damned THe reason which moved me to attempt this question is because I find in many Writers that the sin against the Holy Ghost is discoursed as being absolutely unpardonable and their perswasion thereof is grounded on the words of Christ which seem to be so peremptory and absolute as if they could not admit any limitation or exception or more favourable Exposition For it is said Matth. 12. 31 32. It shall not be forgiven unto mâ—n neither in this 〈◊〉 nor in the world to come and Mar. 3. 29. He hath never forgivenesse but is in danger of eternall damnation And in St. Luke it is said He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the Angels of God unto him that blesphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall no be forgive Of this sin or blasphemie against the Holy Ghost our later Expositors understand that saying Heb â— 4. It is impossible for those who were once enlightned if they fal away to renew them again unto 〈◊〉 So do they expound that place also Heb 10. 26. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the Truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but a certain 〈◊〉 looking for of judgement And that which to some men seemeth to prove the absolute unpardonableness of this sin and to put it out of all doubt is that saying 1 John 5. 16. There is a sin unto death I do not say â—◠〈◊〉 for it For if he that once sinneth this sin be not all to be prayed for it will be a great inducement to perswade us that it is altogether unpardonable There is yet another reason alledged by Expositors why this sin is absolutely unpardonable and that is because as they say this blasphemy being one committed it is ever after accompanied with finall 〈◊〉 according to that saying before alledged out of Heb. 6. 6. If this prove true then such blasphemers must certainly perish according to our Saviours words in another case Luke 13. 3. Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish and so this sinne may fitly be called a sinne unto death But yet to say any sin is so great that in any case it cannot be pardoned will be most harsh and derogatory to the infinite mercy of God in Christ for the sacrifice for sin the Lamb of God is of infinite value and an all-sufficient sacrifice but no sins of the sons of men are infinite either in measure or number but onely in respect of the Object that is God a most mercifull God against whom they are committed Pecca a numerari possunt sed misericordia Dâ—â— nulla mensura comprehendi potest i. Our sins are not numberless but the mercy Basil in Ascet Reg. n. 31. of God is immense and infinite and the Scripture tells us Rom
5 20. 〈…〉 grace did much more abound and that God is rich in mercie and the Father of 〈…〉 and that his mercie is over all his workes and especially his mercy is seen and excercised on mankind even in such as have sinned with an high hand against him if they doe penitentlie turn unto him no Father or â—ender Mother can so much pittie their owne children as our heavenly Father pittieth us Non sic insâ—mus Chrys 77. hom Constant n. 25. 〈…〉 Deus paenitentem animam i no young man sick for love is more inamored with his beloved than our loving God is with a penitent soule Chrys 31. hom Antioch n. 12. and againe the same Father saith Ego testifiâ—or fide 〈◊〉 si quts discedit à peccâ—to nihil aliud requirit Deus i testifie and will be bound that if a sinner will forsake his sin God requireth no more of him The gate of Gods mercy is never shut against a penitent sinner S. Cypriâ—n saith most comfortably Nulla paenitent Cyp. cont Demet. n. 75. Id de Caena n. 95. a in muâ—â—o seâ—a â—st And againe Animâ—m egredientem and in lubiâ— paenitentem non aspernatur Clementissimus Dominus i no repentance can be to late in this life when our Soul is pearched on our lips ready to take her flight even in that moment our most mercifull Lord will not reject her repentance no though her sins have bin never so detestable Prosper saith Nulla Pros de vocat Gent. l. 1. c. 17. sunt tam detestanda â—â—elera quae possun gratiae donum arcâ—re i No wickednes is so detestable which can utterly exclude the mercie of God S. â—asil sets this down as an infallible mark whereby a man may be assured of remission of sins Ceâ—tâ—â—o rem â—ssiâ—nis est peccata abhorrere Basil in Ascet n. 31. i if yow would be assured that your sins are remitted leave your sins The Psalmist saith Psal 33. 5. The earth is full of the goodnes of the Lord Because in this life his mercy is more perceived then his justice which he doth for the most part defer til the judgment in the next life by his patience and long suffering yet even then his very judgments are not void of some mercy in Teâ—tullâ—an it is but Ironically said O deum ad Tert. cont Marc. l. 3 n. 44. inferos usqu◠〈…〉 i O the mercy of God which extendâ—th even to hel but S. Austin delivers the same seriously and dogmatically i Dei misericordia Aug de Civit. l. 21. c. 24. extenditur damnatis mitiùs puniens illos quà m mereantur i The mercy of God is in some measure shewed to the damned in that he punisheth them lesse rigorouslie then they deserved Upon these reasons grounded on the mercies of a most mercifull God an Al sufficient Redeemer I dare not pronounce this sin against the Holie Ghost to be absolutely unpardonable CHAP. II. That the sin against the Spirit possibly may be pardoned and that by repentance Gods threatnings are conditional and not alwayes executed yet the truth of God is not violated Threatnings are but provâ—cations to repentance But dare any Man say this sin is Pardonable when Christ hath said it shall never be forgiven I answer that neither I nor any one that feareth God would presume to affirme it pardonable except wee were assured that God himself had so affirmed for the same God who is the author both of the old and new Testament hath so declared in both that all his threatnings how peremptorilie or absolutely soever they seeme to be delivered yet they are ever to be understood with this limitation or exception except ye repent For although it be not openly expressed in every particular Commination yet God hath more then once given us to understand that whensoever he threatneth destruction to a sinner his threatning is alwaies to be understood with this limitation Except that sinner repent And this truth hath bin long ago discovered by our owne divines and long before them by the ancient Fathers That al threatnings of God are to be understood with the condition of impenitencie for example God had by his prophet said Fortie dayes Jonah 3. 4. and Nineve shall be desâ—â—oyed Yet Nineve was not so destroied neither was his word false because Gods meaning was with this reservation Except they repented and Gods threatning averting or inflicting temporal plagues in the time of the law were signes what he would doe in the like case either with or without repentance in remitting or inflicting eternal punishments since the Gospel was published If you aske me how wee shall know that when God threatneth destruction without any mention of this exception of repentance that yet he so meaneth I answer that we know it because God hath so tould us once or twice that all his threatnings must be so understood and this we learne from two of his great Prophets both for general threatnings against a whole nation and for particular threatnings against any wicked person for Jer. 18. 7. As what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a Kingdom to pluck up and to put down and to destroy it If that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil I wil repent of the evil that I thought to doe unto them So againe Ezech. 33. 14. When I say to the wicked thou shalt surely die If he turne from his sin c he shal surely live he shal not die these two are the general rules of all Gods threatnings in the whole Scripture so that if we lay these to any threatning that was executed or not executed yet we shal find that both the mercy and truth of God wil be hereby cleered as in the differing cases of Sodom destroied and Ninâ—ve saved The same Rules are also to be observed in the threatnings mentioned in the New Testament even where the exception is not expressly mentioned yet it is alwaies to be understood and there we find evident and personal presidents of Gods mercy in sparing those whom he threatned when the threatning seemed to be absolute without any limitation for what threatning can be more peremptorie then that Luc. 12. 9. He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the Angels of God But we know Peter denied him before men yet Mat. 26. 74. we doubt not of Peters Conversion and Salvation And we know that the Jewes unto whom the same Peter preached Act. 3. 14. had denied the Holie One and the Just moreover killed the Pâ—ince of life Yet Sâ— Peter did not think them absolutely unpardonable but exhorted them to repentancâ— and shewed that therby their sin might be pardoned for â—aith he v. 19 Repent yet therfore and be convertâ—d that youâ— siâ—s may be blotted out What threatning seemeth more peremptorie then that 1 Cor. 6 9 Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaâ—eâ—s nor adulteâ—â—rs nor tâ—eves nor
would not confesse the blood of Christ to be as it is the Blood of God and upon this misconceit he said at the Councill of Ephâ—sus that he could not call the Man Cbtist God for it he should it would follow that he must call him Bimâ—strem â—rimâ—strem Deum id est A god of two Soz l. y. c. 33. or three monâ—ths old not considering that those sayings are not incongruous to be said of that Person who is Emmanuâ—l God and Man Saint Anselme also writing upon those words And hath counted the blood of the Covenant unholy Doth thus expound them Qui iâ—a vilipenderiâ— ut eum ad Ansel in loc salutem sufficere non credat nec Cenus humanum emundanâ—em id est to count the blood of the Covenant unholy or common is to thiâ—k so viâ—â—ly and meanly of it as if it were not of sufficient worth and value to redeem and save Mankind CHAP. XIV That the remedy of Repentance is not absolutely taken away from them that have sinned this grand sin in denying renouncing Christ that such possibly may repent that this sin is then onely unpardonable when it is accompanied with finall impenitencie the Conclusion of this Exposition IN all that our Apostle hath said in this place of sinning this grand sin by treading under foot the Son of God counting the blood of the Covenant common and vile casting away our confidence in Christ drawing back from him doing despite unto his Spirit of grace and all this wilfully and after knowledge received and although he hath affirmed that besides Christs all sufficient sacrifice once offered on the crosse there is none other sacrifice for sin either possible or to be expected yet after all this grand Impiety and Apostacy it is â—not said nor intimated that the sinner who so sinneth cannot repent repentance is not quite and absolutely taken away nor is the sinner wholy left to desperation without all remedy For albeit he who doth renounce the Profession of Christ plenarily and totally can find no other Saviour Redeemer or Sacrifice for sin and so long as he continueth in this totall Apostasie he can reasonably expect none other issue but a fearfull judgement of condemnation and fiery indâ—gnation yet nothing hindreth but that this Apostate may return to his former faith and profession and repent of his Apostasie for although this rejecting or renouncing Christ may for a time be totall and plenary yet it doth not follow that it shall be finall seeing that those Jews who for a time did so eagerly and spitefully renounce and deny Christ that they also crucified him yet they were by St. Peter exhorted to repentance Acts 2. 38. yea and they did actually repent and were baptized and continued afterwards stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine Wherefore the summe of all this threatning is That he who renounceth Christ can find no other Saviour but if he will be saved he must needs return to that Christ by repentance whom he formerly rejected Another Saviour cannot be found but repentance may be found for that is not absolutely taken away and by it reconciliation may be obtained The onely thing which maketh this grand sin to be absolutely unpardonable is impenitency obstinacy obduratenesse and perseverance therein untill death and in this case onely is that saying to be understood It shall not be forgiven neither in this world neither in the world to come In this Sence onely did the anciâ—nt Expositors understand Aug. in expos Epist ad Rom. n. 96. those words St. Austine saith Quid restat nisi ut peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum quod non remittitur nullum intelligatur nisi perseveranâ—ia in nequitia cum desperatione indulgenâ—iae i No sin against the Holy Ghost is to be conceived unpaâ—donable but perseverance in that wickednesse and desperation So Theophilact writing upon those words If we sinne wilfully Theoph. in loc c. Tells us they are to be understood De permanenâ—ibus sine paeniâ—entia i. It is meant of such as continue obdurately without any repentance he addeth Si non pâ—rmaneamus veniae certe locus est uâ—â— sunt igitur qui tolli paenitentiam clamant i. If we will leave and forsake that sin certainly there is pardon to be found away with them who from these words Theod. in loc gather that such sinners cannot repent Theodoret also gives the same Exposition upon these words There remaineth no more sacrifice Nâ—quaquâ—m prohibuit paenitentiam sed dixit non esse secundam crucem i. The Apostle doth not deny repentance or inhibit such sinners to be admitted amongst the number of penitents He onely saith there is none other sacrifice or second Cross And before him S. Ambrose upon those words Amb. in loc A fearful looking for of judgment saith Aliud te expectat judicium nisi per paenitentiam renovatus fueris In hoc paenitentiam non excludit Apostolus nec prepititationem quaefit per paenitentiam nec dejicit per desperatâ—onem non ita est inimicus nostraesalutis uon enim dixit non est ultrà paenitentia neque dixit non est râ—missio sed Hostia inquit ultra non est hoc est non crux â—ecundâ— quicunque paenitentiae medicamentum neglexerit ignis aemulus devorabit eum i. Unless thou repent judgement waiteth for thee he doth not denie possibilitie of repentance nor reconciliation by it he doth not cast the sinner downe to desperation he is not such an enemie of our salvation for he doth not say there remaineth no repentance nor there is no hope of pardon onlie he saith there remaineth no more sacrifice that is there is no other Redeemer to be Crucified for thee but only Christ whosoever in this case shall neglect the Medicine of repentance fiery indignation will devour him As yet we find not that this grand blasphemie is absolutely unpardonable or that this blasphemer can not by Gods mercie repent It doth not appeare that such sinners are wholie left to final impenitencie and desperation but we find the contrarie that some have repented and returned to the Lord their God CHAP. XV. Whether such Blasphemers as are before mentioned Question may upon their Repentance finde mercie two sorts of Repentance First Legall Secondly Evangelicall of Judas and his Repentance the difference between penitencie and resipiscencie Objections out of the Old Testament cleared Why temporall pressures are not alwayes withdrawn upon true Repentance IT being granted that the greatest sinners and most impious blasphemers possibly may have the grace of repentance it would be next inquired whether such sinners upon their confession repentance and amendment may at all find and obtaine mercy and pardon so that their repentance shall not be fruitless The ground and reason of this inquirie is taken from some passages in Scripture where we find that some who are said to have repented yet have not bin releived for of Judas it is said Mat. 27. 3. When he
saw that Christ was condemned herepented himself To this and the like sayings it may be answered That there are two degrees or parts or ingredients of repentance The First is the consideration of the terrors of divine vengeance of the threatnings in the law which causeth feare and horror of punishment only and looketh no further this divines call repentance legal because it is caused by the preaching of the law onlie as when a sinner considereth the plagues that hang over his head it will make him sorrowfull this is called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Carefulnes dread and anxiâ—â—ie for sins committed in respect onlie of the insuing punishment thus Caine and Ahab repented and of Judas it is there said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i he was greived The Second part or ingredient of repentance which added to the former makes a compleat repentance and acceptable is the consideration of Gods mercie grounded upon his promises in the Gospel such as Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavie laden c. This is called repentance Evangâ—lical and is expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 3. 19. and 2 Cor. 7. 10. which is rendred fitlie by the word râ—cipiscencie which signifieth a returning to ones self a recovering of our lost witt or former good estate this ever is accompanied with amendment of life or at least a resolution therto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tertul. n. 41. and 15. Naz. in Poem n 44. Tert. de Paenit n. 15. est animi demutatio est â—um quis corrigit vitam improbam i. a Changing of our evil thoughts and correcting of our evil life for repentance which is onlie a sorrow for sin is but fruitless without amendment of life Vana est paenitentia ubi nulla emendatio i Vaine is thy penitencie without amendment or resipiscency Judas proceeded no further then the first degree sorrow in respect of his sin and accusing conscience and insuing punishment he said I have sinned but he sought not for pardon Peter sinned then he wept bitterlie but afterward he repaired to his Lord conversed with him professed his love and afterwards died for his truth The dove is a groaning bird an emblem of repentance it left the arke bur it returned The impure Crow the emblem of reprobates it weares a mourning garment too it went out of the aâ—ke but never returned David sinned often repented he Confessed peccavi he smote his breast so far a reprobate Iudas might 2 Sam. 24. 10. Luc. 10. 13. goe but David ceased not here bur added Lord take away the iniquitie of thy servant the Publican smote his brest but added God be mercifull to me a sinner The pâ—nitent Jewes Act. 2. 32. first are pricked in hart but added Men and brethren what shall we doe Legal repentance onlie driveth men to sorrow despaire and destruction but evangelical â—esipiscence leadeth men to sorrow and further to hope to amendment to joy to Salvation These 2 degrees or sorts of repentance were shadowed and intimated in the actions of Moses in the law and Christ in the Gospel One of the memorable actions of Moses was Ex. 7. 2 Turning waters into blood Christs first miracle was turning water into wine to signifie The law-preaching alone to a sinner will turne his waters of repentance into blood death destruction and despair but the Gospel promises added turne our waterie teares into wine and gladnes and this conceit Durand stumbled on and thus expressed it Aquam Dur. Rat. l. 6. c. 72 in vinum mutare est timorem de peccatiâ— converti in exultationem mentis From what hath bin said I think I may safelie take up this conclusion that when soever a sinner though ever so great a blasphemer shall confess repent and amend his sin and turne unto the Lord his God according to the rules of evangelical resipiscence that penitent sinner shall find mercifull entertainement For when I see that there is no sin so great but that the Scriptural exhortations and invitations to repentance may and verilie dâ—â— extend to it and to the greatest blasphemer I can not imagine that such a repentance shall be fruitles and vaine unto which God himself doth invite us neither would our merciful and most wise God threaten destruction to an impenitent sinner if he purposed not to shew mercie to a true penitent Tertullian saith Deus non comminaretur non paenâ—tenâ—i si Tert. de Paenit n. 15. Aug. de fide ad Pet. Diaco n. 74. non ignosceret paenitâ—nti and to the like purpose S. Austin saith Deus nunquâ—m peccatori indixisset paeâ—itentiam nisi paenitâ—nti veniâ— concedâ—nda esset i God would never have threatned the impenitent if he intended not to pardon a penitent neither would he have required repentance of a sinner unless he purposed to grant him pardon if he did repent But then what shall be answered to those sayings in the old Testament where God professeth the contrariâ— Prov. 1. 28. They shall call upon me but I wil not answere they shall seek me carlie but they shall not find me no not when feare distress anguish commeth upon them Isay 1. 5. When ye sprâ—ad forth you hands when ye make many Prayers I will not heare I will hide mine Eyes and Jer. 14. 12. When they fast I will not heare their crye and Ezech. 8. 18. Though they cry in mine Eare with a loud vaice yet I will not heare them and Zach. 7. 13. and Mich. 3. 4. The like sayings are now calling and loud-crying and spreading of hands with many Prayers seeking the Lord and that early and in time of distress and with fasting are outward expressions of vehement repentance yet God will not heare them For answer hereunto let the reader look on the context of those places and he shall find that those Cryes * plus tristitiae quam paenitentiae Tacitus hist lib. 1. p. 445. Pro. 1. 29. Isa 1. 15. Ier. 14. 10. Eze 8 17. Mich. 3. 3 Zach. 7. 11. were not the Cryes of true penitents but of whiners that continued impenitently in their sins they would not leave sinning but yet called for deliverance from some temporal plague then hanging over their heads for it is at the same time said They chose not the feare of the Lord their hands are full oâ— blood That they loved to wander to idols they have filled the Land with violence they eate the flesh of my people they stopped their eares that they would not heare hereupon God professeth that the Clamors of such impenitent sinners aad oppressors shall not divert his temporal plagues this is all that is there intended But that the hartie groanings of a sinner trulie penitent shall not avert Eternal plagues doth not by these words appeare And in consideration of the most wise dispensatious of the Almightie it is no marvel that he refuseth to withhold or withdraw temporal pâ—nishments from impenitent sinners seing he doth not alwayes