ABout four years since (Christian Reader) there was brought unto me a Comment or Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews, written by a Nameless 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 ● then conceived) that for the most part it was Learned and Judicious, plain and profitable, I did so pass 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 pass, 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 errors escaped unobserved by me, they being comprised 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 men's errors and faults than I have evidence of truth for it; whereas otherwise if knowing the Persons with whom I have to deal, to be Heterod and Erroneous 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 myself 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 error 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, chief intended to lay open and confute these dangerous Errors and Heresies; I could do no less (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 pernicious doctrines, that detract any thing from the Lord Christ's Divinity, and his Supreme and Eternal Godhead. For far be it from me to derogate any thing from my blessed Saviour and Redeemer, by not acknowledging him the Supreme God Coessential, Coequal, and Coeternal 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 entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 ' Α●θρωπ●φόρος. OR, God Incarnate. SHOWING, That JESUS CHRIST Is the Only, and the most HIGH GOD. In Four BOOKS. Wherein also are contained a few Animadversions upon a late nameless and blasphemous Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 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 waybread 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 pardonableness thereof. Anabaptism, is by Scripture, and the Judgement of the Fathers shown 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, ●. D. sometimes Fellow of St. John's 6. College 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 Churchyard, 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 until he had planted me in an employment and probable subsistence in the Church; where I continued peaceably during his life, and until the pressures of these unhappy Times dislocated not only me, (though too low God wots, to be an object of public wrath) but also the strongest bones, and principal joints and nerves of our once most renowned Church. To his memory do I own the first fruits of my public Labours; nor can I offer them at any other shrine so proper as yourself, 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 fancied their Sen. de Benef. l. ●. c. 3. Charites (which were but the Emblems of gratitude) to be Virgins, and always Young, to teach us, that thankfulness 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 murdered in the very Senate-house, yet he confessed that he could not find fault with the faithfulness of Cic. lib. 11. Epist. 240. Matius, for honouring him that was dead, who whilst he lived had been his Friend and Patron. The Church hath t●●ght us further, that death itself doth not dissolve Christian's 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 means to commemorate my deceased Lord, I have ma●● 〈◊〉 if this, to profess 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 and matter here handled, is the most noble and high cause in the World, and the most nearly concerning the glory of God, and the salvation of man; to which I was drawn by the importunity of some Learned, and Religious friends; and also by the iniquity of a most blasphemous Book lately Printed, and called, A Commentary on the Hebrews, written by a nameless Doctor of Divinity, who new resideth in this Country, but formerly in Broad-gate Hall, (so it was then called) wherein he hath vented such blasphemies against Jesus Christ, as (without special revocation and repentance) will in the end bring both himself, and all his seduced Sectaries to that woeful Broad-gate of which mention is made, Matth. 7. 13. Lata est porta— quae ducit ad perditionem. The Controversies are not concerning the mighty and glorious reformrtion of a square-cap, a Surplice and Cross, and a painted glass-window, or the like, (which have been an outside pretendment amongst Vulgars', to bring upon this Land innumerable Calamities): But that Commentary hath laid the axe to the root and foundation of our Christian Religion, by un-Godding Jesus Christ, and blasphemously denying his grand, and most gracious Work of Redemption; and it is feared, that the pernicious doctrines therein contained, have many abetters and favourers in these dangerous Times; albeit this Commenter is the first of all the Serpent's nest, that dared to peep out and appear in our English print, who both by this Book, and by his personal insinuations, hath already (as we know) perverted many from the saving truth of the Gospel, to the evident danger both of theirs, and of his own soul; and his impious ambition to be the Ringleader in this blasphemy, hath in this Country procured to him such a Title and Character as was fastened on Martion the Heretic by Polycarpus, when he called him Euseb. hist. ● 4. c. 14. Primogenitum Satanae. Wherefore, setting before me the honour of Jesus Christ, and the service which I own to the Church, and to my Country, and also the care which a Father ought to have of the souls of his Children; I have endeavoured both to detect the blasphemies of this Commentary; and also to set down (with all such possible plainness as so weighty a cause would admit), the evidences of our most necessary and precious Christian faith in the Eternal Son of God; both by showing his Divine nature, and glorious Godhead, who is our True, Only, Supreme, and Eternal Jehova, and also the Incarnation of this our God, by assuming an humane body and soul, and thereby the inestimable benefits which our Redeemer, and Saviour hath acquired for us. First, in exempting his servants from eternal death by his obedience Passive, in suffering death in our stead; and, Secondly, by meriting eternal life for us by his Obedience Active, in performing the whole Law of God as a Surety, and Undertaker for us. These things have I endeavoured to set forth, not only by the sacred evidences of the holy Scriptures, and by the constant doctrine of the Church-Catholick in several ages thereof; but also by humane illustrations, and the probable correspondence of our Christian faith, with right reason; Which thing hath been formerly much wished, and thereupon laudably begun in some of the high mysteries of our Religion long ago by a Writer of good antiquity, to supply the defect thereof in the elder Writers; whereof he saith, Rich. de St. Vict. de Trin. l. 1. c. 5. Legi de Deo meo, quòd sit Unus, & Trinus,— sed undè haec probentur, me legisse non memini— Abundant in his authoritates, sed non aequè argumentationes; (i.) We read the high and holy Mysteries of Christian Religion evidently, and abundantly affirmed by authority of Scripture; but where to read the proof thereof by humane arguments to convince our Carnal reason, we find not. This task I have taken upon me now especially in these dangerous Times, for that the abounding of moral iniquity, and dogmatical impiety, maketh me fear that Christianity is upon the point of departure from our dear Country, as it hath done formerly from most places both in Asia, and Africa, and also from some parts of our Europe, where it once flourished as high as ever it did here: I see false prophets multiply with great applause, and that the greatest number of the true, godly and learned Prophets are disgraced, discountenanced, silenced, and left speechless; and in their places, God knows, (for which this Kingdom generally groaneth) a new Succession is sprung up, like Darkness succeeding light; Which by an Ancient and Wise Statesman was observed to be a forerunner and symptom of a Lands destruction, Naevius apud Cicer. de Senect. Cedo quî vestram Rempub. tantam amisistis tam cito? Proveniebant Oratores Novi, Stulti, Adolescentuli. For the like pressures which we now suffer extorted such a sad expression from the holy and learned Bishop Gregory Nazianzen, when by reason of the insolences of the domineering Sectaries, he was fain to resign his Church of Constantinople, saying in a public Oration, Naz. Orat. 46. ad Nect. Deus Ecclesias, & vitam hanc deseruisse videtur. He feared, that God had withdrawn his providence from that Church and State. Indeed God did in aftertime remove the golden Candlestick from thence, when he suffered the Turks to possess that City. God in mercy withhold the like Judgement from this Land, both in our days, and for ever after us. But yet when for the present we see so many most impious blasphemies not only printed, and published, but also in show licenced and connived at, and that in so many Congregations unlearned intruders are crept in, and take upon them to teach others, what themselves never learned, it seems to me a visible representation of our Saviour's words, foreshowing a fall: For if Matth. 15. 14. the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch: at least it seemeth to be like that which we have often seen, a poor blind man led by a dog. Certainly these things must needs make godly Parents very anxious, how their posterity can be instructed in the succeeding generation. I have heard a most learned and prudent Gentleman in these Times profess, That (for the reason before alleged) he would be careful to provide some printed Books of the true old Clergy of England, that in them the necessary doctrines of Christianity might be had, when such will not be found in the new verbal time-serving, and men-pleasing Sermon-makers. This I confess hath been a great motive to me for the penning and publishing this Book, that so I may in some measure lay up both an antidote, and also a store for the good of the souls of mine own family, and of others also. Which consideration, my Lord, I am firmly persuaded is deeply printed in your honourable and pious heart, as being tenderly affected to your own noble offspring, the surviving Jewels of your most virtuous and dear Lady, already with God. Which care is imposed upon Parents, by the intimation of God himself to Abraham the great Patriarch of the faithful, Gen. 18. 19 For I know him, that he will command his children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord. This, that your posterity may perform, the Lord grant▪ It shall be the hearty prayer of Yours Honours most humble Servant, Edm. Porter. Norw. March 21. 1647. AN ADVERTISEMENT to the READER. BE pleased, good Christian Reader, in order to the perusal of this Book, to pre-understand a few things. 1. That the Commentary on the Hebrews, so often mentioned, was long since written in the Latin Tongue by a foreigner, either Johannes Crellius, or some other Socinian (as I am informed from a noble and Mr. Ed●. Cock. learned Gentleman residing in Norwich, in whose hands that Latin Commentary is now extant). And this English Commentary is but a 〈◊〉 of that Latin one; And tha● the Translator is a Doctor of Divinity, as lately hath been discovered. How the ●aid Doctor will quit himself from the crime of Plagiarism, in concealing the right Author's name, ipse viderit. 2. That because this Doctor contemptuously slighteth the Ni●●●● Fathers, and yet allegeth Eusebius to his own design, but very injuriously; I have bestowed some leave▪ in the vindication of that Learned Father, perhaps more than otherwise would have been needful: yet I have not used the Authority of any of them that were members of that most Religious Council, except only the same Eusebius. Indeed AthanasiUs is often mentioned by me, but he was no member there; for although he were present as a Disputant among many others in the outward porch, yet being then but in the Degree of a Deacon, he had no voice, or right of Suffrage in that Council. But if this Doctor under the notion of the Nicenei Fathers intendeth a contempt of all those Primitive Doctors, and others, that since have adhered to the Decrees of that Council; he must thereby the then whole Catholic World: and we with more modesty, and less liberty profess, we do not believe him, nor his fellows. 3. That I have bestowed the more time in the Question of the visibility of God, because this Doctor doth very profanely slight that great mysterious apparition of God to Abraham in the shape of three men; which I conceive Gen. 18. to have been purposely acted as an holy Scene, to teach man, That in aftertimes God would be really incarnate, and corporally, and hospitably converse with Abraham in his posterity; which was performed, when the Person of the Son of God became Emmanüel; and is also spiritually intimated in the Gospel, Joh. 14. 23. Rev. 3. 20. & 1 Joh. 4. 13. And also, to give a timely intimation of a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead. For, as to the Eternal Covenant of Grace before the Creation, Three Persons were necessarily required, (as is showed in the Preface of this Book) so now, because the same Covenant was renewed with Abraham when he was, newly circumcised; it pleased the Divine Wisdom to exhibit a glimpse of the same Blessed Trinity. As also again in the Gospel, when our blessed Saviour was Incarnate, and then Circumcised, and Baptised, (which Sacraments were a new Sealing of the same Covenant) there was a manifestation of the Three Persons, Matth. 3. the Father by a voice, the Spirit as a Dove, and the Son in the flesh. I do not remember any other so evident Overtures and Apparitions of the Trinity as these. 4. That I have so largely endeavoured the Exposition of those hard places, Heb. 6. 4. and Heb. 10. 26. because the Commenter hath passed them over very slightly; although the difficulties therein might well busy a Doctoral pen and brain: But I conceive, he knew, that a true, and sound Exposition, would spoil his design, of picking Socianisme out of this Divine Epistle to the Hebrews. 5. That the Reader is not to expect Answers to Arguments against the Divinity of Christ, because the Doctor useth none at all, but only his own magisterial affirmation without proof; and if he had proceeded by way of Argument, he could not have used stronger, than had been before published in print by the said Joh. Crellius: which are also as strongly answered by that Learned man, Johannes Henr. Bisterfeldius. 6. That, whereas in my first Book, and tenth Chapter, I have affirmed, The Article of Christ's Descent into hell, not to have been mentioned in any Creed generally received, till after the days of St. Austin; I am still of the same mind: Although I confess that this Article is mentioned in that large Symbol, which is rehearsed in the ninth Tome, in the book called Soliloquia, Chap. 32. And also in Aug. Soliloq. cap. 32. To. 9 De Temp. Ser. 115. To. 10. the 10. Tom, Serm. 115. De Tempore, and there asserted, as if it were cast into the Creed by St. Thomas the Apostle. My answer is, That those writings were not Austin's own, but Supposititious, and pinned on him by later Writers, as is well known and proved by Learned men; Because the same Father in his book De Fide, & Symbolo (which is undoubtedly Aug. De Fide & symb. To. 3. his own) disputeth quite through that Creed which was then called the Apostles Creed; and this, in the Presence of a grand Council of all Africa at Hippo, yet maketh no mention at all of Christ's Descent. And although it be true, that the Doctrine of Christ's descent into Hell, is by the same Father very often asserted as Catholic; notwithstanding (as I said) it was not in his time inserted into the Creed. 7. That, whereas in my fourth Book, and 10th. Chapter, I have said, That no old, or new Anabaptist did ever to my remembrance assert two Baptisms, except only Martion: Now, since the writing thereof (which was finished Anno 1647.) Two English Books came to my hands, one printed, 1646. affirmeth, that Baptism may be oft administered, as well as the Word may be oft preached to one and the same person. The other book printed 1638, very modestly, and under Correction affirmeth, That, Not Scripture, but the Practice and Tradition of the Ancient Church, is the Only ground whereby we are restrained from twice Baptising the same person. But I trust, that the godly Reader will be otherwise persuaded, when he hath perused the Exposition of Heb. 6. 4. which beginneth at the 4th. Chapter of my 4th. Book. 8. That my design in penning this Book, was both to discover the great and dangerous Heresies lurking in that Commentary; And also in my way, to open and set forth the very foundations of Christian Religion, and to give what satisfaction I could, to scrupulous men, in the Doctrines, and Disciplines of this Church. Which hath been my practice both in my private, and public Labours for many years; Especially in these our later Sceptic, and Zetetick days of New-light; wherein we have many Seekers, that will never find what they pretend to. Optatus thus writeth of the Optat. lib. 6. Donatists, Dum pro vestro arbitrio quaeritis puritatem, etc. That they sought for purity by scraping, breaking, and digging up Altars; he wisheth them, not to dig too deep, lest they dig to hell, and there find the Grand Patrons of Schism, Korah, Dathan, & Abiram. Numb. 16. 9 In the last place the Reader is desired to foreknow, That in this Book we affirm Jesus Christ to be the Supreme, or most high God; The Jehova, and the Only God: But with this Caution▪ That albeit we confidently affirm him to be the Only God, yet we say not, that Only Jesus Christ is God▪ for thereby we should impiously deny the gracious, and comfortable Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. We therefore acknowledge, that the Father, and the Holy Ghost▪ as well as Son, are also the most high▪ and Only God; so that not only the Father, nor only the Son, nor only the Holy Spirit, are the Supreme God; But that All, and every one of them, are but One, Only, most high God. I have no more to premise, but to pray, that God would give to the Reader the knowledge and love of his truth. And to the Author, or Translator of that Commentary, I tender the advice of St. Austin, Aug. De Anima & Orig. l. 3. c. 15. To. 7. Considera, quam sit horrendum, ut Omnes hae Haereses sint in uno homine, quae damnabiles sunt in singnlis singulae. The most profound Clerks may, and have erred; It is an honour, rather than disparagement, to revoke and recant heresies. St. Hierom writes thus to Ruffinus, Hier. count. Ruff. l. 1. c. 2. Non es tantae authoritatis & famae, ut te errasse pudeat. For, by revoking Errors, Truth will be advanced, and the God of truth glorified, and no need will be of hiding your name: you will be known by conformity to truth, unto those that know not your face; and also in the end, will be acknowledged by Christ himself; and not otherwise; as one saith, Plaut. in Rud. Act. 4. S●▪ 3. Si adhibebit Fidem, etsi ignotus est, notus est; Si non, notus ignotissimus est. THE PREFACE▪ WE are informed by a late Writer, Mr. Cheynel. that the S●ci●i●● party would have us to deny Christ to be God, for an accommodation, and compliance with Jews and Turks: that by such an insinuation, we may have opportunity to convert them. But we are better taught by the Apostle, Not to ●● evil, that good may come of it: and also by St. Austin, Aug. in Epist. ad Gal. to. 4. Qui homini de falso bono placere studes, de vero malo displices Deo: and if by this slight a Socinian should convert a Turk, or Jew to his own religion, the Turk or Jew would not be thereby a Christian, but the Socinian would more declare himself to be of the Turkish, or Jewish Religion: for whosoever shall profess Christianity, and yet un-God the Lord Jesus, his Religion shall profit him no more, than the Jewish infidelity doth them. The devout man St. Bernard was much troubled with the heresies of Petrus Abailardus, who I think was a principal Patriarch of the now Socinian tenants, and declared them more fully, than the more ancient heretics had done; this Abailardus would fain have persuaded men, that Plato the Heathen Philosopher was a Christian. But St. Bernard sets this mark upon Bern. Epist. 190. him, Abailardus dum multùm sudat quomodo Platonem faciat Christianum, se probat Ethnicum. If Jew's and Heathens will be contented to be instructed in Christianity, in the Name of God let us teach them the truth, without flattering them in their false tenants. It is observed by Paulus Orosius, That when the heathenish P. Oros. l. 7. c. 19 Goths petitioned Valens the Arian Emperor, to appoint them Christian Preachers to instruct them in Christianity, this Emperor sent Arian Priests who poisoned the poor Goths with their heresy; but it came to pass afterwards, by the just Judgement of God, that those Goths put the said Emperor to flight in battle, and pursued him so, that they burned him alive. Indeed, St. Paul writeth, that 1 Cor. 9 20. To the Jews he became as a Jew, and to the Gentiles as one without Law. But this was a compliance Compatiendo, non mentiendo, Aug. of Compassion only, without any transgression of the Moral Law of God: With the Jews he complied in Act. 16. 3. Gal. 5. 2. Circumcising Timothy, only as it was a national custom, but not as a Sacrament; for if so, himself declared, that Christ should profit them nothing; so he purified himself, he went to their Feasts, and ascended into their Temple, these were unsinful compliances. The like he did with the Gentiles, he conversed with them, and did eat with them, and cited their own Writers; but we find not that ever he sacrificed to their Idols. In our days a Lecture is set up for the Conversion of the Jews, (as is said) and for an harmless compliance with them, it is performed on the Jewish Sabbath (our Saturday); but we are weil persuaded, that none of the Lecturers will so far temporize with Jews, as to deny the Eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ; or teach, That the Messiah is not yet come, or blaspheme the ever blessed and holy Trinity, which is the Character by which Christians are discerned from Jews and Turks, who with us confess the Unity of the Godhead, but will not believe ae plurality of Persons therein. In which unchristian error the Socinian agreeth with the Jew▪ and this Antitrinitarian doctrine is the Cracovian Leaven, wherewith this new Commentary on the Hebrews is Leavened. The Reasons why the Church-Catholick hath constantly held fast the doctrine of the most holy Trinity, are weighty. First, For the evidence, and authority of holy Scripture, which would be too long to insist on here, it being clearly declared by very many Theological Writers. Secondly, To refute the Heathens cavil against the Unity of the Godhead; for they could not conceive, how there could be but one God from Eternity; and yet that this one God should not be solitary; which opinion must needs take place, except we acknowledge this mysterious doctrine of a Personal plurality in the substantial Unity of God; therefore to avoid this sadness of solitude, they fancied a plurality of Gods; for as God said, It is not good that man should be alone, so man on his own behalf may truly affirm, (as Bishop Goodman hath observed) It is not good that God should be alone, as will appear in the reason following. Thirdly, Because this doctrine of the Trinity is the main and prime foundation of man's Redemption, Justification, and Salvation by the Son of God, which we believe, and hope, and expect, by virtue of that most gracious Covenant made between God the Father, and God the Son; and secretly transacted between them before the Creation. Which Covenant is called, Ephes. 3. 11. The eternal purpose of God; and Heb. 13. 20. 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 enjoin; another, to restipulate; and (which is requisite in all Covenants) a third Person distinct from the Contractors, as a stander-by, and Witness 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 witness between the Father, and the Son: for oftentimes in Scripture we read of the Spirit bearing witness. For though the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all said to bear witness for our assurance; as, Joh. 8. 18. I am one that bear witness of myself, and my Father that sent me: and, 1 Joh. 5. 7. There are three that bear witness in heaven: and, Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witness with our Spirit: But before the Creation, who could be a witness between the Father, and the Son, save only 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 Lawgiver must be considered as a Sovereign only; 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 selfsame person. Now supposing the Law made, and the penalty determined and set down; it cannot be denied, that the Supreme Lawgiver 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 mere grace without any satisfaction, forgive the offender; but if the said Lawgiver 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 die) 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 dreadful Passion and death. Touching the Passion of Christ in Satisfaction of God's 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 Defence. 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 die for his own sin: he that eateth sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. Eze. 18. 4. The soul that sinneth it shall die. Gal. 6. 5. Every man shall bear his own burden. 1 Pet. 1. 17. God judgeth according to every man's 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 satisfy the Adversary, neither doth it (I confess) satisfy me; for God doth not so. Therefore for the better satisfaction of myself 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 aught 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 only 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 Catholic, 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 bore 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 Union and conjunction with his members: which Union is of such weighty concernment, that without it, it is impossible to salve, or unfold the mysterious riddles of God's operations, and words in the business 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 joined to the Lord is one spirit. 1 Cor. 12. 2. By one Spirit ye are all baptised 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 Emmanuel, as being one with us. Let us next see what the Ancient Doctors conceived of this Union: to avoid prolixity, I will instance only in St. Austin, who saith, Aug. in Psal. 17. Christus & Ecclesia est totum Christi caput & corpus. And upon those words, My God, my God; why hast thou forsaken me? and, I cry in the day time, and thou hearest not: and, Let this Cup pass from me: and, Not my will, but thy will be done, he saith, In Psal. 21. Christus dicit de te, de me, de illo; corpus suum gerebat, scilicet Ecclesiam, membrorum vox erat, non timebat mori, sed pro his dixit qui mortem timent. And again he saith, in Ps. 26. Omnes, in illo, Christi, & Christus sumus, totus Christus caput & corpus. And upon those words, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? he saith, in Ps. 30. Sic v●cem pedis suscipit lingua, clamat calcas me, in membris Christi, Christus est, Christus est multa membra, unum corpus. And, in Ps. 100 Christum induti, Christus sumus cum capite nostro, cum Christo capite unus homo sumus. And, in Ps. 103. Omnes nos in Christo credentes, unus homo sumue. And, in Ps. 127. Multi Christiani, unus Christus, unus homo Christus caput & corpus. And, in Ps. 119. Omnes Sancti sunt unus homo in Christo. The sum of all is; That Christ and his Members are united so, that they are one body, and as one person; for as the head and inferior parts in one man, are but one body, so Christ and his members are but one Christ; which the same Father calleth, in Ps. 36. Ser. 2. & Ps. 37. Christum plenum. And, Corpus Christi diffusnm. Neither is the Church of England silent in this great mystery of our union with Christ: for, to show that the grand reason, and the intent and purpose for which Christ ordained the holy Supper, was especially to set forth this Union of himself and members to be such as our food is to, and with our bodies, bread and wine unite themselves to us, they grow into one body with us. So she saith to faithful Communicants, The Exhortat. at the Commun. That we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us: We be one with Christ, and Christ with us. And this also was the reason of instituting Baptism; as St. Paul expresseth it to be baptised, Rom. 6. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into Christ: and 1 Cor. 12. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into one body; Baptism is the mysterious sign of our entrance into Christ: But the Eucharist is the mystery of Christ's entering into us: for so St. John maketh the like distinction. 1 Joh. 4. 13. Hereby we know that we dwell in him, and he in us: and after him St. Austin, Aug. in Joh. Tract. 48. Si benè cogitemus, Deus in nobis est: Si benè vivamus, nos in Deo sumus: and indeed this union is principally meant in the Article of the Communion of Saints, which in our Creed we profess to believe. This Union in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) Communion; The great Sacrament thereof is therefore called by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Communion of the body and blood of Christ: and because our union with Christ doth unite us with the whole Trinity, the Apostle tells us, 1 Joh. 1. 3. 1 Cor. 1. 9 Our fellowship (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ; and this is also called, 2 Cor. 13. 13. Philip. 2. 1. The fellowship of the Holy Ghost, the fellowship of the Spirit. But there is a great difference between our common, or general union with the whole Trinity, and our special and particular union with Christ alone: for with all the three Persons, we are united only by the Spirit, because to us is given the Holy Ghost, which is the Spirit of the Father, and the Son. But with the Son we are joined, and united in a threefold bond; 1. Spiritu. 2. Carne. 3. Vadimonio. Not only by his Spirit in us, but also in Nature: for he assumed flesh with us from the selfsame lump of the first man: and moreover he is joined to us in the strong bond of Vadimonie, or Suretyship in that everlasting Covenant of Grace before mentioned. Concerning the manner of our union with Christ, one scruple is to be removed; for if we say that we are really and substantially one body with him, this doctrine may seem to affirm a personal or hypostatical union of us men with God, such as is the union of the Godhead, and manhood in Christ, so we should make our body the body of God, as Christ's natural body is; and so we make ourselves God, as Christ is God: but this must be confessed to be intolerable blasphemy. Our answer is, That though Christ and his Church are indeed one body, yet they are not one body natural, and consubstantial, but a body mystically Political, as a Corporation, a Society, a Fraternity; not Corpus continuum, but Collectivum, or aggregativum: thus thousands of Soldiers are One Army; many grains of corn are but One heap; Unae quinque Minae. Plaut, in Pseud. many pieces of money are One sum: many letters and lines in one Epistle, we call Vnas literas. Tully calls one suit of apparel consisting of many parcels, Cic. Orat. pro L. Flacco. una vestimenta: and we read, Plaut. in Trinum. Vnos sex dies in Plautus. Just so St. Austin expresseth this mystery of Christ's body upon those words, Psal. 11. 1. Salvum me fac Domine. Aug. de Unitate Eccles. Cap. 13. To. 7. Sic est unus homo qui ait salvum me fac ut ex multis constet: for though Christ and his members are many Ones, and many Severals, which are not united by any internal or natural form; yet because they all have one and the same Spirit of Christ in them, they are united, and made one body, or mystical corporation, by that one Spirit of Christ, of which it is said, 1 Cor. 12. 13. By one Spirit ye are all baptised into one body: and of these many severals it is said, Ro. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ. So a body Politic consisting of a multitude of individuals, is made one Corporation by the Charter of the Prince, and their own agreement: but if upon dissension they be tumultuously gathered, we rather call them a tumult, than a Corporation. Aug. De verb. Domini Ser. 26. Da unum & populus est, tolle unum & turba est. Touching the last clause of this first Proposition, That the same that offended, the same is punished; whereby our sins seem to be charged upon Christ, as if Christ himself had committed sin, in whom we are assured no sin was, either original, or actual, as is fully declared in my third Book, Chap. 11. Sect. 2. Yet that this is true, I am to show in the explication of the second Proposition; which is this, The sins of the Elect Members of Christ, are 2. Proposition. not to be accounted, onoly the sins of the Elect, but are justly charged on the score of Jesus Christ, being their Surety, and Redeemer. To charge Christ with sin, may seem very harsh, and some Divines in high reverence of his most holy and innocent Person, are afraid to affirm that Christ suffered for his own sins. But when the Spirit of God hath said, that 2 Cor. 5. 21. He was made sin, who knew no sin; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manifest that both these say are true. First, 1 Joh. 3. 5. In Christ is no sin. Secondly, Christ was made sin. Bishop Andrew's who knew what he wrote, and said, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doubted not to affirm, that Bish. And. de ●at. Serm. 9 The 〈◊〉 was with us, not only in nature as 〈…〉 in sin also, factus peccatum pro nobis. And this, not only he, but others also, both ancient and later Doctors have assered; for (besides what I shown out of St. Bernard before), Gregory Nazianzen saith, Naz. Orat. 36. Quamdiù ego inobediens sum, Christus per me inobediens est: after him St. Austin saith, Aug. in Psal. 37. Christus peccaeta nostra, sua vocat, propter corpus ●●um: and Luther also perceived the great consequences of this union, when he said, Lutheri Epist. Tu Domine Jesu es justitia mea, Ego sum peccatum tuum: for if but one member of the body commit an offence, the whole man is chargeable with it. This truth is of great concernment to be known; for if Christ cannot be truly charged with sin, how can we possibly justify the proceed of the Godhead, when it is said, Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just; both are abominable to the Lord? So then, Christ must be charged with sin, and man must be discharged of sin, or else neither Christ can justly suffer punishment, nor can man with Justice be saved. The neglect, or ignorance of this weighty truth, occasioned the Socinian party to exclaim against us, as if we charged God with tyranny, in laying the punishment due to us offenders, upon our innocent Saviour; which also drew from Brentius a Lutheran this blasphemy, Deus Brent. Exeges. in Joh. 19 Pater, in cruse Tyrannum egit, erga Filium; and in the margin this note is set, Deus aliquando Tyrannus; an assertion false and blasphemous. The difficulty of this doctrine consisteth in two Points: 1. How Christ can be justly charged with sin, in whom all Christians confess, there was no sin. 2. How man can justly be acquitted of sin, who (without doubt) never lived one minute without sin. The truth of both, the Christian Reader may thus apprehend. In Christ there is a double capacity, or twofold consideration. First, as he is in himself, a natural body, a private man, or particular person, without any relation to us; and so no actions of his concern us, or ours him. Secondly, as he is a part of a corporation Political, or body mystical before mentioned; (for the head is but a part of the body) in this consideration, his, and our actions concern us jointly: for if the hand be wounded, the head will say, You hurt me: so we read, 1 Cor. 12. 26. If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; if one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it; now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. If one member of a Corporation do an injury in the name of the whole, the whole or any one of them shall be liable to answer for it. If a corporation be indebted, any one member paying the debt, satisfieth for the whole, and for every particular member. Posthumius a Roman Consul, professing himself to be a Citizen of the Samnites, and intending to pick a quarrel with that Commonwealth, openly in the assembly of the Samnites, kicked the Roman Herald, and said, Livi. Decad. 1. lib. 9 I being a member of the Commonwealth of the Samnites, have done public injury to the Roman fecial, therefore the Romans may justly make war upon the Samnites. Just so particular members of this mystical body have done injuries to God, and are become debtors, so that the whole body is subject to penalty, but the whole debt and injury is laid upon, and discharged by one, even Christ the Head, in the name and behoof of the whole body. These things being premised, let us next consider what extent and operation this Union, Conjunction, or Communion of Christ and his Members hath, and what effects it produceth. Which may appear by the Communion of the Primitive Christians, twice mentioned in the Acts, where it is said, Act. 2. 44. and 4. 32. They that believed had all things common. And they were of one heart, and one soul, neither said any of them, that aught was his own, but they had all things common. So this Union, or Communion of Christ and his Members doth produce that which Divines call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) a mutual communication of properties, which worketh and extendeth itself so far, that the perfections and excellencies which are originally proper and peculiar to the individual Person of Jesus Christ, are communicated, and truly affirmed of holy men: So likewise the infirmities, yea, and the sins also, of such men who are members of Christ, are communicated to, and affirmed of, and imputed, and ascribed to Christ, as may be perceived by these instances following. First, That Christ's proper perfections are communicated to sinful man. The Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 1. 30. Christ is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification: which is as much as to say, the wisdom, the righteousness, and sanctity: which originally is only in Christ, and not in us; yet it becomes our wisdom, righteousness, and holiness, because we are One with him. The same Apostle tells us again, that 2 Cor. 5. 21. We are made the righteousness of God in him. So that man is righteous, only because Christ is so, with whom man is united in one body. Thus every true member of Christ is called 1 Pet. 2. 9 Rev. 1. 6. a King and a Priest; this is only because Christ is both; and because his members are one with him, therefore they are so denominated by his perfections. Upon this ground it is that St. Hierome calleth Baptism, Hier. add Damas' Epist. 58. cont. Luciferian. Sacerdotium Laicum, (i) a Layman's Priesthood, because baptism is the Sacrament of our entrance and engrafting into Christ, and so of our union with him, which union doth work a communication of his regality and Priesthood to us. So Origen saith, Orig. in Levit. cap. 16. hom. 9 Sacerdotium tibi, & toti populo credentium datum est: and so Austin Aug. de Civit. l. 20. c. 10. also, Omnes Christiani sunt sacerdotes, quia membra unius Sacerdotis. Secondly, That our actions and passions, our infirmities, yea, and our sins also are communicated to Christ, and called his; may appear by these passages: Christ saith, Matth. 25. I was hungry, I was naked, I was in prison. Act. 9 4. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? when these things were not meant of his own proper and individual person, but only of his servants and members, which he calleth himself; for so he saith, Verily in as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me. So the Apostle saith, that 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us; when in the same breath it is also affirmed, that he knew no sin. Both are most true, because our sins are his sins, by reason of this union, as the debt of the principal, is also the debt of the Surety. So Christ is said to be Rev. 13. 8. slain from the beginning of the world, even before he was incarnate, because of Abel who was both his member, and type. Lyranus upon that place saith, Lyra. in loc. Christus fuit in Abel occisus, & in prophetis exhonoratus: for all the holy Patriarches and Prophets who died before the birth of Christ, are his members, as well as others who now live, or shall hereafter live until the end of the world; even as we read of that birth, Gen. 38. 28. where the hand came out of the Womb before the other parts; yet it was a member united to the body as well as the other parts. Upon that speech of Christ, Matth. 23. How often would I have gathered thee as an hen, & c? Orig. in loc. Origen saith, Christ in Moses and the Prophets would have gathered them in every age before. Upon that passage in Psal. 61. 2. From the Aug. in Psal. 60. ends of the earth will I cry unto thee, Austin asketh this question, What one man cryeth from the ends of the Earth? And answereth, That it is meant of Christ, for his Members or Church is that one man. And upon that saying of the Psalmist, Psal. 86. 3. I cry unto thee daily, or all the day long; that is, all the time of the world continuance. If question be made, how this can be true of any one man? Austin Aug. in Ps. 85. answereth, That it is meant of the body of Christ, which groaneth under pressures in all ages, this one man is extended unto the end of the world; in his Members preceding, and succeeding. Thus he. Finally, upon these grounds, If it be demanded how any man can be saved, seeing man daily transgresseth the Law? Our answer is, That every true member of Christ doth perfectly perform the Law, in that Christ hath done it, who is one with his members. So if we inquire how Christ could with Justice suffer death, who never sinned? The answer is, That his suffering was just, because the sins of his Members, or body, are his sins, in that himself and his Members are One; for it is as easy to conceive our most innocent Saviour to be justly charged with our sins, as to conceive sinful man to be justly discharged of all sin, and to be truly called righteous, even the righteousness of God in him. Thus much I have thought fit to premise as an Introduction and a needful Preparative for the reading of these Books. All which I humbly submit to the Judgement of Superiors, and to the serious consideration of the Christian Reader. THE Principal Contents of the four Books following. In the first Book. THe Authors and spreaders of the Arian or Socinian heresy. Why the title Saint was of old withdrawn from Churches. That the most high God is the Author of the Gospel. That the souls of men and women never die. The article of Christ's descent into hell is expounded. The Original of Creeds, and what hath been added to the most ancient of them, and why. The meaning of the word Hades or hell. A full discourse of Ecstasies, Raptures, Inspirations, Revelations, and Enthusiasms. Of the apparitions of dead men. Of Angels good and bad, which conduct the souls of the dead to their receptacles, and mansions in the other world. A Summary of the blasphemies contained in the said Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the second Book. THat to deny and renounce the Godhead of Christ, is the sin against the holy Ghost. The sin against the holy Ghost is fully described. The eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ is fully proved. The deniers of Christ's Godhead are of no better religion, than Jew's, Turks, or Antichrist. Of the Deification of Jesus Christ, and how it is to be understood. The manner how Christ doth intercede and mediate for us in Heaven. The Subjection, and Minoration of Christ, and the delivering up of his Kingdom at the end of the world, expounded out of 1 Cor. 15. A plain discovery of Original sin. On what Object the Christian is to fix his mind in prayer. How the most high God became a Priest. Why the Church of England required adoration when the Lord Jesus is named. That Christ is Jehova; and what that word signifieth. In the Third Book. THat the most high God was incarnate. How and when the most high God appeared visibly to the Patriarches, and the mystery thereof unfolded. The meaning of the face and backparts of God. The everlasting Covenant of Grace, made before the Creation, and after; is plainly set forth. How the Son of God was necessitated to be incarnate, and to suffer death. That the Obedience of Christ is with perfect justice and equity imputed to his mystical Body the Church, for the salvation thereof. The Original of the Soul of Christ, and of other men's souls is disputed. The Omnipresence of the Spirit of God, and the diversities of the graces thereof. The curing of the King's Evil by the Kings of England, and the scriptural warrant for the same. In the Fourth Book. IN what cases the sin against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable, or pardonable, is fully showed. The dangerous sin of Anabaptism is showed by evidence of Scripture, with the History of the ancient Anabaptists. The reasons why the ancient Christians did defer Baptism till ripe years, or old age, shown to be carnal. The reason why St. Paul commanded those to be baptised, who had been baptised before with St. John Baptists baptism, Acts 19 A plain description, what true repentance is. The meaning of Sins unto death, and sins not unto death, 1 John 5. 16. The meaning of sins Mortal and Venial, so oft mentioned in the Fathers. In what cases sinners must be prayed for, and in what not; shown out of 1 John 5. 16. OBSERVATIONS UPON THE COMMENTARY ON The Epistle to the HEBREWS, published under the Capital Letters G. M. Anno Dom. 1646. CHAP. I. The Original and growth of the Arian Heresy. THe blasphemous heresy of denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ began early, and after 〈◊〉 was first broached by one a Euseb hist. l. ●. ●. 28. 〈◊〉 c. 20. 〈◊〉, as Eusebius and Ni●eph. have written; and after him, 〈◊〉 seconded by his dis●●ple ●●●odotus, who was an 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉, (afterwards called 〈◊〉) about the year of our Lord, 197. S●v●●us being Emperor, and 〈◊〉 Bishop of Rome. This Theod●●us was a Currier, b 〈◊〉. or Tanne● by Trade, and in time of Persecution, for fear of death had denied Christ, and for very shame, left his own City, and went to Rome, and there being upbraided for his denial, answered, c Epiphan. haer. 54. Hominem negavi non D●um, i. e. that he den●●d him that was only a man, and not God; as Epiphanius w●it●th: and afterwards he gathered a great Sect joining in this doctrine, that Christ was a m●e● m●n. These associates made an agreement to set up a Bishop to be the Prelate, and head of the faction, and so laying their moneys together, they hired one Natalis a Priest, to take that office upon him, and indented to give him monthly 150 d●na●i● for a sala●y: upon th●se terms Natalis set upon the work stoutly, and became the Prelate of that doctrine: then God warned him in visions, and that divers times, to forbear, not withstanding for Covetousness he slighted the vi●ons, and still continued in his wicked course; at length God having compassion on him, who formerly had b●en a Confessor, and suffered much for Christ in time of Persecution) God sent him a more sharp and terrible warning, for he was most grievously scourged by Angels all night l●ng, so that in the morning he arose, and having besprinkled his body with ashes, he went to Z●ph●rinus the then Bishop of that place, and fell down flat before him, confessing, and bewailing his crime, and showing the * Not of the Angel's str●pes, but of the persecutors. p●int of the stripes in his body, so at length the Church readmitted him into their Communion, and so the heresy ceased for a time. Afterward, about the Year of our Lord, 269. the same heresy was again revived by one Paulus, who was Bishop of A●tio●●, but because he was born at a place called Samosata therefore he is commonly called Paulus Samos●tenus: but now the heresy lasted not long, for a Council was gathered against this Paulus wherein he was sentenced to be deprived of his Bishopric, and he refusing to to obey the sentence, Au●e●ia the Emperor (though an 〈…〉) at ther● quest of he Council by f●rce expelled h●m, both from his Church and house thereunto belonging and so this heresy was again for a time consopired. Afterwards in the days of the Emperor Constantine the Gre●t and about the Year of our Lord, 317. the same heresy was awaked again by one Arius an African, and a Priest of the Church of Alexandria, and now it spread and grew so vehemently, that St. Hierome long after complained that the whole world was turned Arian; for Arianism so troubled the Church for some hundreds of years, and caused so much persecution, and bloodshed, that d Athanal. ad solit. vitam agentes. n. 9 Athanasius called that heresy one of the daughters of the bloodsucking horseleech, and e Basil Epist. 71. n. 38. St. hasil called it Bellum d●●bo icum, i. e. a was raised by the Devil against the Church: for it filled all places with vexations, and deprived many of their estates, and bereft the Church of most of her worthy and learned Pastors, and prevailed so much, that the most eminent Cities of the World were infested with it; as in the East Constantinople; in afric, Alexanaria; in Europe, Milan, and Rom● itself, insomuch that even Liberius the Bishop of Rome in the days of the Emperor Constantius, was expelled from his Bishopric, because he refused to subscribe to an Arian Creed, as f Socr. l. 2. c. 29. Socrates testifieth; yea, our own Country Britain was amongst the rest in the same Emperor's days troubled with this heresy, as our own Histories report. Nor hath it been free since the first Reformation; for if we may believe Mr. Fox▪ some that were imprisoned in Q. Mary's days for Religion, yet there g Act. & Mon. n. 93. denied the Godhead of Christ. In Q. Elizabe h's time, two men were burnt in this City of Norwich one whose name was Hemant, in the Year, 1579. he was burnt for saying that Christ was a me●r man: and the other whose name was F. K●tt, was burnt in the Year, 1588. for saying, that Christ was not God, and this some alive do remember, and our Vulgar Chronicles record. Also in the Reign of King James one Lega●● was burnt in Smithfield for the same heresy; and to the unspeakable sorrow of all well-willers to our Church and Country even at this day, two Ministers (I think) of this Kingdom, (whereof one is of this Diocese of Norwich) have publicly in books printed, impugned two persons of the most sacred and glorious Trinity, * John Bi●dle. one blaspheming the Holy Ghost, and the other the Son of God, severally denying them both to be God, the one publicly declaring his own name in Print, h Juvena. Sat. ●. Et magis ingenuè Peribomius— But the other more subtly concealing his own name, and procuring only G. M. being the Capital Letters of another man's name to be subscribed to the Preface. It is well enough known who this G. M. is, and that he is a man of good credit, and was ever accounted honest, and religious, a Citizen and Merchant, prudent in his way; but yet no man that knows him will believe that he is the author either of the Commentary, or of the Preface, being no way bred to meddle in such high controversies of Religion, nor was ever known to be a favourer of any heretical Sect in former times, and his friends are yet in good hope, that (although the Writer hath inveigled him to set out this blasphemous book) yet that he was not Conscious of the secret poison contained in it: for so did i Hil. Cont. Arian. n. 7. St. Hilary most charitably judge in the like case of the L●●●ks who were of the A●ian Congregations. Arian●s populus rectè credit de Filio, quia haec non audivit ab Arianis, santiiores sunt aures pl●bis, quam cor sace do●is; i. e. The A●ian people believed rightly in the Son of God, for they did not hear of the heresy of the Arian Priests, so that the cares of the people were more religious than the heart of their Priest: and yet he may rightly say of you the nameless Author, as St. Basil said of the Arian Priests. k Basil. de Spir. c. 7. n. 26. Blessed are the cares which never heard you, yea, blessed is his heart if he never believed you; and I doubt not but when by God's mercy he shall discover in what a damning doctrine you have engaged him, he will discharge you, as it is reported Cornelius Agrippa did, a familiar spirit which attended on him in the shape of a dog, saying before his death, Abi à me perdita bestia, quae me miserum perdi●isti; i. e. Avoid reprobate beak, who hast even destroyed me a miserable man. CHAP. II. Reasons why the Author of this Commentary concealeth his own name. BUt, Sir, why do you conceal your name? Is it your humility not to be known? take heed that Christ say not unto you, a Luk. 13. 25. I know you not: for you have not only, not confessed him before men, but you have moreover denied him, and that in his most high, and nearest concernment, even his Godhead: before our Saviour cast out a Devil, he asked his name, and had an answer, and his name began with b Marc. 5. 9 I. it were meet that your name should be known that it might appear of which kind you are, that means may be applied according to your quality to cast out this evil spirit. But if you meant seriously to conceal yourself, why did you cause your Book to be presented to so many of the prime Gentry of this Country? they all knew the author, for the opinion men had of your abilities, made them accept of, and to expect something in your book answerable thereunto; and it was needful they should know you, for the greater advancement of such a doctrine. But, c Mart. l. 10 ep. 3. Cur ego labor●m notus esse tam prauè? i. e. Why should you make yourself known so wickedly? except you hoped to have a new name of an old heresy, that Arians should change theit old appellation, and be called after your name; and there may be some colour for it, for although you have told us no new thing, but only a revival of many old heresies, yet you are the first that ever in our English Print published, and asserted them, so that if all the former Catalogues of the most dangerous heresies were lost, yet we may find more then enough in your Commentary: but there may be greater reasons why you so cautelously withhold your name. First, the danger of the Law de haretico Comburendo; for when a certain Gentlewoman, by a friend of yours, was told, that some men said you might be burnt for your book; she modestly replied thus; Sir, they that said so, may themselves be in danger of burning for being Witches (they foretell so shrewdly). I have heard that one of your opinion said (Tolle legem, & c?) if it were not for the danger Tolle legem sivis esse certamen. Ambr. Epist. 13. of the Law, he would dispute down all our Christian Religion; which by your Comment is done to his hand, as well as you could do it; insomuch that a Minister of this Diocese, whom I know to be very learned and ingenious, inquired for your book at the Stationers, using these words. Have you such a Doctor's Book against Christ? But why should you fear the Law? for your very good friends that know you very well do assure us, that you will never burn for any Religion, On earth; and for the other World, you have much lessened men's fears in telling us that after death our souls shall be insensible, until the resurrection; and more comfort yet, that although our souls shall at the last day be judged, yet (as is by your own very good friends reported) you have certified your people, that the torments of Hell shall last but the space of three days. Secondly, If your name were subscribed to your Comment, it would appear that the Author was a Chaplain in Ordinary at Court, and appointed by our most Religious Sovereign to preach to the Prince his Highness, and the other Royal Issue; if therefore you with your blasphemous doctrines were made known to his Majesty, who is so faithful and constant in his Christian Religion, with what detestation would he exufflate you, as an evil spirit, or as a pestilence, lest you should infect the souls of the Blood-Royal and the Court? St. Hierom said of one that spoke less against Christ, than you have written, b Hier. Ep. ad Pam. n. 20. Ego si patrem, si matrem, si germenum, adversus Christum me●●● avaissem ista dicentes, blasphemantia ora ●a●erassem; i. e. If I had heard mine own father, or mother, or my brother speaking these words against Christ, I would have torn they blasphemous mouths. It is well known by the Ecclesiastic History, c Sozo. l. 2. c. 26▪ Soc. 1. 19, 26. what mischief one single sneaking Arian Priest did in the Court-Royal of Constantine the Great, in recalling A●ius from banishment, and infecting the next Emperor Constan●ius with the Arian heresy, which from that small retriving, overspread the whole Roman World; he had been commended to Constantine by Constantia his own Sister on her deathbed, and he so insinuated himself into the Emperor, that on his deathbed he committed his last Will and Testament to the trust of this Arian Priest, who by his faithful carriage in delivering the said Will to the succeeding Emperor, obtained his favour also; then he opened his heresy, and therewith infected the bed-chamber-men, and the Eunuches, next the Empress, than the Emperor himself, and presently all families in the Imperial City fell to disputes and divisions about those questions as d Soc. l. 2. c. ●. ●● Socrates relateth. A third reason why you conceal your name is, because the quality of your doctrine is such as doth require a secret Seminary; it is not such as a Preacher may publish e Mat. 10. 27. 2. on the housetop, but as a false light, which shineth in the darkness, and is more fit for a dark lantern, or to be put under a bushel, or in a tub. — Pu●chra Laverna f Ho●. Epist. l. 1. c. 16. Da mihifallere, da justum, sanctumque videri Noct●m peccatis, & fraudibus objice nubem. Neither truth itself nor her Preachers are ashamed of their doctrine. g Tertul. count. Valent. n. 52. Nihil veritas ●rub●scit nisi so 〈◊〉 abscondi; i. e. Truth is not ashamed but when she is suppressed: he that in a Christian Commonwealth would sow true and established doctrine, may be h Aug. count. Faust. l. 18. c. 3. In terdianus Sator, as Austin's word is, (i) he may spread it in the daylight; but he that intends to sow tares must do it secretly; While men 〈…〉 enemy came and 〈…〉 Matth. 13. 25. Evil spirits they are which are called Nocturni lemures; (i.) n●ght-go●●i●: when the Jews had crucified the Son of man there was Mat. 27. 45. darkness over all the Land; and now when darkness is over all our Land by reason of dissensions in Religion, you crucify the Son of God afresh: i Heb. 6. 5. and indeed, haec est hora vestra & potestas tenebrarum: k Luk. 22. 53. for though your person be obscured, your doctrine is sprung up into print; even that doctrine which heretofore lurked in corners, as l Psal. 91. 6. a 〈…〉 that works in darkness, is now again become as St. Herome complained of it in his time, m Hier. Cont. Rust. l. 2. c. 4. 22. Arius est daemon●um meridianum, your Arianism is a noonday Devil, though Arius himself have put an honest man's name to his own detestable writings, Just as heretics in old time put the name of n Ev●g. l. 3. c. 31. Athanasius to the heresies of Apoll na rius. Well! if you will not be known, I say but as one in o Sen. count. lib. 1. cont. 2. Seneca said of a lewd person, Discede igno●us ●s● discede notus es n●mis; (i.) You are of no ●●te, and yet too notoribus. CHAP. III. Touching the Preface, licensing, and approbation of this Commentary. IN your Preface directed to the Christian Reader (it should rather be to your dear brethren the Turks, for it savoureth more of that, then of Christianity, as will be showed hereafter), you tell us that one reason which moved you to print this book is, [Because it hath received a singular approbation from a most learned and reverend Divine] the Divine here meant is Mr. John Downam, who licenced this book, who (as I have heard from a right worthy reverend, and honourable person) is indeed a right honest, grave, and learned man: now, one of the singular approbations which Mr. Downam gives of your book, is, that he calls it a Comment on the Hebrews; whereas you style it a Commentary: now the word Comment, or Commentum being equivocal, doth most usually signify a figment, an untruth, or fiction; and the old Logic rule is, Analogum per se positum, flat pro significato famosiori: therefore this learned man well knowing the falsities in your Commentary (as will be proved anon) did justly change the word, and called it a Comment. Or if it fell from him unawares, then there was a providence in it; for truth hath so fallen from many unwittingly, as St. Austin confesseth of himself, a Aug. Conf. l. 9 c. 4. that the Spirit of truth worketh both by men that perceive it, and by them that perceive it not. Just so doth Socrates observe in the Writings of Libanius the Sophist, who was a great admirer of Julian the Apostate: this 〈◊〉 (a most Learned man) intending to praise Julian, said of him, b Socr. l. 3. c. 19 O daemonum discipule, daemonum assessor, & c! O disciple of Demons, and Companion of Demons! Mirum est eum non vitasse verbum ambiguum; (i.) ●marv●l (saith Socrates) that Libanius would not avoid such an ambiguous word, which doth more usually signify Devils, then good Angels. In like manner the Manichees to avoid the reproach of the name Manes their sounder, which in the Greek tongue signified Madness, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, would needs have him called Manichaeus, to signify one that poured out Manna, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but yet they had neglected to double the N, so the name Manichaeus still signified but c Aug. Cont. Faust. l. 19 c. 22. Insani-fusorem, (i) a venture of madness, as St. Austin hath observed: So this learned Divine might show you a cast of his learning, and call your book a Comment, and knowingly too; I say (knowingly) and I have good reason for it, because I am assured that Mr. Downam did find fault with many passages in your Comment, as unsound, and erroneous, and favouring of Socinianism, and gave advertisement thereof to you the nameless author, as may appear by Mr. Downam's Letter: which (for the vindication of his integrity) I have here inserted verbatim, as it was written to a most Learned and Reverend Person, the true Copy whereof, yourself have seen long ago. Mr. Downam's Letter concerning this Commentary on the Hebrews. RIght Reverend, and my much honoured Lord, I humbly and hearty thank you for your kind advertisement, and good counsel; for until I read your Lordship's Letter, I knew nothing of the Printing, or publishing of this Comment on the Hebrews, which makes me not a little to wonder, and somewhat to suspect ill dealing, in that I should be made (by them that have to deal in it) so great a stranger to it, seeing I Licenced it, and live in the Town near unto them. But that you may more fully understand the whole carriage of the business, thus it was: The Copy was brought unto me by a Bookseller from an unknown Author, and I was desired to peruse it, that if I approved of it, it might be Licenced, unto which I condescended, and in reading, I liked much of it, as being Learned, and well couched together with good dependence; but withal misliked many passages as very unsound, and savouring strongly of Arminianism, and Socinianism; yet having to deal with a Scholar, I desired to be ingenuous, and did not (as I might have done) blot out those erroneous lines, and leaves, but by means of a Gentleman who did mediate and act the business between us, I wrote a Letter, and by his means sent it to the unknown Author, wherein I expressed the several Points which I thought erroneous, and where●n I differed from him, together with my Reasons which induced me so to judge: and after some time I received his answer full of ingenuity, yet not subscribed with any name, wherein he neither defended, nor excused those Points and▪ passages against which I had taken exceptions, but was contented that I should take mine own liberty in expunging what I misliked; and having this power put into my hands by the Author himself, I did accordingly use it, and crossed many passages, and divers whole folio-pages, although I confess I passed over divers things which I misliked, leaving him to ●he liberty of his own judgement in points which I thought not fundamentally erroneous, nor much material, unless pressed by way of consequence. Now if the Author, or the Gentleman his Agent have annexed a Stet overaga●nst my obl●terations, and the places by me expunged, and yet notwithstanding have published the whole, with my attestation, I must profess that they have dealt ill with me, and will do my best to repair my own right, and reputation: which that I may the better do, I will send for the book, that I may revize it, and so proceed as I shall see occasion: And thus have I truly given your Lordship an account of the whole carriage of this business, the which may be further cleared, and enlarged, if any fitting occasion shall be offered hereafter. In the mean while and ever I shall remain Your Lordships in all Christian service to be commanded, John Downam. May the first, 1646. This is all the singular approbation which Mr. Downame gave: but what Christian Magistrates, and the Church used to do with books which set forth such doctrines as you have done, the Ecclesiastical Histories tell us; d Soz. l. 1. c. 20. Soc. l. 1. c. 5. Constantine the Great commanded the books of Arius to be burnt, and threatened death to any one that should keep and conceal them. Yet Arius set forth but the same doctrine that you do. Just so were the books of the Manichees used at Rome in the time of Pope Leo the first about the year of our Lord, 447. e Prosp. in Cron. as Prosper writeth; yet the Manichees did not more deprave the Passion of Christ than you have done, and therefore your book cannot expect a better fate than its forerunners: for of all the great Volumes which former heretics writ, there is little or nothing at this day to be found, except such fragments as remain in the Fathers who confuted them, and a few Creeds, and Ep stola fundamenti in St. f Aug. Con●. Epist. fund. 10. 6. c. 5. Austin, and nothing else of Controversy considerable; and yet I must tell you, that the books of the Arians were written with far greater art and learning then your lose writings show; and I assure you, that many Judicious Divines have said, that they find nothing in your book fi● to be observed, but only the errors and heresies, and yet those are so poorly proved, that I may truly say of your book, as Austin did of the books of Faustus the Manichee, g Aug. Cont. Faust. lib. 16. c. 26. Faustus scribit— tanquam libellus ejus surdos auditores vel caecos lectores esset habiturus— O hominem dictorem, & alium non cogitantem contradictorem; (i.) Surely you imagined that your Readers and bearer, should be deaf or blind, and that none would contradict you, but all acquiesce in your opinion; yet your writings are so blasphemous, as if they had been written by him that was the Author of that Libel, which Mr. Fox calls h Acts & Mon. n. 40. Lucifer's Letter, and so insipid, as if they had been i Erasm. f. 359. Suibus Scripti, as Erasmus said of such kind of Writers in his time; I wish they had been dedicated to Vulcan, or strangled with a sponge in their birth; because I see that they are like the fry of Serpents and other Vermin, and are by you made only to do mischief until they be catcht, and then the height of their preferment will be as Martial merrily writes of his own Poems, k Mart. l. 3. ep. 2. — Libelle Festina tibi vindicem parare Ne nigram citò raptus in culinam, Cordyllas' madida ●egas papyro Vel thuris, piperisque sis Cucullas.— Make haste, and get a Patron, pretty book, Before the Black guard, or the Master-Cook Snatch thee as waste-paper for his Kitchen, To put Spice, Sprats, Frankincense, or Pitch in. But if they miss this, yet they will not fail of such an end as Arius himself came to; or of the fate of Volusius his Annals, in Catullus. Pleni ruris & inficetiarum Catul. car. 37. Mart. lib. 12. p. 62. annal Volusi, etc.— carm. 37. So I leave them for present to be put into the Black Bill at Cambridge, or the black Catalogue of the late Gangrana. CHAP. IU. The Commenters temporising in unsainting the Apostles, in condemning Tombs, and in short hair. THe next thing to be observed in you and your Comment, is your great Compliance with the tender Consciences of these Times; which they that formerly observed your very zealous conformity with the then garb, must needs judge that you intended this new change only as a bait to invite the brethren more cheerfully to swallow your deadly hook. First, you will not afford the title of Saint to the holy Apostles, but they are plain John, Peter, Paul, only James is beholding to you for Sainting him, (if not an erratum of the Printer) Is not this to show your conformity with the Plague-bill of London? and yet there is the title all-hallows, though not the word Saint; and there the word Saint is withdrawn but from places, and Churches, but you will not allow it to the persons of Apostles: the Bill had some colour for itself; for it was once ordered in a Council, a Concil. Constantinop. sub. Const. 5. An. Domini. 755. That Churches should not have the appellation of Saint, because of the great abuse in Image-worship, and because people did then give the title of Saint to those places, not because the Churches were so named in their dedications, but because the Images of Saints were set up in Churches, and the name of the Saint was painted on the Image: So that when men said, Let us go to St. Peter's, they meant it of the image, when perhaps the Church was not so named: but it was never ordered by any Christian Council, that the title Saint should be denied to the persons of the holy Apostles and Evangelists; you see the Scriptures give that ●itle to whole Companies of people professing Christ, b 1 Cor. 14. 33. who were much inferior to the high Office and sanctity of the Apostles; I think you would be offended with him that should not style you Doctor, and yet the Apostles have a better title to Saint, than you to your Doctorship. And because some are offended with Images of men lately set upon Tombs, as they have as just cause perhaps to find fault with them, as to be offended with the memories of Apostles and Martyrs in glass-windows (if all imagery in Churches be unlawful) you more zealously condemn all Tombs built for memory of men departed, though they deserved well of us, and therein you condemn the practice of holy men in Scripture in preserving the Sepul●h●● of David; even the accursed Jews did adorn the Tombs of the Prophets, whom Matth. 23. 29. their fathers slew, yea, and all Christian Churches in all ages did allow, and with great cost set up Tombs of holy men and Martyrs, and called them Memorias Martyrum, i. e. the Memories of Martyrs: the Sepulchre of Christ was much esteemed by Constantine the Great, and a fair Church built over it, as we read in Eusebius, and that for the memories of twelve Apostles, Euseb. de vit. Const. l. 3. & lib. 4. Hier. Epist. 53. c. 3. n. 17. Aug. de Civ. l. 22. c. 8. he built twelve several Tombs in one Church as Constantinople; and in St. Hieromes time the Tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul were of great esteem in Rome: In St. Austin's time, and in his Church at Hippo was the Tomb of St. Stephen set up, though far remote from the place of his stoning: and we find a Tomb set up or the blessed Virgin Mary in Judaea, as some in Di●nysius and St. Hierome tell us. Nonna the holy woman Vid. Dionys. vit. & Hier. to. 9 P. 39 and Mother of Greg. Nazianzen, devoted the whole estate which her son Caesarius left, to build a costly Monument for his memory, as her own son Nazian in his Funeral Oration, to her great praise reporteth, Naz. Orat. 10. and in the Canons of the Primitive Church recorded by St. Basil. The violaters of the Tombs of the dead, are Basil. ad Amphil. c. 64. n. 36. ordered to stand excommunicate the space of eleven years, even as long as adulterers were. This Commenter surely hath an higher conceit of his own wisdom then any other men have discovered to be in him, that presumeth to control the Practice of Christians in all ages, even to his own time. But because he thinks his soul shall die with his body, as souls of other Animals do, let him for my part provide such a burial for himself as they have of which we read, Jer. 22. 19 Also the hair of your head for the greater conformity is (as we hear) shorn most affectedly close, but the wickedness of your doctrine may well make men fear, that you have made a fishing-line of your cut hair, with a dangerous hook at the end of it. In Aug. de oper. Mon. n. 71. Viros fuge ●●tenatos quibus f●minei crines, hircorum barba, nigrum pallium— haec Omnia, argumenta sunt diaboli. Hier. Ep. ad Eustoch. c. 12. p. 53. Acts & Mon. n. 55. former times there was as great hypocrisy in long hair, as is now in short. St. Austin found fault with Monks in his time for wearing long hair in hypocrisy: So did St. Jerom●, and afterwards when in a Synod where St. Anselm sat Precedent; it was decreed that the hair of Clergymen should be rounded short, yet because of their hypocrisy and wickedness it grew to a proverb, Quàm primum Clericus suscipit rasuram▪ statim intrat in eum diabous, as Mr. Fox hath noted. Long hair in Samson and in Nazraites was honourable; it was Propheticum velamen, as Austin calls it: Instead of a Mosaical veil, to signify that there was some holy mystery covered in their typical persons; but yet when hypocrites masked themselves with it, then King * Josephus Ant. l. 19 Agrippa caused those Pharisaical Nazarites Aug. de Oper. Mon. n 71. to be shorn: and now also that we perceive that the very shortest hair is degenerated into hypocrisy, and that this Tonsa Sancti●as, as St. Austin's word is, doth not prove much more holiness than hair. I shall advise Aug. de Opere Monach. c. 31: ●. 71. the Reader with merry martials words, — Brevibus nec crede 〈◊〉. lib. 5. ep. 49. Neither is this intended to deride short hair, but to reprove th● hypocrisy of it when 'tis made an hair-net to catch men withal; which is no new observation, but was of old discerned in Heathens, as hypocrital, Atque supercitio brevi●r Coma— Juv. Sat. 2. & Cicero. Orat. pro Roscio Comaedo. and also suffered to continue written, and painted in those very Monasteries where short hair-hypocrisie was then mostly practised; witness those old rhyming Verses, Quod fueram non sum, frater, caput aspice ●ousum. & Poenas profundi, frauds cap●tisque rotundi. Et Judae suavium, det Deus ut caveam. Upon those words of our Saviour, Matth. 10. Th. Matth. 10. 30. Isych. in Levit. c. 13. very hairs of your bead are numbered, Isych●us writeth That, hairs signify our thoughts and imaginations, which are therefore said to be numbered, because by them we shall be judged. CHAP. V How the Commenter complieth with the Arians▪ of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; of the Nicene Fathers; and how the Father and the Son may be said to be opposites. NExt, your compliance and correspondence with the old Arian Heretics is to be observed; for first you will not acknowledge this Epistle to the Hebrews to be written by St. Paul, but it must be the Authors only, so that both the Author, and the Commenter must be alike unknown: just so d●d the Arians, Epiph. hae. 69. as Epiphanius observes; Aria●— Epistolam ad Hebr●os rejiciunt, 〈◊〉 ipsam P●uli non ●sse; i The Arians rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, and said that it was not St. Paul's; but you go further and tell us, that it appears, that Neither Paul, nor any Apostle was P. 20. the Author: and this, because you would make this most Divine Epistle seem invalid, as indeed you have great reason, because it doth so evidently declare against your heresy; your chief argument is drawn from the Postscript, because it is there said to be written by Timothy, but yet uncertain it is by whom the Postscript was written, as is confessed; and uncertain again whether it be meant that Timothy was St. Paul's amanuensis, or his Messenger, the words will bear both, neither is it any extraordinary or vain thing (as you would have it) to send Letters by one, of whom mention is made in those Letters, witness David's Letter sent by Vriah, 2 Sam. 11. 14. 2 Sam. 11. 14. yet such is your frivolous cavil. But to the Point; This Epistle is by Judicious Divines thought to be asserted for St. Paul's, by the testimony of Scripture, for St. Peter mentioneth his very name, 2 Pet. 3. 15. himself also then writing to the dispersed Jews, so as Beza thought, this very Epistle is there meant; and St. H●●rome (though he would not conclude for St. Paul) Hier. Epist. 129. n. 29. yet confesseth that this Epistle was received of the Eastern Churches, and generally acknowledged to be St. Paul's, which we find to be true; for in the Canons called the Apostles, which go with the works of Clemens, Clem. Can. Apost. n. 16. Cyril. cat. n. 8. Naz. Poem. 33 Chrys. to. 5. Ser. 61. Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 11. there are 14 Epistles of St. Paul mentioned, therefore this must be one.▪ Just so doth St. Cyril of Jerusalem reckon, and so also doth Greg. Naz●anz●n in his Poems; and so doth St. chrysostom: and Eusebius tell us, that St. Paul writ it in the Jewish Language, but that it was translated either by St. Luke, or by Clemens, for that it agreeth with the stile of the Acts of the Apostles written by St. Luke, and that the stile of Clemens agreeth with this Epistle. Who doubteth, but that * Hier. descript. in Petro. St. Peter was the Author of that Gospel which goes under the name of St. Mark? or that † Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 4. St. Paul was the Author of that Gospel which goes under the name of St. Luke? only St. Mark and St. Luke were the Scribes, that from the Apostles mouths set the Gospels down in writing; Tert. de Pudic. in. 25. Aug. de Civ. l. 16. c. 22. De doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 8. & Exposit. in Rom. P. 321. therefore it is no marvel that some Latins called this Epistle by another man's name; just as we call those Gospels by other names: and so Tertullian calleth this Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of Barnabas. But St. Austin doth constantly and often assert it to be St. Paul's, and so is it at this day in this Kingdom acknowledged by the best authority▪ by which the translation of the Bible was ratified; yet this self-conceiied Commenter will be wiser than all, like another Abailardus of whom St. Bernard writes that he would Bern. Epist. 190. say, Omnes sic, Ego non sic, ●ll say so, yet I say not so. Again, to show your conformity with the Arians, you reprove Eusebius his Multiple Error, for thinking Christ to be consubstantial with the Father, and you grant him only to be Assimilated to God, which is the same in English with the Arian word Homoiousion; i. e. of like substance; so you would have Christ to be only like unto God, which is no more than the Scripture affordeth to our first parents, who were made not only after the Image, but after the similitude of God, Gen. 1. 26. and because the Nicene Fathers asserted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against Arius, therefore you are unreasonably angry with them also, and in your passion you writ rashly; for you say, [The Nicene P. 331. Fathers are not to be thought to have h●ld, that the Son is that one most high God— who yet if they should appear in these times, they would be condemned of an universal Council.] Your impudence is great, in saying those Fathers did not hold so, and your passion is unreasonable, in saying they should now be condemned: for if they held not so, wherefore should an universal (Arian Council) condemn them? We know that their doctrine was indeed condemned by no less than * Bishop Jewel▪ f. 362. ten Councils of Arians, † Sex●●nti Episcopi Aria●i. consentiunt Ario. H●●▪ in Epist. Auxentii. n. 7. and it was therefore condemned because (as the principal business for which that renowned Council was called) they asserted the Son to be Homoousion, that is, to be of the same essence, substance, and Godhead with the Father: which most true, and wholesome doctrine, all Orthodox▪ Churches in the World have ever since, and to this day do maintain; and that Council is for this reason of most venerable estimation amongst all good Christians, as being the best that ever was since the Aposties' days; and Epiphanius accounteth that Council to be one of the greatest, and most memorable acts that the great Emperor Constantine did, Constantinus duo maxim● f●cit, Nicaenam Epiph. haer. 70. Synodum, & Conse●s●m de Pascha●e; i. e. The two greatest acts that ever Constantine d●d, were the calling of the Nicene Council, and procuring the universal agreement for the solemnity of Easter. If those Fathers had heard you denying the Godhead of Jesus, and his eternal generation; and vilifying him, by placing him under some Angels; they would have done before you as they did to Arius; for when he said in that Council, that God the Father was not always a Father, nor the Son a Son from eternity, and that he was preferred to be a God; or Deified (as the word is) those godly Fathers at the hearing of these words, did all stop their ears from hearing any more of his blasphemies, as Athanasius writeth; and yet Arius may yield Atha. count. Arian. Orat. 1. n. 4. the buckler to you. You tell us Christ (as he is the Son of God) is * pag. 80. & pag. 320. Opposed to God, and divers from God: This is a cast of your profound Logic; indeed the rule in Logic at which you quibble is, Oppositio relativa est, inter relatum, & correlatum; i. e. That there is an opposition between the Relative, and Correlative. Now in the Divine persons these terms, Father and Son, may be truly said to be opposed one to another in Recto. So that we may say, the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father; but we cannot say, the Father is not God, or the Son is not God, because the opposition lies between the two relative terms only, and not between the terms and the subject. For example: A man that hath a son is a father, but that father is not that son; this is true Logic. But you cannot say, that this father is not a man. If therefore by your new Logic you would prove that the Son of God is not God, because he is not God the Father, I will put this petition into my Litany, as St. Ambrose is reported to have done the like in his, when St. Austin (before his Conversion) troubled the Church of Milan with his Manichean disputes, A Cor. lan. in vita, Aug. l. 2. c. 1. Logica August●ni lib ra nos Domine, From the heretical Logic good Lord deliver us. CHAP. VI Shows, that the whole design of this Commenter is to confute or extenuate, and darken the authority and evidence of this Epistle to the Hebrews. I Observe again that you have very improperly and perversely nicknamed your book A Commentary; my reason is, because it is not an Exposition of that Text, nor so intended by you, but it is an Undoing of the Epistle, an interversion, and a confutation of it as much as you can: for you have endeavoured to extinguish this great light by which the eternal Godhead of Jesus is so evidently illustrated. You may as well blow out the light of the Sun; but though you blow till your lungs crack, that Sun, and this light will still shine. Tertullian saith, That the Epistle to the Thessalonians is of such clearness and evidence, as if Tert. de Resur. n. 30. it had been written rad●o ●o●is, with a Sunbeam: And this Divine Epistle doth so clearly demonstrate the Godhead of Jesus, as if St. Paul had writ it whilst he was in his rapture in the third heaven; or that it had been written immediately with the singer of God; and therefore all your wit and Learning is employed to darken and blur this our grand piece of evidence; there are many profound mysteries in this sacred Scripture, the which you are so far from explicating, that you have only laboured to make them more difficult, as Austin modestly feared in himself, Vereor ne exponendo Aug. Expos. in Levit. quaest. 174. Tul. de Nat. Deor. l. 3. do fiat obscurius; and such places as are plain and easy you have laboured to hid. Just as Tull● said of one, R●m minimè dub●am dispu●ando du●iam facis. Former heretics used to persuade their heresies by alleging Scriptures positively, but such Scriptures as did so clearly evince them that they could not gainsay, those they rejected; thus the Manichees slighted the whole Old a Aug. count. Faust. l. 2. c. 1. Testament, and the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luk, calling them b ●b. l. 4. c. 1. Genisidium, because of the Genealogies; and therefore Te tullian calls Martion c Tert. count. Marc. l. 1. n. 39 Murem Ponti●um, the M●use of Pontus, because he also razed out, or rejected such Scriptures as made against him: and the same Father giveth this character of two grand Heretics, d Tert. de prescript. n. 30. Martion ad materiam suam, caedem Scripturarum confecit: Valentinus materiam ad Scripturas excogitavit; i. e. That Martion pared and fitted the Scriptures to be suitable to his heresies: but Valentinus invented heresies that might seem to agree with the letter of Scriptures. But you have imitated both these, first in your endeavour to null the authority of this Epistle; and though you fail in that, yet in a second place you have laboured to conform, and new turkiss this same Epistle to your heresies, that so it may dance to your pipe; and because as the same Father saith, e Id. ib. Heresies cannot take place without a Scripture pretended, therefore your Arians laid on load of Scripture to support their errors, f Athan. Orat. 1. cont. Arian. n. 5. Ariana haeresis cum videret sorores suas haereses publicè prob●osas haberi, honesto cultu Scripturarum indui●ur; i. e. When the Arian heresy saw her sister-heresies to be odious, she de●ked herself with an honourable dress of Scriptures. Just as you would make this Epistle lisp, and stammer out Arianism, even in such places where it speaketh most plainly against it. For instance; where it is said, Heb. 1. 6. Let all the Angels of God worship him,] and this is taken out of Psal 97. 7. Worship him all ye gods] where the worship of Jesus is required from the highest ol all creatures, even Angels; or if any creature be higher than Angels, whatsoever it be, though it be called god, (as some creatures are, Psal. 82. 6.) yet that creature must adore this Son of God: and the adoration of him, is in other places of Scripture expressed to be the most humble, lowly, and perfectly entire adoration that can be imagined; for, Rev. 4. 10. & 5. 14. The Elders worship the Lamb (the Lamb must needs signify Christ) falling down before him. Just such a prostration as Abraham used when he worshipped God, falling on his face, Gen. 17. 3. even the same God who is now incarnate, and called the Lamb of God. Prostration was used when men would express an humbling of the whole man, because in that posture, every part is interested; now because this adoration of the Son of God is so evidently required in this place, this Commenter, rather than he will acknowledge him to be the most high God, will allow that adoration which is due only to the most high God, to be given to a creature: there is a pretty proverb in Tertullian, Aspis Tert. Cont. Marc. l. 3. à vipera v●nenum mutuatus est: i. e. The aspe borrowed poison from the viper; and the Socinian from the Aria●: for the Arian did bow the knee to Jesus, though he would not confess him to be God, and so this Commenter tells us, * P. 7. [That Divine reverence is commanded to be given to Christ by standing, bowing, and falling before him in the very same manner that is due to God himself,— because he sustains the person of God himself, and because in Christ God himself is worshipped.] Which is the same reason that is alleged by those that fall down before Images; for they tell us, that in them God himself is worshipped; though they will not say that those Images are God himself, no more than this Commenter will acknowledge Christ to be (as indeed he is) God himself. And though he confess that one of the Persons which appeared to † P. 33. Abraham, and whom Abraham worshipped, (which was the Person of the Son, as will hereafter be showed) is called Jehova; yet he will not confess this Jehova to be the Supreme God, notwithstanding that he readeth expressly in the Scripture, that Jehova is a proper and peculiar appellation due only to the most high God, and in no wise communicable to any creature, as we read, Psal. 83. 18. That men may know that thou whose Name alone is Jehova art the most high over all the earth. CHAP. VII. Showing how the Commenter mis-expoundeth other places which make against him. ANother plain evidence which this Juggler laboureth to elude and frustrate, is, Heb. 2. 2, 3. where the Apostle preferreth the Gospel above the Law, because the Law was given by God, not immediately, but mediately in the ministration of Angels. But the Gospel was spoken by God himself, and immediately by himself; therefore the Gospel is more excellent than the Law Now let us examine who it was that spoke this Great Salvation or Gospel? and who was it whom the Apostle heard speak it, but only J●sus Christ? therefore Jesus is here most evidently said to be the Lord, and the Gospel is declared to have been delivered more excellently than the Law, because the Gospel was delivered by God himself, that is, by Jesus Chr●st, and therefore is by St. Mark called The Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mar. 1. 1. But the Law was delivered by Angels, as we read, Act. 7. 53. (The Jews) receiv●d the Law by the disposition of Angels; and, Gal. 3. 19 The Law was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator. Angels are but the Messengers of Christ, and are much more inferior to Christ then a 2 Kings 4. 29. Elisha's servant, and staff were to their Master. The Mediator here meant, I take to be the same Son of God, and not Moses; so doth St. Hierome on Gal. 3. 19 In Angelo Mediator loquitur, (i) The Mediator spoke in the Angel. So that the meaning must be, That the Son of God before his Incarnation was the Lawgiver, by the ministry of Angels: And the same Son of God now Incarnate, was the Author of the Gospel, immediately in his own person, by himself, without ministering Angels; and so our Modern Expositors understand this place, b Expos. Eccles. in Gal. 3. 19 Lex est servorum vox, Evangelium, Domin●, i▪ e. God spoke the Law by the voice of his Angel; but J●sus the Lord God himself spoke the Gospel. This plain Exposition reconcileth any seeming discord between Moses and St. Paul; though Moses say, Exod. 2●. 1. God spoke all these words, and St. Paul calls it, Heb. 2. 2. The word spoken by Angels; for so St. Austin observeth on those passages in Scripture, where it is said, Thus saith the Lord, when yet it was an Angel or a Prophet Aug. count. Adimant. Man. c. 9 n. 8 to. 6. that spoke it Dixit Deus & apparuit— & dixit angelus & apparuit, illud ex persona inhabitantis Dei, hoc ex persona servientis creaturae; i. e. When an Angel or a Prophet said, Thus saith the Lord, both are true, because God sp●ke in the creature, and the creature spoke from God. And again he saith▪ Judaeus' sic audiat Angelum, Aug. De. 5. haeresibus, c. 4. to. 6. n. 6. ut intelligat Deum; i. e. the Jew must so hear the Angel, as considering that God spoke by him. Finally, rather than this Commenter will acknowledge Christ to be the prime Author of the Gospel, although it is called his Testament; and albeit Christ is called the Testator; Heb. 9 16. yet to shift off this evidence, he tells us, that Testator, * p. 182, 183, 184. signifies the witness of another's testament; so Christ is no more than a witness, or dying Martyr, to testify the truth of the Testament by his death. This is such a piece of Law-Criticisme that never any good Lawyer knew before; and such ill Latin, that any good and modest Scholar would be ashamed of. But c Amb. n. 37. de Virgin. & Tull. Epist. 69. Aug. Cont. Jul. l. 3. c. 13. Libri non erub▪ s●unt, your black Comment cannot blush. Yet St. Austin said of Julian, a Pelagian, for asserting an heresy less dangerous than yours, Puto ipsum libri tui atramentum, erubescendo convertitur in minium. CHAP. VIII. Sheweth against this Commenter, that men's souls die not with their bodies. I Must not omit your rare doctrine concerning the souls of dead men. You tell us, that [they are void of all sense of time intervening between the time of our p. 228. & 267. death, and resurrection; though Scriptures speak as if we should wholly live till Christ's coming, but 'tis because thousands of years seem but as one minute to one that sleepeth, or is dead so long— and None are entered into heaven, besides Christ, etc. I perceive you like not the opinion of those Anabaptists who taught the Psychopanychian, or sleeping of dead men's souls, neither are you arrived to the height of the Jewish S●dduces, or heathenish Epicures; for they denied a resurrection, which you confess; yet you have chose a fair middle way, and with them you believe that our souls die with our bodies; and your confessing of the resurrection, is but a reserve by which you reinforce your doctrine of the Souls mortality for when you perceived that the words of Christ against the Sadduces, made also against you, when he alleged Matth. 22. 32. Exod. 3. 6. those words, I am the God of Abraham, to prove that Abraham then lived, because Abraham's soul lived; (for those words were spoken long after Ab●aham was dead) to avoid this you tell us, that it proves only that Abraham must one day be recalled to life: so though Abraham's soul was then dead, and therefore Abraham was not living, yet God is the God of the living; (that is, of the living▪ dead▪ Abraham) because some thousands of years after, Abraham may be revived: you may do well to reform Church-Creeds, and add to (The Resurrection of the body) the resurrection of the soul, which hath been always omitted, because the Church thought, that only the body falleth, and that the body only is c●dav●r, and only of that there will be a resurrection: to the penitent Thief it is said, This Luke. 23. 43. day shalt thou bewith me in P●●●d se; this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not yet come by your doctrine, though sixteen hundred years are run out since: St. Paul in the narration of his rapture into the third heaven, confesseth he 2 Cor. 12. 2. knew not whether he were in the body, or out of the body; therefore in his opinion possibly his soul might be in that heaven, whilst his body was on earth: and St. Stephen at his Martyrdom said, Lord Jesus, receive Acts 7. 59 my 〈◊〉: if his soul was then to die, I marvel why he would not as well say, Lord Jesus, receive my body; but surely he thought his spirit or soul was not mortal: and this is consonant with the doctrine of the best ●ilosophers, who proved the soul to be separably existible, because they discovered that our soul hath operations, which are inorganical; for the intellective faculty useth the body only as an object, but not as an instrument; and our most excellently learned Physician, and rare Philosopher Doctor Thomas Brown of Norwich hath taught us, d Relic. Medici pa●t. 1. sect. 35. 〈◊〉 l. de Ani●●▪ c. 44. vide 〈◊〉 l. 7. c 52. 〈◊〉 Hes●ch●●m in vita Aris●●ae & Epimenidis. ●. 4●, 46. That in the dissecting of a man no Organ is found proper to the Reasonable Soul; and that in the brain of man there is nothing of moment▪ 〈◊〉 then in the Cranny of a ●east. And Tertullian telleth a story of one Hermotimus, whose soul used to leave h●s body for a time, and Evagari, (as his word is) to wander abroad, whilst his body lay like a dead corpse, and to return again, till his enemies took advantage; and whilst his soul was absent, they burned his body: And such another story doth Origen tell of the same Orig. cont. Cells. l. 3. man, whom he calls Clazomenius. Now whether this be true or not, yet it argues, that in the judgement of these profound Philosophers, the soul possibly may exist out of the body. I perceive that the Judgement of the Church hath but little power to sway you; for you snatch at any paradox, (though heretical) that comes in your way. Eusebius tells us, that this very opinion Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 27. of the souls dying with the body, and rising again with the body, was accounted heretical by the Church, and that it was in an open Council confuted by Origen; though Origen himself erred on the other side; and St. Austin in his catalogue of Heresies, calls Aust. haer. 83. Aug. de Ecclesiast. dogm. c. 15. n. 72. Basil. hom. de avar. n. 12. Philo. de mundi opificio. p. 31. n. 2. this of yours, the Arabic heresy, and our humane soul is by him called Anima substantiva, i. e. a substautivesoul, because it can subsist alone; and of such men which say their souls are mortal, St. B sil saith they have Animam p●rcinam, a swinish soul; and Philo the learned Jew saith, that a man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. a creature mortal and immortal, because he hath a mortal body, and an immortal soul, and this the Church hath taught in all ages, and is so delivered Ambr. de fide l. 2. c. 3. n. 22. by St. Ambrose, That the soul of man cannot die. The sleeping of dead Saints which you read of in Scripture, is meant just as their rising is, not of souls, but of bodies, Many bodies of the Saints which slept, arose. Matth. 27. 52. But what think you of the soul of Christ? did that die with his body? No Christian that ever I heard of thought so, perhaps neither do you; or if you do, I care not: the same argument which the Apostle draws from Christ's resurrection to prove our resurrection, will be as firm, to prove the immortality of our souls, by the immortality of his soul, 1 Cor. 15. 16. If the dead rise not, then is not Christ risen. So if man's soul be not immortal, then was not Christ's soul immortal; and if Christ's soul died not, neither will our souls die. The doctrine of the Souls immortality is so demonstrable by nature, that the Ancient Christians symbols, or rules of faith, did not expressly declare it as an article of faith Christian, because even * Si in hoc erro quòd animas hominum immortales credam; libe●●èr erro, hunc er●orem mihi extorqueri nolo— aveo patres vestros (mortuos) videre. Cic de Senect. heathen Philosophers both confessed, and proved it; but yet in the later Creeds of the Church, the article of Christ's descent was added, for no greater cause at first, that ever I could learn or discover, than this as the most principal, to assert the Immortality of his humane Soul, and thereby to set forth this true doctrine of the Immortality of all men's souls; and the Church had great reason for it, because all Christians for some Centuries of years generally believing this doctrine: In the fag end of the primitive times many atheistical and Epicurean professors sprung up, and denied this truth obstinately, and then it became an heresy, and was so recorded by St. Austin (as is said before) under the title of the Arabic heresy, and so occasioned a new article of Christ's descent (although it was an old Scriptural received truth) to be put into the Creed; I am not ignorant, that in Epiphanius the Epi●u●eans are set down Epiph. haer. 8. among heretics, who denied this truth, and so are Stoics, and Pythagoreans, and Jews, which I take to be something unproper, because none can be called heretics, except they (at least) profess Christianity▪ and perhaps Epiphanius meant such Christians, who in Philosophy were of those Sects, or Jews by birth. CHAP. IX. Of the most ancient Creed; why so many additions have been made, and particularly the article of Christ's descent. THe Reasons that move me to think that the new article of Christ's descent was added to the Creed, principally to set forth the Immortality of man's soul, are now to be brought forth to the Readers view. It was a long time before the Church-Creed went about in writing, (though some private men did so preserve it) yet it was learned by oral tradition, and so rehearsed Hil. de Synodis cont. Arian. n. 7. at baptisms; and this is noted by St. Hilary, Fides Apostolica non scripta erat literis, sed Spiritu, Conscriptas sides hucusque nesciverunt Episcopi; (i.) The Apostles Creed or faith was not written by letters, but by the Spirit, until these days (about the Nicene Council) the Bishops did not take notice of any written Creeds: and the same Father findeth fault with the writing of Creeds, Fides scribenda est quasi in cord non fuerit, (i) Hilar. contr. Const. l. 3. n. 6. Faith must now adays be written, as if it had no place in men's hearts: and although this symbol or Creed were not written, yet it is confessed that it went about traditionally, and without additions from the Apostles; as Ter●●llian for his time showeth, Ab initio Evangelii Tert. Cont. Prax. d●cucurrit, ante priores quosque haere●icos; (i.) The rule of faith spread from the beginning of the Gospel, and before Praxea's heresies began. And again he saith, (Regulam Tert. de praescr. haeret. hanc) Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus à D●o tradidit, (i) The Church delivered the Creed as it came from the Apostles, and the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God: for there is nothing in that Creed, but what is the express doctrine of Scripture. Now the reason why the Apostolical rule of faith, or Creed, was not published then in writing, is rendered by Ruffinus in Cyprian; The Apostles did not deliver this Symbol Cypr▪ in Symb. i● paper or parchment, but by tradition oral, to be laid up in the heart, that so it might the better appear that the doctrine thereof was really from the Apostles; for Infidels might have got it into their hands; If it had been written, and by that colour of rehearsing this Creed, hypocritically, might have undermined the Church, therefore it was delivered rather vocally then in writing: just as the Commander in War, giveth the Word or sign v●cally, and no● in writing, by which friends are discerned from enemies; which wait hword is called Symbolum, as the Creed is; that is, a token or signal. Thus far Ruffinus. The most ancient record of the Christians Symbols which I find written, and without exception (for that which is in the Constitutions of Clemens, I believe, is much later) is in Tertullian, who was a Writer as himself saith in the year after the birth of Christ, 160. Tert. de Monoga. which I have here inserted, that the Reader may see how much hath been added to that first Creed, until these days; as I find it in Tertullian, lib▪ de Veland. Virgin. principio. Regula fidei una, immobilis & irreformabilis. Tert. de Velan. Virginibus. Credendi in unicum Deum Omnipotentem, mundi conditorem Vide Doctrinam praedicationis Apostolicae apud. Irenae. lib. 1. ●. 2. & Filium ejus Jesum Christum natum ex Virgin Maria, Crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resuscitatum à mortuis, receptum in coelis, sedentem nunc ad dextram Patris, venturum judicare viv●s, & mortuis, per carnis ctiam resurrectionem. The only Rule of Faith, unmoveable and unreformable, is, To believe in one God Almighty, maker of the World: and his Son Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, the third day raised from the dead, received into heaven, sitting now at the right hand of the Father, that he shall come to judge the quick, and the dead, by the resurrection also of the flesh. This is all, in that place the same again in substance is rehearsed, but in a few more words, * Tert. de Praesc. p. 92. Cont. Prax. p. 379. Lib. de praescriptionibus, with the mention of the Mission of the Holy Ghost: and the same again, Lib. Cont. Praxean. mentioning also the Mission of the Holy Ghost, without any other considerable difference: the same Father in the place above noted, the prescript. tells us, Haec Tert. de Prescript. regula, nullas dubitationes habet, nisi quas har●ses in ferunt; (i.) that this rule of faith hath no doubts or dissensions (among Christians) but such as a e raised by heresies: therefore what doubts and dissensions have been so raised, is next to be considered. CHAP. X. Of Heresies, which occasioned ne● additions to the old Creed. THat the springing up of the tares of heresy, gave occasion to the Church to enlarge the Creed, thereby endeavouring to extirpate those errors, it may appear by these instances, whereof some are undeniable, and the rest very probable, and have been so thought formerly by † Erasm. ad facul. Theol. Sorbon. others. 1. In the Creed of Ruffinus in Cyprian, is Credo resurrectionem hujus carnis, i. e. the resurrection of this flesh, because the Origenists would not believe that the resurrection should be of the same body, but of another new body. 2. By the Nicene Fathers, to the words Jesus Christ, was added Unum Dominum, (i) One Lord, against the Arians, who would not confess the Father and the Son to be but one, One Lord. 3. The same Fathers added the word Homoousion against the said Arians, because they would not believe that the Father and the Son were both of one Godhead or substance. 4. The Article of Remission of Sins was added after that the Novatian heretics refused to admit any to their Communion (though they were penitents) which after baptism had lapsed into sin. 5. Catholic Church was added, because the Donatists had confined the true universal Church, only to be in the part or sect of Donatus, and in afric, as is copiously showed by St. Austin. 6. The Lord and giver of life was added to the article of the Holy Ghost against the Sect of Eunomius, who denied the Godhead of the Holy Ghost. 7. The Article of Christ's Descent into hell was added later than the forenamed additions, nor was it put into the Creed so as to be generally received until the Arabic heresy grew rank, which denied the Immortality of man's soul, (as this our Commenter doth) and was therefore put into the Roll of heresies by St. A●stine▪ as is said before, because by this article the Immortality of man's soul is asserted, in that the soul of Christ is confessed to descend to the same invisible condition that other dead men's souls do. For what greater reason can be alleged, or hath hitherto appeared to us mortals, why this article of Christ's descending into Hades should be so long after other articles received into the Church? or what have we learned more by it then that his soul, as other men's, did subsist during its separation, though in a state and condition which is not yet revealed to us? There was no Creed which was generally received, that had the Article of Christ's descent till after St. Austin's time for aught can appear to me; and though St. Austin oft mentions this Creed which is called Apostolical, and disputes it quite through, and before a Council also, a Aug. de fid. & Symb. n. 57 yet never mentions the article of descent: and (besides that Creed in Tertullian before set down) neither the Nicene hath it, nor was this article anciently in that Creed which we call the Athanasian; nor in the Symbolical hymn which goes under the names of Ambrose and Austin, though it is ancient, and hath been generally received in the Western Church: nor was this Article in the Confession of the Council of Chalcedon. That it was not in the Creed of Athanasius at first, hath been declared lately by the renowned Primate of Ireland; nor doth it yet sufficiently appear that Athanasius was the writer of it, only we are sure that all the doctrinal Articles of that Creed are still to be found in the writings of Athanasius; and there are some passages in the Fathers and Church-Histories that may incline us to think, that when the Emperor Jovinian sent to Athanasius for an exquisite draught of the Orthodox faith, b Theod hist. l. 4. c. 4. Ruff. hist. l. 2. c. 1. Naz. Orat. 21. in Athan. Athanasius answered, That the Nicene Creed was to be observed, and withal sent him (as Ruffinus writeth) a form, or description of his faith; and so also saith Nazianzen; That he sent it in writing, which Nicetoes thinks to be this very Creed. Indeed this article was in the Creed of the Church of Aquileia, which Ruffinus expounded; and also in some Arian Creeds, before the death of St. Austin, but not received generally till after his death, as is said before, and therefore I think it very probable, that as other heresies occasioned other new articles to be added (as is shown) so this Arabic heresy occasioned this article of descent. Now that it may appear, that errors, heresies, and sects were the causes of, not only new articles, but of a multiplying of new Symbols, Confessions and Creeds, the Fathers and Histories do evidently declare; for in the days of Constantius, and also of Valens, both Arian Emperors, when every Sect of Religion was tolerated except only the Orthodox, and they only were persecuted, whereof St. Basil complained, who Basil. Epist. 38. n. 42. then lived and suffered affronts, Occlusa sunt ora piorum, reserata est quaelibet blasphema tingua; (i.) All pious men are silenced, and any blasphemer may open his mouth and prattle. In these very times, new Creeds did exceedingly increase and multiply; insomuch, that St. Hilary, who then lived, thus complained of them, Hil. advers. Const. lib. 3. p. 277. Scribendae, & innovandae fidei usus in olevit.— Secundum annos scribitur— miserabile est tot nunc fides quot voluntates, etc.— annuas, & menstraus de Deo fides decernimus; (i.) Now a fashion is brought in of writing and innovating Creeds; now faith is subservient to the times, rather than according to the Gospel, and Creeds are dated with the note of the year, and (which is lamentable) there are as many Creeds as are several minds, we have yearly, and monthly new Creeds decreed. And Socrates writing of the same times, calls those Soc. l. 2. c. 32. multituder of Creeds a labyrinth, and observeth no less than nine new Creeds published in one Emperors days; insomuch that some of them for distinction, were dated not only with the name of the then Emperor, but also with the names of the Consuls of that year. The same Socrates also setteth this mark upon Soc. l. 2. c. 29. those times, That then, Religion was most weak, when so many Religions were afoot; and Erasmus setteth Erasm. de rat. Relig. this brand upon those perfidious Arian times, Vbi coepit esse minus fidei— mox increvit symbolorum numerus; (i.) The less Faith, the more Creeds; as Lipsius Lips. de Const. in praefat. also observed of these later times, Nullum saculum feracius Religionum, sterile us pietatis, (i) Never more Religions, nor less godliness. Thus may the Reader perceive the reason both why so many new Creeds were stamped, and why so many new articles were added to the first Creed, and particularly, that to assert the immortality of Christ's soul, and so consequently of every man's soul, the article of Christ's descending into Hades, or hell, was with others, added to the old Creed. CHAP. XI. What the word Hades signifies, which we translate Hell, that the place and condition of souls departed is unknown; of the visions of S. Hierome, and Curina, and the apparition of Irene deceased. IF it be examined what the meaning of those words in the Creed is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it will appear that they signify no more than that the soul of Christ (during its separation from his body) was existent in such an invisible state, place and Condition, as the souls of other dead men were: but where and how it was, I think all the Philosophers, and Theologs in the world cannot by their reading certainly determine, and yet these are the very same words which are used in Scripture, Act. 2. 27. for this word Hades signifies Invisible, Act. 2. 27. Psal. 16. 10. and is a word which the heathens used, to signify that the souls of men deceased, as they are truly and really existent, so that the place and condition of them was unknown and invisible; and although this word was used by heathens, and with some mixture also of fabulosity, yet the Scripture retained it, to countenance so much of it as was true. Our English tongue is I think defective in translating this, and some other a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words; for Hades in heathen Writers signified as well a good, and joyful condition of souls departed, as a sad, and woeful state: and I have heard that Mr. Broughton reported, that he had seen the Lords Prayers in an ancient Greek Manuscript, which began thus * Archbish. of Armach. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if this be true than Hades must there, signify 〈◊〉. But our English word Hell, is ever with us taken in the worse sense, but yet so it signifies a state of 〈◊〉, and permanency of the soul a● neither ●y●●● 〈◊〉 The Ancient Fathers as they did generally, and dogmatically teach the Immortality of man's soul. 〈◊〉 did they as generally teach the doctrine of 〈◊〉 descending into Hades, but as they could not tell us certainly the condition of other men's souls no more could they assure us of the place, and condition of 〈…〉 Christ's soul, though some of them ventured very far and yet much differing one with another for that saying, 〈…〉. Epist. 〈◊〉 ●. 30. Psal. 24. 7. Lift up your 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 gave] is expounded of Christ's ascending into heaven by Eusebius, and ᶜ Hierom, and d Theod. 〈◊〉. incons●●n 1● The 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉. But the very same words are also expounded of his descent into hell by e Epiph. Sir Mag. Sab n 32. Epiphanius, and also by f Chrys. Ser. de P●nt n. 49. ●●●●m. quod Christus Deus. n. 52. chrysostom in another place, so that he expounds the same words both ways. I am therefore persuaded that God hath purposely (for reasons best known to his Divine wisdom) concealed from us mortals the state of souls departed, because I find in Scripture that d●yers have risen from the dead, but ●●●nd not that they ever made any discovery of that unknown land; no not Lazarus who was dead four days; and though he lived 3● years Epiph ha'. 6● 2. Cor. 12. 2. after his resurrection, as Epiphanius writeth nor St. Paul, though he died not, yet was rapt into the 〈◊〉 heaven, and tells us that he heard words which is not lawful for a man to utter: and though he also lived more than 14 years after yet neither of them revealed it, though the knowledge of it ever was, and ●●●ll is very much desired, and it was the wish of 〈◊〉 Eras. ad Theol. Parisiens. ●● 22. Cle. Ro. in Recog. princip utinam Paulus 〈◊〉 ruisset qualitèr extent animae, 〈◊〉 à corpore, & ubinum extent. (i) I wish St. Paul was declared in what place, and condision souls departed 〈◊〉. And this was an old currositie; for we read in 〈◊〉, that before his conversion, he was very desirous to kuow something of the souls immortality and for himself confesteth) often thought to employ some 〈◊〉 to raise dead a man's soul, that so he might be informed; J●st. apol. 2. ●. ●●. and after him Justin Martyr laboureth to prove, that men's souls are immortal, because (as he thought) Conjurers used to raise the souls of dead men: and in the reign of the Emp. Caligula, one Canius a worthy man, was playing at tables when a Warrant came for his execution, Sen. de Tranq. c. 14. so he took leave of his play-follows, and promised them that (if after death he could) he would appear to them, and certify them of the affairs of the other World, as Seneca relates, but we find not that he ever returned from the dead, and though we read in the Ecclesiastical histories that Irene, the daughter of Ruf. l. 1. c. 5. Soc. l. 1. c. 8. Bishop Spiridion, (who was a member of the Nic●ne Council) having in her custody in her life-time a rich jewel, which was left with her in trust, and that she having hid it▪ died, and did not discover the place where she had laid it, so that the owner demanded it of her father, with bitter menacing words, charging him with fraud. The holy man went in the bitterness of his soul, to his dead daughter's Sepulchre, and there prayed that the truth might be made known, and presently he saw an apparition of his said daughter, which revealed the place where the jewel was hid, and there it was found, yet no tidings from the other World are mentioned. I know not why I may not think, that this apparition was a good Angel in the shape of Ir●n● (for why may not good Angels appear in the female shapes, as well as an evil Angel appeared in the likeness of Samuel?) It is a strange story, that 1. Sam. 2●. Hier. Epist. 53. c. 13. n. 5. St. Hierom tells of himself, in his travel toward Jerusalem, he fell into a fever, and to men's thinking was dead, and was laid out, and burial was prepared for him; during this time of his seeming death, he thought he was brought before a judgement-seat, and by sentence of the judge was greivously scourged for reading secular books, but at the request of them that stood about the Judge, he was released, and dismissed, and so presently returned to his life, and senses, and found his eyes full of tears, and his shoulders black and blue and sore, as if they had been beaten, so that himself knew not what to think of it, whether it were an ecstasy, a rapture, or a real emigration of his soul, for he saith, 'twas more than a sleep and dream. It was a divine monition no doubt, by a kind of vision, to engage him more earnestly in divine studies, as himself confesseth it did; but what ever it was, yet we are never the wiser concerning dead men's souls and their state, such another story doth St. Austin tell of Aug. de Cura pro Mort. c. 13. one Curina, who lay as dead for some days but returning to his senses, tells them that in this trance he was certified, that the Messenger which was sent to fetch his soul, mistook him for another man of the same name, hi● near neighbour, and indeed it was found that at the same moment, wherein this Curina was restored to life, the other Curina died: yet neither the dead, which come to the living, nor the living which (as they imagined) went to the dead, and returned again, have yet informed us of the other World. CHAP. XII. A digressive Censure of St. Hierome's an● Curina's Visions, how they might be presented; and of Exstasies, Raptures or Trances, both from God, and from the Devil. By the way it will not be amiss to digress a little, and discourse how, and in what manner these apparitions, and visions probably were showed to St. Hierome, and also to other holy men; for I do not believe that their souls were then really departed, and totally separated from their bodies: but I think they were taken in an ecstasy, or trance, such as we read of, Act. 10. 10. for when the vision of the sheet was presented to the soul or mind of St. Peter, the word there used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so again when Christ shown himself to St. Paul in the Temple, Act. 22. 17. he was in a trance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now an ecstasy or trance is as St. Austin describes it, Cum abripitur animi intentio Aug. de Gen. ad l●t. l. 12. c. 6. Ibid. c. 21. n. 69. à sensibus, (i) When our soul is elevated, and taken off from the use, and management of our bodily senses, and is actuated & enlightened by the Spirit of God, or some Angel. So the same Father saith again, Bono Spiri●u assumitur anima hominis, cum in somnis futura videt— sic A●gelus apparet Joseph in somnis; (i.) When in our sleep things to come are revealed to us, our soul is taken, and informed by some good spirit; as Joseph was by an Angel, Matth 2. 13. And so also Prosper saith, Ecstasis est cum mens aliqua inspiratime assumitur: (i) An Ecstasy is when Prosper in Psal. 115. n 46. our soul is wholly taken up and employed by some inspration: And St. Bisil saith, That when we read that the Basil. in Ps. 28. hom. 5. Word of the Lo●d came to the Prophets, we are not t● think so grossly, as if God uttered vocal, and audible sounds, or words to them; but that he informed, and instructed their souls by a more divine way of illumination, though something like; as we in our ordinary dreams do imagine we hear voices, and discourses of men, and see our friends, or such like, when they are but the imaginations of our brain. St. Austin Aug. Epist. 101. doth very fitly resemble them thus, Non erant voces corpor●ae ex●rinsecùs, sed quales apud nos tacitè trans●urrimus memori●●r, vel can●ando; i. e. When the Word of the Lord came to a Prophet, it was not any outward corporeal voice, but in such a way as we use, when silently in our minds, and by our memories, we discourse with ourselves inwardly, as in running over a business, or an Oration, or a song, which men usually do only by thoughts, though our tongue never move; and just so doth the holy Po●t Prudentius describe St. Prudent. in hamartig. p. 187. John's Revelation: Corporeus Johannes adhuc, nec carne solutus Secedenie anima, non discedente videba●. St. John saw the Revelation, when his soul was not out of his body, but retired to itself, from the use ●o the body: and St. Basil tells us, Si nos viveremus animâ Basil. hom. Divers. 3. n. 11. nudâ— sine carnis velamentis, cogitationes cognosceremus▪ nunc verbis opus est: (i) When our souls have put off the garments of our flesh, than they shall understand one another by thoughts, as now men do by words. And St. Austin is of the same judgement, Tunc patebunt Aug. de Civ. l. 22. c. 29. cogitationes invicem; (i.) That our pure spirits shall perceive, and converse with one another by thoughts. Now when our souls are so ecstatically retired from our bodies, as that they do not so much as contemplate the Phantasms as their object, then are they in a fit posture to converse with the Divine Spirit of God, or those immaterial and heavenly spirits, the holy Angels; and when our souls are so elevated, than such visions or revelations as are presented to our minds, are as evident to us, as if they had been sensibly presented to our eyes, or ears: and thus St. Hierom● Higher, proaem. in Esai. n. 33. saith, That the holy Prophets were instructed in their Prophecies by God, in such c●st●sies, and by Angels also: for that which we read, Zach. 2. 3. The Angel that talked with me; in St. Hier. it is thus read, Angelus qui loquebatur in me, (i) The Angel which sp●ke in me: and Ter●ullian saith, Ecstasis est qua Prophe●ia Constat; i. e. Tertul. de anima. c. 21. Prophesy doth consist in ecstasy; and in the Primitive times of the Church before the ordinary gift of Prophetical Revelations was ceased. St. Cyprian tells us, Impletur apud nos Spiritu sancto puerorum innocens Cyp. l. 3. Epist. 14. n. 71. aetas, quae, in ecstasi vidit oculis, & audit: & loquitur ea quibus nos Dominus monere dignatur: (i) With us, children in their innocent age, see and hear in ecstasies, and declare to us su●h things as God doth vouchsase to admonish us of: and St. Austin do●bteth not to call that Aug. de Gen. cap. 5. l. 6. wonderful sleep of Adam when the rib was taken out of him, an ecstasy, or divine ●apture, Deus misit ecstasin in Adam— evigilab●● plenus Prophetiae,— inirans in curiam angelo●um; i. e. God sent an ecstasy upon Adam— he awaked full of Prophecy— entering into the Court of angels, and therefore Origen reckons Orig. in Cant. ho. 2. Adam amongst the Prophets. Now when such ecstasies were brought upon men by God or good Angels from him, the person so illuminated was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if evil Angels invaded, 2 Tim. 3. 16. and actuated men's minds, than their ejaculations were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ethusiasmes, because they proceeded from Satan the heathens god; by which spirit the Oracles of the heathens gave answers in Pythonists, and that spirit it was which spoke in men possessed with an evil spirit, so that many times when the Priest was in an ecstatical fury or madness, he knew not what the evil spirit spoke in him or her; just as men possessed did not know what they said or did, such persons were by the Church called ●nerg●men●, & daemoni●●●, that is, such as were acted and wrought upon by evil spirits; and therefore Tertullian translates this Tert. de anima. c. 21. word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, amentia, madness they knowing no more what they said, than that Serpent, in which the devil spoke, when he tempted Eve. For whereas the Spirit of God in divine exstasies did wonderfully enlighten holy Prophets, who were therefore called Videntes, (i) Se●rs; contrarily the spirit of Satan did mostly darken the minds of his Prophets, and Demoniacs, so that they perceived nothing of what their lips uttered; and therefore Justin Martyr said of Justin. lib. 1. ext. n. 6. such, Sibylla non intelligunt quae dicunt, (i) These Prophetesses do not understand what themselves proph●sie: and Origen saith, Pythia furit, nec sui compos est, dum promit Orig. cont. Cells. l. 7. n. 36. 〈◊〉, (i) The Pythonisse is mad, when she uttereth the Oracle's: and therefore such are commonly called Arrep●i●i●, men forcibly snatched, and used but as an instrument by the evil spirit: and the same Orig●n tells Orig. Peri▪ Arc. l. 3. c. 3. Hier. in vita Hilarion. n. 10. us, that Magicians would cause young Children to pronounce Poems which they never learned: and St. Hierome writes of one Orionus a Demoniac, in whom the evil spirit spoke with many several voices at the same time. This is sufficient to show in what manner those ecstatical apparitions, probably might be presented to men's souls, and also may be an argument of the soul's separability, because by this we perceive, it may have operations which do not at all depend upon the body: and in all these revelations, and intercourses with Angels good and bad, we cannot receive any certain intelligence, what the state of the other world is. CHAP. XIII. Of the apparitions of the dead; and that they are not the souls of men deceased, but other spirits assuming their shapes. ALthough the known Inhabitants of both parts of the other Wo●ld, (I mean the holy Angels, and the infernal spitits) have oftentimes appeared to, and conversed with mortal men, yet still we are ignorant of the affairs both of the City of God, and also of the infernal Sodom; howbeit those spirits have showed themselves in plausible shapes of men, and of our friends and kindred, and not in such terrible apparitions, as might deter men from any converse with them: for the Scripture declareth, that God and good Angels have appeared in shapes of men, and that evil Angels have also appeared so, as to S●ul in the likeness of Samuel, and also to Christ in his temptation: for, no doubt, Satan conversed with him in the similitude of a man; and the Ecclesiastical Writers asfirm the same. Tertullian tells us, that in the Tert. de anima, c. 57 exorcisms which the Church in his time used over men possessed with unclean spirits, the spirit would say, Se esse aliquem p●rentum, aut bestiarium aut talem gladiatorem defunctum, (i) That they w●re some of their forefathers▪ or some beast-master, or such a fencer deceased: and again he saith, that it was usual with Magicians Ibid. to tell men, that the spirits which they raised, were the souls of dead men, and that they could raise the souls of the holy Prophets from the dead. The like is also observed by St. chrysostom, that when evil spirits appeared Chrys. Ser. 2. de Laz. n. 〈◊〉 unto men, they used to say, Monachi illius sum anima,— sed non c●edo, quia daemones dicunt, (i) I am the soul of such a Monk deceased, but I do not believe it, because the Devil said so: and again he saith, That Idem ibid. the Devil persuaded Conjurers and witches to murder some young men, making them believe that the souls of those whom they murdered should become familiar spirits, and be at the command of those Conjurer's to serve them, and fulfil their comm●nds; and in later times, Johannes Wier. de praestig. l. 1. c. 15. Wierus writ●s, that to satisfy the curiosity of the Emperor Maximil●an the fi●st, about the year of ou● Lord 1500▪ a certain Magician in his Court raised spirits representing the shapes of Hector, Achi●es, and David, which visibly ap●●a●ed ●n the presence of the ●●id Emperor. Many more such instances may be alleged out of Writers of approved credit; but these may suffice to inform us, that although many have com● to us from the other world, yet none have given us intelligence of the state of things there; for although those apparitions good and bad have entertained discourse with men; as with Saul, and with the blessed Virgin, yet of this particular they have been silent; and for this reason perhaps Poets called such apparitions and ghosts, Silen●●s umbras, and therefore they had a pretty fiction, that such spirits as returned to this life from the dead, first drank of the a Virg. Aen. 6. Lethean River, to signify, that they were so silent of those affairs, as if they had forgot what their condition was in the other world, because either they would not, or could not relate the st●●y of it; even in the holy Scripture, the place of the dead is called the Land of forgetfulness; and that Psal. 88 12. which the Latin reads, Anima mea habi●asset in infe●no.— & q●i d●scendun● in insernum, our English Translation reads, Psal. 94. 17. My soul had almost dwelled in silence— and ●hey that go down in●o silence; for this Psal. 115. 17. reason as I suppose, Necromancy, or consulting with the dead, is forbidden by God▪ Deu●. 18. 11. not that we should think the dead can at their own pleasure; or at the desire of the living return to us without the special dispensation and appointment of God; for St. Austi● ass●●●d himself, that if it were in the power of Aug. de Cur. pro Mort. c. 13. souls departed to come and converse with mortals, his holy and most loving mother deceased, who followed h●m by Sea and Land in her life, would nor have been so long absent f●om him, but would have come and administered comfort to him among his man old sorrows, and so he concludes out of the 27▪ Psal. My father, and my mother have fors●ke● me. But b●cause Psal. 27. 10. God having determined to conceal from us the state of the dead, and because men should not delude themselves, nor be deluded by Satan, by conversing with Devils when they were raised in the shapes of men departed this life, therefore Necromancy is forbidden; and indeed as Origen hath well noted upon that Law Orig. ho. 7▪ in Esai. 22. that they that inquire of the dead; A daemonihus quaerunt, qui mo●tui sun● D●o, (i) N●cromancers that enqu●re of the dead, do consult with Devils, who are dead to God. CHAP. XIV. That the Commemoration of the dead in the prayers of the Church was intended principally to set forth the Immortality of their souls. IF it be enquired to what end, or purpose the ancient Church set up that custom of praying for the souls of men departed, it will appear that the chief motive hereunto, was to declare the Church's assured belief, that the souls of men survived after this life was ended, and conrinued in a state of Immortality: for it cannot appear clearly that the Church had any precept for it, or any example in the Scripture, and so much is acknowledged by Epiphanius when he wrote against that Aërius who separated from the Church, partly because he disliked the custom of praying for the dead; (and chiefly because Eustatius, was preferred to the Bishopric before A● ius) I say Epiphanius Epiph. haer. 75. confesseth, that the Church performed those rites to the dead, Tradi●ione à patribus accep●ā▪ (i) because the ancient Fathers did so before his time, and from them the Church received that custom; for saith he, Quis poterit Ib. n. 22. statutum matris disso●●●re, aut legem pa●ris? (i) Who can dissolve the statutes of the Church our Mother, or the laws of the Fathers? and it cannot appear to us what benefit the dead receive by the prayers of the living, nor hath the ancient Church fully satisfied us herein, for St. Ambrose prayed for the deceased Emperor Theodosius, Ambr. de obit Theod. n. 47. whom he then believed to be in lumine, & San●torum ●●tu; (i.) that he was in the light of God, and company of Saints, and St. Austin prayed thus for his godly Aug. Confess. l. 9 c. 13. Mother deceased, Pro peccatis matris mea deprecor te Deus— demit●e illi debita sua, etc. (i.) I beseech thee, O God, for the sins of my Mother, that thou wouldst forgive her, and yet immediately he saith, Credo jam feceris quod rogo. (i) I believe thou hast alread●y done what I now pray for. Notwithstanding the Church did so pray, and Epiphanius gives this reason why the names of the dead were Epiph. hae. 75. mentioned in the Church-prayers: Quia hoc magis fuerit utile, quid commodius?— quod credunt praesentes, quòd bi qui decesserunt, vivunt, & non sunt nulli? (i) What can be more profitable to the living, then to be assured that the dead persons commemorated, do still live, and that they are not annihilated? So we see the Church had other reasons, which moved them so to commemorate the dead, though the deceased received no benefit thereby. As, 1. To commend unto the living, and in their minds to preserve the wholesome doctrine of our Souls immortality. 2. Their prayers did challenge the performance of God's promises, to those deceased, who had lived, and died in the Lord, as is declared, Rev. 14. 13. Blessed are the dead that dye in the Lord, saith the Spirit. 3. For the consolation of the living, the Priest declared, that the sins of such holy men which had lived, and died in the faith of Christ, were forgiven. 4. The Church gave thanks for their departure to rest, as acknowledging the mercy of God, by which they were saved, and not by their own merits. Some Divines think that when St. Paul prayed for Onesiphorus, The Lord grant unto him, that he, may find mercy of the Lord in that day, 2 Tim. 1. 18. that Onesiphorus was at that time dead, because in the end of the Epistle, in the salutations there is no mention of Onesiphorus, but of his family only, 2 Tim. 4. 19 And because there is no state or condition of men in this life, though never so sinful, which excludeth them from the benefit of being prayed for, therefore some Expositors have thought that when St. John said, There is a sin unto death, I do not say he shall pray for it, 1 Joh 5. 16. his meaning is, that such an one who liveth and dieth in a soul-destroying sin, (such as shall in this book afterwards be discovered) without repentance, for such a man's prayers are unprofitable, and vain, not excluding others that die in the Lord, to be commemorated in the prayers of the living, as Onesiphorus before mentioned, and in that sense, as is before said, and this is St. Heromes' exposition in his objurgatory Higher 10. 9 Epiad Evang. Epistle to Evangius, (if it be his own) and so also saith the interlineal gloss with Lyra. St. Austin being hard put to it to give an account▪ why the Church prayed for the dead, and what benefit the dead had by the prayers of the living, by the questions of Dulcitius, and Paulinus, confesseth most inge Aug. lib. de Cur promort● c. 1. nuously, that the dead can have no benefit at all by our prayers here, except by their good life they were capable of good before their death: and again he saith, Because the Church knoweth not unto what dead men, Aug. ib. c. 17. her prayers are profitable, therefore she prayeth pro omnibus regeneratis, (i) for all the regenerate, that none may be omitted. CHAP. XV. That the Fathers did not believe, that Souls departed were insensible, as if they were dead, or asleep, because the Saints departed do pray for the Church Militant, as the Father's thought. HAving showed before what the Church Militant did here below, for the Triumphant part above: it would now be considered, what the Triumphant Church above, doth for us that are on earth, in the judgement of the Fathers. The ancient Church were so far from thinking that our souls died with our bodies, that they affirm, and verily believe, that the souls of holy men departed, and being in rest, did pray for the Church on earth; for so St. Hierom tells us, the Saints deceased pray for the living; Hier. Epist. 53. n. 17. for they that had so much charity on earth, as to pray even for their enemies and persecutors, much more will they now in heaven, pray for the Church. St. Paul is not less charitable after his departure, than he was before, and so he wished Heliodor●●, that if he died before Hier. Eipst. 1. n. 1. Hierom, to pray for him when he was in heaven; so likewise he desireth a Id. Epist. 27. n. 7. & Principia, and b Id. Epist. exeg. 140. n. 30 Paula to remember him when they are in heaven. And St. Ambrose professeth, c Amb. de fide & Resur. n. 30. That he expecteth the intercession of his brother Satyrus deceased, for the speedier deliverance out of the miseries of this life, and that he hoped the godly Emperor d Id. de Obits. Theod. n. 47. Theodosius departed, did yet pray to God for his surviving Children, and that the dead Emperor e Id. de Obits. Valent. n. 46. Gratian, did pray for his brother Valentinian. Of the same Judgement is St. Chrysostom; f Chrys. ser. de uno Legisl. to. 6. n. 55. for he doubteth not to affirm, that the Martyrs, and Prophets, & Apostles deceased, do actually pray for the living: and before him St. Cyprian in his life-time contracted with Cornelius, g Cyp. l. 1. Epist. 1. Qui prior è vita discesserit, oret pro sratribus; (i.) That which of them should first die, must pray for the survivers: and in an Epistle written to some Martyrs who were very speedily to suffer death for Christ, he desireth † Cyp. ad Marty. n. 98. Naz. Orat. 24. them to be mindful of him when they were in the honour of Martyrs, with the lord Greg. Naz. tells us, that Athanasius though deceased, yet (as he was persuaded) did still help and assist the Church; and that his friend St. Basil deceased, and now in heaven, yet Naz. Orat. 20. even there poured out prayers for the people. And of his reverend old father deceased, who had been a long time Bishop of Nazianzum, he saith, That he doubteth Id. Orat. 19 not, but though he were in heaven, yet the same Pastoral care which he had on earth, remaineth still with him; and now that he is approached nearer to God, he doth more good for that flock by his prayers in heaven, than he could do by his doctrine on earth. This is enough to show what the Father's thought of the Immortality of the souls of men; and the same opinion was so generally received of Christian people in those days, that, as St. chrysostom reporteth, they Chrys. Ser. 4. de Laz. n. 42. would commonly boast, that they should find great friends and assistants in the other life, because they had many pious friends gone before them; one would say, My father was a Martyr; and another, My Grandfather was a Bishop; and a third, Such and such a holy man was my dear friend on earth, therefore we shall find friends in the other world; Thus far St. chrysostom. Notwithstanding all, this that hath been said, of which this Commenter cannot be ignorant, yet against all this evidence, he denies the Immortality of the Soul: Like another Vrbicus Potentinus, an heretic, to whom Athanasius thus writeth, O Potentine, adversus Scripturas Athan. count. Poten. n. 30. divinas, vel totum mundum, tu solus sentis; (i.) Potentinus held an opinion heretical against the holy Scriptures, and also against the whole world. CHAP. XVI. Of the departure of our souls from our bodies, and the Conductors or leaders of them to the other world; and of the places or mansions of dead men's souls. IN the last place it will not be amiss to set down what the Scriptures, and the Ancient Fathers have said concerning the departures, and mansion-places of dead men's souls, which will be also a strong argument against the Epicurean doctrine of this Commentary. The Angels in Scripture are called ministering spirits— to the heirs of salvation, Heb. 1. 14. their charge is to keep such in all their ways, Psal. 91. 11. therefore as Angels conducted Peter out of prison, Act. 12. 7. and Lot out of Sodom, Gen. 19 16. so likewise Angels are employed (no doubt) in the conveying, and placing, and settling departed souls in such mansions as are by God appointed for them: for so the Scripture declareth in the Parable of the beggar, which for substance is indeed but parabolical; yet for the Circumstance of the conductors of his soul, the persons are really set forth, so as is usual in the passage of other men's souls, even as the burial of the rich man is mentioned, because it was the common custom of other rich men to be buried. It is therefore said, The beggar died, and was carried by the Angels into Abraham's bosom, Luk 16. 22. And of another sort of Angels conducting souls, it is said, Thou fool, this night shall they take ●●y soul from thee, Luk. 12. 20. So of the place, or mansion of a blessed soul it is said, it was carried into Abraham's bosom; and This day shal● thou be with me in Paradise, Luk. 23. 43. but of the mansion of a reprobate soul it is said, that it was placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) a place secret, hidden, invisible, and of torment; this is the sum of what we find in Scripture for the present condition of souls departed, until the last judgement. And of the last Judgement it is also said, The Angels shall gather his Elect— from one end of heaven to the other, Matth. 24. 31. In correspondence to these overtures of Scripture, the Church-Writers have set down at large their expositions, and opinions, both for the several sorts of Conductors, and also for the distinct mansion-places of the souls of Pious, and of Impious Just. quaest. n. 31. men. First, Justin Martyr saith, Animae hominüm ducu●tur ad condigna loca ab angelis ubi servantur usque ad resurrectionem, (i) The souls of men are conducted by Angels to convenient mansions, and there are kept until the resurrection: and we read in the Constitutions of Clemens, that the Church in the office of the godly deceased, Clem. Const. l. 8. c. 47. prayed thus, Deus Collocet ●um in region● piorum,— Angelos placidos ei constitute, (i) That God would place them in the region of the godly, and appoint them gentle Angels: and Irenics saith, Discipulorum animae Iren. l. 5. prope finem. abibunt in invisibilem Lo●um, definitum eis à Deo, & ibi usque ad resurrectionem ●ommorabuntur: (i) The souls of Christians shall go into a place invisible, appointed by God, and there abide until the resurrection. St. Hierom Hier. Epist. 25. n. 26. saith, Mo●tuos nos, Angelorum turba co●itatur, when we are dead, a multitude of Angels accompanieth us. And again he saith of the Martyr's souls, against Vigilantius, Hier. count. Vigil. to. 2. p. 159. Senatoriae dignitatis sunt, ut no● inter homicidas, teterrimo carcere, sed liberâ honest●que custodid— vecluduntur, (i) The souls of Martyrs are not committed to dark prisons, as men-slayers are, but like unto Senator's, they are placed in a free and honourable Custody: and this also is the doctrine of St. Chrysosto●, † Chrys. hom. in laud. Mart. to. 1. Martyrs in caelum ascendun● Angelis comitantibus, (i) The souls of Martyrs ascend into heaven, accompanied with Angels; but of the souls of the reprobate he saith, Malorum animae Chrys. de Laz. Ser. 2. to. 5. n. 41. Atha. de Virgin. n. 24. Basil. exhort. ad bapt. hom. n. 14. Macar. hom. 22. à metuendis vir●utibus repetuntur, sun●que doctores viae, (i) The souls of evil men are taken and conducted by terrible and affrighting powers: which also Athanasius calls Inclementes angelos, (i) Churlish and unkind angels: and of them St. Basil saith, Veniet angelus tristis, & animam tuam rapiet ad Tartara, (i) A sad dismal angel will seize on thy soul, and convey it to hell: and the same is yet more particularly set forth by Mac●●ius of Egypt, Cum animapeccatirea, è corpore exierit, accedunt Chori daemonum, & sinist●i angeli, etc. & animam ad partes suas trahunt● when a guilty soul deparieth, troops of evil, and unhappy angels drag it to their ownquarters. These are the Messengers which are sent for men's souls, some terrible, and feared; others of pleasant appearance, and desired; the slight apprehension of this truth, and such Messengers, hath occasioned men to fancy, and to paint a meager raw-boned thing with a dart, to be the summoner of men's souls to the other world; which of these several ●orts of Angels is true? Now whatsoever common, or distinct and several mansions there are for pious souls respectively correspondent to their qualities and demeanours on earth; and so likewise for impious souls in their several degrees, as they are in bundles gathered, which L●ctantius Lact. de Diu. Cult. c. 21. n. 25. Aug. de Dulc. quaest. n. 89. qu. 2. calls, Communis custodia, i. e. their common lodge: and St. Austin, Abdita receptacula, (i) Secret receptacles; and the Scripture calleth them▪ The spirits in prison, 1 Pet. 3. 19 yet the Ancient Church did, as we do, reduce all those mansions to these two appellations of heaven and hell: * Ath. de Incarnate. n. 23. although there may be several different mansions in hell for the damned, as well as we read of the blessed in heaven, Joh. 14. 2. In my Father's house are many mansions. CHAP. XVII. Of the blasphemies contained in the Commentary against the Godhead of Christ, and the Incarnation thereof, and his Redemption of man. Good Reader, be vigilant now at all the ports of thy soul, and take some antidote of thy precious Christian faith to corroborate thy heart against the danger of most deadly poison, for now the Serpent's nest, and Pandora's box are to be opened, containing multitudes of evils, and deadly blasphemies against the Divine Person of thy dear Saviour, and his precious death; all which I must now present to thy view; and for thy more easy discovery, I will draw them out in two files, The first containeth such blasphemies which deny the Godhead, and Divine nature of Jesus Christ. The second containeth such blasphemies as deny the Incarnation of God, and the Redemption of man by the Passion, bloodshed, and death of thy Saviour, when he offered himself a full, sufficient expiatory sacrifice, on the altar of the Cross, and also such as deny the merit of his active obedience in fulfilling the Whole Law, and performing the Covenant of God in our stead, on our behalf, and to our benefit; and now they advance Blasphemies against the Godhead of Jesus Christ. 1. That Christ was by his Resurrection— consequently deified, Chap. 1 vers. 2. pag. 3. (it seems the Commenter doth not believe that Christ was God before his death.) 2. That the Creation of the world cannot be referred to Christ, Chap. 1. vers. 10 p. 10. That his making of the world was but the restoring of mankind to a new state, pag. 3. (yet all things were made by him— that were made, Joh. 1. 3.) 3. That Christ had an immense measure of the Holy Ghost, Cap. 1. 9 p. 9 (If it were immense, how is it a measure? and if by measure, how is it immense? is not this illogical blasphemy? the Scripture saith of him, God giveth not the Spirit by measure, unto him, (Joh. 3. 34.) 4. That Christ had a beginning, Cap. 1. 12. p. 13. (Yet of Christ it is said, His go forth have been from everlasting, Mich. 5. 2.) 5. That if the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrews had taken Christ to be the supreme God, he had discoursed impertinently, C. 1. 10. p. 10. That it is manifest that Christ is not the Supreme God, C. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ was a divine man, C. 7. 22. p. 136. That Christ was opposed to God, Cap. 5. 5. p. 80. That Christ carried himself as a person divers from God, and (that he was so) the thing itself declares, C. 12. 25. p. 320. & p 54. 6. That Christ doth not forgive sins of his own authority, Cap. 4. 14. pag. 70. That Christ hath not power of himself to save us, C. 9 24. p. 192. (Yet Christ saith, The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, Matth 9 6. and, Thou shalt call his Name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins; M●●. 1. 21▪) 7. That the Angels are equal to Christ for duration, C. 1. 10. p. 10. (The ●ngel are creatures, Christ is their Creator, and therefore before them▪ and of longer duration, à parte an●e, but if he mean that Angels are equal to him for duration, à parte ●●st only, he hath said nothing to his own purpose; for so souls of men, yea, and devils ●● all endure for ever, but the Son of God is from everlasting to everlasting; as is showed out of Mich. 5. 2.) 8. That the Lord Christ was not the first Author of the Gospel, but God was the first, C. 2. 3. p. 19 If the Law had been published by God himself, it had been more excellent than the Gospel etc. C. 2. 2. p. 16. (This blasphemy is particularly answered before, Cap. 7▪) 9 That the Saints in heaven shall no●●e under Christ, but besides him, C. 2. 6. p. 23. (What! Check by soul? yet, Philip. 2. 1●. God hath pu● all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the Church; and this Supremacy is there said to be in heavenly places▪ verse 20. and, The four and twenty Elders fall down and worship the Lamb, Rev. 4. 10. 10. That it appears that faith in Christ is not contained in all faith in God, Cap. 11 6. p. 251. That he that believes in Christ doth not believe in him finally, but in God by him, C. 3. 12. p. 54. (He would have you believe there is something greater and better than Christ, to believe in Ultimatè, & Terminatiuè.) 11. That Christ must not be compared with that Angel who represented God, C. 12. 25. p. 321. (Yet Christ even in his humane nature exalted, is set far above all Principalities, and powers, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but in that which is to come, Ephe. 1. 21. Indeed he is said to be made lower than the Angels to suffer death▪ Heb. 2. 9 lower in the humiliation of his humane nature; but of his Divine nature alone, and of his humane, exalted, and so of his whole Person as he is Emmanuel, it is said, Heb. 1. 6. Let all the Angels of God worship him. The total sum of all these, is Only this blasphemy, That Christ is not God. Blasphemies against the Incarnation of the Son of God, and his Work of Redemption. 1. That Christ the Son of God cannot be said to be Incarnate, more than the Saints are, Heb. 2. 14. pag. 31. 2. That the Supreme God can no way be a Priest, C. 5. 5. p. 80. (True, if you had added this, Except he be Incarnate, and assume humane nature.) 3. The expiatory Offering of Christ for our sins was not performed on earth, but in heaven, C. 7. 1. p. 116. etc. 8. 4. p. 146. etc. 9 12. p. 168. That his offering did not consist in his death, but by his entrance into heaven after death, C. 9 7. p. 160. his Priesthood began there, C. 9 14. p. 171. 4. That Christ was not the Author of the New Testament, but is called the Testator, only because he was the main witness, C. 9 19 p. 182, 183, 184. 5. That when it is said, Jesus made a surety of a better Testament] Heb. 7. 22. it is not meant that Christ became our surety to God, and took upon him the payment of our debts; But was a surety of God's promise, and died to assert the truth of the Covenant, C. 7. 22. p. 136, 319, 348, 357. 6. That Eusebius would not have the Son of God who appeared to Abraham to be the most high God, Cap. 13. 2. p. 331. 7. That the Nicene Fathers h●ld not that the Son is that one most high God who is the Father. These are the Articles of Infidelity, which are affirmed by this Commente●; against which, (consisting of two Heads, as is said) I will God's assistance address two Books following; in the former whereof, The Godhead of Christ shall be declared; and in the later, the Incarnation of the same Jesus, who is the true, only, and supreme God, shall be manifested, and thereby the Great and gracious Mystery of man's Redemption, by our God so Incarnate, will be unfolded. CHAP. XVIII. The Conclusion of this first Book, with a friendly Caution to the Commenter. BEfore I close up this Book, I desire the Commenter, who denyeth the Godhead of Christ, and the Works of Creation, and Redemption by him; to lay to his heart that saying of St. Austin, Domine, qui In Vita Aug. pro Cor. lan●. lib. 3. c. 42. non amat te propter opus Creationis, dignus est inferno, quid dicam de to qui non amat te ●ropter Redemptionem? (i) Lord, he that doth not love thee for thy work of Creation, is worthy of hell, but what shall I say, of him that doth not love thee for the work of Redemption? And when the same Father heard an heavenly voice saying unto Idem ibid. him, Augustine amas me? Dic quantum amas me, (i) Austin lovest thou me? declare how much thou lovest me. This holy man returned answer, thus. Si ego Deus essem, & tu Augustinus, vellem fieri Augustinus, ut tu Deus fieres: (i) If I were God, and thou wert Austin, I would desire to be Austin, that thou mightst be God. I do not marvel that he, which denieth the Godhead of his Saviour, doth labour to prove, and also earnestly desire that men's souls may die with their bodies, and more yet, that they may be for ever annihilated; or (if a resurrection, and judgement must needs be) that hell-torments may continue but three days; for although some Schoolmen argue, that it is better to be in the state of eternal torment then to be annihilated, and so not be at all, yet I am sure the Scriptures, and Fathers speak otherwise, as of Judas, Matth. 26. 24. It had been good for that man if he had not been bo●ne. Then they shall say to the mountains, Fall on us, Luk. 23. 30. And I doubt not but the devils, whose continuance is but Misera aeternitas, Aug. de Civ. l. 9 c. 13. Minut. Foel. p. 330. n. 102. as Austin speaks E●e●lasting misery, would willingly have an end of being, wish an end of torment. Minutius Foelix saith of some, Malunt extingui penitùs quam ad suppli●ia reparari; i▪ e. They would rather be for ever dead, then to be restored to a living torment: and Nazianzen saith, Optandum est impr●bis hominibus, igne Naz. Orat. 10. aeterno dignis, ut corpus ●orum proti●us extingueretur; i. e. They that have earned eternal fi●e, may wish that they may never re●urn from death,— but— More perire serae, † Idem poem. 14. n. 42. Prosp. i● Sent. 170. to be like the beasts that perish: because as the first death taketh men's souls from them against their wills: so the Second death, as Prosper saith, Animan nolentem tenet in corpore, (i) In hell, the souls of the dam●ed shall be kept in their bodies, against their wills. I have read of one in despair, that wished that he had been a toad rather than a man; and St. Amb●ose saith Ambr. ad virg. laps. n. 36. to such kind of men, Beatae vos serae, & volueres quibus nullus me●us est de inseris; (i.) Happy are the silly beasts and birds, in whom there is no fear of hell: yea, some have been so affrighted with the thought of those infernal torments, that they feared to leave this present life: as Seneca reports of Maecenas, a noble, but a very Sen. Epist. n. 17. voluptuous Heathen, that he wished, Deformitatem, debi●●tatem, crucem acu●am, modo vita prorogetur, (i) That with continuance of this life, he would be content to suffer deformity, diseases, yea, and the sharp pain of the Cross: and of such despairing men, St. Austin saith, Si Aug. de lib. arbit. l. 3. c. 6. quis dixerit, non esse quam me miserum esse mallem, respondebo menti●is; If I should hear such a man say, I would rather die, then live in this misery, I would give him the lie. Now I hearty wish, and pray that this Commenter may live to see, and revoke, and repent these blasphemies, because I am verily persuaded, that they are such, of which it is said in the Gospel, that he that so blasphemeth (and therein liveth, and Matth. 12. 32. dyeth impenitent) shall never be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come; of which I shall have occasion to speak at large hereafter. Now that this first Book may not swell to the Readers too much tediousness, it shall here end; for I am apprehensive by mine own reading of other men's Books, as they will be of mine; and as Austin said of Aug. de fide. count. Man. c. 24. his own, Ita ●ibri termino, reficitur lectoris intentio, sicut labor viatoris, hospitio; (i.) The end of a book refresheth a weary Reader, as an Inn doth a weary Traveller. L. Deo. FINIS▪ THE Second Book. Wherein is showed, THAT JESUS CHRIST is the True, and Only Supreme, and most High GOD. Qui stabilimenta fidei Christianae subvertere nititur; Stantibus eyes, ipse subvertitur. Aug. Cont. Julian. l. 6. c. 1. Qui fidem incertam habent, certam infidelitatem ostendunt. Athan. Cont. Arian. Orat. 1. LONDON, Printed for Humphrey Moseley, and are to be sold at his Shop at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1655. THE PREFACE. HAving in the first Book transacted some of the lighter errors of this Commentary; I now proceed to the weightier blasphemies therein contained, and particularly to that of the denial of the Divine nature, and eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ; which I conceive to be that blasphemy, which the Scripture saith, shall never be forgiven. And because the diligent discussion thereof, will give a great light to the Mystery of our Saviour's Godhead; I have resolved to make my entrance into that Discourse by handlingt this blasphemy, as it is described by three of the Evanglists, Matth. 12. 31. Mar. 3. 29. Luk. 12. 10. And because the Exposition of those places in my way, may (perhaps) to others seem new (though in truth it is not so) I do here humbly submit mine own opinions therein unto the Judgement of the Church, and her more Learned and grave Divines. The GODHEAD OF Jesus Christ. CHAP. I. Of divers doubts and difficulties concerning the sin against the holy Spirit, and divers opinions thereof. IF this question be loosely, and negligently handled, what man can be found free from this sin? for every sin against God may be called a sin against the holy Spirit; because, as Athanasius Atha. de Commu. essent. p. 625. noteth, Contumelia unius Personae est blasphemia universae plenitudinis deitatis; (i.) A Comumelie against any one Person in the Trinity is the blaspheming of the fullness of the Godhead. But if you say, that by this sin is meant some particular sin or blasphemy only against the third Person; I ask, Did not Ananias and Sapphira thus sin? Act. 5. 3. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? Yet I think no sober Divine will pronounce Ananias Orig. in Eze. ho. 1. absolutely damned. Origen saith, Deus non punit bis— * Idem in Ma●. Tract. 8. Ananias & Sapphira in hoc seculo recipiebant peccatum suum, ut mu●diores exirents (i) God punished but once for once sinning— Ananias and Sapphira received the [punishment] of their sin in this world, that they might departed cleaner to the other world. The Jews resisted the Holy Ghost, Act. 7. 51. and amongst them was St. Paul, Act. 8. 1. yet the holy Martyr S. Stephen prayed for them. Simon Magus so basely esteemed of the Holy Ghost, that he offered money for it; yet St. Peter invited, and exhorted him to repentance, not despairing of his conversion: and the Church Primitive invited those heretics to her Communion and fellowship, whose special heresy was the denying the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, as the a Naz. Orat. 37. Eunomians and Macedonians, whom the Church did therefore call b Sec. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) enemies of the Holy Ghost; and those that did come in to the Church, she entertained, c. 35. and reconciled them, and pronounced Peace unto them. If every particular offence against the third Person be indeed this unpardonable sin, what shall become of many Preachers, who, howbeit they be learned, and well-meaning men, yet many times they err in delivering false glosses and expositions upon Scriptures: and Isychius saith, Qui aliena docent, in Spiritum bl●sphemant, Isych. in Levit. c. 10. — sic peccant qui Prophetarum dogmata non interpretantur ad intentionem Spiritûs; (i.) They blaspheme the Spirit, who interpret doctrines of the Prophets otherwise then they intended. St. Austin saith, Donatistae Aug. Epist. 53. peccant in Spiritum, quia ●xufflant baptisma Catholicae Ecclesiae; (i.) The Donatists' sin against the Spirit, when they renounce the baptism which they received in the Church-Catholick, because that baptism was administered to them in the Name of the Holy Ghost; and yet both Austin and the Church did persuade many of them to return to the Communion of the Church, and also entertained them: To quench the Spirit, 1 Thess. 5. 19 and to grieve the Spirit, Ephes. 4. 30. surely are sins against the Spirit; the meaning is, c Aug. de gen. l. 4. c. 9 Ne contrista eos in quibus est Spiritus; (i.) Do not vex, afflict, or grieve those in whom the Spirit of God is; and yet how many have been, and still are quenched by afflictions and Prisons, lest the Spirit of truth in them should detect the foul practices of men; nay, the holy Martyrs did pray for their very afflicters; whereby it is evident, that they despaired not of the possibility of their Conversion, and Salvation. Some expound this unpardonable sin to be when we resist the motions of God's Spirit after we are enlightened, and so sin with knowledge stubbornly and rebelliously, because it is said, Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible fur those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, etc. if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance. Upon this place misunderstood, Novatus, and his Cathari grounded their heresy, that such as fell into sin after baptism, could not be received into the Church, though they repent; as we read in Epiphanius. Epiph. hae. 59 But did not David commit adultery and murder knowingly? did not Peter deny Christ, not ignorantly, but timerously? both of them after illumination; but neither of them unpardonably. Do not the most holy Christians upon earth, even the Elect, and after regeneration, fall into grievous sins? and such men as are called just, are said to fall seven times, Prov. 24. 16. for there is not found in any mortal man any such high degree of grace, as to preserve flesh and blood impeccable; so that if this exposition were true, who shall be saved? Christ saith, That servant which knew his Lords will and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes; which St. Austin thus expounds, Non sempiternam, Aug. in exp. Epist. ad Rom. n. 96. sed severiorem disciplinam significat; (i.) It signifies a more severe, but not an eternal punishment. You see the question concerning this sin grows very difficult; and indeed it is as Athanasius calleth it, Athan. to. 3. p. 687, 625. Tenebricosa, & p ofunda sententia, an intricate and profound sentence, but yet very advantageous to be rightly understood, that so we may avoid it. The Lord give us understanding, by whose assistance, I will endeavour to unfold these two Questions: First, What particular sin that is, which is called the blasphemy against the holy Spirit: and, Secondly, Why that sin is especially said to be unpardorable. CHAP. II. What the sin against the holy Spirit is, and ● Question. what is meant by blasphemy? TO blaspheme (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is to speak ill of, to deprave, to defame, to speak against the Spirit of God, to traduce and asperse it opprobriously, as the Pharisees did, Matth. 12. for when Christ had cast out a Devil by the power of his Godhead, or Divine Spirit; the Pharisees said it was done by the spirit of Beelzebub; for what greater obloquy or blasphemy can be invented, then when God is called Devil? The Pharisees knew that this wonderful work was done by some power in Christ, which was more than humane, and therefore they knew it must proceed either from God, or from the Devil, and therefore as St Hilary noteth, Quia humanam infirmitatem haec Hilar. in Mat. Can. 12. tanta ejus opera excederent▪— & confiteri, Dei nollent— dicunt ex Beelzebub esse; (i.) Because this work exceeded humane infirmity, and the proud Pharisees would not acknowledge it to be from God, therefore they said it was fr●m the devil. So in effect they called God, Beelzebub; and Christ a Conjurer; and this was a blasphemy in the highest degree. This Pharisaical blasphemy spread far and near, both among Jews and Heathens, and amongst these it was a common received error, that Christ was a Magician, as Eusebius notes. There was (in the first age after Euseb. de Demonst. l. 3. c. 2. Christ) * Hier. Epist. exeg. 62. Ambr. in symb. n. 21. Lact. de Instit. l. 5. c. 3. one Apollonius of Tyana, a notorious Magician, that did many strange feats; amongst the rest, when he was convented before the Emperor Domitian in his Consistory, to be punished, presently he vanished out of sight: this Apollonius is by Hierocles in Eusebius compared with Christ, as being equal to him for miracles, insomuch that the Emperor † Lamprid. in Alex. c. 7. Alexander Severus in his Lararium▪ or house-Chappel, set up the image of this Magician, with the images of Abraham and Christ, and worshipped them all; and some heathens extolled this Magician far above Christ, as we read in St. Austin; and because in the days of Origen Aug. Epist. 4. some Egyptian Magicians, like Mountebanks, in the open Marketplace, cured diseases, raised spirits, presented to their view Magical banquets, and seemed to release those that were possessed by devils: therefore Celsus said that Jesus performed his miracles by art Orig. Cont. Cells. lib. 1. n. 32. magic. I say seemed, only, for we learn from our Saviour, that one devil is not cast out by another, and Satan is not divided against himself; and although (when ignorant people employ one Witch to help them against another) some present ease may seem to be procured; yet indeed as Austin observeth, Non exit Aug. l. 83. quaest. qu. 79▪ n. 88 Satanas per infimas potestates, sed in intima regreditur, regnat in voluntale, corpori parcens; (i.) Satan is not dispossessed by any infernal power, but retireth himself into the more inward parts of the possessed; and though he spare the body, yet he tyrannizeth more in the soul, and maketh his possession stronger. Because this is a dangerous apostasy, to seek to, or to attribute the work of God to him, therefore Christ used divers arguments against it, and so did the Ancient Fathers, Origen, Athan. Euseb. Austin, and others, which having but touched, I omit, to avoid digressions. The greatest difficulty in this question, is, what our Saviour meant by the words, (holy Spirit, or holy Ghost) when he said, The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven: for the understanding whereof, I will lay down a few Considerations to the Reader, that from them he may gather the true meaning of that hard saying. First, That in Christ there are two natures, 1. His Godhead or Divine nature, by which he is called God over all blessed for ever, Rom. 9 5. 2. His humane nature, or manhood, made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, Rom. 1. 3. The first of these is called Forma Dei; the second is called forma Servi, both are Philip. 2. 6, 7. mentioned, Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God; thought it no robbery to be equal to God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a Servant. Secondly, Consider, that there are two spirits in Christ; 1. His soul or humane spirit, of which he saith, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, Luk. 23. 46. Secondly, his Divine Spirit, of which it is said, If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is noni of his, Rom. 8. 9 Thirdly, that (according to his two natures) there are two filiations in Christ; for, 1. He is called the Son of man, the son of David. 2. He is called the Son of God. Fourthly, That (according to those two natures, two spirits, and two sonships) the Scripture mentioneth two kinds of blasphemies against Christ, th● one against him as he is the Son of man, and this is pardonable, Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him, Matth. 12. 32. The other unpardonable; But▪ Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, ●t shall not be forgiven him, Ibid. Fifthly, That the appellation, Holy Spirit, in Scripture is taken two ways; 1. Pro deitate, & essentiae omnium personarum, Pa●ris, Filii, Spiritûs▪ (i) For the Godhead, or divinity of all the Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; because all are one God, as Matth. 12. 28. & John 4. 24. 2. It is taken Personaliter▪ (i) properly for the third Person alone; as, Baptising them in the N●me of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matth. 28. 19 and this distinction is acknowledged by divers late Divines of the Reformed Churches; a Polan. l. 3. c 6 Polanus, b Bucan. l. 3. p ●●. Bucan▪ c Tilen. p. 141. Tilenus, and d Melan. in loc. Com. de Spirit. Ph. Melanthon. From these plain, and confessed Considerations, I extract these two Propositions. 1. That it is no inconvenience to affirm, That those words, ho●y Spirit, or Holy Ghost, in that place do signify the Godhead of the second Person, Jesus Christ. 2. That to deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ, is that blasphemy which in the Gospel is said to be unpardonable: And this is my Conclusion; which hereafter I hope I shall evidently demonstrate to the Readers satisfaction. CHAP. III. That the Godhead of the Son is called Spirit, and holy Spirit: that the words Ghost and Spirit are of the same signification. LEt it not seem strange that the appellation of one person is given to another, for as in this place the Godhead of the Son is called the holy Spirit; so in another place the Godhead of the Son is called the Everlasting Father, Esa. 9 6. For unto us a child is born, his Name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting F●ther. In that he saith (a child is born) it must needs be meant of the Son of God, and the Son is called the everlasting Father, because he is God, for the Godhead of every person (being but one in all) is & may be called the everlasting Father: and so the holy Ghost is the everlasting Father also; because the holy Ghost is God, and yet this doth not confound the three persons, or their several and distinct proprieties and personalities; for albeit every Person is the everlasting Father, in respect of men and of creatures, because all concurred in the creation, yet only the first Person hath this Personal propriety to be the Father of the s●cond Person, and so the Father of God, as the Son is the Father, respectu Creaturarum, (i) in respect of the creatures; so the first Person is Father of God and of Man, as that in the Poet (if it were in the singular number) might illustrate. — Hominum sator, atque deorum, a Virg. Aene. l. 1. so God the Father, is the Father of God the Son; that is, the Father of the Person of the Son, but not the Father of the Godhead of the Son. b Pater Personae, non essentiae; Pater Filii, non deitatis. We in our Creed confess the Son to be God of God, that, is, God the Son, of God the Father, but we do not say, Deitas de deitate, Godhead of Godhead. Neither could the Son of God, call God the Father his Lord, and his God, but only because the Person of the Son assumed the humane nature, and form of a servant, as St. Augustino hath observed upon that saying, Ps. 22. 10 Thou art my God from my mother's belly. ᶜ Pater est Deus & Dominus Filio, quia in eo est forma servi;— De ventre matris Deus meus es tu. Ps. 22. 10.— Sed ant● omnia secula Pater est, (i) The Father is the Lord and God of the Son, because the Son assumed the form of a servant; therefore it is said in the Psalm, Thou art my God from my mother's belly, but the Father may be said to be his Father from eternity. As every Person is called a Father (so as is said) so also every Person is called Holy, because the Godhead is holy, and is in every Person; and therefore it is said, holy Father, Joh. 17. 11. And thy holy child Ie●us, Acts 4. 27. as well as the third Person is called the holy Spirit, and all Persons together are so styled, Holy, Holy, Holy, Esa. 6. 3. Revel. 4. 8. and yet the third Person hath a property and personality in holiness, not communicable. But now we must distinguish thus: Holiness in God is either the holiness of Nature, and so every Person is holy; or holiness of Office, that is, to be a Sanctifier; and thus it is the property of the third Person: for although the Father and the Son do sanctify, yet they sanctify mediately by the Spirit, but the Spirit sanctifieth immediately by himself, so that when sactification is said to be the work of the whole Trinity you must thus understand it. Pa●er est fons, Filius exemplar, Spiri●us impressor Sanct●●a●is, (i) The Father is the Fountain, the Son is the Pattern, the Holy Ghost is the Stamper or Communicator of holiness in us and to us; as the whole man is said to see, but he seethe only by the eye. Next▪ I am to show that every person is called Spirit: for John 4. 24. God is a Spirit, and every Person is God, and it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of my Father which speaketh in you, Matth 10 20▪ and the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit, 1 Cor▪ 15 45 We see there is mention of the Spirit of the Father, & of the spirit of the Son (for the last Adam, must needs be meant of Christ) neither are these observations new but are the old Collections of the Primitive Church writers. St. Basil saith, d Basil. count. Euno. l. 3. Spiritus appellatio est communis tribus personis, (i) The appellation of Spirit is communicable to the three Persons, and before him Tertullian saith, e Tert. de Orat. c. 1. jesus Christus est Spiritus Dei, (i) Jesus Christ is the Spirit of God. Athan●sius speaketh more home, f Atha. de Com. essen. 625. to. 3. D●●ta●●m verbi, Christus inse Spiritum sanctum vocat. (i) Christ himself calleth his own Godhead, the holy Spirit: and St. Hi r●me doth also as punctually observe the same. g Higher cont. Pala. l. 2. c. 6. n. 23. Spiri●us sanctus vocatur Spiritus I●su; (i.) The holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Jesus. Neither let the English Translation of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trouble thee, because they are in some places translated holy Spirit, and in others holy Ghost, and sometimes they signify only the third Person, as Matth. 28. 19 But in another place they signify the Spirit or Godhead of the second Person, as he breathed on them and s●ld, Receive the holy Ghost, John 20. 22. of which he also saith I am with you always even to the end of the world, Matth. 28. 28. which is meant of the comfortable presence of his Godhead, by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts: for so also the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it signifieth the soul, or humane Spirit of Christ, it is sometimes translated Spirit, and other times Ghost as Luk. 23. 46. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, (that is, my soul) and having said thus, he gave up the Ghost, that is, his soul and life. Now for as much as the Godhead of Christ, or God in Christ, is a Spirit, and also is holy, it may be truly said without any fallacy, both Logically and Theologically, not only disjunctively, but compositively and jointly, the Godhead of Christ is an holy Spirit; for of him it is said, Rom. 1. 4. that he was declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit of holiness, which surely is an holy Spirit, by which he is said to sanctify the Church, Ephes. 5. 26. & Heb. 2. 11. & Heb. 13. 12. And to this St. Austin speaketh very pertinently and plainly, h Aug. de Trin. l. 5. c. 11. n. 62. Quia Deus est Spiritus, potest dici Pater Spiritus, & Filius Spiritus, & Pater sanctus, & Filius sanctus, Trinitas potest appellari Spiritus Sanctus: (i) Because God is a Spirit, it may be said, the Father is a Spirit, and the Son is a Spirit: and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy, and the Son is holy; the whole Trinity may be called an holy Spirit. CHAP. IU. That the blasphemy against the holy Spirit mentioned, Matth. 12. was meant of the denying and blaspheming the Godhead of jesus Christ. FOr the right understanding of this question▪ I desire the Reader to take notice of these few observations following. 1. That this Pharisaciall blasphemy was uttered, and intended only against the Person of Christ, and therein only against his Godhead, and therefore the answer of Christ must needs be a Vindication of his Person, and of his Godhead, for otherwise Christ might seem not to have answered punctually, to the slander and blasphemy objected, if we shall confess that the blasphemy was against the Person of the Son, and yet imagine that his answer is only concerning another Person, viz. the Person of the holy Ghost. 2. Observe again, that Christ doth not there make any mention of the blasphemy against the Person of the Father, (though there was as much reason that he should as to mention a blasphemy against the third Person.) But he keeps himself punctually to the second Person himself, against whom only this blasphemy was spoken, and intended, neither did he at this time go abour to assert and vindicate the honour either of the Person of the Father, or of the Person of the holy Ghost, against which Persons, nothing was expressly said, or meant; but be did only declare the power and Truth of his own Godhead in his own Person, and therefore he said, If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, the k●ngdome of God is come unto you, Matth. 17. 28. By the Spirit of God, he meaneth the Godhead residing in his own Person. 3. Thirdly, observe, that as in his Arguments he spoke only of his own Person, like a good disputant, confining himself exactly ad idem, to the same thing the Pharisees spoke of; so in his answer, and in denouncing judgement against those blasphemers, by the rule of right reason he must still continue his speech of the same Person; therefore in effect he saith thus: Although a word spoken against me as I am a man, and the Son of man may be forgiven; yet a blasphemy or word spoken against me as I am very God, cannot be forgiven. Or thus, The vilifying, depraving blaspheming, or speaking against my humane nature, may be pardoned; but the depraving, denying, or blaspheming my Godhead, my divine Nature, my divine and holy Spirit, shall not be forgiven. 4. Observe again, that the Jews had indeed depraved him in both his Natures. 1. In his manhood thus, Behold, a glutton, a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners? Matth. 11. 19 and afterwards, Is not this the Carpenter's son? Matth. 13. 55. disparaging him for his mean parentage: this is the Exposition of St. Amb●ose, a Ambr. de Spirit. l. 1. c. 3. In Filium Hominis p●ccare est remissius sentire de carne Christi, etc. To sin against the Son of Man, is to conceive too basely of the flesh of Christ;— and they that so sin, are not utterly excluded from pardon. 2. The Jews blasphemed him now in his Godhead, by denying it, and ascribing the miracle to confederacy with Beelzebub; and of this blasphemy, which doth take away the very foundation of remission of sins, it is said, It shall not be forgiven. 5. I may add hereunto that those unbaptized Pharisees in probability, did not intent any obloquy or blasphemy against the Person of the holy Spirit as it is the third Person; of which they had never been instructed, neither had they so much Christianity as those disciples at Ephesus, who though they had been baptised unto john's baptism, yet they had not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost. Act. 19 2. Thus having showed that in Scripture, and in the writings of the Fathers and later Divines, the Godhead of Christ is called a Spirit, and holy, and also an holy Spirit, and that in St. Matthew, those words, holy Spirit, are to be understood of the Godhead of Christ, which is for ever united to, and residing in the Holy Temple of his most sacr●d Body, and Soul: I now reassume my former Conclusion, That the denying Christ to be God, is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which is there said to be unpardonable. Now that in a Doctrine of so great moment and concernment, the Reader may understand that I do not obtrude any novel and private opinion of mine own upon him: I will he●e lay down the judgement of so●e of the Fathers, in this very question; and first of Athanasius, one of the most profound and godly Divines, that since the Apostles days, the Church ever had; who in his book De Communi essentia Patris, etc. aith, b Arha. to▪ 3. p. 625. It is hard to conjecture what our Saviour means by those words, He that speaketh against the Sod of Man shall be forgiven, but he that speaketh against the holy Ghost shall not be so given. So that the Son may seem ●o he inferior to the Spirit, and yet the So saith, The Father and I are one;— If he that saith to his brother; Thou fool, shall be cast into h●ll: ●n quam gehennà gehennarum conjiri●tur is qui ●ss●rit Deum creatu am ●sse? Into what Hell of Hells will he be cast who calleth him that is God, a Creature, and a Servant▪ and a Minister only? And a little after, he saith:— D●i●at●m V●rbi, ipse Christus Spiri●um Sanctum voc●t, & humanitatem suam, Filium Hominis n●minavit: (i) Our Saviour called his own Godhead, the holy Ghost, and his own Manhood, he called the Son of Man:— and of those that blaspheme his holy Spirit, by blaspheming his Godhead, is this sentence to be understood,— It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. This is the judgement of Athanasius. To him I add the Opinion of St. Hil●r●, who was contemporary with Atha●asius, who in his Exposition of that Text, Matth. 12. 32. saith, c Hil. in Mat. Can. 12. p. 731. Si negetur D●us in Christo, caret omni mis●ricordia: (i) If a Man deny God to be in Christ, that man shall find no mercy. And again, he saith, d Hil. ib. Can. 31. p. 426. Blasphemia in Spiritum ●st, Christum Deum ●sse negare: (i▪) The blasphemy against the Spirit is, to deny Christ to be God. The same Father in the place last quoted, speaking of Saint Peter's denial of Christ, saith, Because to deny Christ to be God, is that sin which shall never be forgiven; therefore Peter denied thus, I know not the Man, because a word spoken against the Son of Man may be forgiven. The very same conceit hath Saint chrysostom also, in his Sermon of Peter's denial, and upon these words,— I know not the Man:] e Chrys. to. 6▪ p. 631. Non dixit non no●i Deum Verbum, sic enim peccasset in Spi●itum Sanctum, (i) Peter, said not, I know him not to be God, for so he had sinned against the holy Ghost, but I know not the Man. Now whether Saint Peter meant so as these two Fathers conjectured, I cannot affirm for certain, but by this I find that the judgement of these two great Doctors was, that the denying of the Godhead of Christ, is indeed that great unpardonable sin. To this I add the testimony of Saint Basil, who deserved to be called the Great. He in that excellent Book De Spiritu Sancto, saith, f Basil. de Spirit. c. 7. Testificer omni Homini Christum profi●en●i, sed ●um neganti Deum ●sse, quod Christus nihil ●i proderi●: (i) I testify to every Man, who professeth himself to be a Christian, and yet decayeth Christ to be God; Christ shall nothing at all profit that man: And if Christ do not profit us in the remission of our sins, I am sure, our sins shall never be forgiven in this world, or in the world to come. CHAP. V The Opinions of later Divines concerning the unpardonable sin: A brief Narration of the life and death of Arius, and of Julian the Apostate. TO the Ancients, I subjoin the opinions of our later Divines, who in their Expositions and Tractats, where they inquire what particular sin this is, although they do not agree therein, yet when they inquire what persons have sinned this sin, they do commonly affirm, for one, that Arius in his Heresy did s●n thus: and this is the opinion of Polanus, and also of Bucanus and others. Now the Polan. synt. p. 340. Bucan. Lo. Com. p 174. only noted heresy of Arius was the denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ▪ saying, that he was not from everlasting, and that he was but preferred to be a God. Just as our Commenter would have him only exalted and deified. This Arius was born in afric, and was a Presbyter or Priest of the Cathedral Church of Alexandria in Egypt: In that City in the days of the Emperor Constantine the Great, there were ten Churches (besides Epiph. haer. 69. the Cathedral.) Just such as we now call Paraecial or Parish-Churches, wherein ten of the Presbyters of the Cathedral Church, were the incumbents, and Preachers, of these ten Arius was one, and was more esteemed, and followed then any of his brethren▪ It fell out that the Bishop of Alexandria died; Arius gaped for the place, but missed it, for one Alexander was elected; then Arius raised a faction, and revived the former Heresy of Paulus Samosatenus, preaching this damnable doctrine, that Christ was not God. When Bishop Alexander was informed of this, he convented Arius, and upon examination discovering his Heresy, excommunicated him: Then divisions appeared, for seven Priests, twelve Deacons, and seven hundred Virgins had joined with Arius. Great discord grew among the people, some taking part with A●ius, and others with Alexander: then the Emperor by Letters commanded both of them to desist from disturbing his subjects, but this could not appease them: then he called that famous Council of Nice, of about three hundreth and eighteen Bishops, from all parts of the Roman Empire. They condemned this Heresy of Arius, and compiled that Confession of Faith, which remaineth to this day, and is yet called the Nicene Creed, wherein the Godhead of Christ is asserted in these words: ●eing of one substance with the Father,— and God of God,— very God of very God: Arius refusing to subscribe to it, was banished by the Imperial Edict, but was afterwards recalled, and exhibited in writing a Confession of Faith to the said Emperor, which he allowed of, and upon an oath taken by Arius, that he believed so, as he had written, the Emperor commanded that he should be received into the Church. (This equivocating hypocrite had in his bosom secretly at the same time, another Confession of his own heretical Doctrine written, of which he meant.) The Emperor was then at Constantinople, Arius and his associates were going to the Church to require admission, but the Bishop of Constantinople, whose name also was Alexander, had resolved to keep him out, having prayed earnestly to God, the day before in the Church, prostrate on the pavement,▪ and with tears uttering these words; Domine, Athan. Epist. ad Serapion. n. 16. — si Arius ●ras●in synaxin introducetur, nunc dimittas s●rv●m tuum,— sin Eccl●siae parca● tolle Arium, (i) If Arius must be brought into the Church to morrow, Lord, now let thy servant departed in peace; but if thou wilt be merciful to thy Church, take away Arius. In the morning, as Arius with a great train was (as is said) going to Church, presently finding a great looseness in his body, he went aside to the common boggards of the City, and there voided his bowels, spleen, liver and blood, and was there found suddenly Socr▪ l. 1. c. 28▪ Ruff. hist. l. 1. c. 13. dead, as Socrates relateth: so died this blasphemer▪ Faetida mor●● faetida ment, as Ruffinus noteth, a stinking death suitable to his stinking soul;— Cacando as the marginal note is. For a long time after people would point at that place in detestation of Arius, until a well affected brother of the Arian sect bought the place, and to smother the fame of that judgement, and Soz. l. 2. c. 28. the infamy of Arius, he built a dwelling house upon it, as Sozomen reports. Another, who by our late Divines, is instanced in to have committed this sin against the holy Spirit, is Beza in Heb. 6. 6. Musc. in Mat. 12. p. 386 Gualt. in Mat. 12. Polan. p. 340. Buc. p. 174. Soz. l. 5. c. 2. Julian the Apostate, he was the son of Constantius, who was brother to Constantine the Great, and was by this Emperor's command, carefully brought up in Christianity, wherein he so profited, that he was admitted to be one of the Clergy, and was appointed; (i) Anagnost. that is, the Lectour, or Pible-Clark in the Church of Nicomedia, and (to show his great zeal) he and his brother Gallus, joined in building a Church over the Tomb of a Martyr, and so precise he was, that he lived a monastical strict life and after, when he was declared C●sar, or heir apparent, by his Cousin the Emperor Constantius, for a time he continued in such a seeming religiousness, that the good Father St. Hilary styled Hil. adv. Constan. lib. 3. him Religiosum Dominum, (i) his Religious Lord: But when he had got the command of a powerful Army, he rebelled against the Emperor Constantius, and caused himself openly to be proclaimed Emperor, and (to strengthen the rebellion) he opened all the old Idol-Temples which had been a long time disused, and so got the hearts of all heathens, and himself forsook his old Christian Religion, and turned heathen, caused his baptism to be washed off with the blood of sacrifices offered to idols, and writ Orations against Christians, and grew so zealous in the worship of Idols, that in stead of Julianus he was called Idolianus. Now the Naz. in Julian. Orat. 3. Apostasy and grand sin of this julian, was the denying Christ to be God; for he would not vouchsafe him any better appellation than Galilean, son of Mary ' Carpenters son; he permitted his Officers to do and say all manner of despite against Christ; Julianus the uncle of this Apostate seized on the Church-plate at Antio●h, and S●●. 5. 7. sent it to the treasury; Foelix the quaestor, having before scoffingly said, En qualib●s v●sis Mari● filio ministratur! (i) See what rich vessels the son of Mary is served withal! and having robbed the Church in great derision, they sent Urine to be presented at the holy Table in stead of Wine, as Theodoret writeth. It is Theod. hist. l. 3. c. 12. therefore plain enough, that Julian did therefore forsake the Christian Religion, because he did not believe that Christ was God; and indeed, if Christ be not God, why should any man be a Christian? and for this cause have those Divines said that this sin of Julian was the unpardonable sin against the holy Spirit. Wherefore, God to deter all Professors of Christianity from this damning blasphemy, hath manifestly stretched out his own hand in vengeance for the exemplary destruction of these two ringleaders in this Grand blasphemy: of Arius his end you heard before, and upon this Julian his anger appeared more evidently; insomuch that the Heathens in those days said as St. Hierome reporteth, who was an ear-witness: O Hier. in Habac. 3. P. 203 how can Christians say that their God is patiented and long-suffering, seeing he hath taken away Julian in such anger, and sudden fury!— & ne mo●i●o quidem spatio, indignationem suam differre potuit, (i) and could not for a little space defer his indignation. Whilst the Church gr●oan●d under the pressures of this Apostate, the Ecclesiastical History relates a strange Soz. l. 6. c. 2. passage of a man, That in a Church had a vision in a dream or ecstasy, he knew not which, for he saw Apostles and Prophets complaining of the injuries of Julian, and two of their company went from the rest, as if they went against Julian; the man for present awaked, but when he fell asleep there again, he saw in the same manner the two returnning, and saying to the rest, Julian is slain, which indeed proved true, and at that very time. The same Writer in the same place before noted, reporteth that Didymus the famous learned man of Alexandria (who was blind, yet was a stout disputant against the Aria● heresy in the days of Constantius) had a revelation at the same time; for being in a dream or ecstacy, there appeared to him in the air men riding on white horses, and saying, Go tell Didymns that julian is at this hour slain, and bid him signify the fame to Athanasius. Theodoret also reporteth of an holy Theod. hist. l. 3. c. 24. man, named Saba; that as he was earnestly, and with tears praying against the tyranny of julian, suddenly he changed his sad countenance, and looking pleasantly said to them that were with him, The Boar that rooted up the vineyard of the Lord is now slain. This proved true, and at the very same time, though this Saba was distant 20. days march from the place where julian Stativis. died; and because it could n●ver appear by what man julian was slain, men might well think it was done by some extraordinary means; for though the Persian king (against whom julian made his last war) made great inquiry through his whole Army, and proposed great honours and rewards by proclamation, to him that had Soz. l. 6. c. 1. slain the Roman Emperor, yet ●one could be found to take that honour upon him. Nay, I find in Socrates, Soc. l. 3. c. 18. that one Calisius, who was of the train or lifeguard of julian, reported in writing that this julian was wounded and slain, à Daemone, that is, by a good or a bad Angel (for by Heathens both sorts are called daemons;) upon these presumptions (which to me seem not unprobable) the Churchmen of those days did attribute the destruction of this blasphemer to the extraordinary hand of God; and therefore Nazianz●n in one of his Orations against this julian useth this expression: Audi●e angeli,— quorum opera tyrannus extinctus Naz. in Julian. Orat. 3. est; (i.) Hear O ye Angels, by whose Ministry this Tyrant was destroyed. I might here add the like examples of God's vengeance showed upon other Arians as upon Georgius, who was put into the sequestered Church of Athansius; but in the end, the people fell upon him, dragged him through the City of Alexandria, beat him, and slew him, and burned his body to ashes: As also how the Arians accounted him after his death for a Martyr, as Epiphanius Epiph. haer. 76 notes. But, Olympus an Arian Bishop perished by a more memorable vengeance, for having blasphemed the Trinity Pal. ad. an. 510. & Platina in vita Anasta●ii 2 di. as he was in a Bath, three fiery darts were cast at him visibly by an Angel, and by them he was presently fired and burnt to death, as Palmerius in his Chronicle reporteth. But thus much may suffice for the first question. This Exposition being admitted upon those places in the 3. Evangelists, (as I do firmly believe it is the true meaning thereof) this question will be clear, which by other Expositions hath a long time much perplexed our Expositors, and could never give satisfaction to the Reader, nor could the Expositors tell us certainly upon what persons they could fasten this sin, and therefore Beza in his notes upon 1 Epist. of Saint john, c. 5. v. 16. tells us, it is the sin of the Devil, because indeed, as he there states it, it could not be found clearly in any man. CHAP. VI The second question, why this blasphemy of denying 2. Quest. the Godhead of Christ is said to be especially unpardonable? THe reason why the denying the Godhead▪ of Christ, is said to be the irremissible sin is, because AugEpist. 105. if Christ be not indeed, the true and only and supreme God, than he hath not redeemed us; and we are and must be for ever, Massa d●mnationis, (i) a lump of perdition, and fuel for hellfire; for there is no salvation in any other, Acts 4. 12. When St. Peter had said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, Matth. 16. 16. Christ told him, Upon this Rock will I build my Church, that is, upon this Confession, that Christ is the Son of God; for the Church is the nursery Cyp. de simple. cler. n. 76. of Heaven, and none can have God for their Father, who have not the Church for their mother; and the Church is built upon this foundation, and other foundation can no man lay, then that is laid, which is jesus Christ, 1. Cor. 3. 11. for, This is life everlasting, that they might know thee the only true God, and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, John 17. 3. that is, as St. Austin expounds Aug. count. ser. Arian. to. 6. n. 17. it, to know thee, and whom thou hast sent to be one true God. There is no redemption, and therefore no salvation but in Christ, nor can there be any salvation by Christ, if he be not God; and though Christ be God, and so a Saviour, yet salvation cannot be from him derived to any that do not believe him to be God. The aforenamed Father, when he desired vehemently to work upon his Readers he divers times used this expression: Per Divinitatem & humanitatem Domini obsecro: I beseech Aug. Epist. 203. you by the Divinity and humanity of our Lord. And both he and other Fathers in their Expositions Chry. 4. hom. Antioch. Aug. de Doct. ch. l. 2. c. 16. of that saying, Be wise as Serpents, Matthew 10. 16. Tell us, that the Serpentine prudence is, that when he is assaulted, he exposeth his body to blows, that so he may preserve his head; To teach us, that we also in time of persecution, Custodiamus caput, Epiph. hae. 37. id est, Christum in confession, (i) though we fail in some inferior points of Religion, yet to be sure to hold to God in Christ; for Christ is the head of his Church, and the head of Christ is God, 1. Cor. 11. 3. In Christo caput, Euseb. Hist. l. 1. c. 1. est Divina nature, saith Eus●bius; and Saint Hierome gives the reason, Q●oniam Deitas quae in eo erat, gubernabat, Hier. in loc. (i) The Godhead in Christ did govern the humane nature; for whosoever rejecteth the Godhead of Christ, doth thereby disclaim the only sussicient means of Redemption; and therefore Fu●gentius saith truly, (i) Christianus esse non potest, qui●q●is Christum Dominum Deum suum esse non dixerit, (i) He that doth not confess Fulg. de fide. P 9 n. 1. that Christ is his Lord God, cannot be a Christian. For such a man's religion is no better than the religion of Jews and Turks; for both these confess a God, but Ariani J●daeorum & Judaei Arianorum. Ambros. de incar. c. 2. n. 27 neither of them confess Jesus to be that God. And * Carion in Const. magno. Act. & mon. in Hen. 7. n. 52. Atha. eont. Arian. Orat. 2. n. 5. Apolog. 2. n. 16 Apol. de fuga, Ca●ion in his Chronicle saith, that the Arian Heresy did open the door to let in Turkism, and was Praecursor Mahometis, (i) that Arius was the forerunner of Mahomet, and so of Antichrist; and Mr. Fox doubteth not to affirm, that the Turk is the principal Antichrist: and the Father's long ago said as much of the A●ian Heresy, and very jnstly: For A●hanasius said, Ariana haeresis est praecursatrix Antcihristi, (i) The Arian Heresy is the forerunner of Antichrist; and in another place he saith, it is An●eambulo Antichristi, (i) the usher of Antichrist: And moreover, he saith Ariani— non Christiani, sed Ariani ap●ellari volunt, (i) that they desired rather to be called Arians then Christians: and again, he saith, Ariani non sunt pro Christianis aestimandi, (i) that indeed Orat. 2. cont, Arian. n. 5. the Aliens are not to be accounted Christians, because they opposed Christ in his Godhead, which is the only foundation of Christianity, therefore with great reason they are called Antichrists; and therefore Saint Ambrose doubted not to affirm Ariani sunt Antichristi à Ambr. de fide l. 2. c. 4. n. 22. 1 John 2. 22. johanne designati, (i) That the Arians are those Antichrists which Saint john pointed at, 1 john 2. 22. and St. Hilary writidg against Constantius the Arian Emperor, (in whose days Arianisme so dominered:) Christus expect●tur, quia Antichristus obtinuit, (i) that Hil. count. Const. lib. 1. we may now expect Christ's second coming▪ because Antichrist is already come: for nothing can be imagined to be more opposite and contrary to Christ & Christian Religion, than the denying of his Godhead; therefore is it most fitly called Antichristianisme. As Christ could not have suffered and died for us, except he had been Man, so his death could not have satisfied the Justice of God▪ nor redeemed us except he had been God, and therefore Athan●sius saith, Quifilium negat quem deprecari Atha. to. 3. P. 695. potest ut propitiatorem inveniat? (i) Unto whom shall that wretched man fly for propitiation for his sins, who rejecteth the Son of God who is the only Mediator? This is that confession which the gates of Hell have always laboured to conquer by the power and cruelty of persecutors; for what did those tyrants chief aim at in all their torments,— Nisi ut neg●tur Deus in Christo, Optatus, lib. 3. n. 84. — Nega Deum, incende Testamentum: (i) These were the words of the tormentors, Deny Christ to be God, burn the Testament, and offer incense; for if the Godhead of Christ be denied, our Religion is no more helpful to us for salvation, than Heathenism was to them. But we confess and firmly believe that Jesus Christ is God, the supreme God, the only and most high God, and that we neither acknowledge, nor know any other God; and he that denieth this God, and this Godhead in Christ, falleth into that sin, of which it is said, it shall never be forgiven. For if the Godhead of Christ be denied, it must needs be confessed that he was only a creature, and a mere man; and if so, than he cannot be a Redeemer of us; for can any man imagine, that the death of one mere man, and that but a temporary death, could satisfy the just wrath of God for the sins of millions, and redeem us from an everlasting torment? Divines doubt not to affirm, that if all the created Angels of Heaven could, and for us would suffer death, their sufferings would not pay our debts, or redeem one soul. God as he is most merciful, so is he most exactly just, and will have the utmost farthing paid. St. Austin saith truly, N●c Aug. de consens. Evang. c. 14. n. 84. Dei justitia impedit misericordiam, nec misericordia justitiam, (i) Neither doth his justice lessen his mercy, nor his mercy his justice: And again he saith, justa est gratia Aug. Exp. in Epist. ad Ro. n. 96. Dei, & gratia justitia; (i.) The grace or mercy of God is just, and his justice is g●acious; That which maketh the blood of Christ to be of sufficient value to redeem the world, and to be as St. Peter calls it, The precious blood of Christ, 1 Pet. 1. 19 is the excellent worth of that person whose blood it is; for because Christ is God, therefore his blood in Scripture is called Sanguis Dei, Acts 20. 28. The blood of God, the Lamb could not take away the sins of the world, except he were the Lamb of God, and Agnus-Deus, God the Lamb; John 1. 29. nor could a crucified man satisfy for our sins, except they had— crucified the Lord of Glory, 1 Cor. 2. 8. nor could our Christian Faith in the death of Christ advantage us, except we believe as Tertullian saith, Christianorum Tort. count. Marc. lib. 2. n. 41. est Deum mortuum ered●re, (i) The Christian must believe that he that died for him, was God. And albeit some Heretics and Heathens scoffed at a crucified God, yet the Church never was ashamed of him. St. Hier. Ep. 1. n. 1. Hierome saith, In judicio gaudens dices, Ecce Crucifixus Deus meus: (i) At the last judgement the Christian with joy shall say, See now where my crucified God is. Our only help and hope for redemption, standeth in the Name of the Lord: for although Christ in regard of his humane nature assumed, be, as David saith, Ps. 89. 19 One exalted chosen out of the people, yet in regard of his Godhead, God saith, I have laid help upon one that is mighty, and that mighty one is Christ, for Christ is the mighty God of Jacob, Psal. 132. 2. CHAP. VII. The Commenter having denied the Godhead of Christ, doth also deny the work of redemption by him, and so Turcizeth, and acteth for Antichrist: of Antichrists mystical body. OUr Commenter having first resolved to ungod Jesus Christ, in the next place he denieth his great wo●k of Redemption, and tells us that [Christ d●d not become our sure●y, nor did take upon him the payment of our debts, but was only a surety of God's promise, and died to assert the truth of the Covenant— as a witness &c p. 136,] and that the expiatory sacrifice for sin, was not by him offered on earth,] P. 116 146. He talketh often of this Covenant, but never tells us what it is: in his answer it will be expected that he set it forth, if he know what it is, as is much doubted. But in the mean time he hath showed himself to be a true Porphyrian Logician▪ for as I shown before, if Christ be nor the only and supreme God, it must needs follow, that he neither hath, or possibly could offer a sufficient expiatory sacrifice for our sins; because he that on the Cross was sacrificed (by the Commenters' Creed) was no more than a creature; for grant him the first blasphemy, that Christ is not God, and the second blasphemy must needs follow. This is a revival of a very ancient heresy of Cerinthus in plainer words, who taught as Irenaeus showeth, I●enaeus, l. 1. cap. 25. n. 108. That Christ descended upon jesus, when jesus was baptised, and that before his passion, Christ departed from jesus, and left jesus alone to be crucified: Christ was the Divine Nature (as this C●rin●hus meant) and Jesus he manhood or humane nature. So his doctrine was hat Jesus when he suffered was but a mere creature, ust as our Commenter teacheth, and this in ●ffect is all one with the Heresy of the Manichtes, who although they did not deny Christ to be God (as the Commenter doth) yet they would not believe that the Emmanuel or incarnate God was crucified, but another in his stead, and that a creature too. Whereupon St. Austin Aug. de fide cont. Man. to. 6. c. 33. saith to them: Miseri, non timetis ne dicatur vobis in judicio, ego eos liberavi pro quibus pessus sum: ite, ille vos liberet cui meas ascribitis passiones? (i) Are ye not afraid, ye wretched men, that Christ in judgement will say to you, Depart from me, and go to that mere creature, to whom you ascribe my passion; for I redeemed those only for whom I suffered? Now if Christ's passion on earth did not redeem us, to whom shall we go for redemption, seeing he redeemed only those for whom he suffered? I wish our Commenter would consider another speech of this renowned Father, who whilst he continued in the said Manichean Heresy, and then living at Rome, he fell into a dangerous sickness, and was very near death; and because at that time he did not rightly believe the passiou of Christ, but erred therein, and yet no more fantastically, or dangerously than this Commenter doth, he said of himself, Ibam ad inferos portans omnia mala quae commiseram nam Christus pro eis non solverat, cum crediderim crucem ejus phantasticam. (i) 1 Aug. Confess. l. 5. c. 9 was going to hell with the burden of all my sins lying on my soul, for Christ had not satisfied for me, because I believed not in the truth of his passion: Now he that believeth that Christ is but a mere man, and that his death was only as a witness, or Martyr to seal a Truth with his blood, and not at all for man's redemption, shall be so far from receiving the blessing of Redemption by him, that he shall moreover bring, and accumulate a curse upon himself: For so the ancient Martyr Ignatius understandeth these words, jer. 17. 5. Ig. Epist. ad Antioch. n. 46. Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm: that is, Maledictus est qui dicit Christum nudum hominem juxta Prophetam. (i) According to those words of the Prophet, he is accursed who calleth Christ a mere man, and yet trusteth in him: And Athanasius doubted Atha. orat. 1. Cont. Arian. 3. 4. not to say, that the Arians who called Christ a creature, and yet did perform religious worship to him, (as this Commenter requireth) were within the compass of the Heathens sin, in that they worshipped him, whom they thought to be but a creature; and therefore he Ath. ad solit. vit. agentes, n. 18. Soc. l. 3. c. 19 calls them Porphyrianos, because Porphyry once had been a professed Christian, and had revolted to heathenism, as Socrates saith. Thus the Reader may perceive that this blasphemous denying Christ's Divinity, doth dissolve our Religion into Heathenism and Antichristianisme. I have heard from the mouth of an ancient and most learned Doctor, that Socinus the Father of our late society of Socinians, was the son of such Parents, whereof one was by Religion a Turk, and the other a Christian, and that therefore Socinus laboured to bring Turkism, and Christianisme to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Religion, by denying the Eternal Godhead of Christ, as Turks also do; which grand impiety is so destructive to Christian Religion, that it may be fitly called the Devil's masterpiece; and so the ancient Fathers esteemed it. Epiphanius called Arius Epiph. haer. 69. statuam Diaboli, (i) An Idol set up by the Devil, and St. Hilary said of it, Mihi diabolus erit, qui Arianus▪ Hil. Cont. Aux. n. 7. (i) He that Arianizeth is no better than Satan; and Athanasius called it Haeresin totum Diabolum induentem; Ath. ad sol. vit. agentes, n. 19 (i.) An heresy endued with the whole plenitude of Satan: For the Devils cannot be saved, and such blasphemers as these shall never be forgiven. It was the opinion of Theodoret, that the grand Antichrist Theod. haer. fab. l. 5. n. 17. of all shall be the Devil, showing himself in the shape of a man, and taking upon him the name of Christ; now as Christ is but one, and yet hath many members, even his whole Church which is called his mystical body: so the grand Antichrist (it may be) is but one person, but shall have (and it may be he hath already) great multitudes of members acted and endued with his malignant spirit, which make up his mystical Aug. de gen. ad lit. l. 11. c. 24. n. 68 Aug. de doct. Ch. l. 3. c. 37. n. 56. corporations, which is the Mystery of iniquity: And this was the opinion of St. Austin, and by him divers times expressed thus, Diaboli corpus sunt impii, ipse est corum caput, sicut Christus est caput ecclesia: (i) the wicked are the body of Satan, Satan is the head of them, as Christ is the head of his Church: And again, De Gen. l. 11. c. 24. Corpus Diaboli est imptorum multitudo, (i) The body of the Devil is a multitude, setting themselves to work impiety; and again, speaking of those words, 2 Thes. 2 4. sitting in the Temple of God] he saith, Aliqui intelligunt De Civit. l. 20. c. 19 hic non ipsum principem, sed multitudinem hominum cum ipso— do●c fiat magnus populus Antichristi, (i) Some do not here understand only the great Antichrist of all, but also a great multitude of people with him— until at length Antichrist become as a populous nation: and Prosper saith moreover, Antichristus Prosp. de promis. n. 14. praec●nes mendacii sui habiturus est, (i) Antichrist shall have preachers to set forth his lies, who will edify his great body for destruction, such as Hil. de Trinit. lib. 2. p. 25. n. 1. also St. Hilary calls, Novi apostolatus sub Antichristo Praedicatores, (i) Preachers of a new calling under Antichrist. Now if amongst other Heretics also may be admitted to be members of the body of Antichrist, surely none will be more advantageous to him, than those who blaspheme Christ in his highest title by denying Iren. l. 5. c. ult. n. 124. his Godhead, Irenaeus, and after him divers old Writers, conceived, that the grand Antichrist will appear out of the Tribe of Dan, because of that saying in jeremy 8. 16. The s●or●ing of his horses was heard from Dan, and for this reason 〈◊〉 thought that amongst the Tribes of Israel which are sealed, Rev 7. the Tribe of Dan is not mentioned to intimate, that no limbs of Antichrist shall be sealed to salvation. CHAP. VIII. Of the hypostatical union of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Jesus Christ, the communication of the properties of each nature, the life and death of Nestorius, and how Christ is said to be deified FOr the avoiding of the unpardonable sin before mentioned, it will not be sufficient to believe and confess that God is in Jesus as a man in a ship, or as God was in the Prophets, and is now in holy men, who are therefore called the Temples of the living God, 2 Cor. 6. 16. or as God is every where, who filleth heaven and earth, Jer. 23. 24. For though God be in an holy Man, yet we cannot say, that God and that Man are one Person, and though God be in Heaven, yet he and Heaven are not one hypostasis, or subsistence in one Personal union: but as our soul and body united and composed are one Man, and one Person, so the Godhead and Manhood united in jesus, are one Person, one Christ. Now these two distinct natures, to wit, the Godhead and Manhood, are in Christ so united, that they will be for ever inseparable; and they are so entwined one with the other, that no action or passion can be said of the man Christ, which may not be said of God; the rule of Divines is, Eff●ctus hypostaticae unionis, est Regula Theolog. communicatio idiomatum, (i) The result or effect of the Personal union, is a communication of properties; which rule is laid, and more plainly expressed by Saint Austin in these words. Vnilas Personae Christi, sic Aug. to. 6. cont. Ser. Arian. n. 7. constat ex humana & divina natura, ut quaelibet earum, vocabulum impertial alteri, (i) The unity of the Person of Christ doth so consist of the Divine and humane natures, that each nature imparteth its appellation mutually to the other; so that what is properly belonging to the divine nature, is ascribed as done also by the humane nature; the same is also thus expressed by Theodoret, Communia Persona evadunt, quae sunt Theod. Dial. impatib. n. 13. P. 398. propria naturarum, (i) By reason of this hypostaricall union, those things which are proper to each nature severally, become common to the whole person: and hence it is that Christ is called the Son of Man, and the Son of God; eternal, and yet born the on of David, and yet the Lord of David: of him it is said, John 3. 13. He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven:] yet the Manhood did not come from heaven, nor was the Manhood at that time in Heaven; so again, Christ said to the thief, Luke 23. 43. To day shalt thou be with me in paradise, and yet Christ was not there that day in his body, nor by his soul, (for aught we know) but only by his Godhead, which was then in Paradise when his body was on the earth; and hence it is that the appellation of God is stamped on the humane and infirm actions and passions of Christ; for though he was crucified through weakness, as it is said, 2 Cor. 13. 4. that is, as he was man, yet because his Divine Nature is for ever inseparable from the humane nature, he is truly called Deus crucifixus, Hier. ut sup. c. 6. Naz. Orat. 51. n. 35. (i) God crucified (as is showed before out of Saint Hierome,) and Nazian saith, Si quis crucifixum non adorat, anathema sit. (i) He that doth not worship him that was crucified, let him be accursed. This great mystery of the hyposiaticall union was prudently discerned by the ancient Fathers. Origen saith, Judaei D●um crucifix●●unt. (i) The Jews crucied Origen. hom. 5. in Ps. 36. Orig. in Luc. hom 38. n. 45. Chrys. in synax. n. 35. God; and the same Father speaking of the tears which Christ shed over J●rusalem, calleth them, Lacrymas Dei, (i) the tears of God. So St. chrysostom calleth Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i) the crucified God. The Prophet Esay prophesying of the birth of Christ, Esay 9 6. Unto us a child is born] immediately addeth— his name shall be called The mighty God: and the Church used the same language. Fulgentius saith, Maria Fulg. de great. n. 3. est genetrix Dei, quia were & propri● peperit Deum Verbum, (i) Mary is the Parent of God, for she brought forth truly and properly God the Word. St. Hierome saith, Virgo Deum puerum peperit, (i) Marry brought Hier. Ep. 30. n. 8. forth a child that is God. So Saint Ambrose speaketh, i Ambr. in sym, n. 20. Deus natus est ex virgine, God was born of a Virgin; and Athanasius saith, k Atha. apol. 2. n. 15. n. 22. Deus incarnatus, & Deus passus est, God was incarnate, and God suffered. This doctrine is so true and necessary, that otherwise we could not have been redeemed: the denying thereof, no doubt, is within the compass of the unpardonable blasphemy, and the Church accounted such as taught the contrary, to be in the number of the most dangerous heretics, as may appear by the story of Nestorius, thus in brief. This Nestorius was by birth a Germane, and was admitted Soc. l. 7. c. 29. & Theod. haer. fab. l. 4. n. 16. to be a Presbyter, or Priest in the Church of Antioch, from thence he was preferred to be Patriarch of Constantinople, and there he was a sore vexer of the Arians, Novatians and Macedonian heretics, and so eager therein, that he incensed the Emperor against them, using this proud speech; O Imperator, da mihi Soc. l. 7. c. 29. terram purgatam h●re●icis, & ego tibi eoelum vetribuam. (i) If the Emperor would purge his Empire of heretics, he would assure him of Heaven. He was a man very cloquent, and so proud thereof, that he disdained to read the ancient Writers, and so being ignorant of Catholic Doctrine, he fell into this Heresy of dividing or separating the two Natures of Christ, and particularly teaching that the Virgin Mary ought not to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Parent or Mother of Evag. l. 1. c. 3●. God; and because some of his sect would have her called only ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the mother of a man: Nestorius desiring to go in a middle way, would have her called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) the Mother of Christ, but at no hand, the Mother of God: so his error was in this, that he divided, and rend and severed the two natures of Christ; that which his crucifiers were not permitted to do to his very garments; in effect, as Vincentius noteth: Nestorius duos vult esse Filios Dei, duos Christos Vincent. Lirin▪ c. 17. n. 53. unum Deum, alterum hominem: (i) Nestorius would have fancied two Sons of God, and two Christ's, whereof one should be God, and the other a man; and so by denying the unity of his Person, he indeed made a quaternity of Persons, instead of a Trinity against the sentence of the Church as it was long before the time of Nestorius, recorded by Gregory of Neo-Cesaria, qui Greg. Thaum. de 12. cap. fidei, n. 2. dicit Christum esse perf●ctu● homin●m divise, & De●m divise, & non unum Domi●u●, ei a●a●h●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 redemption, if the Person who died for us was not in his very death, very God so that he (by reason of that Personal union before mentioned) might truly be called D●us crucifixus, God crucified; and therefore our Commenter is also in this error, who will afford Christ no better Title than a Divine Man, p. 136. which is no more than ●ay be said of a Prophet, an Apostle, or any holy man, whereas he should acknowledge him to be D●us— homo, God and Man united. So St. Austin in one of his Books, had said, that Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 19 Christ was D●mini●us homo, but he retracted it— Quia D●m●nusest, saith he, because he is more than a Man of the Lord, for this Man is the Lord. For this hypostatical, or Personal union must be in and go through all the great dispensations of our Saviour's Mediatorship, both in his active and passive obedience; for otherwise his fulfilling the Law had been beneficial to none but himself, and his passion could not have sufficed for the whole world therefore the Personal union was most necessary to that great work, and is declared both in the Scriptures, and in the Fathers. For whereas we now read, 1 john 4. 3. Every spirit that confesses not that jesus 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 Je●um, Every Prosper de vocat. Gent. l. 1. c. 23. Spirit that divideth jesus; that is, which separateth his Divine from his humane nature. The Scripture joineth 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 divini●as est, & in divi●i●ate Dominatus; That in the title Lord the Lord God is meant. So again, Acts 20. 28. Fe●● 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 only 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 Father's concerning this communication of propertics: for because in Scripture, Christ is called the Son of David, therefore St. chrysostom without any scruple, saith that David is a Chrys. serm. de pseudopro. n. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and because the Scripture calleth james, the brother of our Lord, Gal. 1. 19 the same Father saith that james was b Chrys. serm. de poenit. n. 49 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that David was the Father of God, james was the brother of God; and also St. Austin saith, that David was c Aug. de 5. haeres. c. 2. 10. 6. n. 6. Parens Dei, the Parent of God: and Origin saith, d Orig cont▪ Cells. l. 1. n. 33. Corpus jesu▪ est ●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 Council of chalcedon added this to the Creed as an Article of Faith, e Evangrius, l. 2. c. 4. Marry the mother of God, and afterwards in another Creed ratified by the edict of Justinus the Emperor. f Evag. l. 5. c. 4. The Virgin Mary is again called the Mother of God. And the Emperor Justinian built a Church, and called it g Evag. l. 5. c. 21. Templum De●pa●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 credit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (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 Council of Ephesus, which was called Soc. l. 7. c. 33: by the authority of the Emperor Theodosius the younger, where Cyril of Alexandria sat Precedent; the Council deposed Nestorius out of his Bishopric and the Emperor banished him: In his banishment, his blasphemous tongue rotten in his mouth, and was eaten out with worms: so he died with a mark of Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Evag. ib. God's 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 eternal torments. Notwithstanding, all this Thal●ia Arii, this pretty Ath. count. Arian. or. 2. n. 5. Commentary tells us, that Christ is not the supreme God, nor ever was a God till he risen from the dead, for than 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 Emperors, 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 mortal men: for that Father showeth that an holy Man, endued with the Spirit of God, may be said to be Deified; that is, assimulated to God, endued D●ony. Areop. de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. id. epist. 2. n. 10 Naz. or. 37. n. 29. with, sanctified, and united to God: And in another place he tells us, Deificatio est imitatio; (i.) Deification is the imitating of God: and to the same purpose, Nazianzen saith, Spiritus nos deificat (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is his word) Men endued with God's Spirit are Deified, because God is in them, and as it were mingled with them, and worketh in them: And Athanasius saith, Homines in quibus est Spiritus, Deificantur, Atha. ad Serapion. n. 26. vid. 2 Pet. 1. 4. Now in what sense our Saviour may be said to be Deified in the later times of the world, who was the supreme and only God from all eternity would next be inquired. CHAP. IX. More concerning Deification, and in what sense Christ may be said to be Deified. THe Arians were in this Doctrine something more ingenuous, than this Commenter, though in them it was also most pernicious; for they Ath. & Hil. cont. Arian. n. 7. confessed that Christ was the Son of God, because they knew that the Saints were so called: and they said, Christ was before time began; because they believed that Angels and Devils were before the world; and they called Christ by the Name of God; because the Scriptures call some creature so: But they would not confess him to have the same Godhead with the Father; for they said that he was Deus factus, made a God, or Ambros. de cil. div. c. 2. n. 26. deified, and that he was the Son of God, not by nature, but by gift, or grace, and not by eternal generation, but by power given, as Kings are called Gods; for so Saint Ambrose observeth, Deus in Scriptures est. Ambr. de fide l. 1. & lib. 5. c. 1. n. 22 23. 1 Verus. 2 Nuncupativus, nam sunt qui dicuntur Dii, & non sunt. 3 Falsus, ut Demons: (i. In Scripture, God signifieth, 1 The true God. 2 Such as 〈◊〉 but called Gods, and ●re not so. 3 False gods of 〈…〉 this Commenter when he was argued 〈…〉 learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈…〉 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessed, that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But one of the ●●●pany ●●quired him further to declare how long Christ had been God, and whether from Eternity? at which question he seemed very angry, and for present left the room. Now indeed the Fathers do oftentimes apply this word to Christ, and say, that he was Deified, and that in time also, and not before his incarnation; for he could never have been said to have been deified, if he never had been incarnate; it is only his humane nature that is said to be deified, and not his Spirit, or divine nature; for the Word cannot otherwise be said to be deified, then as he is hominified (if I may have leave to use that word) for, Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh: signifieth that God was made man by his incarnation, and man was made God by the person I union of the divine and humane natures, for so he alcame Theanth●opos, and Emmanuel. The reason is, because when God assumed a body by his incarnation, that body than became the body of God (as is showed before out of Origen) and so that▪ Orig. in Mat. tract. 21. n. 41. Father expresseth himself thus; Christus deificavit humanam naturam quam suscepit; Christ deified that humane nature which he assumed. Neither may we think so grossly of this deification, as if the flesh of Christ were turned into the Godhead, but only because it is joined to the Godhead, and assumed into a personal union with it; therefore the Name of God is also stamped upon it; so that we may truly say, the man Christ is God, and yet the body and soul of Christ still are, and for ever will be creatures. In Aug. Epi. 221. this sense St. Austin saith, Homo versus est in Deum n●c amisit naturam, Man is become God, and yet man did not lose his humane nature; and thus Athanasius saith, Archangeli semper antea adoraban● Filium, sed nunc Atha. Orat. 2. cont. 2. Arian. n. 5. Jesum adorant incarnatum carne, qu●m de●fi●averat: The Archangels did always before the incarnation, worship the Son of God, but they worship him now in that flesh, which (by assuming it) he now hath deified. For now it is the flesh of God, as the Scripture calleth his blood, the blood of God, Act. 20. 28. and so the same Father useth th●s word divers times in the same sense, g Atha. orat 2. count. Ar. n. 5. h. Id. ser. 4. cont. Arian. n. 7. Non deificatus fuisset homo, nisi verbum fuisset incarnatum.— And— h. Christus carnem assumendo, hominem deificavit: The manhood could not have been deified, if the Word had not been incarnate;— and Christ deified man, by assuming flesh. St. Austin writing upon those words, Paul an Apostle (of Jesus Christ) not of men, nor by man] Gal. 1. Gal. 1. 1. 1. Aug. exp. in Gal. in praefa●. n. 97. 1. saith 1. Paulus missus est per Christum jam totum Deum, quia ex omni parte immortalem; That Paul is said not to be called by man, because Christ was at that time wholly God, because now he was perfectly immortal, so he fastened this deification, or immortality 2. Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 21. only on his humane nature▪ for his divine nature was the immortal God from all eternity; and Theodoret upon those words God hath, highly exalted him.] Phil. 2. 9 saith, Est de carne quae deificata est, nam dominus Theod. Dial. in confu. n. 12. gloriae non dicitur glorificari; 'Tis meant of the flesh of Christ deified; for as he is the Lord of glory he cannot be exalted, deified, or more glorified. So Origen Orig. in Levit. hom. 3. saith of a Levitical sacrifice, that it signified, Carnem Christi in coelis deificandam, that the flesh of Christ in heaven was to be deified, and this deifying the flesh of Christ is said to be done in heaven, because there it was glorified and immortal▪ and on earth he is said to be deified, because of the Hypostatical union of his 3. Pet. Diac. apul. Fulg. n. 2. 2 natures, whereby his flesh was indeed Caro Dei, the flesh of God. By thus distinguishing the two natures in Christ, the ancient Fathers answered the objections of old heretics, made against the eternal divinity of Christ; for in the same sense that the Son of God is said to be Phil. 2. 9 Eph. 1. 20. Mat. 28. 18. Act. 3. 13, 15. deified, he is also in Scripture said to be exalted, to be set far above all Angels and Principalities, to be made the head of the Church, to sit at the right hand of God— to have a name given him above all names, that are named— That all power is given him in heaven and in earth,— that God raised him from the dead,— and that Jesus is made an high Priest for ever; all these say and many more of this ●ind are to be understood of the humane nature of Christ, but cannot be verified of his divine nature. Athanasius doth in general give us this excellent rule, m Athan. Ser. 4. count Ar. n. 7. n. ib. Quae Christus accepit à Patre, non Filio verbo accepit, sed carni,— and again, n. Quae Christus possidet ut Deus, ea postulat ut Filius hominis: Those things which Christ is said to have received of the Father, he received not to himself as he is God the Word, but by reason of his assumed flesh,— and such things as he required to his manhood, he possesed before by his Godhead; and in this sense only is the Son of God said to be anointed, and so only is he called Christ, o Ath. orat. 2. cont. Arian. n. 5. Vnctus est, non ut Deus, sed ut homo Heb. 1. 9 erat: p Theod. Decret. l. 5. n. 17. Luke 2. 52. Ath. ser. 4. cont. Ar. n. 8. & n. 22. Erat Verbum, Filius unigenitus ante incarnationem, sed non nominaetur Jesus Christus nisi post incarnationem, saith Theodoret: He was anointed, not as God but as man,— he was the Word, the Son, the Only begotton before his incarnation; but is not named Jesus Christ till his incarnation; so when it is said, he increased in wisdom, it is meant of his humane nature, not of his Godhead, as Athanasius expounds it, Profecit non verbum sed caro. So again, Omnia mibi traditae sunt à Patre.] Nam antea non erat homo: so again, God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ,] Acts 2. 36. God cannot be said to make him, but only in respect of his incarnation; for otherwise the Father is said to beget him, but not to make him. So again, The Father giveth life to the Son;] that is, to his flesh, and as he is Man. So Christ is said to receive the Spirit without measure;] that is, his humane nature received the Divine Spirit; for in him the Godhead dwelled bodily; so, The Father is greater than I;] That is, as I am Man: and he hath given him a Name,] still as he was Man: and in this sense only is Christ said to be Deified: for nothing was in Christ before his Incarnation, that could receive any new Title of God, because his pure divine Nature was so before, neither could that Title be really and properly ascribed to any other God; because there is no God but he; and therefore Epiphanius doth truly affirm, Ante Epiph. haer. 69. incarnationem non dicit Christus Deus me●s; (i.) Christ did not, say My God, before his birth of the Virgin, because he hath no God, but only in consideration of incarnation. CHAP. X. How those words which signify the abasing and minoration of the Son of God are to be understood of his delivering up the Kingdom, and end thereof, and of his subjection to the Father. AS no Title of Majesty, Exaltation or Deification could be newly added to the Son of God, except he had humbled himself to incarnation: So neither could any terms or words of minoration and subjection be put upon the same Son of God, if he had not determined before, and actually afterward performed the assuming of flesh; for by his incarnation he became capable of such infirm passions, and thereby is as (shown Tert. count. Marc. l. 2. before) he is said to be born— to grow— to weep— to pray— to thirst— to suffer— to die— and yet to be truly called Deus mortuus; Though dead, yet God nevertheless S. Hilary upon these words. The Father is greater than I,] saith, Pater est Hil. de Trin. l. 9 n. 3. John 14. 28. major Filio respectu hominis assumpti, sed Filius non est minor Patre respectu Deitatis: The Father is greater than the Son, in regard of the Sons assumed Manhood, but the Son is not less than the Father, in respect of the Sons Godhead. For in consideration of the Divinity of the Son, he saith, The Father and I are one. John 10. 30. They are one, and that not only in will, or concurrence of consent, (as the Arians would have it) but in Godhead: for as the same Father answereth them— Quasi divinae doctrinae inops sermo sit, nec dici à Domino Hil. de Trin. l. 9 p. 185 potuerit, Ego & Pat●● unum volumus: (i) The Divine Scriptures wanted not words, but Christ would have said, The Father and I consent in will. If he had so meant. So St. Ambrose faith of his praying: Christus vogat Ambr. de fide. l. 3. n. 22. c. 3. ut Filius Hominis, imperat ut Deus: (i) Christ prayed as he was the Son of Man for as he is God he commandeth. And again he saith of the death of Christ: Christus Id. de incarn. l. c. 5. n. 25. moriebatur, & non moriebatur- secundum hominem— secundum Dium: (i) Christ died— for he was a Man, Christ was immortal— for he was God. So the minoration of the Son of God: Ful●entius saith, Exi●●ni. Fulg. de great. c. 2. n. 3. Phil. 2. 7. io fuit acceptio formae servilis, the making of himself to be of no reputation, was by assuming the form of a servant; just as a King doth condescend below himself in the disguise of mean apparel. But the principal doubt is, how Christ can be believed, and said to be the true, only, supreme and eternal God, and all one with the Father in the Unity of Godhead, seeing the scripture tells us, I Corinth. 15. 24. 1 That Christ shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father. 1 Cor. 15. 24, 25, 28. 2 That Christ shall reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 3 That than the Son himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him: For how can it stand with a supreme God, and an eternal King, to deliver up his Kingdom, and so to reign but for a limited time until, and then to become a subject? 1 For answer hereunto, I say first, that Christ's delivering up the Kingdom to the Father, doth not imply any resignation or annulling of his own interest, nor excluding of himself, or abdicating his own dominion, but a communication of that power which he received (as he was man) to his Father, who is the same God with him. For as he is said to deliver the Kingdom to the Father; so the Father is said to have delivered all things to the Son, Luk 10. 22. All things are delivered to me of my Father: and Matth. 28. 18. All power is given unto me in Heaven, and in Earth. Yet no man will say, that the Father by this gift, excluded himself from his own dominion; still God is Lord of all things but by this gift he communicated his Domivion to the Man Christ, and yet reserved it to himself. Now what is this Kingdom that shall be delivered? the Kingdom of Christ is his Church, his Saint, his Elect, and what kind of delivering is here meant? were not the Church, and Saints, and Elect God's Kingdom before? and how are they said to be delivered up to the Father, who never had been out of his hands? Aug. de Trin. l. 1. c. 8. n. 60. I answer with St. Austin, Tradere regnum est eredentes perducere ad contemplationem Dei: to deliver up the kingdom is to bring his Saints to the vision, and fruition of God, to present them pure, unspotted, free, and fully delivered from the bonds, and the ruling power of sin, and of death, which before had some power over them, and God ruled in them but in part, so that the dominion of the flesh had also a share in them; but at the last judgement, they shall be given up free from those entanglements, as it is there said, that then Christ shall put down all rule, and authority, and power, ver. 24. So that nothing shall have rule over them but God, and he alone,— that God may be all in all, ver. 28. So that this delivering up is but so as Saint Paul desired, 2. Cor. 11. 2. to present them to Christ as chafed Virgins, and as a Philosopher said to his disciple: reddam te tibi meliorem. So Christ shall deliver Seneca de Benef. l. 1. c. 8. us up to the Father in better condition than he found us, for although God by his Omnipotency ruled over us before, yet it was but as a King over stubborn and rebellious subjects; but then the same God shall reign over the same subjects amended, and wholly, and willingly, and joyfully submitting themselves to his divine will. Secondly, where it is said, Christ shall reign till he ● hath put all his enemies under his feet; This doth not signify that Christ shall reign no longer, but that the Kingdom of Christ shall endure until then, in despite of all the opposition of heresies, Persecutors and Tyrants, or of the world and the flesh, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So that Christ shall reign till then, as a King whose people are perpetually opposing, resisting, and rebelling against him, but yet the King still holdeth his kingdom; so albeit in the Kingdom of Christ, and in his servants there is strife between the flesh and the spirit, yet still the Spirit of Christ retaineth a kingly power in them, for although the flesh lusteth against the spirit, Gal. 5. 17. yet the Spirit helpeth our infirmities, Rom. 8. 26. and God giveth us the victory through our Lord Lord jesus Christ, 1. Cor. 15. 57 Christ reigneth during this world, as a Warrior, as the Lord of Hosts; but afterwards he shall reign as a true Melchisedec, king of Sal●m, Prince of peace: so that his kingdom doth not end with the world, but shall be refined and reform, not by any change in our King, but in his subjects, and this is the meaning of this word till in the judgement of Expositors; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: do not always signify an utter cessation. b Orig. 39 Donec non est definiens tempus. c Cyr. Hiero. 17. . Donec non habet finem, sed consequens quiddam. d Th●oph in Mat. . Donec non adimit posterius. e Naz. 28. . Donec sequens tempus non excludit; (i.) this word until doth not so limit us to the time past, but that it leaveth open all time to come, as Mat●h. 28. 28. I am with you unto the end of the world; doth not signify that Christ shall be with them no longer, and so also it is used, Psal. 112. 8. and in many other places. Thirdly, where it is said, the Son himself shall be subject] 3. the meaning is not that the Son of God shall cease to be a King, and shall turn subject, for we are assured that he shall reign over the house of jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end, Luk. 1. 33. Now what is it in Christ that is capable of subjection but only his humane nature? for no man will say that his Godhead can be subjected; and as for his natural ● body, or humane nature, it ever was, and is, and for ever shall be subject to his Godhead; for the humane nature is ever ruled by the divine nature: Neither shall his humane nature ever be depressed, depreciated, or subjected lower than that preferment which was conferred on it by his Godhead, therefore this subjection cannot be meant of his own natural body, but it is indeed meant of his body mystical, his Church, his Saints and Elect which are called his members and his body, Your bodies are the members of Christ, 1. Cor. 6. 15. and the Church is his body▪ Eph. 1. 23. Eph. 5. 30. this exposition, as it is most true, so was it also that which the Fathers gave of this hard place, Athanasius saith, f Atha. Cont. Apol. n. 22. . Cum omnes nos subjicimur, tum ipse dicitur subject; When all we are subjected to Christ, than Christ is said to be subject; and Saint Ambrose saith, g Ambr. de Fid. l. 5. c. ●. n. 24. . Christus subjicietur in nobis— nondum subjectus est Christus, quia membra nondum subj●cta sunt— pro nobis ●●●it subjectus, non pro se, et in nobis subjicietur; Christ shall be subject— but it is in us— as yet Christ is not subject, because his members are not yet subjected— it is in regard of us that he must be subjected, not in regard of himself; for so long as h●s mystical body is not perfectly subjected to the divine will (as is showed before) the whole Body of Christ cannot be said to be fully subject, and his mystical body which consists of men overruled by the power and rebellion of flesh and blood never was yet perfectly subjected to God, nor ever will be wholly obedient to him, until (after the resurrection,) they shall be thus delivered up to the Father, perfectly Sanctified Aug. 83. quaest. qu. 69. n. 87. and cleansed; and thus doth Saint Austin also expound it: Subjectus erit] dicitur de Christo et de membris ejus, Scil. ecclesiâ cujus est caput— sic de universo Christo annumerato corpore, & membris ejus— Omnes vos unum estis in Christo, Gal 3. 28.— Christus universus, est caput cum membris; This subjection is said of Christ— and of his members the Church; of which, Christ is the head.—— So there is an universal Christ, signifying the head, and all the members, as we read, Gal. 3. 28. Y● are all one in Christ. By what hath been said, I trust the Reader will understand that neither this Deification, preferment, or exaltation; nor this Subjection which is said of Christ, doth in the least measure, derogate from his Eternal, and Supreme Godhead. SECT. II. More concerning the subjection of Christ. THis speech of Saint Paul, that The Son himself shall be subject,] would be more throughly examined, being one of the grand Arguments, used by A●iu● and his Sect, against the eternal Godhead of the Son. Therefore I crave thy patience (good Reader) whilst I discourse unto thee two questions pertinent. First, how it can be said, that The Son himself shall 1. Quaest. be subject, whereas in truth, only h●s Church is then to be subjected more than it was before, and not his own Person, no not his very humanity; (more I say, than it was whilst he walked on the Earth) For than he was not only without sin, but moreover, he was obedient to death, even the death of the cross? Philip. 2. 8. For the understanding hereof I premise three considerable observations: First, the Apostle doth not say, the Word shall be subject; for than he must mean that the Godhead of Christ should be subject, which is impossible: but he saith, the Son shall be subject. Now we know, nothing is more frequent in Scripture, than that holy men are called the Sons of God, as Matth. 5. 9 Luke 6. 35. so that the subjection of the Son of God, doth here signify the perfect subjection of holy men at the resurrection of the just, as will more appear anon. Secondly, I observe, that whereas he saith, The Son himself shall be subject, and yet cannot mean the natural and individual Person of Jesus Christ, but only his Church; it must needs declare that the appellation of t●e Son of God himself is given and communicated to his elect members, who are his Body mystical, as being really united to his body natural, and with him who is the head, they are One body; so that Christ, and his Church are called One Christ, which by the Fathers, is usually called Plenitudo Christi, & Christus ●●tu● & Christus Vniverisus. Tertullian in his sense said Tertul. de Poenit. Aug. ●n Jo. Tract. 21. of this mystery, Ecclesia (est) Christus, cum ad fratrum g●nuate proter dis, Christum contractas: and so Saint Austin, Christi facti sumus, non so●um Christani, Plenitudo Christi est caput & membra, C●●istus & Ecclesi.: (i) The Church is Christ, so that when you are prostrate at the knees of the brethren, you touch the knees of Christ— We are not only Christians, but we are Christ; the Fullness of Christ is the head, and the members, that is, Christ and h●s Church. Thirdly, Observe that it is said, Then shall the Son 3. be subject] by which future expression, it may clearly appear that the subjection here meant, is not yet come to pass, and therefore cannot be understood of the natural, proper, and individual Person of Jesus Christ: for all manner of subjection that can be expected from him, is already perfect in his own proper humanity, because himself never rebelled against the Godhead. Nazianzen saith of him, Anon nunc subjectus est? an Naz. Orat. 36. ut de De● host loque●is? But though Christ in h●s own proper humanity, ever was, is and will be subject to the Godhead, yet of Christ in regard of his ●ody Mystical (which is the Church of Elect, & ●s called by her Spouses Id. ibid. own name) the same Father saith▪ P●cca● a nostra sumpsit & inobedientiam— quamd●u eg● inobediens sum, Coristus per me inobediens est: Cum subjectionem nostram implev●rit, nosque addu●●r●t, tum ips● subj●ctus dicitur; Christ hath taken our sins and disobedience on himself, so long as I am inobedient, so long Christ by me is said to be inobedient, when he hath wholly subdued us, and presented us perfect to the Father, than the Son himself is said to be subject. The answer to this question, How the Son himself Answer. shall then be subject? is this▪ That in Scripture-language, the Church or Saints and Members of Christ a●e called, and really are with their head, One whole Christ, they are himself, and therefore their subjection is his subjection, and so long as they are not fully subjected, the Son himself is not wholly subject For if the natural body of Christ be called Christ; (as it is when we say Christ is buried, when only his body was buried) much rather may his great Mystcall and Political Body be called Christ, and so it is, 1 Cor. 12. 27. The Body of Christ,— all the Members are but one Body, so is Christ: and Gal. 3. 2●. All are one in Christ Jesus; see 1 Cor. 6. 15. If it were not for this real union of Christ and his Church, how could Christ truly say, I was hungry, Matth. 25. 30. and ye gave me meat; for the meat is meant of that which is given to his poor Members, and not to his own proper self, and th●s is clearly and often explained by S. Austin, a Aug. in Jo. Tract. 28. Non enim Christus in capite, & none in corpore, sed Christis to●us in capite & in corpore: and again, b In Jo tract. 108. Vnus est Christus, caput & corpus, ipsi sunt ego: and again, c In 1 Epist. Jo. tract. 1. Carni Christi conjungitur Ecclesia, & fit totus Christas ca●u & corpus: and again, d Ibid. tract. 10. Fil●i Dei sunt c●orpus unics Filii Dei, & ●um ille caput sit, nos Membra, unus ' est F●lius Dei, and more yet: e De Verb. Dei, Serm. 14. Caput cum corpore su●, unus est Christus: The Apostle saith, Eph. 5. 31. We are members of his Body, of his flesh, and of his bones▪ upon which words, the same Father saith, f De Temp. serm. 234. Ipse Christus est spensur, & sponsa, sponsus in capi●e, sponsa in corpore. The sum of what he saith is this: We are not to imagine Christ to be only in the head, for the whole Christ consisteth of the head and body— The head and body are but one Christ— his Members are himself— so there is but one Son of God, for the whole Christ is both Bridegroom and Bride. By reason of this Union, Christ said, Saul, Saul why Acts 9 4. persecutest thou me▪ For Christ is in Heaven as head, but his Body is on Earth. If one tread upon the foot, the head crieth, you tread on me. g Aug. de Verb. Dei, ser. 49. Vnita● est à capite ad pedes; head and foot are united as one Body: and therefore by the Ancients, h Prosp. Psal. 101. Those which are strong in Christ are called his bones. The Apostle is the mouth of Christ, Saint Ambrose wished, would I were Ambr. n. 51, 34 but his Foot: Others, are his Eyes, as the Prophets; Others his hands, as those that do good, and the poor are his belly: yea, the Prophet calls his people the apple Zach. 2. 8. of his Eye. So it is said, John 3. 13. No man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven:] For although holy men ascended into Heaven, yet this is a Truth, because such are included in the plenitude of Christ; i Aug. de Verb. Apost. ser. 14. In Coe●um non ascend●t n●si Christus, si vis ascendere, ●sto in corpore He that will ascend, must first be in Christ. It is said, Col. 1. 24. I fi●l up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my fl●sh.] We may not think that Christ in his own particular Person left his Passion insufficient, so as if for our redemption the Apostle should need to supply his defect; but his meaning is, that something was to be suffered in the Mystical Body of Christ, (which is his Church) by the holy Martyrs, for confirmation of Evangelicall Truth; as it is there said, For his body's sake] that is, for the edification of his Members, and these Passions of Martyrs are here called the afflictions of Christ, though they were acted only on the Person of this Apostle. If it be here objected, that there is a great difference between the Sonship of Christ, and our sonship, because he is the Son of God by Nature, and we only by the Adoption of Grace. This cannot be denied, but withal we should understand, that although Christ in regard of his Divine Nature is very God of very God; yet the same Lord Jesus in respect of his assumed Manhood, is also the Son of God only by Grace by Adoption and Election; and therefore it is said in regard of this humane Nature, All power is given me in Heaven, and in Earth; Esay 42. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 4. and therefore Christ is called Gods elect Servant; and Saint Peter calls him a stone chosen and precious; for indeed it was of mere grace, that this Man Jesus was chosen, and taken into Unity of Person with the Eternal Word; and this is the doctrine of the ancient Church Aug. de Verb. Dei, ser. 8. De Temp. ser. 84. delivered by Saint Austin, Susceptio hominis per Verbum erat Gratia, nam quid meruit ille Homo qui Christus est? and again, Susceptio hominis ipsius in Deum, tota est gratia, quid meruit homo ille? ●olle gratiam, quid est Christus nisi homo? quid nisi quod tu? and in his disputes against the ●el●gians he thus argues, Vnde Christus De Praedest. cap. 14. homo meruit ut in unitatem personae cum aeterno verbo assumeretur? quid ●nte egit? and he answereth himself thus, ille grat âest tantus; ●â gratiâ fi● Christianus, quâ ille homo fi● Christus. That is, the taking of the manhood into God, was merely of grace, for what did that man Christ deserve? What did he before? by the same grace that a man is made a Christian, this man Jesus was made Christ. Finally why should we further doubt, that holy men are called Christ, and the Son of God; seeing the Eph. 3. 17. 1 John 4. 13. Matth. 28. 28. Scripture tells us that Christ dwelleth in their hearts, and that they dwell in him, and that he is with us to the end of the world; Hereupon Saint Hier●m writes thus to Saint Austin, ( a Hierom. Ep. 80. ) Habitantem in te●d●●exi D●m●num Salvator●m: And Paulinus thus writes to him ( b Aug. epist. 58. ) Audiam qu●d in ●● mihi loquatn● Deus; And Austin himself writes thus to Bishop Aurelius, ( c Id. ●e opere Monach. cap. 1. ) Jussioni ●●a oporter me obtemperate, nam Christus in te habitans, ex te jussi●. This union of Christ, and his Church is of so great Concernment, that the most high and Holy Sacrament was set up by our Saviour purposely, not only to signify, but also as an Instrumental means to effect this most holy Union (which cannot be said of common and ordinary food) and therefore is called by Saint Austin, Th● Sacrament of union, as out of many grapes one vessel Ad Fr●● in Erem ser. 28. Sacramentum unitatis. of wine is extracted, &c ●just so (saith he) of many men one Body of Christ is composed. I here present unto the Learned Readers consideration, an exposition of those two difficult say of Christ, but I do not obtrude this conceit Magisterially. He saith, john 6. 53. Except ye cat the flesh of the Son of man etc.] and, Matth. 26. 26. Take, eat, this is my Body] This he said when he gave not flesh, but bread: Vide Theophil. in ●o●. 6. 51. This bread may truly besaid to † Vide Theoophil. in John 6. 51. be turned into the Flesh of Christ, because it is nutrimentally turned into the flesh of every holy Communicant, because such are truly called the Body, and members of Christ, and are called Christ: but in profane persons it is not so turned because they are not the members of Christ, neither doth our Saviour say, This is my body, till he had first said, Take, Eat; my learned friend Dr. Thomas Brown observeth, that every Religio ●●dici. man is a kind of Anthrop●pha●e, because the main bulk of his body went in at his mouth by nourishment, so this holy Eucharistical nourishment is therefoie turned into the Body of Christ, because it is converted into the flesh and blood of us who are his Body; for thus Christ and his servants become incorporate and one body. In the vision of Saint Peter it was said, Arise, Acts 10 13. kill, and eat] the meaning was, that Peter should re? ceive the Gentiles, as well as the Jews into the Communion of the Church Quasi escam u● incorporentur Ecclesiae saith Austin; so he expoundeth that of Saint john, Aug. Hom. 45. Except ye eat] it est, nisi incorporentur Christo. So also he expoundeth that saying, He that cometh to Jo. 6. 37. me, I will not cast him out] Quiveni● ad Christum, incorporatur ei. And in that exposition of the Apocalypse which goes under his name, Rev 20. 9 where it is said that fire came from God and devoured (the persecutors) he saith, Comeduntur ab ecclesia persecutores, id est, incorporantur, the meaning is, that by the fire of the Holy Ghost, the very persecutors of the Church shall be converted and incorporated into that mystical Body of Christ; this of the first question The second question is, What that is, which in the Saints Quest. 2. Militant, is not yet nor ever will be in this life fully subjected to God, but shall be hereafter in the next life? To this question, this is the answer; That in the Answer. most holy men living, there dwelleth a rebellious sin continually unto their death, which is the same that by the Apostle is called Concupiscence; for the law saith, Thou shalt not cover: and the Apostle saith, The Exod 20. 17. Rom. 7. 7. Gal. 5. 17. Psal. 94. 20. flesh lusteth against the Spirit, this is that which Divines call Original sin; of which the Apostle saith, Rom. 7. 23. I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind. Psal. 94. 20. he calleth it a law, because it hath such power over us, as the Edicts of Tyrants have over their Vassals: this is that sin which ●we●l●th in us, Rom. 7. 2. of which he saith, v. 24. who shall deli●er us from this body of death? the deliverance m●st not be expected in this life; for against this thorn in the flesh did this Apostle pray, ● but it was answered; My G●●ce i● sufficient. That 2 Cor. 12. 7. is, no other deliverance may be had, but power by grace to resist this temptation, yet not so much power as to annihilate and quite extinguish it in this life. If it be here objected that the Holy Scriptures acknowledge Gen. 6. 9 Job 1. 1. Luke 1. 5. some persons just, and righteous, and perfect ones, as Job, and Noah, and Zecharie; the answer is, that this perfection doth not imply impeccancie or impeccability, for such just men fall seven times, Prov. 24. 16. Noah was just, but it is said there, in his generation; such may be called perfect Travellers, but not perfect Possessors, having not yet finished their course; so a child is called perfect, which hath all his limbs, and lineaments complete yet is far from a perfect man, and a perfect man is yet far short of Angelical perfection. Men are called just, who are not Aug. de natura & Grat. ●. 38. free from sin, Justi su●runt, & sine peccato non suerunt. That this truth hath been ever acknowledged by the Church, may appear in that the Apostle saith: ●f we say we hauë no sin, we deceive ourselves: civitas 1 Joh. 1. 8. Dei o●at● dimi●te nobis debi●a, the universal Church in the time of prayer saith Forgive us our trespasses. Indeed Aug. de Civit l. 19 c. 22. De peccat. merito, l. 2. c. 6. S. Austin confesseth, That a man may sometime live without acting a sin; yet that any mortal man can be without sin, he denyeth. For when the Pelagians urged that the Virgin Mary was without sin, he desired to be excused from all accusation of that Blessed Mother of our Lord God, yet he was assured that all Saints on earrh would submit to that speech of Ambr. de Jacob l. 1. c. 6. Hier. ad Ctesiphon cap. 5. Id. Count Pelag. l. 2. cap. 8. Saint john, If we say we have no sin, etc. Sain● Ambrose saith, Non gl●ri●r quia justus sum, s●d quia redemptus, not glorying in Justice, but in Justification: St. Hierom saith, men are called just, not because they are without sin, but because they are endowed with many virtues: as Ezechias was a just man, though he sinned▪ and wept, he did not lose the repute of a just man for some sins, but he retained it, because withal he performed many just and worthy actions; besides, a man is esteemed righteous, when his unrighteousness is forgiven, as he is esteemed with God a performer of the Law, whose transgressions are pardoned. Omnia Aug. Retract. 1. c. 19 mandata facta deputan●ur, quando qui●quid non fit ignosci●ur. Now, that the rebellion of flesh and blood, or concupiscence doth continually dwell in all mankind, during this life, may clearly appear in the Holy Person of Saint Paul by his own words: for thus he writes, Rom. 7. 19 The go●d that I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.] f we inquire what evil it is, which the Apostle would not do, and yet did it? it must needs be answered, that evil concupiscences, or carnal lusts did arise in him, which he desired to be quit of, and free from, that they might not all be in him: but because evil concupiscences will ever be in mortal men, therefore his next care is, that such desires may be resisted, so that they proceed not into action, as he saith, Rom. 6. 12. Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey i● in the lusts thereof] he doth not say, let it not be, for it will always be in us: but let it not rule, and prevail over Grace: So, Gala. 5 16. w●lk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh] he doth say, ye shall not have those lusts, but not fulfil and perform them: and ver. 17. Ye cannot do the thing that ye would] (that is) because ye cannot (as you desire) be free, and quit from evil desires, so as no evil desires at all should arise in you, yet resist them, do not obey them; Tene Aug. de Verb. Dei, ser. 43. manus, pedes, ocu●o●, etc. withhold your members from acting those carnal suggestions. Where he saith, What I hate that I do.] We are not Rom. 7. 15. to imagine that the Apostle meaneth, that although he hated fornication, adultery, rapine, etc. yet he did act these things; but he meaneth that he hated evil lusts, which yet did continually arise in him, he desired they might not all be in him. Nolo concupiscere, & tamen con●upisco; O ●i, & tamen Aug. de verbis Apost. ser. 5. ago, quamvis membra●●eneo, arma nego. So himself adviseth, Rom. 6. 13 Y●●ld not your members as i●st ●ments of unrighteousness: Although sinful desires arise in Id de Temp. Ser. 45. your carnal heart. Rebellant? r●bella, pugnant? pugna. This is the strife between the flesh and the spirit, he did continually resist those temptations. Luctabatur, no● Id. ibid. subjug●ba●ur; always striving with them, but not overcome by them. Rom▪ 8. 8. They that are in the flesh cannot please God.] Though holy men are in the flesh, yet because they are not overruled by the flesh, they do please Id. de verbis Apost. Ser. 6. God Carnem portant, sed non p●rtantur ab ●a. Where he saith, Rom. 7. 25. With the mind I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the Law of sin:] We are not to think that the natural mind or intellective faculty of this Apostle was free from carnal concupiscence; for by nature our whole man body and soul is carnal: but the mind here signifieth his understanding, reformed and renewed by the Spirit of God; for the very natural spirit, or mind of man needeth ● renewing by the Spirit of Grace, as himself saith, Ephes. 4. 23. B● renewed in the Spirit of your mind. When he saith, Rom. 7. 17. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me:] His meaning is not to excuse himself so, as if he were without sin, and blameless: But that his Spiritual part, or in ward man did detest that which his carnal part or outward man did suggest. Just so doth this Apostle ascribe his holy and spiritual actions, not to himself, but to the Grace of the Spirit, as 1 Cor. 15. 10. I laboured more than they all; yet not I, but the Grace of God which was with me. So 1 Cor. 7. 10. I command, yet not I, but the Lord. So again, Gal. 2. 20. The conclusion is, that The Son himself (that is to say) Christ as he is considered, with the plenitude of his Mystical Body, and so is the Whole Christ, cannot be perfectly subject, and obedient to the Godhead, until this mortal hath put on immortality, and our natural body be raised a Spiritual body: when Christ hath put down all carnal and sinful rule, authority and power: for where the Apostle saith, 1 John 3. 9 H● that is b●rn of God sin●eth not:] He meaneth, that the seed and fountain of sinning is not in his regenerating, and Spiritual part, by which he is born of God: but he is also born of flesh, and by that only he sinneth. CHAP. XI. Why the unpardonable sin is rather fastened on the deniers of the Godhead of the Son 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 expressly more than once, Qut Spiritum sanctum Cr●●turam vocant, incidunt inblasph●miam Basil. epist. 387. n. 17. 43. illam irremissi●item: He that calleth the Holy Ghost a creature, falleth ●nto the unpardonable sin; so that Eunomius the Heretic who said the Spirit was the Creature of the Son, was involved▪ in Basil. count. Euno. n. 20. this blasphemy as well as Arius, who said the Son was but a Creature of the Fa●her●▪ and therefore called him M●ttendarium, only an Emissary of the Father, as Ruffinus reporteth, and Saint Cyprian calls the Devil Ruff. in symb. apud Cyp. n. 91. (who is under the pressure of eternal unpardonableness) both Antichristum & Antispiritum, an Antichrist and an Antispirit; intimating as much danger in the one, as in the other For we ●earn in Scripture, that without holiness, no man shall see God, Heb 12 14. Therefore how can that man expect the gift of Holiness, who denieth the Author of Holiness, which i● 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▪ fastened on the deniers of Christ, than the deniers of the other Persons. First, because the confession of the Father and the holy Spirit is not salvifical without the Confession of Christ; for even Heathens confessed both a Fatherhood, and a Divine Spirit of God, as appeareth by the confession of Ne●u hadnezar, Dan. 4. 9 but the Confession of Christ is alone salvifical, because he is not alone, as himself 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 app●llatio est professio totius trinitatis de●larans Deum Patrem, qui un●it, Filium qui unctus est, & Spi●itum qui est unctio;— and Saint mb●o●e affirmeth the same: Amb. de 〈◊〉 c. 3. Christus implicat Pa●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 Baptism 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 implieth all these, Saint Peter mentioneth only this name, Acts 2. 38. Be baptised everyone of you in the Name of jesus Christ for remission of sins: so doth Saint Paul also, Rom. 6. 3. Galatians 3. 27▪ Secondly, the unpardonable sin is fastened on the deniers of the second Person, rather than 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 only that became a Surety for us, and not only a bare Witness or▪ Testifier (as the Commenter affirmeth) the Son only took upon him our nature, and therein fulfilled the Law for us, and suffered death in our stead for our transgressions, he only was our Surety and Mediator, and he only was incarnate, and died, and risen again, and carried our flesh into Heaven with him, and there still continueth a Mediator for us, not by any verbal pleading, or entreating 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, showing that Heaven is due by the said Covenant to all his mystical Body, for which his natural Body was sacrificed on the Cross for the expiation of all their sins, 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 only to the Person of the Son, but cannot be said of the Father, or of the Holy Ghost. For that was the Heresy of the ●oc. l. 2. c. 15. Sabellians, who were therefore called, Patripassiani; for these works are proper to the Son alone. Filius natus, passus, resurr●xisse, ascend●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 only the Sun. Therefore Kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish, Psalm 2. 12. For the denying of him▪ is the renouncing of salvation. CHAP. XII. The Godhead of Jesus Christ shown by Scripture, and by the type of the Tabernacle. BEcause the apprehension, and believing of this great Mystery of God Incarnate is a wonderful consolation to the Christian, and the denying thereof pertinaciously, a certain note of eternal 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 child such Titles, as cannot be attributed to any mere creature, as— The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. This Prophet's words do so agree with the Evangelicall, and Apostolical Doctrine: (as the Word was made fl●sh, and the Word was God, John 1. and God manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3. 16— and of whom as concerning the fl●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 only a Prophet, but an Evangelist, and an Apostle; for as the Prophet before the incarnation bringeth in God, saying, I have sworn by myself— to me every knee shall bow, Esay 45. 23. So the Apostle applieth that saying to Christ, being the same God, (but now incarnate) of whom Esay spoke, Rom. 14. 11. As it is written, As I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me. So that the saying of the Psalmist, Psalm 97. 7. Worship him all ye gods, is applied to Christ, Heb. 1. 6. Let all the Angels of God worship him. Neither doth the Scripture set forth this great truth only by words, but also by the visible type of the jewish Tabernacle and Temple, to teach the people of Israel where they should profitably seek and find that God, whom they were appointed to worship, and therefore God confined them to perform their worship of him at the Tabernacle or Temple; lest they like other Nations, should set up a God of their own invention, or worship the host of Heaven; seeing men naturally desire, either a sensible object of their adoration, or at least will fancy such an one in their brain. The Israelites (not yet weaned from idolatry) before the Tabernacle was erected, made a Calf or Ox to worship, just as they had seen the Egyptians worship before, the like figure in memory of joseph, as Aug. de Mir. scrip. l 1. n. 74. Ruff. 6. n. some thought, who had preserved them by corn in the Famine, because that beast doth usually work in Tillage: and because in aftertimes the Jews abhorred image-worship, not admitting any such Statues in their Temple; Therefore the Heathens thus usually twitted them, Incerti Iudaea Dei— And juvenal saith Lucan. l. 2. Juv. sat. 14. of them, Quidam sortiti metu●ntem Sabbata Patrem, Nil prae●er nub●s, & coeli numen adorant. (i) That either it was uncertain what God they worshipped, or that they worshipped nothing but the Clouds or Heaven. For the Heathens used to set up visible images before which they performed their adoration not intending to worship the Images terminatiuè or finally (as our Commenters' word is) but they worshipped them just so as the Commenter saith, Christ was worshipped. For they terminated their worship in their gods, whom they thought to be assistant, and present in those images, as Arnobius affirms from Arnob. l. 6. n. 115. the mouths of Heathens, Nos nec aera, nec auri argentive ma●e●ias Deos esse dec●●nimus, sed eos in hi● colimus, quos dedicatio infert, & efficit inhaebitare simu●a hris. (i) We Heathens do not worship the brass or silver, or gold image, but we worship those gods, which by Dedication-Charmes, are invited and brought to inhabit the Images. So Saint Augustine allegeth, Aug. de Civ. l. 8. c. 23. Trismegistus affirming, that Images were as the bodies of their gods, and that the spirit was by Art (Magic) invited to reside in them.— Simulachrum Id. ib. c. 26. pro corpore, Daemon pro anima est. (i) The image was the body, and a Spirit was the soul within it. For so indeed Heathens used to do, when they had made an image to represent their god, they made a Ceremonious Vide Macrob. Satur. l. 3. c. 9 de evocatione Deorum. Dedication of it to that god, and so inviting him by Charms, and Magical Conjurations to show himself to be present in that image, as Conjurers (they say) have had the evil Spirit in a ring or box: And this is divers times affirmed by Origen, the manner whereof is partly touched in the Story of the Dedication of Nebuchadnezars image. For the Devil apishly imitating God, endeavoured to set up his own worship, in such a manner as God hath appointed for himself. For, Psalm 96. 5. Dii Gentium Daemonia: (i) The gods of the Gentiles are Devils. Therefore as God manifested his presence in the Tabernacle and Temple, where the Israelites were required to worship God; so the Devil manifested his presence in Idols, and Idoll-Temples, that so he also might be there worshipped; and this appeareth by what we read of Heathen Oracles, and the Images of juno and Fortune, which uttered words as Lactantiüs showeth out of Valerius. Lactantio de falf▪ Relig. lib. 2. n. 6. CHAP. XIII. The Godhead of Christ further proved from the typical Tabernacle and Temple. IT will not be impertinent to this business in hand, to inquire why God confined the Jewish worship to the Tabernacle and Temple, as it is manifest he did; for, Levit. 17. 3, 4. the Israelites are required upon pain of death to bring their sacrifices to the door of the Tabernacle. So the public Passeover is to be sacrificed only in the place which the Lord shall choose, Deut. 12. 5. and what place that is, we find set down, 2 Sam. 7. 13. The house that Solomon the son of David shall build; and this building was performed by him, 1 King 8. 20. and God declared his acceptation of that House or Temple, 2 Chron. 7. 12. The Lord appeared to Solomon,— and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself, for an house of sacrifice. Now the reason why the Israelites were confined to perform their worship in this place, was, because God would keep them in a perpetual memory and confession of the Messiah to be incarnate; of whole incarnation both the Tabernacle and the Temple were but Figures or Types: Templum erat figura Corporis Dominici, Aug. de Trin. l. 4. c. 5. saith Augustine, (i) The Temple was the Figure of our Lord's Body; for as God did manifestly show his presence in the Tabernacle and Temple, by a cloud, and the Glory of the Lord filled both; as we read, Exodus 40. 34. and 1 Kings 8. 10. So did he in the Body of Christ by his great Miracles, Deus erat in Aug. de Consens. Evang. n. 86. Templo,— V●rbum caro factum: (i) When the Word was made flesh, God was there as n his Temple. So that the prudent and religious sort of Israeites in the Typical Tabernacle and Temple, did indeed worship their god, who as yet was but Typically incarnate; for the Tabernacle did represent an humane body: Philo and Josephus both of them Jew's by birth and religion, called the Tabernacle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jos. Antony's l. 3. c. 4. Phil. de vit. Mosis, l. 3. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i) A movable and a portable Temple, as a man's body is: the covering of it was with skins, as men's bodies are covered, Exodus 26. 14. and with Curtains, as men's bodies are with Garments; and it represented the Body of Christ. Ath. Orat. 5. cont. Ar. n. 4. Corpus Domini ist Amiculum, saith Athanasius. (i) The Body of our Lord, was the Garment of God. And the two great Apostles Saint Peter, and Saint Paul, in allusion hereunto call their own bodies Tabernacles, 2 Cor. 5. 1. and 2 Peter 1. 14. Hence it is (no doubt) that so often mention is made of worshipping towards the Temple of Jerusalem, Psalm 5. 7. and 138. 2. I will worship toward thy holy Temple; and Psalm 29. 2. Worship the Lord in the beauty of Holiness; that is, in his glorious Sanctuary: and King Solomen prayeth, Harken to the supplication of thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place, 1 Kings 8. 30. And Daniel prayeth with his windows open toward Jerusalem, where the Typical Temple h●d been, and where the true antitypical Temple of Christ's body was to be manifested. So in effect, the Object of the Israelaticall worship was God present in his Temple, thereby feeding their faith in the promised Messiah, who was afterwards to reside in his Tabernacle of the humane nature. So that the ultimate Object of their adoration, was the Son of God: God incarnate, even the same God, whom we Christians now worship. The Christian Religion was before the Jewish, in time, and the Church is older than the Temple, or Synagogue. Amb. de sacram. l 1. c. 4. Aug. Ret. l. 1. c. 13. Priora sunt Sacramenta Christianorum quam tudaeorum. For the adoration of the Son of God, did not first begin, when he was incarnate; but as Saint Augustine truly saith, Christian Religion was in former times, but it began to be called Christian in latter times, when the Son of God took our flesh and again, Aug. confess. l. 10. c. 43. he saith, The ancient Saints were saved by Faith in Christ to be crucified, as we now are by Faith in Christ crucified: Christ was the same God before his incarnation that he is now, and was worshipped by the holy Patriarches and Prophets before he was incarnate, as truly as he is by us Christians since. Before Abraham was, I am, john 8. 58. and Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and saw it, and was glad. It is therefore a vain and false cavil of this Commenter, who tell us [Faith in Christ is nor contained in all Faith 1 Pag. 251. c. 11. v. 6. in God,— because in the description of the Faith which was in the ancient Elders, Hebrews 11. there is no mention of Faith in Christ] Indeed there is no mention of the word Christ, but the Son of God was believed in by those Patriarches, before the same Son of God could be called Christ▪ for in their days the Son of God was not yet Christ▪ for he was not anointed, nor could he be capable of anointing before he was incarnate (as is showed before) The Son of God was God from everlasting, but this God was not Christ as yet, because he was not anointed, otherwise then in the purpose and Decree of the same God, and typically in the anointing of the Tabernacle, Exodus 30▪ 26, 27. and in the unction of Kings, Priests and Prophets. But faith in God must needs signify faith in the Son of God, who is now the Christ, because there is no other God but he; for the Father and the Son are the self same One, and only God. Now if it be demanded why the holy Israelites worshipped toward the Tabernacle or Temple, as if God were there only, seeing it cannot be denied that God was then every where, Filling Heaven and E●●th, jeremy 23. 24? I answer in the words of Fulgentius; When God Fulgen. ad Thras. l. 2. n. 9 is said to be in a place, or to descend and come to it, it is not to be thought that God changeth place, so as to leave one place, and to go to another, but— Significat manifestation●m ejus: (i) It signifieth that God doth then manifest his presence in that place, wherein he was before; but did not show, and declare his presence so, as when he is said to descend. So S. Chrysost▪ me expoundeth the Mission of the Son. Missio Fili● qui ubiqu erat ●n●eà, corpoream appar●ntiam Chrys. ser. de Pastor. n 58. significat, non mig●at à loco in locum: (i) When the Son of God is said to be sent, who was every where before, it signifieth his Corporeal appearing, and not a change of place. And because the Godhead did manifest its presence in the Tabernacle and Temple; therefore the Israelites did there, and toward that place perform their worship: yet we find that sometimes sacrifices were offered to the Lord, in other places, as by Gideon, judges 6. 26. but it was by express command of God. So did Elias also, 1 Kings 18. 36. but it was not in Judaea, but in Israel amongst Idolaters▪ yet with some conformity with the Temple, as is there mentioned. Eli●s offered at the time of the Evening Sacrifice, which was the Figure of Christ's death to be at the ninth hour; and this also not without an instinct of God's Spirit, for he was a Prophet. CHAP. XIV. That the Christian when he prayeth, setteth his mind on God in Christ, as the final Object of his Prayer; (as the Jews prayed to God, then residing in the Tabernacle, or Temple;) because the now glorified Body of Jesus, is the Temple wherein the Godhead will for ever dwell. AS the Israelites prayed to God, whom they conceived to be present in the Tabernacle▪ or Temple, so the Christian when he prayeth, setteth his mind on Jesus Christ, conceiving him to be the Object of his Prayer; for he believeth and considereth him to be the Temple, wherein his God is for ever resident, and in that Temple he seeketh his God, where his mercy hath been manifested, and wherein the great work of Man's Redemption hath been acted and performed, and so looketh on his God through Christ. The rubrics of the ancient Church Liturgies, (as we find in several ages of the Church) directed men to pray thus: Sacerdos ante O●ationem dicit, Sursum Cyp. 82. Cyril. 23. Prosp. 3. corda: (i) Before Prayer, the Priest said to the People, Lift up your hearts on high; and so they confessed they lifted them up unto the Lord; that is, to Christ in Heaven, sitting on the right hand of the Father; for where the carcase is, there will the Eagles be gathered, Matthew 24. 28. In prayer we lift up our eyes to Heaven, because our God is in Heaven, Psalms 115. 3. And we say, Our Father which art in Heaven, (as himself taught us to whom we must pray) because as his Godhead is, and was always there; so his glorious Body was to be in Heaven, and is, and for ever shall be the Temple wherein the Godhead is to be sought to, and found. For in Christ dwelleth all the Fullness of the Godhead bodily, Colossians, 2. 9 He saith bodily, in comparison of Types and Figures, the Tabernacle was but the shadow of God's residence▪ but the Body of Christ was the Substance and Truth of that shadow. The inhabitation of the Godhead of Christ in his Body, is described by Saint John most significantly to this purpose, John 1. 14. The Word dwelled amongst us.] where dwelling is expressed by the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i) God was intabernacled, which signifieth that his Body was the Tabernacle of the Godhead, as Theodoret Theod. Dial▪ Imm. n. 12. observes. The levitical Law is still in force, though not literally, yet in the spirit or meaning of it, for we must still worship toward the Temple, and our Saviour tells us which is the true Temple indeed. john 2. 19, 21. Destroy this Temple, & in 3 days I will raise it up.— But he spoke of the Temple of his body. For jesus est Deus, & Templum Dei, saith Nazianzen, (i) Naz. Orat. 43. Jeius is both the Temple of God and the God of the Temple. And so Saint Austin saith, Christus est Sacerdos Aug. de dog. Eccl. n. 73. & Sacrificium, est Deus & Tem●lum, (i) Christ is the sacrificer, and the sacrifice, he is the God and the Temple. And Origen saith, Christus est Templum in Orig. in Josh. Hom. 17. utero Virgins formatu●: (i) Christ is the Temple built in the Virgin's womb. And Athanasius more plainly expresseth this Mystery: Digni sunt Ariani, qui Atha. Or. 5. cont. Ar. n. 4. ●aepè percant, qui prisci populi reverentiam ●rga Templum laudant, sed D●minum in carne ut in Templo suo adorare recusant: (i) The Arians have well deserved perdition, who praise the jews for their reverence towards the Temple, yet themselves refuse to worship the Lord i● the Temple of his Body. Solomon saith, Proverbs 9 1. Wisdom hath built her an house. Who is wisdom but God? and what house is it? but as Athanasius often expounds that saying. Corpus Christi Atha. ser. 3. cont. Ar. n. 6. est Domus sapien●iae: (i) The house of Wisdom is the Body of Christ. The word building in Scripture, is applied to an humane body, as well as to an house, Genesis 2. 22. Deus aedificavit costam in mu●erem: (i) God builded the woman of Adam's rib. and Ru●h 4. 1. Rach●l and Leah— did build the house of Israel,— and in three days I will raise it, john 2. As if it were the raising of an house. So the Mystical Body of Christ, which is his Church, is called God's building, 1. Cor. 3. 9 In brief, jesus Christ in respect of his divine Nature, is our God, and the Temple wherein our God dwelleth, and that which is truly said to be— his rest for ever, Psalm 132. 14. Is his glorified Body now in Heaven. When we compose ourselves to Prayer, we lift up our minds to this God in that Temple: God— Incarnate is the final and ultimate Object of our adoration: there is no way to approach to our God with any hope of obtaining pardon and remission of sins, but through the open doors of the Temple of his wounded body: therefore our Prayers are all sealed with Through jesus Christ our Lord. He that maketh any approach to God otherwise, then considered in this Temple, must expect to find him only as a severe and offended Judge, but wh●n he looketh on us through his Son, his severity is sweetened. Filius est dul●edo D●i: (i) The Son is Fulg disc. object. Arian. n. 1. the sweetness of God. When he beholdeth us through Jesus Christ, he is pacified and g●acious; the clouds and tempests of God's anger are assuaged by the serenity of the Countenance of Jesus,— Vul●u quo Coelum tempestatesque s●renat. Virg. A●n. 1. Are we not therefore called Christians, because we worship God in Christ? To him Saint Stephen directed his Prayer, Acts 7. 57 Lord jesus, receive my spirit. And Saint Paul also. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father— comfort your hearts: for so Christ had given direction before, john 14. 13. Whatsoever ye shall ask in my Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. By what hath been said, I trust the danger of this Commentors bold assertion will be discovered, who tells us [that Christ is not to be believed P. 54. in finally, but God in Christ] not believing, or not considering that the Godhead is in Christ. And therefore Christ in respect of this Gohead is to be believed in, and prayed to finally and ●ermina●ely, as the utmost object of our Faith, and the Manhood of Christ so endowed with, and united to the same Godhead is to be believed in, and prayed to Mediately; for by the Incarnation of the Godhead in Jesus, he became our Advocate, and Mediator, and a Priest, which is next to be discoursed. CHAP. XV. That the most high God became a Mediator, and a Priest, and that Christ is prayed unto, and yet is a Mediator: Every Person in the Trinity may be prayed unto. THe Commentor tells us, [That the supreme God P. 80. c. 5. v. 5. can no way be a Priest, and therefore Christ is not supreme God, because he is ma●e a Priest.] This assertion is most false and blasphemous; he that affirmeth it, either never was Christian, or else must be an Apostate; because to say, that the most high and only God cannot be a Priest, is all one as to say, This God cannot assume flesh▪ or be Incarnate: For in the same manner, the supreme God became a Priest, in which he became a Mediator, and both by assuming humane nature. For if it be demanded how we can pray to Christ, seeing he is our Mediator and Priest, who intercedeth, and prayeth for us, and that by him we approach to God, so that we may seem rather to pray by him, then to him; and if Christ be the final Object of our Prayer, who is our Mediator? To this it may be answered, that Christ is a Mediator, in the same sense that he is a Priest, and in that sense he prayed. Now he became a Priest, and a Mediator by assuming Manhood; for Saint Chrysostom● Chrys. Hom. Ant. 32. n. 12. saith truly, Christus oraba● ut homo, nam Deus non ●rat. (i) Christ prayed in that he was a Man, for God doth not pray. And Saint Austin saith, Christus Aug. de Civit. ●. 20. c. 10. est Sacerdo▪ quatenus est Filius hominis. (i) Christ is not a Priest, but by being the Son of Man. For although it be said, Rom. 8. 26. The Spi it maketh intercession for us: (though the Spirit as it signifieth the third Person, was not Incarnate:) the meaning is only, that the Holy Ghost helpeth our infirmities in prayer, as is there said; and nos int●rpellare facit: It enableth and stirreth us up to pray, as Saint Austin Aug. expos. in Ro. n. 96. expounds it; not that the Spirit itself prayeth for us. When Eudoxius the Arian was newly placed in the Episcopal seat of constantinople, the first sentence that he uttered was this blasphemy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. l. 2. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father is impious, the Son is pious, at which words when the people began to raise a tumult, he appeased them by saying, that his meaning was, that the Father never prayed, but the Son did often pray; his intent was hereby to insinuate; that because Chr●st prayed, therefore he was not God, but was only a creature: which ●s the Argument (which our Commenter useth against the Priesthood of God) for indeed the pure Godhead cannot be said to pray, because there is none greater to be prayed unto; therefore God must be incarnate, before he can be a Priest, or pray; but as he was a perfect Man; so might he pray for us; and as he was perfect God, so we may and must pray to him. For all Prayer is directed to God only, but not to the Father only; and because the Godhead is in every Person, so that every Person is God; therefore Prayer may be made to any Person and Christ will yet still continue our Mediator, both to the Father, and to the Holy Ghost, and to himself also; for he that prayeth to one Person, prayeth to all three Persons, for they are all inseparately involud one in another. The Father is in me, & I am in him, Joh. 14. 11. and the Father and I are one, Joh. 10. 30. But this is warily thus to be understood: That the Godhead or Essence of the Father is in the Son, whereby the Son is called God; but the Personality or Propriety of the Father is not in the Son; for the Father cannot be called the Son, nor the Son the Father, otherwise then (as is showed before) that the Godhead in any Person is the Eternal Father. Divines have observed upon that place, Io. 16. 23 Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my Name] He saith the Father, not my Father; for if he had said, My Father, than the ask had been confined to one Person; for only one is the Father of the Son of God: but in that he saith, The Father, he doth not debar us from praying to the other Persons, because (as hath been showed out of Esay 9 6.) every Person is the eternal Father, because every one is one God. There is but one God in the three Persons, and that one God, the second Person (being God Incarnate) is our Mediator; and though he be Mediator, because Incarnate; yet neither his Mediatorship, nor his Incarnation do nullify his Godhead, so that our Saviour is Mediator for us to himself, to his own Godhead; so that we may pray to the Son, to hear us for his own sake. For john 14. 14. Where it is said, If ye ask any thing in my Name.] The old reading was, as may be yet seen in S●. Hierom●, If you ask me any thing in my Name; and Beza confesseth as much, though he imagined that it was taken out of the Margin into the Text. So Christ is prayed to as he is God, and he is Mediator, as he is Emmanuel; Every Person is God, therefore every Person is to be prayed unto; and he that nameth but one Person in Prayer, doth not exclude the rest, because all are but one God. This was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, delivered singularly and profoundly by Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine, Vnus Deus in tribus, & haec tria Amb. in symb. n. 20. unus D●us, One God is in three Persons, and three Persons are but one God. And Vnus est Ommipotens & Tripotens Deus, Pa●er, Filius, Spiritus. There is but one Omnipotent, and Tripotent God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And again, Singulus horum Deus, & simul Id. de Doct. Chr. l. 1. c. 5. omnes, unus Deus, & singulus horum plena substantia, & simul omnes una substantia: Every Person is God, and all are one God; Every one is perfect God, and all together are but one God. And again, Singula sunt in singulis, & omnia in singulis, & singula in omnibus, & Id. de Trin. lib. 6. c. 10. omnia in omnibus, & unum omnia: Every one is in every one, and all in every one, and every one in all, and all in all, and One is all. Hence it is that every Person may be prayed unto, and glorified; as in Scripture the Seraphims cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, Esay 6. 3. Rev. 4. 8. and the Christian Church, both ancient and modern, in her Doxologies used to glorify the three Persons alike, Gloria Patri & Filio & Spiritui; and in her prayers invoked all, and in her Creeds confessed all, CHAP. XVI. The Godhead of Christ, showed from the adoration of his Person, and how God is to be worshipped, being incarnate. IF it be again demanded, how we can perform Divine adoration to Jesus in the Temple of his Body, being now God.— Incarnate, except at the same time we adore a creature, because his Body still is a creature, for though it be indeed the Body of God, yet nevertheless, it is a body, and therefore a creature: Or shall we therefore adore his Body, because it is the Temple wherein God dwelleth? If so then, as Athanasius Ath. de incar. n. 22. objecteth, Adora quoque Sanctos ob Deum inhabitantem. By that reason you may worship the Saints on earth, because their Bodies are the Temple of God, and God is in them, and then why should we not worship the Sun and Moon and other creatures as well; for God is in them, because he is every where. The Manichees worshipped the Sun, because they thought the Aug. Cont. Faust. l 20. c. 2. Son of God was there. For answer hereunto, we are to understand that God is in another manner existent in holy men and other creatures, than he is existent in the humane nature of Christ, (as is showed before, chap 8) For the Godhead and Manhood in Christ, are one Person, but not so in other creatures; God dwelleth in a Saint, 1 john 4. 16. yet you cannot say that God and the Saint are one person; for if so, than that Saint must be called God, and should be worshipped as God; but we profess Hier. count. Vigil. n. 17. with Saint Hierome, that we are so far from worshipping a Saint, or a martyr, that we will not worship an Angel, or an archangel, nor Cherubin, nor Seraphim; but neither do we refuse to worship God, though he be invested with his humane nature, his humiliation by taking the form of a servant upon him, doth not ungod him, neither can we separate his Godhead from his manhood, that so we might worship the pure Godhead alone. Fidelis veneratur Domi●um in corpore latentem, saith Athanasius: the faithful worship Ath. 26. n. Theod dial. in conf. n. 12. God though veiled in his body, as we may perform civil worship to our King, though he be clad in vulgar apparel, yet not worship his apparel, and No man will say to the King, First put off thy Robe and Crown, Epiph. in Anc. n. 27. o King, and then I will do obeisance to thee; and if the King should put off his Robe, yet none would worship the Robe. So no man can say to Christ, Lay aside thy Body, and then I will adore thee, but we adore God in Christ, although God be there united unseparably with his body, and if we could separate his body really from his Godhead, we should not worship it alone, because it is a creature: and this also is the determination of Athanasius: Quis tam vecors est ut ita loquatur, Absiste à corpore ut te adorem? oec? who is so foolish Ath. count. Arian. or 5. n. 4. as to say to God, lay aside thy Body, that I may worship thee? or who can show us his body emptied of his Godhead? Therefore albeit we do not adore his Body as the Vtimate and uttermost object of our adoration, yet we resuse not to worship our God with his body Concomitant; for St. Thomas when he saw Christ's body and touched his wounds, yet he said My Lord, and my God, joh. 20. 28. The women held him by the feet, yet worshipped him, Maith. 28. 9 The Psalmist saith, Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at his Footstool, Psalm 99 5. What is meant by his Foostoole? St. chrysostom tells us, The earth is his Footstool, Isa. 66. 1. Because the Body of Christ was Chrys. ser. de Trin. n. 57 from Adam, and Adam from the earth, and this body is united to God, therefore our God (though in it) is to be adored. Some men are offended when they see a man worship his God, if his face betowards the East, or Communion-table, suspecting that the worship is done to the Table, or to the East, though they are told, it is done to God only: as also if in time of divine service, a man bow his knee to Jesus, when that name is named, some will say, the bowing is done to a sound, a word, or letters; just so the heathens said, that the Christians worshipped the Sun, because they assembled on the Sunday, and because they used to adore God, with their faces turned toward the East, as Tertullian saith, and some also said that Christians worshipped Tert. apol. c. 16. n. 4. Bacchus and Ceres, that is, Bread and Wine, because at receiving of the Sacrament they used a reverend adoration of God, as we read in St. Austin; yet these slanders did not deter the Christians from their Aug. count. Faust. l. 20. c. 13. usual discipline. But these Brethren would think (as I suppose) that themselves were much wronged, if a man should tell them, that they worship a Chair, a Form, or Table, because when they pray, they kneel before some of these. When God appeared to Abraham, Abraham bowed himself toward the ground, Gen. 18. 2. Will any man say that Abraham worshipped the earth? No, saith St. Ambrose: Non terram, sed jesum nascitu um è terra & resurrecturum: he worshipped Amb. de Abrah. l. 2. n. 13. not the earth, but Jesus, who afterwards was to be incarnate, and to rise again out of the earth. The worship of Jesns is the adoration of his divine person in heaven, and not of a name, or word, and this adoration, and genuflection is of a higher consequence, and greater weight, than some Christians are ware of as will appear by that which follows. CHAP. XVII. That genuflection to our Lord Jesus was appointed only to be as an acknowledgement of his Godhead. Because the great work of man's redemption is founded upon the Godhead of Jesus, and that the denying, or disbelieving that doctrine, is a certain mark and character of unpardonablenesse, therefore, good Christian Reader consider with thyself, what a charitable and prudent care this Church of England had of thy soul's health when, (to keep thee in a perpetual memory thereof, and a continual confession of this great and weighty truth, she required that when the Lord jesus shall be mentioned, in time of divine service, lowly reverence be done; the reason alleged by that Canon is of the greatest concernment that can Canon. 18. be imagined [Testifying their due acknowledgement, that the Lord jesus Christ, 〈◊〉 and eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone, all the Mercies, Graces, and promises of God to mankind, for this life, and the life to come are fully and wholly comprised] by which words it is apparent, that the principal intent of that Canon, was for the acknowledgement of the Lord Jesus to be the true, and eternal Son of God, and thy redeemer, which is that necessary doctrine which I have endeavoured all this while to set forth; and this is the very same reason that is alleged on those Scriptures, where the bowing to Jesus Christ is mentioned. For when it is said of Christ, Rom. 14. 10, 11. Every knee shall bow to me] the reason follows immediately,— Every tongue shall confess to God (that is) that every one shall acknowledge adoration due to this our God. And so again, where it is said, Phil. 2. 10. At the name of jesus every knee should bow] the reason follows, verse 11. That every ●ongue should confess that I sus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father] to signify that therefore bowing to Jesus Christ is required, that by it he might be acknowledged to be the Lord; and certainly therefore only did the Church of England require this adoration adoration of Jesus, to have a perpetual, and solemn confession thereby of his Godhead; yet our Commenter will not confess Jesus to be God, though he do confess that [Divine reverence is commanded ●o be given to Christ by bowiug, etc. in the s●m● manner Page 7. that is due to God himself] in this the Commenter doth fully ag●e▪ with the practice of the old Arians, who were therefore blame▪ by Ath●n●sius▪ because they performed religious adoration to Jesus, (as the Catholic Atha. count. Arian. Or 1. n. 4. Church did) but yet ●hey would not confess him to be God, and so in effect they did serve him, whom they thought to be but a creature, and therein differed not from Heathens: and so St. Basil a gueth both against the Sahellians and Arians out of the Church C●●ed, to ●f the Son, and the Holy Ghost be but creatures; Curio Basil. count. Sabel. & Ar. ho. 27▪ n. 17. non dicimus ●redo in Deum, & in univ●r●am crea●uram?— Nam si pium est ●n por●ion●m cre●tu●ae cr●d●re, multò magis in ●●tam: Why do we not say in our Creed— I believe in God, and the wo●ld? for if the Son be but a part of the world, and a c●●atu●e, it is far better to believe in the whole creature th●n in one part of it. And this also was observed in the Arians Amb. de fill▪ divin. c. 3. n. 26. by St Ambrose, that they did not adore Jesus, because they thought him to be God, but Vir●ute prae●epti: only because they believed that such an adoration was enjoined, Philip. 2. 10. their colour for it was because the honour of genuflection is there said to be given to jesus, by G●d ve●se 9 and so they would Amb. Hexam. l. 6. c. 9 have it due to him only by gift, and not by nature; indeed Saint Ambrose saith, that the honour of genuflection was the gift of the Father to the on, just as the Scripture saith; but Saint B●sil doth fully show the meaning of that Scripture,— God— Basil. count. Eunom. l. 4. n. 20. hath given him a name] In humoni●a●, non in divinitate, the gift was given to the humane Nature of Christ, which it had not of itself, but not given to the divine nature, that honour was naturally due to it that is, to the Godhead of Christ. So that the meaning of the Church, and the intent and purpose for which she appointed reverence to be done to Jesus, was only the acknowledgement, and confession of his Godhead in detestation of ●ewes, Turks end Arians, which deny the sa●e; therefore it will seem strange to any learned, or intelligent Christian, if this adoration shall be by any Christian authority forbidden, or Jesu-worsh●p (as some have in derision called it) shall be made an article of accusation, and obloquy, seeing it hath been practised in the Primitive Church, long before there was any direction for it by any Ecclesiastical Canon, except only the Canon of Scripture. But if it be said, that the bowing of the knee mentioned, Rom. 14. ●1. be clea●ly said and meant of the time when Christ shall sit in judgement: I say so too, and it is true, but therefore not before; for then Heathens, Atheists, Apostates, Persecutors, Tyrants, yea, and devils, and all the damned shall be compelled by the rod of iron to confess, and acknowledge and submit to his Almighty Power and Godhead, when the Saints both then and before have, and shall with willing and cheerful submission acknowledge Hier. in Ruff. in●ect. ●n. 42▪: him, as Ruffinus in Saint Hierome writeth upon these words, Ev●ry kn●e shall bow] ●l qui voluntate, alii necessitate; the blessed ones will submit willingly, and the very damned shall be thereunto: compelled good Christian, wilt thou not worship thy God without force? CHAP. XVIII. More of the adoration of our Saviour: of his names Jesus, Christ, Emmanuel, Jehova, and other names of God. IF it be demanded, why this adoration is required rather under this name Jesus, then under his other names, se●ing Jesus is also a name given to mere creatures, as to ●oshua, Act. 7. 45. H●brewes 4. 8. and others? I answer, if the adoration were intended to the bare name, I think the exception were j●st, but because we profess to worship only the person Jesus, and yet not every person so named, but only the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the Godhead for ever resideth; who can blame us for worshipping our only Lord God, and that in time of public worship? for if we should therefore for bear to worship lesus, because some mere creatures are so named, then by the like reason we should forbear to worship God, because some creatures are called gods, as Moses, Exo. 7. 1. and Magistrates, Psa 82. 6. and 1. Cor. 8. 5. but we worship God only, and no creature, and to God all possible adoration is due, Basil. hom. 14. n. 14. whether by genuflection or otherwise; Sa●nt Basil saith, Ad cultum ●ei, & Domini I●su, flect●reoportet genua, id est, in the worship of jesus our Lord God it is meet we should bow our knees. But yet if we must worship our God upon the naming of him, it would be inquired why this name jesus is so especially insisted upon, why not at the name Ieh●va, or Emmanuel, or Christ and why not in the naming of the Father, or the Holy Ghost? To this I say, if none other answer could be given, it might satisfy any humble Christian, that the great Apostle, Philip. 2. 10. hath insisted only in that name: yet for the Readers further satisfaction, let him consider, that no Person in the Trinity hath any p●op●r Name, but only the second Person, and the second Pe●son hath no proper Name, but only the Name jesus. For who can tell me what is the proper Name of the Person of God the Father, or of God the Holy Ghost? For every Person is God and Lord, every one is jehova, every one is I●h, and Eheih, and Adonai▪ for these names signify but Lord, and I am and which was. Every Person is El▪ Potent; and H●●ion▪ most High; and Schaddai, Omnip ot●nt; and all the P●rsons together are E●o in, that is, Potent, Gen. 1. 1. in the plural number. And all these names are mostly represented by Interpreters in the words God and Lo●d; and therefore these names are not proper names of any one Person in the Trinity, but common to all the three Persons, yet there are other appellations that are severally peculiar to each several Pe●son, as the wo●d Father, Son, or Word and Holy Ghost; in some places of Scripture, though the word Father, and Holy Ghost, or Spirit in other places, is said of all Persons (as is showed before.) The rule of Saint Austin is, Omnia no●ina naturae, seu ess●ntiae Dei, de Aug. to. 3. n. 76. singulis Personis dici possunt, sed non nomina re●a●iva, ut Pater, Ve●bum, Fi●ius; id est, Every name which signifieth the Essence and Nature of God, may be said of every Person; but the Names which import a relation of one Person to another, are not so said. ●o P. 332. c. 13. v. 2. our very Commenter could not deny, that jesus Ch●ill is call●d I●hova.] For it is a Name of Essence, or Godhead. And for the word Christ, it is not to be taken as a proper name, but as Cognomen, a surname, (i) a superadded name, as added to his proper name, and signifieth Anointed, for we cannot imagine that those Kings, and other Holy Persons, which in Scripture are called Christi, (i) God's anointed, were so called as by a proper Name: so here our Saviour's proper Name was Jesus, his surname Christ: this Title Christ being added (as for other reasons, so for this) to distinguish him from other men, who had the same proper Name jesus, as you read, Coloss. 4. 11. of another, that being named ●esus, is also surnamed Justus for distinction, and of Bar-I●sus▪ Acts 13. 6. Now for the word Emmanuel, we are to understand, that it is not the proper Name of our Saviour, no more than the word Christ is: for where it is said, Esay 7. 14. Thou shalt call his Name Emmanuel.] The Prophers' meaning was not to set forth the proper Name of the Messiah; But to set forth the wonderful and real property of his Person, to be (by the hypostatical union of two natures in one Person) Theanthropos, id ●st, God Incarnate, for so the word Emmanuel, signifieth God with us. Therefore Tertullian writing both against the Jews, and also against Martion the Heretic severally, when it was objected, that our Jesus was not that Messiah, which was foretold by Esaias, because he was not named Emmanuel. He answereth, Non solum sonum nominis exp●ctes, sed Tert. count. Judaeos', & l. 3. contr. Mar. sensum,— quia qu●d significat Emmanuel, venit: id est▪ we were not to expect a mere sound and name only; but the thing signified by that word Emmanuel; for though his Name was not named Emmanuel, at his Circumcision; yet himself and his Person were really that thing which the word Emmanuel signified, God with us, though his proper Name was 〈◊〉; And therefore when our God is named so, and by his proper and peculiar Name, then surely we may without offence by us given, adore our God. CHAP. XIX. That the Name Jesus is the only proper Name of God, because the pure Godhead can have no proper Name, as the Fathers affirmed. IF it may appear that the Name Jesus, is the proper Name of God, and so proper, that God hath no proper Name at all, but only the Name Jesus; th●n I trust no Christian will either dis believe his Godhead, or be offended with them that do adore this. Jesus; for the better understanding whereof, I will premise two considerations. First a distinction of Names which I borrow both from the Ancient and the Modern Grammarians. For Saint Au●ust●●● in his Grammar doth thus distinguish Names: Est No●●● appellativum, ut ligo, & Proprium, Aug. Gram. p. 90. ut Nero, id est, There is a Noun, or Name appellative, as the word Plough, and a name proper, as the word Nero. And this distinction is in our vulgar Grammar▪ which I apply thus. In the words— King David— King, is a name appellative, David is a name proper. So Caesar was at first a name proper, but afterwards it grew an appellative of those Princes which succeeded: and j●st so d●d 〈◊〉 and Pharaoh, (as some think.) Just so doth 〈◊〉 tell us of the words Jesus Christ. Jesus est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christus est appellatio, si●ut vesti●us id est, that Jesus Tert. advers. Prax. n. 55. is a Name proper, but Christ is an appellative. 2. The second consideration is that the pure Godhead hath no proper name. This I will not presume to dictate magisterially but submit it only as a consideration to the judgement of the learned Reader; nor would I at all have so affirmed, if I had not first consulted with, and obtained the resolution of the Ancients. Philo the Jew, from those words, Exod 3. 14 I am that I am] saith it is as much as if he had said; Natura mea est ●sse, non dic●, the nature of God is to be, and not to be named. And he saith further Philo de mutat. nom. n 20. that God can have no proper name, his own words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Dion●sius Arep. saith that God is Anonymus, id est, without any name: and so saith, Dionys. Ar. de Divi. nom. c. 7. Justin Martyr: ●mpossibile est nomen de Deo proprié dici (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) id est, it is impossible to give Just. paaenet. 1. n. 4. any proper name to God; the reason why the pure Godhead can have no proper name, is rendered by Lactan●ius, and that out of Trismegistus: God (saith he) is Anonymus, and therefore hath no name, because, Lact. de fall. relic. l. 1. c. 6. he that is but one, needeth no propriety of name, proper names are for distinction, when there are many such, and therefore the heathens who thought there were many gods, did call them by several proper names: as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc. And this is also observed by Tertullian, and the Tert. de Test. anim. c. 2. Euseb. h●st. l. 5. c. 3. same reason was given by the famous Martyr Attalus, when he was asked in the midst of his torments what the name of his God was; answered? God is but One, and needeth no name; names are needful there only where plurality is. You see the judgement of these Ancients is clear that God (the pure Godhead) neither hath, nor needeth, nor can have any proper name. If it be said, that although God needeth no proper name to distinguish him from other gods, because there is no God but one, yet a proper name may be useful to separate him from creatures; I answer that an appellative name is sufficient for that purpose, even as the common appellative word Homo, doth separate man from other kinds of creatures, so the appellative word God (not taken ●equivocally) may distinguish God from his creatures. CHAP. XX. That no creature is called Jehova: the signification of that word and the reverend esteem of it by the Ancients. OF all the appellations which are attributed to the only and most high God, Jehova is and hath been esteemed the most fit and adequate. Our Commenter doth truly confess, that Jesus is called jehova, but yet he doth most profanely, and falsely endeavour to apply this appellation to a created Angel, and that against the unanimous consent both of the ancient and our modern Divines, who constantly affirm that this word jehova is not communicable to any creature as other appellations of God sometimes are; for the word jehova as it doth imply the Lord, and Which is, so our Divines do ordinarily interpret it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Philo by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so it signifieth, Philo. de Abrah. n. 7. The Lord Eternal. Saint Austin tells us that (if there were any such Latin word) he would translate it essence, Being, and in D●onysiu● Areop. God is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; id est, as he is both the independent Aug. l. 3. locut▪ de Levit. n. 56. Dio. de div. nom. c. 5. n. 8. Being, and because all the essence, and being of creatures is given by him: the same word also doth imply eternity, for therefore is our Lord Jesus called, Rev. 1. 1. Which is, which was, and which is to come, because as Prosp. saith: Quia nunquam defuit, nunquam Prosp. in Sent. n. 38. and Justin. Mart. parae. 1. p. 18. decrit, sem●er est, id est▪ he never was wanting, never will be, for he is always, which cannot be affirmed of any mere creature; and therefore the jews had this word in such reverend estimation, that it was accounted as a crime capicall to pronounce this word, Philo. devit. Mos. l. 3. n. 11. except only in time of divine worship, as Philo. testifieth, and josephus also said, he thought it unlawful to Joseph. Antiq. l. 2. n. 5. speak that word, otherwise then is said before; and therefore the jews when in their writings, or discourse, they desired to signify th●s word, they used to call it, Philo. do vit. Mosis. l 3. n. 11. Tetragrammaton. And to me it seems that the Christian Writers had the like high and reverend esteem of this word, for Naz●anz●ne, and Hi●rom call it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; it ●st, unnameable, and ineffable, not only for the difficulty of expressing Naz. Orat. 36. Hier. Epist. exeg. 136. n. 29. the word, but (as it may seem) in ●egard of the reverence thereof; for this word jehova is very rarely to be found in the writings of the Fathers, but when they had cause to speak of it they signified what word they meant, by calling it Te●ragrammaton: id est, the word of 4. Letters, just as the Jews did: for so I find that Eusebius calls it; and so doth Origen, and Euseb. 26. k. Orig. 11. l. Hier. 29. Clem. stro. n. 14. Diodorus Sic. l. 1. sect. 94, so doth Hier●me. But Clemens Alex. hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his interpreter renders jehova, the name of four letters; and perhaps the Gnostick heretics, from this word jehova borrowed the name of their chief heavenly Prince, whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which we read both in Ir●naeus, and in Epipha●●●s. Now albeit this word I hova signify no other thing, but only God yet it is not therefore to be called the Iren. l. 1. c. 18 Epiph. hae. 62. & hae. 34. proper name of God no ●o●e than Logical definitions, or descriptions may be said to be the proper name of the thing defined, or described, though they be adequate; nor in Divinity do we say that the words Omnipotent, or Eternal Lord are the proper name of God, though only God is so called. Maximus an heathen in his Epistle to Saint Aussin confesseth, Nom●n Dei proprium ignoramus; id est, although the Aug. Epist. 43. Godhead had a proper name, yet man is ignorant what that name is: and if we did know any proper name of the Godhead, yet as Philo. observeth, It were a sign of greater reverence to call upon him by a name Philo. de vita Mo. n. 11. lib. 3. appellative, for (saith he) when we speak to our parents, we do not use to call them by their proper names, but appellatively, Father, Mother. And so we may with reverence call upon the Godhead, using the word Jehova: because it is not a proper, but an appellative name. For this word jehova being rendered Lord: if a man should ask you, what is the proper name of your God, would you answer that his proper name is Lord? It is said, Isai. 9 6. His name shall be called wonderful, and Luk. 1. 49. Holy is his name. If I ask you what is the proper name of your God, would you answer that his proper name is wonderful, or holy? No, these are not proper names but appellations; Just. apol. 1. n. 7. Vniversali rerum patri, nomen non est imposi●um, saith justin Martyr, the universal Father of all; hath no name: for though we call him God, and Father, and Creator, and Lord, etc. Non sunt nomi●a, sed appellationes; id est, these are not names, but appellations (saith he) just as the titles of our King are, His Majesty, his Highness, his Grace, our Sovereign, which no man will say are the King's proper name: these are the reasons which moved the Ancients to say, that the pure Godhead (for so they meant by the most high God) neither hath, nor needeth any proper name. But when the Word was made flesh, that is▪ when the Godhead was incarnate, and when God was so made man, then good reason that he should with our flesh assume also a proper name, to distinguish him from other men▪ as he did, and that name is jesus. So the result of all that hath been said is, that the only proper name of our only and most high Lord God is jesus; and this is the reason that both the Scripture requireth adoration of God, under the name of jesus, and the Church also, for the perpetual memory, and confession of his Godhead doth require adoration at such times as his proper, and only Name jesus is mentioned. For although we do not say that those which refuse to worship the Lord Jesus in that manner which the Church prescribeth, when this name is named, do commit the grand sin, yet they may be truly Si tu neglexeris nomen Dei, delet ipse nomen tuum. August. in Psa. 91. D. said, that they which do therefore refuse to worship the Lord jesus, because they do not believe, nor will confess, and acknowledge him to be the only, true, and most high God; such men do fall into that sin of which it is said, It shall never be forgiven. CHAP. XXI. The Conclusion of this second Book, with the Authors resolute Confession, of Jesus Christ, to be the most High, and only Lord God. BY this time the Christian Reader doth perceive why the denying of the Godhead of ●esus Christ hath been said to be that grand unpardonable sin, and therefore what great cause and reason we have to be rightly instructed in, and to be frequently put in mind of this weighty Doctrine, because if Jesus be not the true, and only, and most high God, and be not so by us confessed, and believed; we can obtain no Redemption, but must necessarily perish everlastingly. In this Confession therefore I set up my rest, and to him in this Faith I fasten my soul, for all my hope of salvation is included in this Doctrine, which if it should prove untrue, I might with trembling say as an Heathen did on his death-bed, Animula vagula blandul●, etc. Adrian. ap. Sparta. Sect. 14. Quae nunc abibis in loca? I know no other way in which redemption and salvation can be expected; for Christ is the way, and the only way, and in this bottom only do I trust, and venture that which to me is most precious, even my soul, and the eternal state thereof. This is that necessary Doctrine, which I have laboured all this while to set forth, and which our God hath taught us both by himself, and by his Prophets, from the beginning of the world. In this therefore I conclude with such Christian boldness as becometh us in the very foundation of Christian Religion, in the words of Rich. de S●. Victore: Nun cum omni confidencia Ri. de St. Vict de Trin. l. x. c. 2. Jer. 20. 7. Deo dicere poterimus, Domine, fi error est, à ●●ipso de●●pri ●umu●, etc. id est, Lord if our Christian Faith be false, and erroneous, thou thyself hast deceived us; for those wonderful works, which have wrought this Faith in us, could be done by none other but thyself. With like confidence Athanasius also in a disputation by him held with A●ius at the Nicene Council, when he affirmed that the Father and the Son were Ath in disp. cum Ario. n. 27 but one God, Arius told him: Tu Sabellius es qui Patr●m & Filium u●um d●●●●: (i) Thou art another S●bellius ●n confounding the Father and the Son. But Athanasius replied,— TumDominus Sabellius est qui ita dixit, Eg●, & Pa●er unum sumus: (i) If I be a Sabellian▪ fo● saying, the Father and the Son are one God, then must Christ himself be a Sabellian, for himself h●th so said. The like boldness and resolution in this very Doctrine Hil●le Trin. lib. ●●. n. 2. doth Saint Hilary express; Domine, quid me mis●rum de ●e ●●●ellisti,— Verbis tui● credidi— de spit me Moses,— David,— Solomon,— Daniel,— Apostoli-, si c●imen est, nimium legi, Prop●e●is, & Apostolis credidisse, ignosce Omnipotens Deus, qu●a in his m●ri possum, Emend●ri non possum. Id est, Lord, why hast thou deceived me thy poor creature? I believed thine own words concerning thine own self— thy servant Moses, David, Solomon, Dani●l, and thine Apostles have misled me: If it▪ be a fault to give too much credence to thy Law, thy Prophets and Apostles, I beseech thee to have me excused, if in this Faith I live and die; for I can never recant this Doctrine. Finally, this was also the constant Profession of that learned Bishop Saint Basil, for when Valens the A●ian Emperor had by a messenger threatened him with sequestration of his Church, and banishment of his person, if he persisted in this Doctrine, which he called a foolish doctrine. The good Bishop answered, u●inam sempiter na sit Theod. hist. l. 4. c. 10. haec mea insipientia: id est, And so say I, and I pray God, I may never be withdrawn from that true and most wholesome Doctrine which I have here delivered, and which our new fashion rational animals call folly, but that I may persevere in the Faith and Confession of the Godhead of Jesus Christ unto my lives end. And afterwards, I doubt not but I shall so continue with the Angels and Elders, Revelation, 5. 13. saying,— Blessing, Honour, Glory and Power, be unto him that sitteth on the Throne, and to the Lamb, for ever, and ever, Amen. L. Deo. FINIS. THE THIRD BOOK. Α●θρωπ●ς Θε●φόρος▪ THE Incarnation of GOD, And the MYSTERY Of Man's Redemption unfolded. Tentemus animas quae deficiunt in fide, naturalibus rationibus adjuvare. Ruffin. in symb. apud Cyp. LONDON, Printed for Humphrey Moseley, and are to be sold at his Shop at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1655. THE PREFACE. HAving in the second Book shown that Jesus Christ is the only, true, supreme, and most high God, and that there is no other God but he, for that we are assured that Christian Faith cannot H●l de Trin. l▪ 7. admit of two gods. And because we have learned the same in the Holy Scriptures, Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. And that the Prophet calls the Son of God, Esay 9 6. The mightty God, the everlasting Father, and that in the Gospel, the Son of God saith, John 10. 30. The Father and I are one, and that all his are the Fathers, and all that the Father hath, are his, John 17. 10. Which showeth a perfect communion in one Essence, and that the Son in Godhead is no way inferior to the Father, but both are equal; and therefore the Scripture with great reason doth promiscuously sometimes name the Father before the Son, and sometimes the Son is put before the Father; as John 8. 16. I and the Father that sent me: and Gal. 1. 1. By Jesus Christ and God the Father. And 2. Thes. 2. 16. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father. For if Christ were absolutely under, and subject to the Father how could this be endured, when no Prince will suffer his subject, though he be never so high and honourable, to write, Ego & Rex, I and my King, as chrysostom Chrys. tom. 6. ser. 4. n. 55. notes. In this third Book, I am to show that the same Only true and most high God was incarnate by assuming humane flesh from the Virgin Mother, and in that assumed nature was called Jesus Christ; and in that assumed Manhood performed the great work of Man's redemption, and therein suffered death on the Cross, thereby satisfying the Justice, and submitting to the Sentence of God, as an expiation for our transgressions, and by his most holy life, and perfect righteousness in fulfilling the whole Law, and so performing the Covenant of God, for us, and in our stead as our surety; and thereby according to the Covenant Do this and live) hath obtained for his whole Mystical Body, the kingdom of Heaven, and everlasting life. To this discourse I am lead by the pernicious doctrine of this Commenter, who denied Jesus to be the supreme God; and to colour this blasphemy, hath most apparently misinterpreted and transverted the holy Scriptures, and wronged the ancient Nicene Fathers, as hath been showed before; and particularly, that most learned Bishop, and ancient Church-writer, Eusebius, as is next to be showed. THE INCARNATION of GOD. CHAP. I. The Vindication of Eusebius, whom this Comment hath calumniated, and falsified. Upon those words, Heb. 13. 2. Some have P. 331. entertained Angels] the Commenter saith. [Eusebius in his first Book contends that one of the Angels was the Son of God, for he will not have him the most high God, etc.] You have not only all to becommented the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Nicene Father, but have written a loud Comment on Eusebius, who never wrote or said (for aught can appear) that Jesus Christ was not the most high God. But I am sure, divers times in his most learned Books, he teacheth true Doctrine quite contrary to yours, when he saith, Filius erat ante aeterna tempora. Euseb. de Demonst. i. 4. 6. ●. the Son of God was from eternity▪ and also particularly condemneth this very Heresy which you have so belaboured, under the name of Heresy Artemon, Theodotus, and Paulus Simosatenus: as hath been showed before. Id hist. l. 5. c. 28. & lib. 7. c. 2. For this Eusebius was one of those renowned Bishops, who at the N●●ene Council, against Arius, decreed and subscribed the article Homossion: id est, that the Father, and the Son are of the same essence and Godhead, whereas some Arians at that Council refused to subscribe and thereby insinuated (as yourself have done) that there was a greater and a lesser God, and so fell into the old heresy of Mertion, who said Bas. ho. 27. con. sabel. Soc. l. 2. c. 5. there were two Gods: 2● Saint Basil notes one of the refusers was also named Eusebius who was bishop of Nicomedia at that time, and afterwards was preferred to the Bishopric of Constantinople and their lived, and died an Arian, but we have no writings of this Eusebius now extant. The Eusebius whom you mean lived and died Bishop of Caesaria, a man of so great learning and worth, that the Emperor Constantine said he was worthy to be the Universal Bishop of the Sec. l. 1. c. 18. world: this man at first was unwilling to have the word homoousion put into the Creed, because it was new, but afterwards when he perceived, that it was but the expression of that Doctrine which is really contained in Scripture when it is said (The Father and I are one) he accepted of it, and exhibited his own Church-Creed to the Council, and the Council confirmed it, only adding the word Homoousion and so published it: as Socrates saith, so that it seemeth the Soc. l. 1. c. 5. creed which we call the Nicene Creed was thus penned, partly by Eusebius, and partly by Hosi●s, and yet we are sent to this Eusebius his first book, but he doth not tell us to which of his first books, (for Eusebius hath many first books) so I must trace him through Eusebius, that I may hit on the place he means: For I have observed that Eusebius hath no less than four times in several places of his works set down his opinion concerning Gods visible appearing to the patriarches, and in none of those places hath he said that which this Commenter would pin upon him. first he saith in his book, de monse. l●b. 1. c. 5. as Euseb. de Demonst. l. 1. ●. 5. Ruffinui reads it: Audi ut Moses cum qui amicis Dei seipsum ostenderet— modo Deum, modo Dei angelum appellet, sic declarans, non hunc fuisse ipsum patrem, sed ejus filium, qui idem et Deus ac Dominus amicorum Dei, et supremi Patris Angelus dici consueverit; id est, Hear how Moses calleth him who used to appear to the friends of God, sometimes he calls him God, and sometimes the Angel of God: and thereby Moses declareth that he was not the supreme Father, but his Son: which son is usually called the God and Lord, of the friends of God, and also the Angel or messenger of the most high Father. All that Eusebius in this place affirms is, that he that appeared to Abraham and the patriarches, was God in the person of the Son, and not in the person of the Father that it was not the supreme Father, but it was the supreme Son, for both the Father and the Son, are but one supreme God: the same supreme God appeared which is both the Father and the Son, and this he proveth because, he that appeared is sometimes called the Angel of the supreme Father, which may be, and is in Scripture said of the Person of the Son, but not of the Person of the Father: and yet he saith, he that appeared was: Deus & Dominus: id est, the Lord God of the Patriarches. But Eusebius doth not say as you would have him, that he was not the most high God, only he saith he was not the Father, but the Son of the Father: which no good Christian can find Euseb. de Dem. l. 5. in. prefat. fault with in such a mystery; the same Eusebius had said before, in the preface of the same book. Dei Verbum apud priora secula— in hominis habitu apparuit: id est, The Word of God in former times appeared in the habit of a man. Now, we know that only the Son, or second Person is called the Word as john 1. 1. and this the same Eusebius affirmeth again in the 19 Chapter of the said Book: id est, Idem est Dominus, Euseb. de Dem. l. 1. c. 19 & Deus, & Christus qui— Abrahoe visus habitu pacisico— jacobo tanquam Creator— Mosen specie nubis, & ignis ducebat, etc. id est, It was the same Lord and God, and Christ which appeared to Abraham in a peaceable shape, and to jacob as a wrestler, and lead Moses with a clould of fire. You see that as yet Eusebius hath said nothing to confirm your opinion, but let us see what he saith in his first book of his history, for I guess that is the first book: Deus Abra●ae apparuit tanquam communis homo,— at ille adorat ut Deum, & veneratur ut Dominum— dicens Eus. hist. l. 1. c. 1. Gen. 18. 25. dominator Domine, qui judicas omnem terram,— &; quae omnia non ad ●a●●em, s●d ad fill 'em referenda sunt. id est, God appeared to Abraham as an ordinary man,— but Abraham adored him as God, and worshipped him as the Lord— saying shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?— all which must be considered as spoken to the Son, and not to the Father. The result of all that Eusebius hath said, in this business, is, That the most high God of all the earth appeared to Abraham in the person of his Son, and not in the person of the Father, But yet it was the same Lord God for Godhead and substance which is in the person of the Father, and in the person of the Son: therefore he that appeared was the same God with the Father, but not the same person with the Father; therefore Saint Austin saith very truly, That the Father and the Aug. count. Epist. Man●chae. c. 6. n. 7. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. Son are to be called unum, but not unus, id est, one God for essence, but not one for person. So he expresseth himself in another place upon these words I and the F●th●r are one] unum secundum essentiam, non seeundum relatum: id est, One in Godhead, but not so in personal relation, it is very remarkable that in our Saviour's prayer for his Church it is desired, john 17. Theod. hist. l. 2. c. 8. &. Aug. n. 47 & 174. 22. That they all may be one, as we are one] he doth not say, That they and we may be one, because God and man are not of the same essence, for unum cannot be said of two several natures, although they be united Aug. Epist. 174. in one person, or subsistence, sine adiectione, as Austin hath observed, as the soul and body of man united are not unum, except you understand animal, you may call them one man, one person one living creature; but not absolutely One because they differ in essence, or nature, but the Father and the Son are therefore said to be one; because they are but one God, though several persons, just as Ensis & gladius are unum, they are the selfsame thing. So the Father and the Son are one and the same God though two persons; Substan●ia●i● unbias, personalis pluralitas: id Rye. de St. vict. de Trin. l. 3. c, 8. est unity of Godhead plurality of persons. Therefore the Scripture speaks of them with great caution both plurally, and singly; Gen. 1. 1. God c●●ated] the the noun is the plural, but the verb is the singular number; and let us make man, and— in our image] this shows a plurality, but yet the persons are never called Gods or Lords Plurally, but as he who intended to point at one particular man named Tertullius, described him by thrice repeating: Tullus Tullus Tullus, Jul. cap. in Mar. Ant. c. 10. and as the Consulship of Caesar, men used to say that these two Consuls were Julius and Caesar so when the Scripture would intimate the two distinct persons of the Father and the Son, it doth it by Sugt. in Julio c. 20. repeating the same word; because there is but one Lord, and but one God, it will not say Lords, or Gods but The Lord reigned from the Lord,— and The Lord Gen. 19 24. Ps. 45. 7. Aug. Epist. 37. said unto my Lord,— and God thy God hath anointted thee, because the same God who is in three distinct persons, or properties, is one in Godhead, and in that one Godhead the three persons are one; and as Augustine's word is, Vnissimi, this was the judgement 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 showed. CHAP. II. That the most high God appeared visibly to the Patriarches 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 jacob 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 invisibilis, 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 Tertullias, (which is an excellent and learned book) Yet that this was Tertullions' opinion, appeareth in another Id. count. Marc. lib. 3. undoubted book; where he saith, Christus Abrahamo apparuit in veritate carnis, s●d n●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 jacob; Clem. in Paedag. l. 1. c. 7. Jacob luctatus est cum Deo Verbo, nondum homo facto: jacob wrestled with God the Word, before he was Incarnate. Now we know, that only the second Person is called the Word, and Christ. And this was also the opinion of Origen, who saith that our Lord jesus Christ, before Orig. in Eze. ho. 6. he assumed our flesh, descended to the holy Patriarches, and was with Moses: And again, he saith, That Esaias was therefore sawn asunder by the jews, because Id. in Esa. ho. 1 he had said, I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne, Isay 6. 1. justin 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 seen by the Patriarches: 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 believe that there were any god at all, but God in the person of the father was never seen, lest men by reason of familiarity should contemn 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 judgement, 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. ha'. 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 Epipha●ius, and Theodoret, and the scripture seems to favour this exposition, for it is said joh. 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 not 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 told them, he that hath seen me hath seen the Father joh. 14. ●. 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 seethe God the Son in the flesh▪ seethe 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 show himself visible, so he that sees God the Son, sees God the Father, for both persons are one God. By what hath been said it may appear common that opinion of the primitive Christians was, that it was the person of God the Son which appeared to the Patriarches, & not the person of God the Father. Now because these aying are hard to understand, I think it will not be amiss to discourse the 2 questions following first how God is said to be invisible, and how yet he hath been, and may be seen by mortal men. Secondly (seeing there is but one God) how it may be said, that the Father hath not been seen, and yet the Son hath been seen: In which discourse I will not promise the reader full Satisfaction, but ● do promise him my endeavour. 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 been seen by mortal Eyes, and in what sense he is said to be both Invisible, 1. Quest. and Visible, will be worthy of our inquisition▪ because the right understanding thereof is pertinent to the doctrine of Man's redemption, by the incarnation of God, and will serve for reconciliation of some Scriptures which at the first hearing may seem to contradict one another, for in the old Testament it is said Ex. 33. 11. The Lord spoke 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 follows, ver. 23 thou shalt see my backparts. Yet before this jacob 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 again 1 Joh. 4. 12. And S. Paul calls 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 divinity is not visible by mortal Eyes, in this sense S. Cyprian saith Deus est visu clarior tactu purior. (i) the Majestio of the Godhead dazzleth all mortal Cyp. de idoorum vanitate. ●. 77. eyes and senses and thus, neither the Father nor the, Son, nor the Holy Ghost can be seen, becase the Godhead of every, and all Persons is one, and alike invisible, for God is a spirit, and a spirit cannot be seen, and therefore S. Austin upon those words Tim. 1. 17. The invisible God saith hic ipsa tri●it●s intell●gi●ur non solus Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 8. Aug. Epist. 112. Aug. Epist. 111. Tert. count. Prax. Pater, (i) The whole trinity is invisible, and not only the Father, and again he saith. The whole trinity 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 no Eye can see them and therefore Tertullian thus expounds it videbatur Deus a Patriarchis secundum capacitatem hominis non pro plenitudine Majestatis (i) Patriarches saw God, not in the plenitude of his Majesty, but according to the capacity 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 mortals invisible. The divine nature, and pure Godhead is that which the Scripture sometimes calls the face of God, of which God said to Moose, 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 divinitat●m (i) the foreparts of God signify the Godhead, and so S. Austin, often tells us, that the face of God signifies the form of God, and the afterparts signify the form of a servant, which is the humane nature. But then how doth the Scripture say the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, and how could Jacob say I have seen God face to face, if the pure Godhead can not be seen? 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. ye saw no similitude on the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb;] I answer, that as in one place of those Scriptures alleged, the face of God signifies his divinity or Godhead which can not be seen, so in the other place it signifieth God's presence manifested by words, or signs, whereby God declare th' himself present, as on mount Horeb by fire and thunder, and in the tabernacle by a cloud, or by a sound and words, so God's face, or presence may be where there is no sight of him, and so he spoke to the people face to face, because they knew for certain that God was there present. But jacob saw the face of God, because he saw the face of that man, or that shape which wrestled with him, when God appeared to him in the form of a man although jacob 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 jacob saw the face of that man which appeared to him, in (which man was God) therefore 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 show himself in a visible shape ●nd for this, Eusebius had very great and weighty reasons, of which more hereafter. CHAP. IU. More concerning the first question how God hath been, 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 been seen, and this will be understood by considering how other Spirits become visible, which in their own Spiritual nature, are as invisible as the divine nature is, for because a spirit hath nothing in itself, which can be an object for mortal Eyes, therefore 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 therefore 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 upon him the invisible nature of an Angel, for an Angelical nature is of itself 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 corporeal visible shape which God assumeth, and employeth and useth for that purpose, to be seen and to converse with man by, for the word Angel doth not always signify a spiritual nature, but any officer employed by God as a Messenger, so S. john the Baptist 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 therefore put a Veil 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 th●n missed then in its Clear brightness, so in this life God is visible Only as in a gloss darkly 1 Cor. 13. 12. his divine nature in his glorious brightne● is invisible, but the Invisible things of God are seen, by things that are made Rom. 1. 20. The divinity can ●ot be s●●e except it be clothed, and allayed with some mo●e gross and Material veil, and therefore at what time God shown himself visibly to men, he took some corporeal 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 uni●. T●in n 30. Hil de Trin. l. 5. visus est Patribus sed in 〈◊〉 Ma●●, i●, & Filius v●sus est Patriarchis in specie h●minis (i) The Son of God was seen by the Ancient 〈◊〉 but it was by assuming some Material, and visible shape▪ as ●● a Man. So S. Chrisostome saith. The Prophets which saw Chrys. ho. 10. Ant●o. Aug. de Civiv l. 5. c. 7. id. Epist. 11●. God had not otherwise the express s●ght o● him sed figuras viderund (i) they saw him in some assumed figure and S. Austin discoursing of Gods conversing with man in Paradise saith▪ Deus locutus est cum p●im●s hominibus in aliqua specie corporali— and again Deus non est vis●● 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 writing upon those words Gen 3. 8. They heard the voice of the Lord God walking] he saith quomodo ambulatio Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 10. Prosp. de vit Cont. l. 1. c. 5. & lib. 2. c. 18. latio dei possit intelligi sine humans specie non video (i) I do not see how the walking of God can be understood, except we suppose that God assumed an humane shape. Prosper also the follower of Austin, saith Deus non potest hic videri sine assumptione Elementi— non sine forma visibilis creaturae (i) God can not be seen, but by assuming some Elementary, and visible form of a Creature, and this doctrine was so generally received that Austin saith again. Deum apparuisse humanis Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 14. Oculis per Creaturam subjectam, quis dubitat? (i) who doubteth that God hath indeed appeared to man's sight, by assuming some Creature. The sum of all is that God hath been seen, but not in his single, and pure divine nature, but by assuming, and involving himself in some Element, figure, body, or shape: and those apparitions of God in the old Testament, did but accidentally point at the great and principal Appartiion of God described in the new Testament, where it is said. Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh, and dwelled amongst us and we beheld his glory and Coloss 2. 9 In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily and 1 Tim. 3. 16. Great was the mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the flesh. For indeed all the apparitions of God in the old Testament, were but types, figures, proems, preludes, preambles, praefigurations, or as dumb shows (If I may so speak) of the incarnation of the same God in the person of Jesus, all foreshowing, that the most high & only God, would in the fullness of time, take upon him men's nature. S. Austin saith of that apparition which joshua saw, when God appeared to him like a man of war. Iosh. 5. 13. That it was the Son of Aug de 5 haer. c. 4. God. 1. Jesus jesum interrogat figurae veritate (i) joshua (who is also called Jesus)— jesus the typespake to jesus who is the truth and substance of that type, for the ancients made this Construction of all the apparitions of God in humane shapes to be but as types of the incarnation of the same God as will appear more clearly hereafter. CHAP. V The Incarnation of God foreshowed in types the heresy of the Anthropomorphites, the first article of the Church of England explained. GOd began very early to promise, and intimate by words and signs the great, and profitable Mystery of his own Incarnation, and his gracious work of the redemption of man: for he said before he created Man. Gen. 1 26. Let us make Man in Our Image— and God created Man in his own image] first here is Our Image, in the plural number, intimating the image of the trinity to be in the soul of man Consisting in Will, Memory, and Understanding as S. Austin expounds it, and here is also mention of his own Aug. comp. Ser. Arian. to. 6. c. 16. Tert. de Resur. Gen 1. 27. Tert. adv. Prax. Image. in the singular number, that is as Tertullian expounds it more than once. Deus ad imaginem suam fecit hominem.] Lincus iste jam ●unc imaginem Christi induens futuri in carne Christus Cogitabatur homo suturus (i) that the image of God was meant of Christ, who in after ages would take the same shape of man upon him. And again he saith, on those words In the image of God Created he him Sc. an Imaginem Filii, qui homo suturus Orig. in Gen. ho. 1. (i) that the Image of God signifies the image of the Son of God, who was to be a man, and Origen expounding the same words, tells us that the image of God there signifies Imaginem Salvatoris (i) That man was made in the same humane image that one day Our saviour would assume and albeit the image of God may have other significations, as righteousness, holiness, etc. Yet nothing hindereth this exposition to be one, and the image thus expounded holdeth when the other is ceased or much defaced, and what else is the meaning of that saying The seed of the Woman shall Gen. 3. 15. bruise the serpent's head] But that the Son of God should take flesh of the Woman, and therein prevail against Satan, and why should both Abraham and Jacob, require Gen. 24. & 47. 29. Aug. count. sec. Manichae. c. 23. to 6. Amb. de Abrah, l 1. c. 9 Hier. count. Jou. l. 1. c. 5. that at the taking of an oath, the hand should be put under their thigh (a strange book to Swear on) but S. Austin expounds it. Abraham prophetabat deum Caeli● in eam carnem ●sse venturum, quae fuisset exillo femore propagata (i) Abraham prophesied that the God of heaven would assume flesh propagated from Abraham's thigh and the very same reason is rendered by S. Ambrose and S. Hie●ome, but most memorable is the passage with Ja●ob, which we read Gen. 32. 22. There wrestled a man with Jacob] This man was God to signify that there would be a contention between the Son of God— made man, and jacob's posterity; Jacob seemed stronger than the man, and held him, and prevailed, to signify that jacob's posterity (who are called by his name jacob and Israel,) should so prevail with God incarnate, as to be stronger, and to hold him as the Jews did, in bonds, and durance, and to nail him on the cross jacob halted] that is, his posterity would fail and falter in the faith of the God of jacob, yet jacob obtained a blessing] signifying that the Jews, or all true Israelites, notwithstanding all their contentions, and injuries done to this incarnate God, yet by holding him in faith should obtain a blessing and this is the exposition of Tertullian lib de T●in. (If that book Tert. de Trin. be his.) And for the same reason I take it, did it please the only and most high God to appear to Abraham in the habit of man. Gen. 16. and to converse with him, and to be entertained at meat by Abraham as a guest, and all this was acted as a prophetical scene, or show, that Abraham might with his eyes behold a representation of that great mystery of God incarnate, which one day should be really performed, when the same God who now conversed with Abraham, but in a temporary and assumed shape of man, should really become a very and perfect man, and converse with, and be entertained by Abraham's posterity. These and such like passages may further infome us in the true meaning, of those hard words which God said to Moses, when he could him, that he should see his ●● 〈◊〉 but not his face. Ex. 33. 23. What the face or forepart of God signifies I have showed before that it signifies his divine nature, the Eternal Godhead, but his back parts signify his later dispensations in assuming our nature of the Virgin Mother, his birth, his conversation with men, his passion, death, resurrection, ascension, so that the meaning is, that Moses. viz. the Mosaical people should in after times, see God, when God should be incarnate. So Athanisius expounds it posteriores Ath. ad Antio. quaest. 23. n. 28. dei parts, carnen intellige, quam assum, sit ex Virgin, & per quam conspectus est (i) by the backparts of God you must understand his flesh taken of the Virgin● Marie, in which flesh he was seen, and this also is the exposition of Origen, on Psal: 36. hom. 4. and Austin gives a reason why the incarnation is call●d the after parts of God. Propter posterita●em mortalitatis, vel Aug. de Trin. l. 2. 17. quia poster ùs ●arnem assumpturus erat (i) because his mortal, or humane nature was to be assumed long after Moses time, and later than his divine nature, which had been from all Eternity. Neither doth this Doctrine, by asserting the incarnation of God any way countenance the heresy of the Anthropomorphites, who ascribed corporeal lineaments and parts to God, and because it is said Esa. 66. 1. heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool, they thought, the divine nature was a vast body, teaching from heaven to earth as Origen relates of them, Orig in Gen. ho. 1. and because they read of the hand, and arm, and eyes of God (simple monks as they were) they ascribed those parts literally to the divine nature which are spoken of in Scripture but figuratively, these were the Andian Enrors as we read in Epiphanius, The odoret & Sozomen, these men thought a body to be essential to God, as if God could not be God except he had a body: but we say, the body, or humane nature is not essential to God, no not to the person of the Son of God, but it is an accessary assumed, and not into the essential union with the Son, but into personal union with him being now God incarnate, for he was God, and the Son of God before his incarnation, so that although the divine nature, in its own essence, or pure Godhead, is incorporeal, yet the same Godhead now considered in the Person of Christ, cannot be said to be without a body, for as Theodoret noteth, Christus Theod. dial. 3. n. 13. significat Deum incorporatum, non incorporeum: (id est,) Christ signifieth God incarnate, and not God incorporeal, because the Son of God, who is the One and only true God, is now Emmanuel; the Godhead, and the Manhood in him are inseparably united for ever; and in this sense I conceive the first Article of Religion in the Church of England is to be p. Art. 1. understood, which saith p. God is without Body] because albeit God never will be without his assumed Body; yet this Body is not of the Essence of God, for although the Son of God, never had assumed a Body, nor ever had been incarnate, yet nevertheless he had been, and shall be God, and the Son of God from everlasting, to everlasting. This I hope is enough concerning the first question of God's visibility, and invisibility. CHAP. VI The Second question, why the Fathers said that 2 Question. only the Son was seen by the Patriarches, and not the Father. IT being granted that the Father and the Son are but one only, and the same God, although distinct in proprieties and Persons,) it would be inquired, why the Fathers before mentioned, said, that the Son appeared and was seen, when the Father did not appear, nor was seen; for how can one be seen, and not the other, when both are one? Before I enter upon this question, I desire the Reader to take notice of two things: First, that this discourse is intended to be only concerning such a sight of God, as mortal men are capable of in this life, because it is not revealed to us, how man shall see God in the life to come; of which it is said, March 5. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God] and yet also the impure shall see God: for every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him] Rev. 1. 7. Saint Austin expounding the words, Zach. 12. 10. They shall Aug. de Trin▪ lib. 1. c. 13 look upon me whom they pierced] saith, The wicked shall not see him in th● form of God, but in the form of a servant because God shall sit in judgement, as he is clothed with his humane body; that so the judge may be visible to all that shall be judged for even Satan conversed with our God on earth, being in his flesh when he tempted him, Matt. 4. But the righteous when they once are in the possession of the joys of Heaven, shall see God as he is in his Divine nature, which Divines call, facialem visionem, the beatifical vision, seeing God face to face, as it is said, 1 Cor. 13. 12. and then happily the distinct Person of the Father will be visible to eyes glorified; for then the Saints shall be equal to the Angels, Luke 20. 36. of whom we shall read, Matth. 18. 10. Their Angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven. Secondly, that I do not take upon me peremptorily to affirm, that the Person of God the Father hath never presented himself in any corporeal or visible shape, for how should I know such a Mystery? And because I find that Saint Austin saith, N●mis temerarium est dicere Aug. de Trin l. 2. c. 17. & 18 patrem nunquam visum pat●ibus— credibile est Patrem solitum fuisse apparere mortalibus: (i) It is too much rashness to affirm that the Father was never seen— Nay, it is credible that he used to appear to the Patriarches: And Atbanasius saith, that although God was sometimes seen in the Person of the Son, when he was not seen in the Person of the Father; yet he saith also, that at another time all the three Persons Athan. lib. de Com. essentia, n. 24. were seen by Abraham. Tres Personae sedebaent apud Abraham; (i.) All the three Persons sat at Abraham's tent. For what inconvenience will follow, if God show his presence at the same time, both in several places, and also in several assumed shapes? for he that is at all times really present in all places, may also manifest his presence where, and when, and how he pleaseth. It is confessed that the Person of the Son assumed an humane body, and was seen, and at the same time the Person of the Holy Ghost descended in the likeness of a Dove, Matthew, 3. 17. and then also the voice of the Person of the Father was heard; and again, Matthew, 17. 5. which Divines say, must needs be from the Person of the Father; because the Son of God is not the Son of any other Person, but only of the Father. Indeed it is said of the Father, ●ohn 5. 37. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, no● any time, no● seen his shape;] and yet his voice was certainly heard at Christ's Baptism; but Saint Hilary reconcileth both places, telling us, Pater nec visus, n●● audi●us est ab illis ●udaeis quibuscum Christus loquebatur: (i) Those Jews to whom Hil. de Trin. lib. 9 Christ then spoke, were not present, when the Father's voice was so uttered; yet this doth not hinder▪ but that as others heard his voice: 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 Austin moves the question, Aug. de Trin. l 2 c. 12. Wh●n three men appeared to Abrabam▪ why may we no●●●r they were ●●e thr●e P●●sons of the Trinity; seeing neither of those that appeared, is there said, or so much as intimated to be greater, or less than the other? It is but a vain cavil of this Commenter, in p 332. saying, they were no● God, but Angels, (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 verify▪ 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 s●id before ch 4. p 119. That the only 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 Angel, and Minister, and Delegate, though he doth not take upon him to show 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 only Lord God which appeared; but whether in the Person of the Father, or the Son, 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 Anchor. 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 Son of God, and two created Angels▪ with him: and Fulgentius saith flatly, (id est) That the Son 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 only Jehovah, who is the Father and the Son, 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 show some reasons why Eusebius (alleged by the Commenter) and our Father's thought, that only the Son appeared to the Patriarches, and not the Father. Because the Orthodox, or Catholic Church did constantly believe, and confess, that only the Son of God, or second Person, did take upon him our nature, and became the Son of Man, and that only he was God Incarnate, he only was born of the Virgin, and conver●ed with the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob on earth, and only that Person suffered on the Cross, and died for us; and that neither the Per●on of the Father, nor the Person of the Holy Ghost, can be aid, or truly believed to have taken our nature on them, and to be bo●n of the Virgin, nor to be the seed of the woman, o● the seed of Abraham, or the Son of David, nor to have suffered for Man's 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 real Incarnation of the Son of God to be exhibited upon promise, in the fullness of time. Therefore Eusebius, and other Father's thought, and said, that it was God in the Person of the Son only which appeared Typically, for that only the Person of the Son was really to be Incarnate▪ and that neither the Person of the Father, nor the Person of the Holy Ghost, did appear to the patriarchs in humane shapes, because neither of the●e Per●ons were to take our Nature on them, for the work of redemption. And that this is a fair probable reason may appear, in that the Orthodox Church condemned the Heresy of those that were called Pa●rispassiani, which is called by Saint Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: id est, The confounding Cyr. Hier. car. 4 of the Persons of the Father and the Son: which Heresy is recorded not only by this Eusebius, Eus hist. l 7. c. 4. 5 and by him called the Heresy of Sabellius, but also before him, and before Sab●llius, by Tertullian, and called the Heresy of Praxeas; and after Eusebius, Tert. de haer & contr. Prax. Soc. l. 2. c. 15 by Saint Basil. Nazian. Epiphanius, and Augustine. The Heresy is described by Socrates, The Sabellians are condemned, for saying that the Trinity is only three Names, and but One Person, for so they affirm 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 Son which appeared to the patriarchs, and not the Person of the Father, as well as all true Christian Churches do to this day affirm and believe, that the Person of the Son was ●ncarnate, and suffered, and not the Person of the Father; For though the Church doth acknowledge that the Father and the Son are the same God; because we do not divide the Substance, yet we say, that the Father, and the Son are not the same Person, because we will not confound the Persons. The poison which this Commenter would infuse to weaker souls, by saying, that Eusebius would not have the Angel which appeared to Abraham to be the supreme 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, Only, and very God; the affirming whereof, is that blasphemy, which himself saith, shall not be forgiven unto men. CHAP. VII. Of the Incarnation of God the Son, and the reason and purpose why he was Incarnate. THe Mystery of the Incarnation of God is frequently in Scripture set forth unto us, when the Saviour promised, is said to be the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, Emmanuel, the Son of David, the Word made flesh, taking the form of a servant, and most evidently of all Heb. 2. 14 taking part of the same flesh and blood with us men. And yet this commenter tells us [that Christ can not be said to be Incarnate, 31. c. 2. v. 14. though both of them are confessed to partake of flesh and blood] a bold assertion, but false, and dull, untheological, unphilosophical; for here are two Propositions, both false, and one of them blasphemous also. I. The faithful are not Incarnate.] Faithfulness, or unfaithfulness do not hinder Incarnation, the question must be whether a man may be said to be Incarnate, if every man prove Incarnate, then must Christ also be so, for he is a perfect man, and more also, a very small matter will give a denomination, a man that hath but a gown on his back is denominated T●gatus, and shall not he who hath an immortal soul united with his flesh be called incarnate? to be incarnate, is to be in Carne (i) in the flesh I hope you will not deny that the soul of a man whilst it is in the body, may be said to be Incarnate; the soul of a man can exist without the body, and is separable, and when it shall be parted from the body than it is Discarnated, but when it is joined with the body who will doubt to say it is incorporated, or incarnated? now from the Incarnation of this principal, and essential part of man; the whole man is said to be Incarnate; S. Paul knew a man— whether in the body, or out the body he could not tell. 2 Cor. 12. 2. surely a man in the body may be called Incorporate, and so, Incarnate, and Gal. 2. 20. the life which I now live in the flesh] S. Paul saith he lived in the flesh, in Corn therefore he thought himself incarnate, & again, Phil. 1. 22. If I live in the flesh abide in the flesh is more needful for you,] S. Paul is one of the faithful, and he confessed that he lived, & abode in the flesh, therefore he was in Carne— incarnate. I never read that a beast is called incarnate, because the body, and soul of a beast cannot both exist, if separated, as man's soul and body do, & therefore the fathers spoke of them as of two distinct men, Care, & anima, duo homines, exterior, & interior Amb. de Inst. veig. l. 2. n. 35. Naz. Epist. 94, n. 38. Ath. de Incar. n. 23. Tert. de anim. c. 9 Mens cujusque, is est quisque Tul, in. Som. Scip. Ro. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 2. 14. (i.) the soul and the body, two men, the outward, and the inward man. Apud nos Philosophus, & Anima vocantur externus, & internus homo, (i) The Philosopher with his soul, are called by us, the outward and the inward man, just so saith Athanasius, and Tertullian, although he went too far in saying the soul was corporeal. If any the soul a man be denominated Animatus, shall he not as well from his flesh be called Carnatus. I am sure in Scripture a man is called both. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Carnal, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Animalis, because he hath some of the natural inclinations of soul and body in him, not wholly subdued by the Spirit. If we will speak strictly, and properly, Incarnation must principally be said of the Soul, because that part of us in its own nature is incorporeal, but being joined with the flesh, becomes Incarnate, it seems by Moses description of the Creation. Gen. 2. 7. that the body of man was framed before the soul was insufflated, and both Origin, and divers Philosophers before him thought that the soul was more ancient than the body, and they called the body the sepulchre and Theod. de div. decret. l. 5. n. 17. Ambr. Epist. l. 4. n. 53. id. in Hex. l. 6. c. 6. Tert. de anim. prison of the Soul, and the Christian writers said of it to the like purpose, one calleth it Tunicam Pelliceam Adami, and again. Caro est amictus animae and another calls it Domum animae, and another vestimentum animae, and saith that the soul is but inquilinus corporis, (i) the body is the coat of skin, the apparel, the house of Chrys. ho. 5. Antioc. the soul, and the soul is but a temporary inmate of the body, the departure of the soul, is like the putting off the apparel of the body: the 2. souldier-martyrs in id. Epist. ad Olymp. n. 39 chrysostom calleth their bodies. Indusium ultimum, (i) the innermost garment of the soul, and of the holy woman Olympicss he said That she was more ready to put of her body for Christ than others were to put of their apparel; wherefore, as when our naked bodies, are invested with garments, they are said to be apparelled, so our souls clothed with our flesh are said to be Incarnate: the Apostle describes▪ the reuniting of our souls and bodies at the resurrection, by this phrase of putting on immortality, than I think no Christian will deny, that when our souls after a long discontinuance from our flesh, shall be restored, and reunited with our bodies, they may be said to be Incarnate, or re Incarnate, and the same kind of reasoning will much more prove the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus against the Commenters second proposition. viz. 2. Christ the Captain of the faithful is not Incarnate.] Because the Ingredients of which our Jesus the Emmanuel is Composed are two, viz. the divine nature or Godhead, and the humane nature or manhood, and because one of these ingredients, I mean the Godhead, had a real and separate being by itself, without flesh, and without a body, from all Eternity before the creation of the world, and because the same divine nature in the fullness of time did assume an humane body, and so partake of our flesh and blood, I may now well say that our God is Incarnate because he is in carne in the flesh, so that his Godhead and manhood are as the principles and ingredients of one Compound, for they are but one person, one Christ, one Emmanuel, because that divine nature which before had been entire and single by itself, is now joined with another inferior nature, the Scripture expresseth the mystery in this phrase. Joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh.] he saith the word rather than the Son, because the word signifieth his pure Godhead but the Son may also signify his humane nature, and that alone too▪ for if Christ were nothing but a mere man yet he might be called the Son, but he could not be called the Word. This is that which in Scripture is called. God manifest in the flesh. 1 Tim. 3. 16. and Christ is so said to be in the body of his flesh. Col. 1. 22. And after his incarnation the time is called the days of his flesh. Heb. 5 7. And he is said to be sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. Rom. 8. 3.] not that his flesh was not real, or but a mere similitude or phantasm (as the Manichees said,) but it was real, and pure without sin, yet like unto our flesh which is sinful, surely S. Peter● thought Christ to be incarnate, when he said Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh. 1 Pet. 4. 1. I desire this Commenter who denieth this, to consider Soberly what the divine Apostle S. John hath said to this point more than once 1 joh. 4. 3. Every Spirit that confesseth not that jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof you have heard that it should come, and even now already it is in the world.] Thus is this place now read and again he saith 2 joh. 7. Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that jesus Christ is come in the flesh▪ this is a deceiver, and an Antichrist. The fathers spoke in the same manner of the Godhead to be Incarnate in the flesh of Christ, as they spoke of the incarnation of an humane soul in an humane body Corpus Domini est vestis regia, Chrys. to. 5. ser. 65. Atha. Disp. in Nic. Concil. n. 27. Aug. de Civit. l. 18. c. 35. Euseb. Emiss. n. 32. (i) the body of the Lord his garment royal, & Corpus Domini est amiculum dei— & Caro est amictus verbi, (i) the flesh of the Lord is the garment of God, and upon those words Mal. 3. 1. The Lord shall suddenly come to his● Temple] S. Austin expounds thus, In Templum, id est in Carnem, (i) by coming into his temple is meant his coming in the flesh, and ●hristi vestimentum, humanitas est qua divinitas induta videri non poterat, (i) The garment of Christ is his humane nature, which covered his divinity, as garments do our bodies. The reason why our Commenter denieth the Incarnation of an humane soul is (as I imagine) because he thinketh the soul dieth with the body. And shall rise again at the resurrection of the body, and that it hath no existence but only in the body, and the reason why he denies the Incarnation of Christ is, because he doth not believe Christ to be God from Eternity, but that he hath his beginning from his humane birth, and that after his resurrection he was Deified, for his forerunners the Arians said that Christ was but a God made, that is, all one with Deified, that this Son of God was not equal to the Father in Eternity, in his answer I trow he will resolve that question which S. Austin asked the Arians. Quot annis precedit Deus Pater Aug. de 5. her. to. 6. n. 6. filium suum? (i) how many years was God the Father older than God the Son? or how long was the Father, God, before the Son was God? in the mean time we will rest satisfied in the sure word of God who saith. Esa. 43. 10. Before me there was no God form neither shall there be after me: we read that by God the Word all things were made. Joh. 1. 3. time is a creature, therefore it was made by him, and he was before for if time, time were before the Son of God, then could he not be called The first borne of every creature Coloss. 1. 15. The reason why the Son of God did take upon him our nature, was because he would in our stead, as a surety and undertaker both perform the whole Law, and also sustain all the penalty of our transgressions, of which more hereafter. CHAP. VIII. More reasons, why the Son of God was Incarnate, how, and when he became our suetrie, the Aeternal covenant explained; distinction of Persons in the Godhead. THe Supreme, and Eternal ●od▪ in the person of the son did for man's redemption, ●●k● man's nature upon him, not because God had no other way by which he could have saved us, but because he would not save us any other way; for we know that the same God who saveth man by taking man's nature, did, and still doth preserve the blessed angels in their estate of glory, and from falling, by his power, and gracious goodness, although he did not take upon him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Heb. 2. 16. The Church never taught tha● God could not have saved man without the Incarnation of his Son, but the contrary. Athanasius saith a Poterat Deus●sine adventu Atha. count. Aria. ser. 3. n. 7. Christi peccatum solv●re verbulo suo, (i) God could have remitted our sins with the least word, though Christ had not come in the flesh; for if an earthly King can save his subject; who hath by the law forfeited his life, could not the Omnipotent King have saved mankind by his power? for who can resist his will? But then, why did God give his Son to take our nature on him? To this it may be answered, that albeit the Son of of God was Originally a mere gift, and from the free grace of God to mankind, yet accessarily, it became a debt, and due to man, so that God was bound in Justice ro give his Son, because God had by his promise and Covenant engaged and bound himself so to do, for although his mere mercy, and goodness moved him to make such a promise, yet when he had once promised, his justice and truth required the performance of that promise Deus dignatur promissionibus suis debtor Aug Confes. l. 5. c. 9 fieri (i) God vouchsafed to make himself a debtor to, or by his own promises, and having so made himself a debtor to man, how could he without violating his word and promise, forbear the performance. But where doth this promise appear, and how shall we know that the Son of God became an undertaker, and suert ● for us men? and when was this Covenant made for the mystery of man's redemption doth depend upon the Covenant, and by it the Son of God did engage and bind himself, out of his free and mere grace to become a surety for man, therefore before I proceed any further, this Covenant must be inquired after, as the chief evidence of Christ's ingagment. It was an old question moved either by some scoffers or curious persons, what God did before he made heaven, and earth; unto which some made answer with a jocular reproof G●hennas parabat alta Scrut●ntibus, (i) he made hell for such seekers: but S. Austin liked not Aug. Conf. l. 11. c. 12. this answer, but said libentius respondeo, nescio, quod nescio. (i) I would rather, answer, that I know not. So in that book of Cic●ro, which was called Hortensius, but is now lost, this objection was made against the unity of God. Si Deus unus est, quae ●sse beata Solitude Lactantio de fall. rel. l. 1. c. 7. qu●at? How can that one God be eternally blessed and happy, If he be alone and Solitary? Solitariness is rather an argument of sadness, then of joy; to this, Lactanius answereth tanquam no● qui unum●sse dicimus, desertum Id. ibid. 1 Cor. 8. 4. & solita●ium esse dicamus? (i) although we say that God is one (for so the Scriptures tell us 1 Cor. 8. 4. there is none other God but One) yet we do not say that this God is so forlorn, and solitary as to have no society, for he h●th Ministers whom we call his angels, thus he, but this answer doth not fully satisfy, for shall we say God was alone and Solitary before angels or any other Creatures were made? The full answer therefore must be this, that before any creation, and at the creation and after it; God was, and still is but one, one I say in essence, and Godhead, but yet not only one, and alone in person. Pater & filius duo sunt personâ, unum Atha. Orat. Cont. Aria. n. 8. di●●ate. (i) the Father and the Son are two in persons, though but one in Godhead, for when the Son of God saith, The Father and jare one Joh. 10. 30. Athanasius Atha. Dis. count Arian. 27. observeth that he doth not say. Vnum sumus, but unum sumus, (i) it is not said we am one, singularly, but plurally, we are one, one for essence, but more for persons, and in another place the Substantive word Elohim signifying God, is plural; and the verb is singular Gen. 1. 1. as is before noted; both ways to signify an unity in Godhead but a plurality of persons; and the Son of God saith expressly. Joh. 8. 16. I am not alone, but I and the Father, and he calleth himself and the Father, two witnesses. Surely, If the Son be said not to be alone, and to be another, neither can the Father be said to be alone, although both are but One God, yet they are distinct persons, for did not God manifest himself in three distinct persons, Severally, at one time. Math. 3. 16. The Father in a voice, the Son in the flesh, and the Spirit like a dove? Nay did not the Spirit at one time manifest its self in many several cloven fiery tongues. Act. 2. 3. And yet there is but One Spirit. S. Hilary, to this point very acutely saith. Deus est non solus, sed tamen Hil. de Trin. lib. 7. unus, Deus est unus, tamen non solus, essentia unus, pro personis non solus. (i) God is but one and yet God is not alone, for he is indeed one in essence, but he is not alone because in God there are more persons than one. Now although we detest the blasphemy of. Martion, Tert. Cont. Marc. l. 5. Aug. de Morib. Eccles. l. 1. c. 10. Basil. Epist. 8. Naz. Orat. 37. pag. 7. c. 1. v. 6. and the Manichees who said there were two Gods, and also the Calumny of the Arians and the Macedonians, Who called the Orthodox▪ Church Tritheitas, (i) Men that worshipped three Gods because they confessed three Persons in One God; yet we reject the heresy of the Sabellians, who acknowledge but one Person in God (as is showed before) just as our commenter doth call the Godhead, the Person of God, as if there were but one Person in God But because there is in him a plurality of Persons, therefore we say that God neither is, nor ever was alone or solitary, for the three Persons, for ever had Communion, Communication, Society, and fellowship one with the Other, although they all are but one God, as of one in the comedy it is said. Socia Ego Plaut. Amph. 2. 1. & Cap. 2. 1. & stitch. 5. 4. ille— Sc●o me te esse, & te esse me—— Ego sum tu tu es ego. And in S. Ambrose a young man saith Amb de Paenit. l. 2 c. 10. of himself. Sed ego non sum. (i) One speaketh of himself as if he were another, and speaketh of another, as if he were himself. So Moses bringeth in the self same one, and only God ' speaking to the same God, because God is distinct in Persons, but the Persons are but one in Godhead— let there be light— l●t us make m●n— the Lord reigned from the Lord, by which it appeareth that there was a Communication between the Father and the Son before the World was, for the Son is called the Counsellor. Esa. 9 6▪ and the wisdom of the Father— But who should God consult with, but only with God, and who was his wise Counsellor but himself. Nemo tibi suadere potest Sapientius te ipso,— Tul. Epist. l. 2. 17. Id lib. 10. Ep. 194 Ipse tibi sis Senatus. (i) It may more truly be said of God. None are God's Counsellors but himself, he is his own Senate, God the Father and God the Son Communicate in Council, as the Father made all things by the Son, So they communicated not only in the creation, but also in the divine Council of the great work of redemption, although the manner of this communication is to us secret and in effable. Now to the Question. What one thing do we find, that was Consulted on, or agreed, and purposed between the Father and the Son, before the World? I answer that the Eternal Covenant, was made between the Father and the Son, to man's behoof, before the World, and in this everlasting Covenant of grace, was the whole Mystical body of Christ included, and by virtue of that Covenant, and in Christ, they were Predestinated, decreed, purposed, and Elected to life, and by that Covenant so transacted seccretly, the Son of God undertook for man, and became a surety for him to perform whatsoever was required, and by this first Covenant, the Church was committed to the Son, he thus became her great Shepherd, for we read. Joh. 10. 29. The sheep were given to him by the Father; This Covenant is that great and hidden Mystery which so nearly concerneth both Jews and Gentiles, of which it is said. Rom. 16. 25. To be kept secret sine the world began, and again Eph. 3. 4. 5. 9 the Mystery of Christ which n other ages was not made known unto the Sons of men as it is now— That the gentiles should be fellow heirs— but it had been bid in God, but now is might be made known— Accord to the Eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus. And hence it is that Christ is called the Great Shepherd through the blood of the everlasting, (or Eternal) Covenant. Heb. 13. 20. By this Eternal Covenant, or Eternal purpose, and undertaking, God the Son became the Surety, the Mediator, and Advocate for the Sons of men and by reason of this undertaking it is said, that for the blessed, the Kingdom was prepared from the foundation of the World. Mat. 25. 35. And it is further said that the precious blood of Christ was fore— ordained, before the foundation of the World. 1 Pet. 1. 19 20.] But I ask how could the blood of Christ with righteousness and equity, be so ordained. If Christ had not freely, and voluntarile thus engaged himself, who could compel him thereunto, or did not he who is the wisdom of the Father fore see the bloody Passions which such an undertaker must undergo? or what claim could the Sons of men have, to challenge any interest in his actions, or Passions, but only by this covenant and engagement? and how could it be said Eph. 1. 4. God hath Chosen us in him before the foundation of the World? And how can in be said 2 Tim. 1. 9 God— hath saved us, and called us— according to his purpose, and grace which was given us in Christ jesus before the world began.] Unless man be considered, and looked upon in Christ, through this Covenant, because thereby the Son of God did engage and oblige himself to the Father in man's behalf to perform the whole will of God, which should be required of man; for therefore is the Son called the Angel, or messenger of the covenant. Mal. 3. 1. Because he was the Mediator, sent, interested, and employed both in the undertaking, and in the performance of that secret Covenant, of whom it is also written. Psal. 40. 7. In the volume of thy book it is written of me that I should perform thy will, or that I delight to do thy will. Thus because Christ had undertaken for us, and therefore was by his promise to perform the will of God for us, hence it is that all our salvation is in, and by and through him, and all the promises of God to man are in him, and for this reason it is said. Tit. 1. 2. That God promised Eternal life before the world began.] But to whom could it be promised before any Creature was made, except only to the Son of God? and why to him, but because he only had engaged himself in this Eternal Covenant; and because our transgressions were fore seen, that they would deserve death, and that our surety in the payment of our debt must needs suffer death, therefore this our surety is called. Rev. 13. 8. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. see john. 17. 5. CHAP. IX. The Covenant between God and Man, the Legal and Evangelicall Covenant are but one; the reasons why Christ was Circumcised, and Baptised. BY what hath been said, it appeareth that the Son of God was indeed secretly engaged to the Father for mankind before the world was made, and so secretly, that it is said, Col. 1. 26. That it had been h●d from ages and genera●ions: But how shall it appear that this Son of God engaged himself to Man? Where shall we find his word and promise to be an undertaker and surety for us, so that we may faithfully and boldly lay hold on, and challenge his promise? I answer, that after the Creation, God the Son entered into the same Covenant wirh Man, that he had engaged himself in, to the Father before the Creation, and by this, renewing the same Covenant, he bond Mankind to himself, as himself had been bound before to the Father, and that divers and sundry times. For first, the words of the Covenant between God and the Son, and Mankind before the fall were these: Gen. 2. 17. Of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest, thou shall surely die.] In this Covenant on God's part life is promised implicitly, and on man's part, obedience is reftipulated or covenanted, for to this condition, Man had submitted, and given consent as appeareth Gen. 3. 3. So that this was a perfect Covenant on both sides, the Tree of Knowledge standing as a visible signe for man's obedience; and the Tree of Life, as a Sacramental sign of God's promise. But after the fall of Man, the same God did again more evidently, and particularly engage himself when he said of the seed of the woman, Gen. 3. 15. It shall bruise the Serpent's head.]. In this promise the Incarnation of God in the seed of the woman was meant, and that therein he should take upon him the curse, and death formetly denounced; by offering himself a sacrifice for sin, the outward signs of this Covenant were the sacrifices, wherewith the Patriarches did signify and nourish their faith in that promise. 3. After this the same Covenant was again renewed to Abraham more particularly, Gen. 12. 3. In thee shall all Families of the earth be blessed, etc.] and then came in the Sacrament of Circumcision. 4 After this again, the same Covenant was more largely given to, and published by Moses, in the Law Moral containing Man's duty, and in the Law Ceremonial, declaring God's promise of Redemption, by the Figures, Types, signs and shadows of Tabernacle, Priest, and sacrifices. 5 After this again, the same Covenant was more clearly delivered in the Gospel, by the same Lord God, and most graciously explained, and the veil taken off from it; for than it was showed, who was that seed of the woman, and that seed of Abraham, and that sacrifice; & Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world, and how man should be enabled to perform the Covenant and Law of his God, namely, in that Christ his surety should perform all in man's behalf, with this condition only required of man, to believe in this Jesus his God and Saviour; for so the Evangelicall Covenant declareth, John 3. 16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.] And again, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned.] This is the one, and only, and everlasting Covenant of Grace; there are not two Covenants, but only this one both before, and since the world began. Now if any man ask why there is mention of a new Covenant? I answer, it is called a new Covenant; because the old Covenant is renewed; just as we say there is a new Moon, when it is but the old Moon newly enlightened, which is but Nova lunatio, (i) a new illumination: Tert. count. Marc. l. 5. Id. count. Marc. l. 4. So the same Father said of Christ, O Christum, & in novis veterem, (i) Christ in the New Testament is the same with Messiah in the Old Testament. We may as well say, that the Sunrising is a new Sun, which being but one, and rising daily, and diversely Catul. car. 5. Virg. An. 1. is called Soles, as if there were many Suns: Soles occidere & redire possunt. Quid tantùm Oceano properent se tingere Soles Hiberni— For, the same Covenant which before was clouded with obscurity, and with Types in the time of the Law, shineth brightly in the time of the Gospel. But why then do Divines call this Law-Covenant, the Covenant of works, whereas the Gosple-Covenant is called the Covenant of Grace? I answer, that this one Covenant is both, for if the Law of God be not actually and perfectly done and performed by man, viz either by us ourselves, or by Christ, or surety for us, we can have no benefit by the Covenant: so in respect of Christ, it is a Covenant of works, but to us, it is a Covenant of Grace. But it may be said, that the Evangelicall Covenant is called a better Covenant, Heb. 8. 6. I answer, the same Covenant is called better, because it is bettered, and better explained, and setforth with better evidence of graciousness in the Gospel, than before, when in the time of the Law it was clouded, and clogged with shadows, types, figures, and troublesome Ceremonies, but now it shineth clearly, and is also quitted of that heavy yoke, than it outwardly appeared; but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) a pact or mutual Covenant, but in the Gospel it appears to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) a Testament; and albeit the Law is also called a Testament, yet it is but as the Will or Testament of a man, which is indeed written and sealed, and testified, but not in force, because the Testater was not actually dead. But in the Gospel this Old Testament (being the same in substance) is newly become to be in full force and virtue, because jesus Christ the Testator died, Heb. 9 17. so it became in force; for Christ who was but promised in the time of the Law, and died there but in types, was really exhibited, and really died in the Gospel; and although the Evangelicall Testament is set forth with a condition annexed, viz of believing; yet this condition is also in this New Testament bequeathed; for Eph. 2. 8, Faith is the gift of God, and yet Faith is that Law of which it is said, Jer. 31. 33. I will put my Law in their inward pares, and write it in their hearts; and the same is repeated, Heb. 8. 10. So the new Testament requireth the condition of believing, and the Testator in his Will, hath given to man what he requireth of man. The brief of all is, that the same God who in Paradise engaged himself, that the seed of the woman, should bruise the Serpent's head, hath himself taken upon him the seed of the woman, and in that seed became our Jesus. If after all this, the Christian shall yet desire further evidence, to inform him more, and assure and confirm him in Christ's engagement and suretyship for us men; as if his Word, Promise and Covenant, wee not sufficient to give rest and contentment, to our wavering and timorous hearts: see how our most compassionate and merciful Redeemer hath yet further condescended, not only to enter a covenant in our behalf, but also to seal the said Covenant, and thereby openly declare himself to be a debtor with us, both for the principal; that is, the fulfilling of the Law, and also for the penalty. 1 Upon our default and transgression, and this he did by the first seal of his Circumcision, whereby he bond himself as a debtor to perform the whole Law; and this in behalf of all the circumcised seed of Abraham: and this Mystery is clearly set forth by the great Apostle, Gal. 5. 3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law.] Secondly, as by the seal of Circumcision, Christ underwent the burden of all the legal precepts: So by the other Seal of his Baptism, he undertook the performance of all the strict Evangelicall Precepts, in the behalf of all the Baptised Christians; for so himself declared, though something covertly: for when john Baptist refused to baptise him, Christ bade him, Matthew 3. 15. adding this reason— For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.] Upon which words Saint Hierome observes that he did not say, Hier. in loc. Justitiam Legis, (id est,) the righteousness of the Law only, but all, that so we may understand that Christ undertook to fulfil both Legal and Evangelicall righteousness, even in those strict Precepts of Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that persecute you, Deny yourselves, etc. These were the reasons for which our Saviour submitted to the Sacramental seals of Circumcision, and Baptism, thereby to be a surety bound and engaged for us: And so the ancient Expositors understood it, Circumcisus Anselm. in Gal. 5. 3. est debitor faciendae universae Legis, sicut qui Baptismum percipit, & debtor faciendi praecepti Evangelici; (id est,) As the Circumcised is a debtor to do the whole Law; so the baptised is a debtor to perform the Precepts of the Gospel: and this also was the judgement of Saint Basil, Sicut Circumcisus Basil. de Bapt. l. 2. n. 18. est debitor Legis servandae, sic Baptizatus, totius Evangelii, etc. And although the Pelagians denied the necessity of Baptism, for taking away Original sin; yet Coelestius could confess that Children were redeemed by the Baptism of Christ; and this was only because by his Baptism he undertook for us to perform the Evangelicall Covenant. Finally, all that Christ did undertake to do for us men, that hath he punctually performed, partly by his Obedience active in fulfilling all righteousness, and partly by passive Obedience, when he suffered the penalty of our transgressions, pouring out his soul, and his most precious Blood upon the Cross, there paying the utmost farthing of our debt, when ourselves were not able to pay one for a thousand. This Doctrine understood rightly, will reconcile those two say of Saint Hierome, Maledictus qui dicit Deum, impossibilia praecipisse. 2 Maledictus qui dixerit legem esse possibilem, id est, Cursed is he that saith, God commanded things impossible, and cursed is he that saith the Law of God is possible. The meaning is, That Law which is impossible to be performed by us, or any mere man, was performed for us by the Son of Man. For our sins were laid upon him, and his righteousness is imputed to us, which Mel. Dau. in vita, Luth. p. 164. Luther expresseth in these pithy words: Domine jesu— tu●e justitia mea, Ego sum peccatum tuum, (i) man gave his sins to Christ, and Christ gave his righteousness to Man. CHAP. X. That Man could not be redeemed, nor saved, but by the Incarnation of the Son of God, how the curse was executed on Man, and how the Law is fulfilled by Man. BUt could not our Lord Jesus having thusas a Surety and Mediator undertaken for us, and for our salvation: I say, could he not have effected our immunity from punishment, and our blessedness by entreating as an Advocate for us, and by that great power and favour which he hath with the Father, obtain both remission and pardon of our sins and salvation freely, without those bloody and grievous passions, which he suffered on the Cross; and this only by speaking, entreating, and pleading for us in Heaven, and there showing and offering himself for us] As this P. 84. c. 5. v. 7. & page 160. c. 9 v. 7. Commenter would have us believe? and if he could, what need was there that God the Son should undergo such bitter and cruel torments, and death also? To this I answer, (that as things then stood) God could not otherwise save us, but by the Incarnation, yea, and the death of his Son, because (as is before shown) God hath limited, and bound, and confined himself by his own word, his Law, his Decree, and Covenant; for by his sentence and determinate judgement he had denounced death, and a curse to our first Parents, and in them to all their Posterity. Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die: and Ezech. 18. 4. The soul that sinneth, it shall die: and Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sin is death: and Deut. 27. 26. cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them, and Matt. 5. 19 Whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments▪— shall be called the least in the kingdom of God: and James 2. 10. Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. We see, that here is a curse, and death denounced to all transgressors of the Law, and this curse and death must needs fall upon Mankind, because God is true and just, and righteous. But suppose the transgressors of the Law could escape the curse and death denounced, yet how should they obtain life eternal, seeing that is not obtained, but by the perfect and exact performance of the Law of God, which no mere man of all the sons of Adam hath, or can perform: For the Condition or Covenant for life is, Levit. 18. 5. Keep my Statutes— which if a man do, he shall live in them: so Ezech. 20. 11. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 12. and this is confirmed by Christ. Matth 19 17. If thou will enter into life keep the Commandments. These considerations being premised, let us now move the question, cannot God assoil men, and give them eternal life, at the request only of Jesus Christ; although Jesus had never suffered the pain and death of the Cross? I answer, That God cannot absolve man from sin without satisfaction to his Justice, his Truth, and Righteousness. I may say, God cannot do this as well as the Scripture saith, Tit. 1. 2. God cannot lie. And 1 Sam. 15. 19 The strength of Israel will not lie: for as Saint Austin hath truly said. Diabolus non fuit superandus potentia Dei, Aug. de Trin. l. 13. c. 13. sed justitia. i. (as things then stood) The devil was not to be conquered by the power only, but by the Justice of God. And therefore before man can be redeemed, and absolved, the curse and death denounced must fall upon man for transgressing the Law 〈…〉 of his God, and before man can enter into 〈…〉 Commandments of God must be perfectly 〈◊〉 by man. Now if we can show, that the just sentence of God in the curse, and death hath been fully executed on man, and that the Justice of God hath had its full course; and if we can show that the whole Law of God hath been most exactly performed by man, and all this by no other man, but only by the great Son of M●● jesus Christ being God Incarnate; and for this reason incarnate, that he might as an undertaker and surety for mankind, both take upon him the curse, and suffer death by obedience passive, and also perform ever● title of the Law by active obedience; and this for us, and in our stead, and that our transgressions were imputed to him and his righteousness in performing the Law is imputed to us, and that by virtue of the Covenant most justly, and that man's redemption and salvation, could not otherwise stand with the truth and righteous judgement of God. For as Athanasius saith, Verbum Atha. Ser. 3. count. Arian. 6. nunquam destinatum fuisset fieri homo, nisi hominum necessitas requisisset. (i) the Son of God had never been ordained to be made Man, if man's necessity had not so required. All this being undeniable, I trust the Christian Reader, doth apprehend the reason, why our true and only God, must needs have been incarnate, for the working out of man's redemption, Justification, and salvation. CHAP. XI. That Christ was a person able, and fit to perform the law, and to suffer for mankind, and that he did stand in the place and stead of all men. We have seen what Christ hath undertaken for us; But it must next be inquired whether Christ were a person able, and fitly qualified to perform what he undertook, viz. to take away the sins of the world; and indeed jesus Christ, the Son of God, perfect God & perfect man was a person able and every wayfitly qualified, for performance of the truth of God both in suffering the punishment, and in performing the whole law of God, in the behalf of man; for as man is a Microcosm, or an abridgement of the great world, as Austin saith, Omnis creatura in homine est. (i) in man Aug. l. 83. quaest. n. 87. Every creature is comprised. So Christ is the Epitome of mankind, and to be esteemed an Universal man, in as much as ●●rist the head, and all his mystical members, ar● one mystical body as hath been showed before. Christus universus, est caput cum membris. (i) the whole Idem. ibidem. quaest. 69. Christ is himself the head, and his Church the members, for if the first Adam be esteemed as all mankind, why should not the second Adam be so much rather accounted. S. Austin saith of the first man Omnis homo Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 15. Abm. de Obitu Satyri. n. 29. Pros. resp. ad Cap. Gall. c. 9 ●errenus, est Adam. (i) All men earthly are one Adam ●nd of Christ S. Ambrose saith as much. in Christo, Summa universitatis est, & portio singulorum. (i) Christ is the ●otal sum of all men, and a portion of every man, and Prosper gives this true and excellent reason of it. Nullus est hominum, Cujus natura non erat suscepta in Christo. (i) There is no man in the world, whose nature Christ took not upon him, and therefore the Scripture calleth Christ the last Adam, as well as the first man is called the first Adam. 1 Cor. 15. 45. And yet more expressly it saith. Gal. 3. 28. Ye are all One in Christ jesus. And so again. 1 Cor. 12. 12. And indeed we are rather nearer of kindred, and by a better tie to the Second than we are to the first Adam; not because Christ and we, are the Sons of men, which cannot be said of Adam, who was Terrae-Filius, the Son of the earth, and not the Son of man; but Omnes nati ad primum, renati ad secundum Pros. sent 299. pertinent. We derive ourworse carnal Generation from Adam, but our better, and spiritual regeneration is derived from Christ; and as there are no Sons of Men, but such as are so from Adam, so there are no Sons of God, but those that are so from Christ. Now if it be demanded, how Christ and we can be accounted one, and what it is which came from Christ, and is in man, that so he may be said to be in us, and so, that what he did, or suffered, should be really, accounted as done or suffered by us, for although we know why Adam's sin is imputed to us, viz. because we are of the same Lump, propagated carnally from him but yet why Christ's righteousness, o● his sufferings should be imputed to us seeing we are not propagated from Christ, nor ever were in his loins, as we were in adam's is now the question; To which this is the arswer, that as Christ received▪ his flesh and blood from man, so man hath received the divine Spirit from Christ, and as the natural body of Christ is made of the same lump of Adam, that ours is; so man hath in him the self same spirit that is in Christ, though he be in heaven, and we on earth, by which spirit we are called the Sons of God, just as Christ by taking our flesh is called the Son of Man. Nos homines vocamur filii dei, quia filius dei Atha. in decret. Nic. Conc n. 13. nostrum gestavit corpus, & quia Spiritus filii in nobis est. (i) Men are called the Son of God, because the Sons of God took his body of man, and put his own Spirit into man, and therefore Christ doth fitly sustain an Universal person of mankind. That the Spirit of Christ is given, and put into man, the Scriptures do manifestly declare▪ First it appeareth evidently in the regenerate? Man of sueh S. Paul speaketh. when he prayeth. Ephe. 3. 17. That Christ may dwell in their hearts: And how Christ may be said to dwell in Man, Saint John sheweth, 1 John 4. 13. Hereby we know that we dwell ●in him, and ●e in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit; and hence it is that Saint chrysostom saith, Anima sancta est Tabernaculum Chrys ho 2. Antioch. Christi: (id est,) The soul of an holy Man is Christ's Tabernacle: For indeed, though Christ had not at all assumed flesh from Man; yet because the same Spirit which is in Christ, is also so put into, and communicated to man, it is sufficient to make Christ the head of the Saints, his Members to be but one mystical Body with him. And this is intimated by Saint Paul, when he saith, Ephesians 4. 4. There is one body, and one Spiri●:] which is as much as if he should say, though the Saints on earth are many, yet because all are endued with one and the same Spirit of Christ; therefore all are but one body with Christ, even as in man, there are many parts and members, yet because all parts have the same soul in them, therefore all together are but one body. Hence it is, that Origen saith, Omnes salvandi sunt Orig. in Eze. ho. 9 unum Corpus: (id est,) All those which shall be saved, are but one body: and Saint dasill giveth this reason, of their unity.) Quia unus est Deus, si in singulis Bas. Epist. 141. sit, omnes coadunat: (id est,) Because, there is but one God, if this one God be in all, he doth thereby Tert. de Trin. n. 28 & Christus est ecclesia. De Paenit. n. 16▪ unite all; and this unity is also expressed by these odd words in Tertullian, Spi itus nos Christo confibulat: (id est,) It is the Spirit that doth button us or join us to Christ. For this reason the Scripture saith, Romans, 12. 5. We being many, are one body in Christ; And again, 1 Corinthians 6. 17. He that is joined to the Lord, is one Spirit: And again, Galathians 3. 28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus; yea, such is our conjunction and union with Christ, and his with us, by reason that his Spirit is in us, that Theodoret doubted not to say, Si pati possit Theod. in D●alog impatib. n. 13. divina natura, supervacanea fuisset corporis assumptio: (id est,) If the pure Godhead were of a nature passable, so that it could have suffered for man, God should not have needed to be Incarnate. And Saint Augustine puts the case a little plainer, and nearer, thus; Si Christus non assumpta carne à Virgin, sed vera tamen apparens, nos vera morte redimeret, quis eum non potuisse, audet dicere? Suppose Christ had not taken his flesh from the Virgin, (and so not from Adam) but yet had really taken a body upon him some other way; and in that assumed body, had really died to redeem man▪ who dares say, that he could not? and no doubt such a suffering had been sufficient for our redemption, if (as I said before) God had not otherwise determined and limited himself by his sentence of the curse, and death upon the seed of Adam. And thus we have seen how Christ and the Saints are united and become one body. SECT. II. More of the same. That Jesus Christ was a Person every way fitly qualified to be Man's Redeemer; both for that he was free from all sin, Original and Actual; (although he took flesh from the loins of Adam:) and also in regard of the infinite worth and excellency of his Person. THe qualities required to a redeeming high Priest, are set down, Heb. 7. 26. For such an high Priest became us who is holy, harmless, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) undefiled, separate from sinners. For if Christ were not absolutely without sin in his own Person, he could not be a fit sacrifice for our sins: the Lamb of God must be answerable to the paschal Lamb his Type, A Lamb without blemish and so the Scripture describeth Christ, 1 Pet. 1. 19 as a Lamb without blemish or spot; and that he knew no sin, that he did no sin, and that in him 1 John 3. 5. is no sin. As for any actual sin, there will be no question among Christians; but the difficulty is in showing Christ to be without Originals 〈◊〉 because he was in the loins of Adam when he fell, and is the Son of David, of Abraham, and of Adam, and the Church hath ever acknowledged that the whole lump of Adam is a Prosper. Resp. ad Genu. Massa corruptionis, as Prosper saith: and b Aug. Epist. 105, & 157. De Civit. l. 15. c. 1. & alibi. Massa damnationis,— V●nculnm damnationis,— Apostatica rad●x,— Massa originaliter tota damnata as S. Austin often confesseth, in all these words, and many more; id est, a corrupt lump,— a lump of damnation, — an Apostate root, totally condemned from the the very Original. The Apostle also seemeth to lay this to the charge of Christ, 2 Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us, and Rom. 5. 12. Death passed over all, for that all have sinned; And if Levi be said to have paid Tithes to Melchisedech, because he was in the loins of Abraham, how shall Christ be excused from falling, seeing he was in the loins of Adam when he fell? For the clearing of these difficulties, three questions are to be discussed. 1. What the Original sin of Adam was. 1. Question. To this, the answer is, that the Original sin of Adam is twofold: 1 He eat the forbidden fruit against God's command▪ This was the first sin of Mankind, and is by Divines called, Originale Originans, i. The fountain of other sins. This sin was also an actual sin in Adam, and cannot be said, to be derived from him to his posterity; for his children cannot be said to have eaten of the forbidden tree: But yet his posterity are subjected to the curse denounced against Adam, and in him against his whole race, and that curse is mortality: Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Christ did not in Adam eat of the forbidden tree, yet Christ being of Adam's race, was thereby liable to the curse: so the Apostle saith, that Christ was made a curse for us. Gal. 3. 13. He was made a curse, only by taking that flesh on him which was derived from Adam, and in him was accursed; for in taking the flesh, he took also the curse but not the sin of Adam, the curse passed without the Rom. 5. 12. sin. For whereas the Apostle saith. Death passed on all, for that all have sinned: The meaning is, that all men that have sinned and die, do therefore die because they have sinned; But it will not follow, that whosoever dieth hath sinned: And yet it is true, that the death of our righteous Saviour was caused by sin; Albeit not his own proper and personal sin. And this is the determination of the Ancients. Christus mortalitatem traxit de substantia, & mortalitate Maetris, sed non peccatum: Aug. count. Julian. Pelag. l. 5. (id est,) Christ derived his mortality, from the substance and mortality of his mother, but without sin▪ therefore the Apostle saith, Romans 8. 3. God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, which the same Father thus expoundeth. In carne peccati mors est, & peccatum in similitudine, mors erat, & peccatum non Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 6. erat: (id est,) In sinful flesh there is both death and sin, but in the likeness of sinful flesh, death there was, but sin there was not. The flesh of Christ, was like other men's, flesh, sin only excepted; he had his flesh from Adam, so had we, but his was derived without Adam's sin, so was not ours. 2. The second sin of Adam, is called Originale Originatum; because it was the effect produced by his first sin, in eating the forbidden fruit: Therefore it is called Originatum. And because it was the Original Fountain, from whence sin is conveyed to his Posterity; therefore it is called Originale. For as we now use the word Original sin, it is not meant of Adam's first sin of eating but of that which was occasioned, and produced by his first sin, and from him transmitted to all his posterity, which (by way of natural generation) proceeded from his loins. So Bellarmine observeth; If our Original sin had Bellarm. de ● Amiss. Gratiae l. 4. c. 3. been from the eating of the forbidden Fruit, the Apostle must have said, by One Woman sin entered, and not per unum hominem; For the woman did first eat: Now, this Original sin, (besides the absence of Original Righteousness, wherein Man was created:) is moreover an inherent pravity, and corruption of our nature, and is called lust or concupiscence; and is therefore called Original, because it is conveyed into us at our very conception, and so is born with us: Now I proceed to the second question, and that is. 2. How Original sin is derived 2. Question. from Adam, to all his Progeny. The Answer is, That therefore the Original sin of Adam, is from him derived into his Posterity, who have proceeded from his loins, by way of natural Generation; because, such as Adam was, when he begot children; Such are his Posterity so begotten; for Adam did not beget children, until he was the servant of sin: ᵃ Therefore every man is the Pet. Diac. apud Fulgent. servant of sin. For this reason it is said, Gen. 5. 3. Adam begot a son in h●s own likeness, after his Image; And in what sinful condition Adam was, before he knew Eve, and begot Children, is evidently set forth▪ Gen▪ 3. 7. 10. The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew they were naked, and they made them apro●s: And after, I was afraid, because I was naked, and hid myself. But before the fall, it is said, Gen. 2. 25. They were both naked, the Man and his Wife, and were not ashamed. From which passages we may observe, that whereas it is said, their eyes were opened The meaning is, that they were opened so, as not only to see; (for so they did before, unless we will say they were blind) but to discern and perceive the difference between their Innocency before the fall, and their lust after the fall: for before, they were not ashamed of their nakedness. Quia nil praecessera● quod Aug. De Nup●iis, & concup. l. 1. c. 5. non li●eret, nil se●utum fuerat quod puderet: (id est,) No unlawful act had preceded, therefore no shame as yet ensued. Next▪ we observe, that they made them aprons. (P●rizomata) The Latins call such covers, Campestria, which served to cover their secret parts only; because when the Roman youths exercised themselves naked in the fields, they covered their secret parts; so the covers were called Campestria. By this, it appeareth that our first Parents perceived motions of lust in those parts, and therefore were ashamed. Adam, & Eva texerunt genitalia, erubuerunt de libidine, Aug. ib. l. 2. c. 5. vide●t inobedientia membra: for if otherwise, why, did they not cover their faces, breasts, and hands? But Quia senserunt pudendum, curaverunt Id. De Temp. Serm. 45. tegendum. Since which time those parts are called Pudenda, which were not so before the fall; and therefore the Apostle abstaineth from naming those parts directly, but calleth them uncomely; and the Vulgar 1 Cor. 12. 23. translation calleth them inhonesta. The Apostle durst not so have called those parts, which God had created pure, if Man had not by sin dehonestated them. So that now we may not name them. But, Per circuitum; and when necessity forceth Martial. l. 11. Ep. 16. us to speak of them; modesty requireth that we speak by Circumlocution. If the Apostle, had been to describe such a body as our first Parents had before the fall, he would not have called any part thereof unhonest, or uncomely. So the result of all this, is, as Saint Augustine observeth: Aug. De Genesi ad lit. l. 11 c. 32. Bestialem motum in membris, scilicet, appetitum concumbendi erubuit. And again, Quendam pruritum turpem indicant folia; (id est,) The Fig-leaves show that Adam was ashamed of his lust, appearing in those parts. This is that Original sin in Adam, which by Generation is transmitted to his Posterity, and which the written Law of God forbiddeth. in these words, Thou shalt not lust or covet. So I proceed to the third question. 3. How Christ is freed, & separated from 3. Question. Original sin. To this question, the answer of Divines both Ancient and modern is. That Original sin is not propagated to posterity, by taking our flesh from our parents, but by lust; and that because Christ was conceived, and born of a Virgin without Lustful copulation, therefore he is free from this Original pollution. Nulla volup●ate carnalis concupiscentiae seminatus est Aug. Ench●rid. Cap. 4●. & De Genesi ad lit. l. 10. c. 18. Christus, id ò nullum peccatum originaliter trahit. And again. Corpus Christi non seminatum est per eam legem in membris, quae repugnat legi mentis, Ergo non erat caro pecca●i. (i) The body of Christ was not generated in the pleasure of lust, by the law in our members warring against the law of our mind, therefore his flesh was not sinful. The same reason is rendered by Fulgentius, and also by Isychius. Christi Christi humanitas munda erat, quia non Fulg. de Incarn. c. 4. Isych. in Levit. c. 14. Calv. instit. l. 2. c. 13. S. 4. Aug. count. Pel. l. 2. c. 25. geni●a erat ex viri immundity (i) The humane nature of Christ is clean, because he was conceived without unclean copulation. Indeed Calvin is of opinion, that it is not sufficient to acquit Christ from this original pollution, in that he was born of a virgin, but because he was also Sanctified by the holy Ghost, that his conception might be pure, before him S. Austin had written something to that purpose. Christus carnem il●am, aut suscipiendam munda●it, ●ut suscipiende mundavit. (i) That Christ, before ●e took that flesh, or in taking of it did purify it. But the former opinion, and this compared with the scriptural words, will amount but to one, and the same, for what can be meant by Calvin's Sanctified but that the flesh of Christ was separated from the polluted way of other men's flesh? And what separation can be meant, but only, that Christ was conceived in a way different, and Separate from ordinary Conceptions? And that is, miraculously, by the operation of the Holy ghost without man; and this I take to be the meaning of the Apostle before alleged Heb. 7. 26: That our high-Preist must be separate from sinners. For to Imagine that the Holy ghost did take away carnal pollution from that part of the Virgin mother of which Christ was made flesh, and yet left the said Original pollution remaining in the other parts of her, to me it seems both an unprobable, and a needless refuge to this question. And whether God doth any time take away the pollution of Original sin from any person, in whom it once was, during this mortal life, I have at large showed before, in my second book and tenth Chapter, and that the taking See before. l. 2. c. 10. sect. 2. 2 Cor. 12. 8. away of Original sin, was that very thing which S. Paul prayed for so earnestly, and had only this answer. My grace is sufficient for thee. Finally, because the first man was made of earth; and the first woman was made of man, and both before lust was hatched, therefore both were at first free from this Original pollution, upon which consideration Aquinas Aquin. l. 2. q. 81. art. 4. moveth this pertinent question. If now a man should be miraculously made of another man's flesh, whether he should contract Original sin? His answer is, no. upon good reason, for such a creature is not procreated by way of carnal copulation. I suppose no man will affirm, that worms which are bred in humane bodies, do contract any sin from man, although they take flesh from man. The same reason is appliable to Christ, and therefore, Origen upon S. Luke. and Austin very often Orig in lu. ho. 14. Aug. in ps. 22. and De mirab. script. l. 3. c. 2. apply that saying of the psalmist. Psal. 22. 6. I am a w●●m and no man] as being spoken of Christ, because as a worm, so Christ was bred in the virgin's womb without any copulation, for therefore some birds, bees and worms are so bred, that Christ might not be without example, who in the Psal. is called a worm. This I trust is enough to the three questions. Now for answer to those Scriptural say, which seem to charge Christ with sin. As; He hath made him to 2 Cor. ●. 21. Aug. count. Max. l. 2. c. 2. be sin for us] which place was by Maximinus, the Arrian thus perverted. Christus pro nobis peccatum fecit, as S. Austin noteth. (i) Christ did sin for us. If we should understand this of any personal sin in Christ, then should we charge God with being the author of sin. But the meaning is only, that God made Christ a Sacrifice for sin; for sacrifices are called sins. Hose. 4. 8. They eat up the sin of my people. That is; the priests did eat the sin offerings. That which we now read Levit. 3. 2. He shall lay his hand upon the head of the Sacrifice. The Septuagint, read, He shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin. So, from hence, no more can be inferred, but that Christ Aug. in Psal. 68 was▪ Peccatorum Susceptor, non commissor▪ as S. Austin expresseth it. Christ is thus factus peccatum, non natus, he is only made sin, as a sacrifice, but all we are sin-born, to him sin is only imputed, but in us it is inherent. To that of Rom. 5. 12. Death passed on all, for that all have sinned. The answer is, that all, who by way of natural generation proceeded from Adam, have sinned, as is showed before, indeed, death is the wages of sin. Either of our own proper, and personal sin; for which we are mortal, or else of Imputed sin, by which Christ was subject to mortality. To that of Levi. Heb. 7. 9 who is said to pay tithes to M●lchisedech because he was in the loins of braham. And that therefore Christ being in the loins of Adam when he fell, may seem liable to that transgression of Adam: we say if this objection were form in words which signified propagation of sin (which is now our question,) the solution would appear more evidently: as thus. Levi was in the loins of Abraham, when Jsaac was begotten; therefore Levi sinned in Abraham's loins; this cannot be denied. So Christ was in the loins of Adam; when Seth was begotten▪ (Seth was Christ's progenitor) Therefore Christ sinned in Adam. This consequence is false, because Christ did not so proceed from Adam, as Levi did from Abraham, that is, by way of carnal generation, and therefore Christ did not attract sin from Adam, as Levi did from Abraham, so, as is said before. But yet because Christ took flesh from Adam therefore all the pressures included in the curse on Adam, were entailed on Christ (sin only excepted) as, mortality, and the consequences thereof, sorrow's, labour, weariness, hunger, abasement, and subjection. T●●e it is that Abraham paying tithes●oo Melchisedech (which was in the nature of an homage, or political submission, and acknowledgement as holding the Land of promise to him and his seed by the donation of the Lord of Heaven who is the Messiah) he did in this act include all the tribes which were to proceed from him, to submit as homagers to the said Messiah represented in his type Melchisedech, even as earthly Lords, & their successors do homage to their superior princes for lands held of them. But what is this to entailing of sin? Original sin is not derived to posterity by any such external acts. I doubt not but Christ himself, as man, and as the seed of Abraham, was involved in this homage, Mat. 17. 27. See beneath. l. 3. c. 17. and therefore did actually pay tribute, and submit to the law as other Israelites did. Of which tribute paying, and also of the difference between Levies, and Christ's being in the loins of Abraham, I shall say more in the last chapter at the close of this third book. Now for conclusion, that it may appear, that our saviour is a complete highpriest, every way accomplished with all abilities, and requisits needful to the great work of man's redemption; of him it is spoken Psal. 89. 19 I have laid help upon One that us mighty, who Psal. 89. 19 Psal. 132. 2. 1 Pet. 1. 19 Act. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 15. 47. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Isa. 9 6. Joh. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Heb. 7. 26. is no less than the mighty God of Jacob. The blood which he shed for us, is justly by S. Peter called Precious for it was the blood of God. This second Adam, Incarnate for us, is no less than The Lord from Heaven, and God manifest in the flesh, and The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the prince of peace; he that was wounded for us, is called by the Apostle, my Lord, and my God, he that was crucified for us, was no less than the Lo●d of glory, and in his very humiliation of the humane nature, he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. To him be all honour and glory and thanksgiving for ever. CHAP. XII. That the unregenerate man is redeemed by Christ, and that the Spirit of Christ is communicated to him. BUt in the second place it would be inquired, what Interest the unregenerate man hath in Christ, & how he can lay any claim to Christ's sufferings, for although it be true that Christ hath taken the unregenerate man's nature on him, yet, may we, or can we truly say that the unregenerate man hath received the Spirit of Christ into him? If this will not be granted, Christ cannot be a person idoneous, or fitly qualified to be his redeemer, because as such a redeemer must take something from man, so man must also receive something from him, that by giving and taking the redeemer and redeemed may be united, and so considered as one body, and that must be by receiving the Spirit from Christ, as Christ received flesh from man, which is elegantly expressed by Prosper in his poem. nos insercret Summis, se miscuit Imis. That man Prosp. de Ingrat. n. 41. might be joined unto God, God joined himself with man. Now it seemeth that the Spirit of Christ is also communicated to the unregenerate man, because we find in Scripture that he also hath an interest in Christ, and a claim and title to him; for the Scripture declareth that the benefit of Christ's death, and by it redemption is offered to all men of what condition soever, whether good, or bad, regenerate, or unregenerate, believers, or unbelievers; for the Gospel is sent to all the world, and to every creature Mar. 16. 15. and One of the main points of the Gospel, is the offer of the benefit of redemption by the death of Christ, of which the Scripture saith 2 Cor. 5. 15. that he died for all, so, Rom. 8. 32. & 1 Tim. 2. 6. and again Heb. 2. 9 He tasted death for every man; here is the benefit of Christ's death offered Omnibus, & singulis (i) to all, and every man: and more particularly, it is offered to the ungodly. Rom. 5. 6. Christ died for the ungodly: and more plainly yet it is offered to them that shall perish, and be destroyed, for S. Paul saith 1 Cor. 8. 11. Through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ d●ed? and again he saith▪ Rom. 14. 15▪ Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died; And to put it out of all doubt, that Christ did indeed offer the benefit of redemption to them that not only may possibly perish, but even to such as actually shall perish; S. Peter saith 2 Pet. 2. 1. There shall be false teachers, which deny the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction,] false teacher's are the most unlikely to have any benefit by Christ, for▪▪ Rev. 20. 10. the devil, the beast, and the false Prophet are joined in the lake of fire and brimstone, and yet we see, the benefit of redemption was offered to false Prophets. This is the Doctrine of the Church of England, and so it was of the Church Primitive as appeareth by divers testimonies; for S. Ambrose saith. Ethnicus, haereticus, peccator sanguine Amb. in symb. Apost c 25. Christi, redempti sunt. (i) Not only the sinner, but the heathen, and the heretic are redeemed by the blood of Christ, and Athanasius, delivereth the same doctrine not only as being his single opinion but as the judgement of the Council of Sardice. Deus pro illis (Arr●anis) Ath. in Ep●st. synodi Sardic. ● n. 15. and pro nobis omnibus mortem subiit. (i) God who is the precedent of the Church, did suffer death both for the Arrians, and for all us, and yet no heresy is more opposite to redemption by Christ then the Arrian, and this is also set forth by Nazianzen. Arriani, divinitatis acerbi Naz. Orat. 38 expensores, diaboli figmenta▪— pro quibus Christus mortuus— ingratae Creaturae. (i) the Arrian's are the most malicious examiners of Christ's divinity— and yet Christ died for these unthankful creatures, who are the figment of the devil, but most home is the judgement of S. Chrysostom. Christus mortuus est pro inimicis, pro tyrannis, Chrys. hom. 76. Constant. n 24. pro maleficis (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) pro Osoribus, pro crucifigentibus, atque pro his ipsis, quos tales fore, ante mundum conditum scinebat— 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 goodness 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 claim is because the unregenerate man's nature is taken into Christ, as well as the regenerate man's, 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 deal of diversity in operation as shall be showed 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 do fill heaven and earth as the Prophet Jeremy 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 enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world.] Therefore unregenerate men are not without the light of the Spirit of Christ, and again Act. 17. 28. In him we live, and move, and have our being] for infiniteness of God's Spirit doth include all ereatures. Deus est in Creaturis intra & extrà & supereminens, & Hil. de Trin. lib. 1. circumsusus, & infusus. Saith Hilary (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, gives this excellent reason of it. Eus. de praep. l. 15. c. 11. If there were not (saith he) one lively power, which insinuateth itself into every creature in the world, this vast universe could not be so rightly, and prudently ordered by such uniform and mutual correspondence of one part with another, when the whole consisteth of such contrariety of parts. S. Paul in his sermon at Athens Act. 17. above mentioned, approveth of the saying of an heathen poet who said that men are the offspring of God; he said so no doubt, because even heathen's confessed that our very being is from him, and our souls and motions are actuated by his Spirit. It is worth our observing, that as the genealogy of S. Matthew deriveth Christ from Mat. 1. Luc. 3. men descending, down from Abraham; so S. Luke's Genealogy deriveth men from God, by ascending upward, and whereas S. Matthew useth the words [begat 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 ●s said; in effect S. Mathews Genealogy 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. count. Euno. lib. 5. creata participant de creatore nam m●s●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, & disjoined 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. Sir 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 again. 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 sleep, or to absent himself from them, because they Fulg. ad Thras l 2 n. 8. do not with faith apprehend him: Fulgentius also saith, Deus ades● ub●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 means) be not every where, and 〈◊〉▪ Substantialitèr ubique est 〈◊〉. (i) Th● 〈◊〉 trinity is every where by their substances, and▪ Godhead▪ for when it is said ●oh. 14. 23. We will come unto him, an● mak● our abede with him] The meaning is, that the Father and the Son will manifest their graciousness, and propitiousnes to be present, then when their Godhead is never absent, the divine Spirit always filling all things, hence it is Atha. count Apollinar n. 22. that Athan●siu d●th call men 〈◊〉, as he called Christ Deum Carnigerum (i) as God the Son beareth man's flesh, so the Sons of men bear 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. Austin 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, & p●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 Mankind 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 Heretics, because they could not gain say it, sought only to deprave it by an impious suggestion. For the Stoic Philosophers, perceiving that there was something of Divinity 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. Heretics; and so said also the Manichees; and before them, so did Martion teach us, as Theodoret notes: and the grand Heresy of Apollinarius, applied this error to Christ himself, in saying, that Christ had no reasonable or humane soul, as other men have; but, that his Divine Nature was in steed of an humane soul▪ and supplied all the Offices thereof in the body of Epiph. haer. 77. Aug. n. 88 Soc. l. 2. c. 36. Christ, as we read in Epiphanius, and in the Ecclesistick Histories, and in S. Austin. CHAP. XIII. Of the Original of Christ's humane soul, & whether it were derived by Propagation from his Progenitors, as his body was. THe mention of that Heresy▪ of Apollinarius, leads me to a new quaere, not yet discoursed, but yet, (as I conceive) very useful and pertinent, to the setting forth of this great Mystery of the Incarnation of God, and Man's Redemption, if it could be clearly determined, and this it is. That seeing the Christian World Catholic, hath ever confessed that the Son of God received his flesh and blood by propagation from the first Adam. It would be now inquired, whence the same Son of God had his reasonable or humane Soul? The reason which moved me to make this inquiry, is taken from the Arguments, which divers of the Fathers used against some Heretics, particularly against Valentinus, and his Gnostick followers, and against the Manichees, and Eutyches, for these taught, that Christ did not receive his Body by traduction from the Virgin Mother, and so not from Adam, but that it was either from heaven, or else that it was a mere apparition, and a fantastical body: which Heresies are so well known to men learned, that I shall not need to send the Reader by Quotations to Fathers to find them. The Arguments which the Fathers used against those Heretics, were to this purpose, that they might show a necessity, that the Redeemer must needs take his flesh from Adam. First, Saint Augustine saith, Omnis massa Adami, Aug: De 〈◊〉 cum Felic. l. ●● c. 11. maledicta est; Dominus carnem de illa suscepit, hinc maledictus dicitur. (i) Because the whole lump of Adam was accursed, therefore the Son of God (taking the curse upon himself) must needs take flesh from Ad●m; for otherwise, how could he take the cu●se upon himself▪ to cure mankind. And Theo●●●● asketh this question, Theod. dial. 1. n. 12. Why was not Ch●ists Body made of Earth as adam's was? And he returned this answer. 〈…〉 Creature servaretur, quae perie●a: (i) That Christ might save the same creature which was lost, therefore he took the same creature upon himself▪ and Athanasi●●s Atha. Epist. ad Epicter. n. 3. strictly examining how man's curse could be fastened on our blessed Saviour, answereth thus: Christus sic pro nobis execratio factus est— sicu● factus est ca●o. (i) He took our curse, as he took our flesh; and Saint Basil saith expressly, that the Heresy of Valentinus did nullify Man's redemption; for if the flesh of Christ were not derived from Adam: Non occ●d●sset Basil. Epist. 65. n. 37. peccatum in carn●; (i.) Christ had not destroyed sin in the flesh, and upon this very ground, Dios●urus the Bishop of Alexandria, and Eu●yches the Monk were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, as Euagrius Euag. l 2. c. 18. writeth. The self same kind of Argument doth Naziarz●n use against Apollinarius, who taught that Christ had no humane or reasonable soul, (as is said before) Naz. ad Cledon. Orat. 51. but that he took only flesh from Adam Deus assum●sit id quod salute indigebat, etc. (i.) God took of Man all that which stood in need of salvation; and therefore he took the humane soul also: For that fell, and needed help as well as the Body. For if Christ had taken from Man only his flesh, and not his Soul, he had done, as if a Man that hath a fore foot, and a fore eye, should apply a Medicine only to the foot, and neglect the eye— besides Christ took the whole and perfect Man upon him but the Godhead with a Body only is not perfect Man, as neither could it be perfect man, if it were joined with an humane Soul without a Body.— But if you say, that God could have saved man, though he had never taken an humane soul; so may you as well say, God could have saved man, though he had not assumed a Body.] Thus far Nazia●zen. From this discourse, I may upon the same grounds infer, That if Christ must needs take his Body from man, because otherwise he could not destroy sin in the flesh; It will follow by the like Argument, that Christ must needs take his humane soul by traduction from man, for otherwise how could he destroy sin in the soul? and then, though the body might be saved; yet the soul having no medicine applied to it, must needs undergo the sentence; Ezech. 18. 4. The soul that sinn●th, i● shall di●: For the soul and body of man, are two distinct natures, although joined in one person, just so as the Godhead and Manhood in Christ are. Thus for aught I can yet see, the same reasons that induce us to believe, that the flesh of Christ was propagated from the first man, may as well prove that his soul must also be so transmitted throughout all Generations to Christ. Furthermore, because in Scripture phrase the natural soul of Man goes under the notion of Carnal as well as his Natural body; for 1 Cor. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies a carnal man, the very soul not regenerate is carnal, I do not perceive how the Incarnation of God, can be complete, but by his assuming both soul and body from man; for otherwise, how can we say that he took the whole man upon him, the denying whereof was by the Church judged an Heresy in the Apollinarians. For they would not confess Christ to Naz. ad Cledon. orat. 5●. be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, A perfect man having God in him, but they called Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idest, God bearing flesh only, and this, because they believed not, that Christ took our humane soul, but only that he took our flesh: and therefore the Apolinarian is by Nazianzen called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est, One that worshipped a God, that had assumed nothing but flesh; And the Apollinarian in derision said, that the Catholic was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i) one who worshipped a man. Now although the Church of England doth not expressly declare the propagation of the Soul of Christ from the Virgin Mother, yet the second Article of Religion, something implicit, seemeth rather to incline thereunto, for it saith, First, The Word— took Man's nature in the womb 1. Artic. 2. of the blessed Virgin of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, (that is to say) The Godhead and Manhood were joined in one Person, etc.] If the meaning be that Christ took perfect Manhood from his Mother, it must needs follow, that he took both Body and soul of her; for neither of them severally can be called perfect Man; and Master Rogers in his notes upon that Article tells us, that it was one of the Arrian errors, who said, That Christ took ●tha. de Incarn. n. 22. only flesh of the Virgin, but not the Soul, and that some Arrians did indeed so say, is affirmed by Athanasius. Finally, if it can clearly appear that the Son of God did indeed take both his flesh, and also his human Soul by Propagation, from Man: it will be a great consolation to Mankind, that the great God of Heaven and Earth, would vouchsafe to be so completely near of kindred to us his poor creatures; and hereby also a perfect and complete Incarnation of God will be proved against this Commenter. CHAP. XIV. The question of the Souls propagation left undetermined by Saint Augustine, yet he thought it more probable that our souls are propagated from our Parents. I Will not presume (good Reader) to determine this great question because that I find that the most profound Doctors of the Primitive Church; and after very great and diligent discussion, yet left it dubitable, as may appear by the Epistles which passed mutually between Saint Hierome, and Saint Augustine, concerning this very question, which neither of them would absolutely determine and conclude; either for the Soul of Christ, or the Souls of other men, for that the Original of the Soul of Christ, was surely the same, with the Original of other men's souls since our first Parents; and both alike obscure, and hard to be understood: Only I will truly relate what hath been thought and said of it, especially out of Saint Augustine; who saith, utrum origo animarum Aug. n. 7. n. 18. n. 44. sit ex uno illo (Adam) an semper fiant singulae si●gulis, adhuc nescio— adhuc incertum, (i) whether the souls of all men came from Adam, or whether new souls for several men be daily created? as yet I know not— and it is uncertain. And again, Nunquam ausus sum definitam proffer Id. Epist. 175. Id. Epist. 120. sententiam: (i) I never durst venture upon a definitive sentence thereof, and concludeth, Satius est ortum animae semper quaerere, quam invenisse praesumere: (i) It is safer to be always seeking, then to presume that we have found it. And a great while after he said, Ego adhuc inter utrosque ambigo, vincant qui poterant, (i) Id. de Gen. ad lit. l. 10. c. 22. I am still doubtful between those two opinions, prove either who can. And although he confesseth in the same book, that he would be more willing to acknowledge, that Christ had not his soul from Adam, yet (saith he) the other opinion, that men receive their souls from their Parents, doth preponderate and turn the scale of my judgement. The same Father, for the probability of propagation of souls from Adam, allegeth many reasons. For first, writing to Saint Hierome, Tell me (saith Id Epist. 28. he) if Souls are doyly created, and not transmitted from the Parents, wherein have poor Infants sinned? and how are they involved in the sins of Adam, or their Parents, so that they need the Sacrament of remission of sins? But secondly, If it be said, that our souls are indeed derived from the soul of Adam, than who can say, I have not sinned; seeing the Original soul of Adam sinned? Thirdly, It was the Argument which Pelagius used. If the soul be not propagated as well as the body; then only the bodies (of Infants) are liable to the punishment for Original sin; for it may seem very hard measure, that so ancient a sin should be laid to the charge of a soul newly created, and but one day old. Fourthly, when the woman was made out of the body of Man, It is not said, that God breathed into her nostrils the breath of life, as it was said of the man, Gen. 2. 7. Perhaps to intimate that her soul was derived with haet body from the man. Fifthly, Saint Augustine confessed, that to say that souls are daily created, seeing God finished the Creation the sixth day, will seem a violent speech. Sixthly, it is said, Romans 5. 18. By the offence of Aug. de Gen. ad lit. lib. 10. c. 11. one judgement came upon all to condemnation ● Now because only the soul sinneth, (for the body is but the souls instrument) how can the soul that was not created till so many generations from Adam are passed, be said to sin in Adam, for what evil hath the soul of a young dying infant committed, if his soul were not derived from Adam? Lastly, he granteth, Non absurd ●reditur ●animas è Id. ibid. traduce ●sse (●id est) It is no inconvenience to our Christian Faith, to say, the souls of men are propagated from the first man. For it was indeed anciently received by Christians, as a Truth long before Saint Augustine's time, as we find in Ter●ullian, who saith Tert. de anima c. 27. expressly, that Our souls came from Adam: and again, he saith in the same Book, Omnis anima censetur in Adamo, donec in Christo recens●atur: id est, Every Id. ib. c. 40. soul is first censed or enrolled in Adam, until they be new enroled, and accounted in Christ. And Saint Hierome, avoucheth this to be the opinion, Hier. Epist. ad Marcel. apud Aug. Epist. 27 not only of Ter●ulli●n, but also that the greater part of the Western Churches were of the same mind, that as our bodies are derived f●om the bodies of our Parents, so our souls are propagated from their souls. Even as millions of Ta●ers, may be tinded or lighted at one burning Taper, and as all the Stars of Heaven, receive their light from the Sun, yet neither the light of that one Taper, or of the Sun are any thing diminished. So although the manner how our souls are propagated be inestable, yet De facto, that they are propagated, is no way incredible, For why not the souls of Men, as well as the souls of Beasts? and why may not the humane soul extend itself into the child in the womb, as well as it doth enlarge itself in a greater distance into other parts of the body, as the body from its birth waxeth bigger from one cubite length of the Infant, to four Cubits at our full growth; and this Doctrine of the Souls propagation, seemeth to stand with a great deal of equity in our merciful and most just Redeemer, that as he would redeem our bodies, by his own body taken from man, so to redeem our souls by his soul so taken and propagated from man. And this seemeth to be the Opinion of Athanasius, Atha. de incarnate▪ n. 23. Corpus Chisti pro corpore nostro, & anima ●jus pro nostra, & integer homo pro integro homine in Redemptione rependitur: (id est,) The Body of Christ was given for our bodies, and his Soul for our Souls, and his whole Man, for our whole Man in our Redemption. Thus having said so much concerning this question; I submit the determination thereof to the Judicious Reader only adding this, that if Christ did, indeed take not only 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 souls by him, because hereby we may conceive ourselves to be joined, and united unto Christ, in a more noble tie, then only in our flesh, & that as he hath communicated his Divine Spirit to Man (as is showed before) so our humane Spirit is communicated to him. CHAP. XV. That the Spirit of God is communicated to the unregenerate, and of the diversity of the Measures, and the graces thereof. IN the next place, I am to show 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 believe, 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 contrary will appear a none; for a man may have God's Spirit in him, yea, and divers common gifs and graces of that Spirit, and yet remain unsanctified, and void of virtue and holiness, Aug. de beat. vita n. 16. S. Austin saith. Omnis homo deum habet, nec t●m●n omnis beatus est, (i) every man hath God in him, and yet every man is not in a state of blessedness; so there is in every man a natural goodness (for every creature is good) and where goodness is, there is God; though this natural bonity may be mixed with a great deal of moral pravity, and the same Spirit of God worketh in all men, but yet to several purposes, and with several Naz. Orat. 44. operations, and in divers 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 always in man, yet men do not always 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 again he saith ●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 therefore is it called grace because it is Gratis data. (i) freely given. There may be grace in those persons who are not thereby rendered favourable, gracious, or acceptable in God's sight, for even our natural endowments, and temporal blessings, and our very Creation rightly considered will appear to be an act of God's grace, and therefore men do usually give thanks to God for their very Creation. This doctrine of the great variety of graces, and workings of God's 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— prophecy— tongues. etc. Which we know may be, and are found in men not Sanctified even the knowledge and skill of manual arts are the operations of God's Spirit in man, which no divine will say are saving, or sanctifying graces as we read of B●zaleel, Ex. 35. 31. That he was filled with the Spirit of God in wisdom and in all manner of workmanship.— to devise Curious works, and to work in Gold, Silv●●▪ and brass. Philosopher's use to say, If heaven stood still, man could not move so much as his little finger, but surely if God were not Primus Motor in us, to be as the soul of our souls, 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 holiness, and happiness; 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 been 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 diversity— some partake of power, some of life only, others have wisdom, others goodness, others blessedness 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 rain upon several Creatures, produceth in them great diversity, and variety of effects. Aqua in spi●is alba, in rosis rubra in Cyril. Hiero●. n. 18. hyacinthis purpurea. (i) The same rain, in the thorn produceth a white flower, on the rose— bush a red, and on the hyacinth a purple Colour, So doth the Spirit produce diversity of effects in men, so again. Aqua in Aug. de Mirab. script. l. 1. c. 18. vite vinum ●it, in apibus mel, in Oliva ol●um. (i) Water in the vine is made wine, in the Olive tree, Oil, in bees honey, in man, blood, tears etc. And the like illustration is used by Epiphanius, & Chrysost. To show 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 wisdom, judgement, counsel, in others, more also as faith, hope, charity, fortitude, even to martyrdom, and to blessedness, the effect of God's Spirit in Samson was seen eminently in his great strength, in Solomon, it was great wisdom, in Moses meekness, in the Prophet's foresight, all these are gifts of one and the same Spirit, though in such great variety, and when the Scripture mentioneth divers Spirits, as. Esa. 11. 2 Rev. 1 4 It meaneth several gifts and graces of one and the same Spirit; we 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, or heightened in him to greater power and efficacy, and whereas David prayed Psal. 51. 11. take not thy holy Sp●rit from me] it will not follow that David feared, he should be left destitute altogether of the Spirit of God, but that it might remain with him in some degree at least, but he prayed for the Continuance, and Manifestation of God's help, and assistance by the Spirit in the same manner as before he had it, because as Prosper observeth. Cessatio auxilii pro absentia accipitur. (i) God Pros. ad Dem. n. 59 is said to departed from man, when he withholdeth his help, albeit, God is essentially always present, so when he withdraweth one grace, yet he may manifest his presence, by some other grace, for every man hath not every grace of the Spirit. S. Hierom in one of his exegetical Epistles upon these words. 1 Cor. 15. 28. That God may be all in all] saith. Adhuc Deus est nisi pars Hier. Epist. 147. n. 30. in singulis, ut sapientia in Solomone, patientia in Job, post, erit omnia in omnibus, cum Sancti omnes virtutes habuerint. (i) In this life God is but a part in men, as wisdom in Solomon, patience in Job, but in the next life God will be all in all, for then his Saints shall be induced with all virtues; And whereas it is said Joh. 7. 39 The holy Ghost was not yet given] Yet we are sure that it was given before both to the Prophets, and also to the Apostles, but the meaning is as S. Austin expounds it. Non quia nulla datio antea, sed quia non talis quae de Aug. de Trin. lib. 4. c. 17. n. 72 Linguis legitur. (i) Not as if there had been no gift of the Spirit before, but because the Spirit was not before given in that kind and manner, as it was at the feast of Penned cost, and so doth S. Cyril resolve the same doubt. Cyril Hieros. Cat. 16. Spiritus idem descendebat in Pentecoste, qui anteà, sed tum Copiosiùs. (i) It was the same Spirit that descended at the Pentecost, which came before, but now it came more copiously. Thus are God and man united, he taking our flesh, and we receiving his Spirit, upon this consideration S. Cyprian saith. Cum Corpus ● terra, & Spiritum possideamus Cyp. de Orat. Dom. n. 82. e caelo; Ipsi c●lum, & t●rra sumus. (i) Man is the union of heaven, and earth, because our bodies are from the earth, but we possess a Spirit which came from heaven. CHAP. XVI. That the Spirit of God is given to men n●● sanctified, how those are said to be Gods anointed, who were not anointed with Oil, that our King is God's anointed, something concerning the Kings touching and Curing the diseased. BUt why should we doubt to affirm that the Spirit of Jesus, our only Lord God, is communicated even to men unregenerate, and that in such men this Spirit doth manifest its presence in some lower degree, by some common graces, which do not sanctify them, in whom they are; seeing that we find in Scripture, that both heathen, and wicked Kings are called Gods anointed, for Esa. 45. 1. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus] yet this Cyrus, both lived, and died an heathen. So King Saul, though an Israelite, yet a wicked man is called. 2 Sam. 1. 14. The Lords anointed, Now; we know, that Unction doth not always signify only an External, or Ceremonial anointing with Oil, but it signifieth also, the inward gift, and inhabitation of the Spirit of God, for we find that those men are said to be Gods anointed, whom we cannot find, to have been externally anointed with Oil, for so Christ is said to be anointed. Psal. 45. 7. Yet not with external Oil, so also Abraham, Jsaac, and Jacob Psal. 105. 15. are called Gods anointed, yet we find not that they were anointed with Oil, but these holy ones are therefore said to be anointed, because the Spirit of God was in them, which is the true, and real unction, whereas external ointment is but the sign thereof, in like manner, because Cyrus an heathen is called Gods anointed, and yet was never anointed with Oil, it must needs follow that his unction was internal, and that he was therefore called Gods anointed, because God had put his Spirit into him, I●say his Spirit although not working so high as to Sanctification in Cyrus, but yet a Spirit of wisdom, and kingly fortitude, and of skill and knowledge political and military, To enable him to govern, which gifts are the effect of God's Spirit. And this is the exposition which the ancients give, concerning those forenamed unctions; first for Christ. Euseb us saith. Non apparet Christum unctum fuisse communi oleo, sed divino Eus. de Dem. lib. 5. c. 2. Spiritu. (i) It can not appear that Christ was anointed with common O●le (Ceremonialie) but he was anointed with the divine Spirit, and so saith Athanasius Oleum Ath. Orat. 2. Cont. Arian. Opt. lib 4. Atha. Orat. Cont. Aria. n 8. Christi, est Spiritus sanctus. (i) The Oil of Christ, was the holy Spirit, and just so saith Optatus, and what this unction of Christ was, and wherein it consisted is showed by the same Athanasius, upon those words God of God] unitio verbi cum carne, vocatur unct●o. (i) The union of the Godhead, with the manhood, was Christ's unction. Now for the anointing of mere men, and that without any infusion of Oil Eusebius saith. Dei Spiritus Eus. de Dem. l. 4. c. 15. est dei Oleum. (i) The Oil of God, is the Spirit of God, and he tells further in the same place, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called Gods anointed. Propter divinum Spiritum cujus participes erant. (i) By reason of God's Spirit, with which those holy patriarches were endued, and to the same purpose S. Basil saith, Spiritus Basil. hom. de Bapt. n. 14. sanctus est unctio in nobis. (i) our unction is the holy Spirit which is in us. For so it is said also of our Saviour expressly Act. 10. 38. God anointed jesus of Nazareth, with the holy Ghost. The appellation of Christ, and of Christian is from this unction, and we use to say of infants when they are baptised, that they are made Christians, which signifieth anointed, not because of the old Ceremony of Crisme or anointing with Oil (which with us hath been long ago disused) but as Dionysius formerly when it was in use, gave the reason unction, and Christian signify deificam Spiritus communionem. Dionys. Areop. eccles. her. c. 2. (i) The communication of the divine Spirit, because we believe, that God with the external Sacrament, conferreth the inward grace; which belief the ancients did represent by their anointing the baptised with Oil. Now if it may appeare that by virtue of such an internal Unction of which I spoke in Cyrus, some unregenerate men, have actually exercised, and performed externally some one act, whereby that inward grace was showed, as namely by that one gift of healing mentioned▪ 1 Co●▪ 12. 9 Of which I spoke in the former chapter I trust it will not be denied to be as it is called v 7. A manifestation of the Spirit. And for this I shall instance in another heathen Prince who was of no better religion than Cyrus was, and that is Vesp●tian the Roman, who in the reign of Nero, (and before he was Emperor) was employed in the execution of divine vengeance on the rebellious * vide Paulum Oros. lib. 7. c. 1. Iew●s and the city of jerusalem; and for that service it may with great pobabilitie be thought that God gave him the Roman Empire for his reward, as he gave Nebuchaduezzar, the Kingdom of Egypt▪ for his service against Tyr●, as we read Ez●ch. 29. 18. And that the Empi e was the gift of God to him, it seemeth to me probable, because it was Prophetically foretold unto him by josephus the learned Jew, who was then a p●●i●t, unto whom God had revealed both Vespatian's advancement, and also the destruction of the jewish nation. God having appeared to Joseph. de bell. jud. l. 2. & lib. 7. him in his sleep as himself relateth, and withal confessed that he feared, God was offended with him for labouring to save his nation, when he knew God had decreed their 〈◊〉, for this reason I think I may call the said Ve●●●tian Gods anointed, as being so clearly designed by God to that empire and also for that, as an effect of his unction. Tac●us & Dion, & Suetonius do Tac. hist. l. 4. c. 19 Suet. in vesp. c. 7. Dion. in vesp. c. 2. vide Plutarch. in vita Pyrrhi, p. 384. unanimously report that whilst this Emperor was in Egypt the gift of healing was manifested in him for a blind man was restored to his sight, and a lame man was cured by his touch, If this prove true in an unregenerate and heathen Prince give me leave good reader, a little to discourse unto thee, the like effect of divine unction, in a regenerate King, the most virtuous and most Christian King this day (as I do firmly believe, and so do the greatest number of his subjects) in the whole world I mean our own most gracious King Charles. For, that the King is Gods anoined, was never with us called in question before this sceptic time, and God never shown a greater manifestation of any King's unction in this nation since the days of King Edward the Confessor, (who was the first of our Kings that by his royal touch cured the disease called the King's Evil) than he hath lately showed in the person of our most pious, and most merciful King Charles, for never were so many, in so short a time restored to their health and soundness, as of late by him; many hundreds were touched by his sacred hand, and as many returned home with health in their bodies, and blessings in their souls to their royal physician, to the great admiration of many witnesses where of myself am one, for to his majesties court at Newmarket Jnue 18. Anno 1647. did I ●end one of my Children a child of 11. years old, who immediately before had been extremely afflicted, and indeed tortured with that disease, but having been there, and then touched, the next day following he returned home perfectly cured and sound, and hath so continued ever since, for the space of more than 5 Months. Blessed be the Lord Jesus who is the author of every good gift, and blessed be his anoinred servant, in whom his goodness was so clearly manifested. These things might stop the mouths of his Majesty's most implacable enemies, who in print have endeavoured to make the people believe that the King is not Gods anointed, and might particularly shame them who most unchristianly have called this Gift of healing, witchcraft, although there is an express warrant 1 Cor. 12. 9 for it in the word of God, these men without doubt except they repent, shall one day be accountable for the sin of blaspheming God, and the King; for ascribing that work to witchcraft and so to Satan, which is done both by the King's hand, and with the finger of God assisting his anointed; just so did the Pharisees blaspheme Christ when he cast out Satan by the finger of God, for they said he cast him out by Belzebub. Neither will it be sufficient to say that the gift of healing was a temporary grace, and now quite expired, for it can not be so proved; God's arm is not shortened: for although the ordinary, and frequent use of such divine cures is now abated, yet no man can for certain affirm that the gift is utteriie ceased: and for our own particular case in this kingdom, why should we not rather think, that our merciful God now in these needful times to stop the mouths of all the enemies of his anointed, or at least to leave the obstinate without excu●e, hath so manifestly showed, and declared him to be indeed his anointed and that these multitudes of Royal cures are as so many lamps manifesting the divine Oil of his unction, for so the Royal Psalmist bringeth in God ●aying Psal. 132. 17. I have ordained a Lamp so● mine anointed— his enemies will I cloth with sh●●●, but upon himself shall his Crown flourish▪ Even so Amen. Deus d●fendat Opt. lib. 2. Oleum suum. Upon himself, and his royal posterity, Lord, let this Crown flourish as long as the Sun, and moon endure. CHAP. XVII. The Union of Christ, and his Church further showed, why Christ is called by the names Adam, Jacob, David. Why all mankind was extracted out of One man, why S. Austin denied the Antipodes, wherein this Union consisteth An Explication of Heb. 7. 9 Which was slubbered over by the Commenter, touching Melchisedech, and Levi. BY what hath been said, the Christian reader I trust doth by this time perceive that our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, with great love, justice, and equity did sustain our person, and in our steed, and to our behalf did both bear the punishment of our transgressions, and also fulfilled the whole law of God for us, as our surety, because he was as an Universal man, in whom all mankind was united. The sour leaven of the first Adam had ●owred the whole lump of mankind, but the divine Spirit of the second Adam sweetened his whole mystical body for a Spirit us est genitoris Aug. de Trin. l. 6. genitiqae Suavitas. (i) The Spirit is the sweetness of the Father and the Son: and because our true, and only God hath assumed both our flesh, and our soul also on himself, and hath put his Spirit into us, therefore he is become one with us mystically, and we with him: hence it is that Prosper saith. Tota ecclesia cum Christo P●osp. in I sal. 102. capite est unus homo. (i) The whole body of the Church with Christ the head is one man, and again he saith Tota civitas dei est unus homo in Capite, & Corpore. (i) Id. in Psal. 131. The whole City of God is one man, in the head, and in the body, being as one corporation. And concerning Christ's Prayers, and the Church's Prayers the same Father saith. Ad deum clama● & 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 we say to God Abba▪— Father, and this neareness and entire unity between God and man in Christ is principally from this ground, that because there is but one God, and that one God is in all men, therefore doth he make all to be one; and also men with Christ are Commembers Aug. count. mendacium. c. 2. n 77. Chrys. in S. Theophaniam. to. 6. n. 59 as S. Austin calls them) (i.) fellow members of his body, because we with him were made of one blood, as we read Act. 17. 26. for as S. chrysostom noteth. Deus ideo incarnatus ut ingeret opus cum opifice. (i) God was therefore Incarnate that thereby he might unite the Creature with the Creator, all communicating both in flesh and in Spirit, hence all Christians are called one another's brethren, and sisters, because all have the same Spirit of one heavenly Father. Anima fratris est Hier. n. 41. soror tua, S. Hierom saith. (i) Thy brother's soul, is thine own 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 near of kindred to us men, that he takes upon himself the names of other Men, to imply an identity 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 therefore meant of Christ, for when David is called a Man after Gods own heart. 1 Sam. 13. 14. Act. 13 22. (which is very hard to be said or understood of any sinful 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 difficulty at all. So also I think that saying. Num. 23. 21. He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob] is meant of Christ, who is called Jacob with as great reason as the other posterity are called by the name of their patriarch Israel, and jacob 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 man's redemption, therefore he extracted all mankind, even the woman also out of one Man, that so all might come into the unity of Christ, which is the reason that is alleged by Prosper, and that thereby christs obedience active and Prosper. De Provide. n. 39 passive, might be in stead of all Ad●m: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not believe there were any 〈◊〉, although he knew the earth was seated in the midst of the wo●●d, Aug. de Civ. l. 16 c 9 l a●●. de fall Rel. l. 3. c. 24. but it was lest 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 wh●ch is joined to her head in a more sweet and loving matrimonial bond, Matth. 22. 2. The Kingdom 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 w● are member of his body, ●f his fl●sh▪ and of his ●ones,— this is a great Mystery, but I sp●ak con●●●ning Christ and his Church. For the union of Christ and his Church, doth not only consist in this, that Christ assumed the flesh of his holy ones, for so he did of all, nor in that he communicates high Spirit to his Elect ●nd holyen●s; for so also he doth to all. But in that he gives to his Church, his Divine Spirit with all the sweetness of his love and goodness, and with such high graces as make her lovely, acceptable and gracious in the eyes of her Lord and head. This great mystery of Man's 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 Paradi●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 follows, God blessed them— and verse 31. It was ver● good, and this, because from the Woman's fruitfulness, the Redeemer was to come; and this is the meaning of St. Paul, 1 Tim. 2. 15. She shall be saved in childbearing▪] 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 Gospel, and with it, the inestimable benefit of Christ's death is offered, the Gospel hath set forth our Saviour descending from the first man, and extracted through holy and unholy Ancestors, through Jews and Gentiles, by noble and ignobl● births, as appeareth in the Genealogies of S Luke, and of ●. Matthew, where there is mention of ●amar, and of 〈◊〉, a Moabi●● and Gentile; to show that all sorts of men have an interest in Christ, for all men in the world were united, with Christ himself also in the loins of Adam. Before I cl●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 cl●a●ly made against his blasphemy: the words are these, Levi— 〈◊〉 Tithes in Abraham, For he was in 〈◊〉 of his Fat●●r when Melchi●edech met him.] The collection from these words is, that therefore Me●chis●aechs, and so Christ's Priesthood is greater than Levi●● P●i●st●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 (th●n 〈◊〉 was not begot) and therefore 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 show that Christ was not then in the loins of Abraham. (Secundum aliquem modum) in some manner as Levi was. For answer hereunto, S. Austin, thought it sufficient to say that the difference between ●●vies and Christ's being in the loins of Abraham, was this: Christus Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 10. c. 19 non 〈◊〉 secundum animam, se● Levi ficit: (i) That Christ's Soul was not derived by propagation from Abr●ha● as L●vi●s soul was. But this answer will not satisfy, because it is uncertain to us, whence either Levi or Ch●●st had their humane souls; and so it was to St. Austin himself, as I have showed before. The surer answer therefore, is this; that it being granted that the humane nature of Ch●ist was every way in the loins of Abraham as well as Levi was; yet this grand difference is between them. That Christ's Divine nature, or eternal Godhead was not derived from Abraham's 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 M●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 truly 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 showed,) 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 Unpardonable SIN: OR, The sin against the Holy Ghost, wherein this question is discussed: Whether the sin 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 Anabaptism 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 Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard, 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 sin 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 sin 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 only means of redemption and pardon: for Jesus Christ, by virtue of his Godhead, inseparably united with his Manhood, is the only All-sufficient Expiatory Sacrifice for sin. There is yet a third Question to be discoursed, 3. which is very needful to be rightly understood, lest the former Doctrines should lead such men into desperation, who have fallen into this sin and for the comfort of those particularly, who have been misled into this most dangerous blasphemy, by reading This new Commentary on the Hebrews; I do thus state this third Question. Of THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. 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 remedy 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 persuasion 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 m●n,— neither in this 〈◊〉, nor in the world to come and Mar. 3. 29. He hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal 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 not be forgive. Of this sin, or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost our later Expositors understand that saying, Heb ●. 4. It is impossible for those who were once enlightened— if they fall 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 ●● 〈◊〉 for it. For if he that once sinneth this sin, be not all to be prayed for, it will be a great inducement to persuade us, that it is altogether unpardonable. There is yet another reason alleged 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 final 〈◊〉, according to that saying before alleged out of Heb. 6. 6. If this prove true, than such blasphemers must certainly perish; according to our Saviour's words in another case. Luke 13. 3. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, and so this sin may fitly be called a sin 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 only in respect of the Object: that is, God, a most merciful God against whom they are committed. Pecca a numerari possunt, sed misericordia D●●, 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 mercy, and the Father of 〈…〉 and that his mercy is over all his works, and especially his mercy is seen and exercised on mankind, even in such as have sinned with an high hand against him▪ if they do penitently turn unto him, no Father or ●ender Mother can so much pity their own children as our heavenly Father pitieth us. Non sic ins●mus Chrys. 77. hom. Constant. n. 25. 〈…〉 Deus paenitentem animam (i) no young man sick for love is more enamoured with his beloved than our loving God is with a penitent soul; Chrys. 31. hom. Antioch. n. 12. and again the same Father saith Ego testifi●or, & fide 〈◊〉, si quts discedit à pecc●to, nihil aliud requirit Deus. (i) testify, and will be bound, that if a sinner will forsake his sin, God requireth no more of him. The gate of God's mercy is never shut against a penitent sinner S. Cypri●n saith most comfortably. Nulla penitent Cyp. count. Demet. n. 75. Id de Caena. n. 95. a in mu●●o se●a ●st. And again Anim●m egredientem, and in lubi● paenitentem non aspernatur Clementissimus Dominus. (i) no repentance can be to late in this life,— when our Soul is parched on our lips, ready to take her flight, even in that moment our most merciful Lord will not reject her repentance, no, though her sins have been never so detestable. Prosper saith. Nulla Pros. de vocat. Gent. l. 1. c. 17. sunt tam detestanda ●●elera, quae possun gratiae donum arc●re (i) No wickedness is so detestable, which can utterly exclude the mercy of God. S. ●asil sets this down as an infallible mark, whereby a man may be assured of remission of sins Ce●t●●o rem ●ssi●nis est peccata abhorrere. Basil in Ascet. n. 31. (i) if you would be assured that your sins are remitted, leave your sins. The Psalmist saith. Psal. 33. 5. The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord; Because in this life his mercy is more perceived than his justice, which he doth, for the most part defer till the judgement in the next life by his patience and long— suffering, yet even then his very judgements are not void of some mercy. in Te●tull●an it is but Ironically said O deum, ad Tert. count. Marc. l. 3 n. 44. inferos usqu● 〈…〉 (i) O the mercy of God which extend●th even to hell, but S. Austin delivers the same seriously, and dogmatically. (i) Dei misericordia Aug de Civit. l. 21. c. 24. extenditur damnatis, mitiùs puniens illos quàm mereantur. (i) The mercy of God is in some measure showed to the damned, in that he punisheth them less rigorously than they deserved. Upon these reasons, grounded on the mercies of a most merciful God, an All sufficient Redeemer, I dare not pronounce this sin against the Holy— Ghost, to be absolutely unpardonable. CHAP. II. That the sin against the Spirit, possibly may be pardoned, and that by repentance; Gods threaten are conditional, and not always executed, yet the truth of God is not violated. Threaten are but provocations 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 affirm it pardonable, except we 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 threaten, how peremptorily, or absolutely soever they seem 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 than once given us to understand, that whensoever he threatneth destruction to a sinner, his threatening is always to be understood with this limitation. Except that sinner repent. And this truth hath been long ago discovered by our own divines, and long before them by the ancient Fathers: That all threaten of God are to be understood with the condition of impenitency, for example. God had by his prophet said. Forty days Jonah. 3. 4. and Nineve shall be destroyed. Yet Nineve was not so destroyed, neither was his word false, because God's meaning was with this reservation. Except they repent, and Gods threatening, & averting, or inflicting temporal plagues in the time of the law, were signs what he would do in the like case, either with, or without repentance in remitting, or inflicting eternal punishments since the Gospel was published. If you ask me how we 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 told us, once or twice that all his threaten must be so understood; and this we learn from two of his great Prophets, both for general threaten against a whole nation, and for particular threaten 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 will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them] So again Ezech. 33. 14. When I say to the wicked, thou shalt surely die, If he turn from his sin & c? he shall surely live, he shall not die] these two are the general rules of all Gods threaten in the whole Scripture, so that if we lay these to any threatening, that was executed, or not executed, yet we shall find that both the mercy and truth of God will be hereby cleared, as in the differing cases of Sodom destroyed, and Nin●ve saved. The same Rules are also to be observed in the threaten mentioned in the New Testament, even where the exception is not expressly mentioned yet it is always to be understood, and there we find evident and personal precedents of God's mercy in sparing those whom he threatened, when the threatening seemed to be absolute, without any limitation, for what threatening can be more peremptory than 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 Peter's Conversion and Salvation. And we know that the Jews unto whom the same Peter preached Act. 3. 14. had denied the Holy One, and the Just. & moreover killed the Prince of life, Yet S● Peter did not think them absolutely unpardonable but exhorted them to repentance▪ and shown that thereby their sin might be pardoned, for ●aith he v. 19 Repent yet therefore and be converted, that you● si●s may be blotted out. What threatening seemeth more peremptory than that. 1 Cor. 6 9 Be not deceived, neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers— nor t●eves nor— drunkards etc. shall inherit the Kingdom of God; yet we believe that Noah, Lo●, David, and the penitent thief who had offended in these sins shall notwithstanding inherit the Kingdom of God & the Apostle, in the words immediately following doth clearly unfold the meaning, both of that, and of all other Threaten, when he saith vers. 11. And such as these were some of you●, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus so that, in all threaten, we are ever to suppose, that there is at least, this secret, and reserved condition; Except ye repent; according to God's declaration, which is thus expressed 1 Joh. 1. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. And hence is the rule of divines. Omnes comm●nationes dei sunt intelligendae sub conditione impaenitentiae. (i) The threaten of God are ever to be understood, with the condition of impenitency This is the judgement both of our modern divines, & Orig. in Num. 23. hom 6. also of the Ancients Orig●n saith. Ostenditur Deus quandoque dicere, & non fac●re●ait ergo per Hie●miam, loquar super gentem, si convertetur gens illa, 〈◊〉 &c. (i) Because it appeareth that God saith he will do that, which yet he doth not perform, therefore he hath informed us by Jeremy what his meaning is when he saith▪ ●f I speak against a nation, if that nation be convered and repent I also will repent, and again the same Father saith▪ Deus— cum possi●●●cens punire, nunquam hoc facit, Orig. in Hier. 1. hom. 1. sed etiamsi condemnav●r●t●, dicit tamen, quod sibi semper dicere proposi●um est, ut liberentur a condemnatione per paenitentiam, qui condemnati suerant per delictum▪ ut in Ninivitis. (i) God could punish without threatening, but doth not, and although he hath condemned yet he saith (as indeed he ever purposeth, that those against whom the sentence of condemnation is gone forth, yet may be delivered by repentance. St. Chrysostom hath the like observation upon those words, Jona. 3. 4. Chrys hom. 5. Antioch. Forty days and Ninevy shall be destroyed] This threatening did not fail (saith he) for God declareth, Jer. 18, 7. That when he speaketh against a Nation, his meaning ever is, that if that nation repent, he also will repent of his indignation; and yet the Truth of God is no way prejudiced although the judgement threatened, be not so effected, because it is always meant conditionally; yea it is ever more probable, that because God so openly threatened, secretly he did really not intent at all to execute that judgement which he so threatened: and more yet, That he therefore threatened, because Chrys. hom. Antioch. 53, he did not purpose it: Chrysostom saith, Deus Gehennam mmatus est, quo Gehennam non inducat (i) God therefore threatneth hell, that thereby he may not condemn Basil. in Esa. c. 13. Basil in Esa. c. 5. to hell. And Saint Basil saith, Deus interminatur— ut sic exoretur, (i) God therefore threatneth that thereby he may provoke men to prayer, that by it he may be pacified; and again, concerning the figtree, Luc. 13. 6. he saith, Exitat agricolam, ut diligentius excolat— est comminatio quae efficiat ut à peccato convertantur; (i.) Soz. l. 7 c. 1● the intent of the threatening was to incite the husbandman to take greater care of it— so there is a threatening intended only to provoke men to conversion. It is observed by Sozomen of the most gentle and godly Emperor, Theodosius that his Edicts penal, did commonly threaten very severe, and direful punishment, but that he did not execute them, even as our most merciful God, when he seemeth most severe in his threatening; yet he secretly reserveth an inlet of mercy to stay the execution, if the offenders will repent, and therefore the prudent Jews would not condemn that man for a false prophet, who had in the name of God threatened judgements, although the judgements threatened were not so executed, because they knew that the executing, or suspending thereof depended on the penitency, or impenitency of men. Thus having in general showed, that God's threaten are to be understood conditionally, let us now examine this particular threatening against such as commit the sin against the holy Spirit of which it is said, It shall not be forgiven: CHAP. III. That the blasphemy against the holy Spirit is then only unpardonable, when it is accompanied with final impenitency. IT is worthy of our observation, that Christ immediately Mat. 12. 31. before he denounced, that the blasphemy of the spirit should not be forgiven, he had said, Mat. 12. 31. All manner of sin, and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men] Certainly if all sin be forgiven, it must needs follow that the blasphemy of the Spirit shall be forgiven unto some, and therefore it is not absolutely unpardonable. All the difficulty will be to understand how all sins shall be pardoned, and yet this sin shall not be pardoned. Both sayings must needs be true, because Truth hath spoken them. Surely the meaning is, That there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation Aslemb c. 15. page 27. upon those who truly repent.] All sins are pardonable to the penitent, and therefore this blasphemy also is pardonable, if it be repent; but without repentance it shall never be forgiven in this world, whilst men continue in this sin, nor in the world to come if men die in it. But yet it must needs be confessed that there is a difference in the repentance which is required to the pardon of this grand sin, and that repentance which is necessary to preceded the pardon of other inferior Vide infra, Cap. sins (for no actual sin is to be thought pardonable without repentance in some measure) of which difference I shall speak hereafter in its due place. But for the present it is expedient to inquire whether this blasphemy be in any case pardonable. I have showed before what the Scripture saith of those that denied Christ as Peter did and those Jews, Acts 3. 14. although denying Christ seemeth to be that sin of which it is said, Luke 12. 9 10. it shall not be forgiven. Therefore the next thing to be enquired, is the judgement of the Church in the exposition of those words, It shall never be forgiven] Athanasius in his Ath. to 3. pag. 626. book, de Communi ess●ntia Patris, F●lii, etc. First layeth down this conclusion, Nullum ●st peccatum ir●●●●ssibile apud D●um in illis, qui verè 〈…〉 ●gunt; (i) No sin is unpardonable with God, in them which truly repent, and he maketh this observation on those words of Christ. That he did not say, that he who s● blasphemeth, and repenteth but only he that blasphemeth shall not be forgiven, and that therefore the meaning is, that he that so blasphemeth, and continueth persevering impenitently in that sin, shall never be forgiven— for if this sin cannot at all be remitted by repentance in this life, why was the Church so offended with Novatus for not admitting penitents to his Atha. ib. pag. 624. Communion, who in time of persecution, for fear, had denied Christ? and yet if there be a possibility of remission after this life, why is Origen so condemned, for affirming that the punishment of the damned shall have an end, Again he saith, 〈◊〉 those who were ignorant of the Godhead of Jesus, and so did not believe or confess it, shall not be pardoned, what will become of his own Disciples? Ausim dicere ne ipsos b●atos Discipulos Atha. ibid. pa. 265. perfectam sententiam de ejus Divinitate habiusse, antequam Spiritus sanctus in die Penticostes eos visitasset: (i) I dare boldly affirm, that the blessed Disciples of Christ had not a perfect opinion of their Lord's Godhead, until the holy Spirit descended on them at the Feast of Penticost; for we read, Math. 28. 17. that after his resurrection, some worshipped him, but some doubted. Heathens, Turks, Jews, and Arrians, do unto this day blaspheme the whole Trinity, and therefore do certainly blaspheme the Holy Spirit: yet if any of these should be converted to the true faith, and with a penitent confession, and with tears should come to the Christian Church, renouncing their blasphemies, and desire admission thereinto, and to be instructed, and then baptised, what Christian would be so hardhearted as to deny them? St. Austin goeth yet further; Aug. in Exposit. Epist ad Rom. n. 96. Si ex eo numero hominum, quibus Dominus crimen peccati in Spiritum Sanctum (objecit) veniret (ad ecclesiam) ad fidem Christi, paenitens, salutem cum lacrimes pos●ens; quaero utrum quisquam tanto errore esset ut neget ad baptismum) admitti, aut frustra admissum esse contendat? (i) If any one of those very Pharisees unto whom particularly Cbrist objected this sin against the Holy Ghost, had been converted to the Christian faith, and with repentance and tears had desired that saving doctrine; I demand whether any one would be so ignorantly nice, as to deny him leave to be baptised, or to affirm that if he were baptised, it would not profit him? Certainly, if Julian, or Arrius (who by divines are said to have sinned this sin) had so offered themselves to the primitive Church in their times, they had not been refused: for we know that Novatus and his sect, were therefore condemned by the Orthodox, because they refused to admit such as had denied Christ (as is said before.) The conclusion, and resolution of this question, by Aug. Epist. 50. n. 31. St. Austin is this, that this sin is unpardonable only in this case, viz. If such a sinner continue:— in duritia cordis usque ad finem vitae hujus,— and again, Aug. Enchirid cap. 83. n. 58. Si in hac obstinatione mentis, diem extremum clandit; (i) If such a blasphemer continue, and persevere in this hardness of heart and obstinacy all his life time, and in it depart this life, then will there be no hope of forgiveness. And for this reason only, this grand sin, Vid. infra. may be called in the Apostles words, 1. John 5. 16. A sin unto death] Not because it doth always necessarily bring to that sinner eternal death; but because it Aug. Epist. 50. ●. 31. will do so, if that sinner live and die in this sin obstinately and impenitently (of which saying I shall more largely speak here after in its due place) of this sin when it doth necessarily bring the sinner to eternal damnation, the same Saint Austin saith very truly as I conceive, Non probatur ab aliquo commissum, nisi cum de corpore exierit: (i) none can be properly said to have committed the sin unto death, until the sinner be actually dead because if he repent, before his death, than the sin cannot be said to be unto death. Finally, neither this sin, or any other Apostasy (except it be final) is so absolutely unpardonable, but that forgiveness may be obtained through Christ, if the sinner seek pardon, with true repentance. But whether any repentance may be had by such, who have once fallen into this grand sin, is the next thing to be enquired. CHAP. IU. An exposition of Hebr. 6. 4. that the word Enlightened signifieth baptism, Anabaptism is inhibited, as both unprofitable, and also sinful. BEcause no sin, how great soever can be said to be absolutely unpardonable, if the sinner will truly repent him of it, and that there is no case or condition in this life, wherein sinful man should despair, and cast of all hope of pardon, therefore divers * Calvin. l. 3. 3. 24. Instit. Polan. p. 339. Buc. p. 155. divines tell us, that the reason why it is said of this sin, that it shall never be forgiven] is, because when it is once committed, it is ever after accompanied with final impenitentie, and that by the just judgement of God, such apostates are punished with final, and Eternal blindness and that they cannot possibly repent, and for this doctrine they allege the saying of S. Paul. Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible for those who were once enlightened— if they fall away, to renew them to repentance.] Whether this be the true meaning of those words, or not, it will better appear, if we diligently by way of exposition, examine them, together with the context both before, & after. Which I will not presume to undertake or perform by mine own single judgement but will call in the assistance of former expositions by the ancient Fathers upon that place, where we read as followeth. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift etc. If they fall away, to Renew them again to repentance. The Apostle having in the former verses told those Hebr●ws, that they should not expect that he would new lay the foundations of Christian religion, which had been done to them before, whereof one was 〈◊〉, and its Doctrine, for if they must be always n●w rounded in Christian religion, as oft as they fall into ●in▪ then should they be as often baptised, that if they fell a second▪ and third time they should as often be baptised, and thereby restored to their former estate by so many several baptisms. This is the exposition of Theophilact. Si iterum e●● in primordiis religionis insti●ueret; Theoph. in locum. ru●sus baptizaret: & po●iqu●m denuò ●apsi essent, baptizaret, a●que ●te●um per ●ujusmodi● iterationem essent multi baptismi; verum ho●●bsurdum, non oportet iterari baptismum (i) If the Apostle must new lay the foundations of religion in his disciples, as oft as they fall into sin, then must he new baptise them, and if they fall again he must baptise them again— and again, but ●f so, then there would be many Baptisms, which were absurd, for Baptism may not be iterated. He mentioneth Baptisms in the plural, not as if there were more baptisms than one to be applied to one Person, but because of the multitudes of person's Baptised. There is but One baptism. Eph. 4. 5. But that one given to many is called Baptisms, yet but One, because it may not be administered to one Person more than once; and this the Apostle teacheth in these words. It is impossible for those who were once enlightened— if they fall, to Renew them again (by Baptism) unto repentance. For it is impossible] this Word for, sheweth that these following words, are a reason rendered of the former words, and particularly of Baptisms, as if he should say, I will not again lay the foundation of Baptism in them that were baptised before, because a Second baptism is both impossible and unprofitable, for as a man can not be twice borne naturally, so can he not be twice regenerate, or new— borne. And if a Man should be rebaptised, it would do him no good, nay it would be an aggravation of his sin because it is a Contempt of the cross and death of Christ, as will appear anon, Impossible.] He doth not say only It is unprofitable, or unseemly and unexpedient, but Impossible— Ne sperent se denuò posse Baptisma consequi Theoph. in loc. (i) That men might not imagine that they m●ght be acquitted of their sins by a new Baptism. For those who where once enlightened] The Principal thing (as I conceive) which hath made this Scripture seem so obscure of late, which the ancient expositors did most clearly expound ●s the ambiguity of this word Enlightened, which certainly doth signify in this place. Baptised. and so S. Ambrose, Theodore●, and Theophilact do all unanim●uslie expound it. And so did also, even the Novatians, who yet from a true exposition of that word did suck this poison. That such as lapsed into notorious sin after baptism, could not be admitted into the Church any more by repentance. The Syria●● translation also reads for Enlightened, Baptised, as is acknowledged by Beza— & non in●pte (i) (as he thinketh) no● unfitly; and nothing was more ordinary in the primitive Church, then to call Baptism, Illumination, and the Baptised, Illuminatos. Which appellation was (no doubt) taken from the words here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and again Heb. 10. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that the ancient Christians by this word Enlightened, understood Baptised which will evidently appear by what followeth. Enlightened] once Enlightened, signifies Once Baptised, amongst the Apostolical Constitutions in Clemens, this is one. In Illuminatione semina●um, D●aconissa abs●ergi● Clem. Rom l. 3 Const. cap. 15. ●as, ne mulieres aspiciantur a viris. (i) In the Illum nation of women, other women ministered, because it was not comely for men to behold their nakedness, here Illumination must needs signify Baptism, for in those times, and long after both men and women were Baptised naked as also it may seem to be intimated by the Scripture Phrases, of putting of the old man, and putting on the new man, which was represented, by putting of their old apparel and by putting on the white Baptismal garment, which is so frequently mentioned in the Farhers; and that people were baptised naked, doth appear in Dionysius, Cyprian, Cyril Hierosol. Ambrose, Dion. Areo. n4 Cyp. 91. Cyr. 21. Aug. Epist. 118. c. 5. Arnb. n. 49. Cuspinian. in vita ejus Just. Apol. 2. n. 13. Chrys. n. 40. Cyril. Catech. Chrys hom. 60. Antio. Epiph. n. 33. Naz Orat. 39 Naz. Orat. 39 and 40. and Austin. And particularly by the History of the Emperor Constantine the fift, who for a certain miscarriage in his baptism was Nicknamed Copronimus, (this by the way.) In Justin Martyr, baptism is called; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (i) Illumination, and the baptismal Font is both by him and chrysostom called. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (i) an Illuminatorie, for as we call it the Font because of the water in it, the ancients would as readily have called it the Phont, because of the Sacramental Illumination; So both S. Cyril, and S. chrysostom, call the Catechising of those who were already Baptised. Catechesis Illuminatorum. (i) The Catechesis of the Baptised, and do expressly expound those words. Heb. 6. and. Heb. 10. to signify the Baptised. just so doth Epiphanius call the Font. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Gre. Nazian, the festival of Christ's Baptism is called. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (i) The day of Illumination: and he useth both words promiscuously. Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (i) and jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (i) Christ was illuminated; jesus was Baptised and that feast he calleth both. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (i) Illumination, and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (i) The feast of Baptism. Neither was this appellation used, because of lights set up in the church at the time of Baptism, when it was performed in the night as in the Wakes or vigils of Easter, which was the custom in S. Chrysostoms' time. But the Chrys. n. 63. Baptised were called Illuminates who had been Baptised in the day time, and the fonts were called Illuminatories at other times, when no Baptism was administered as S. chrysostom tells. That in an uproar in the Church, such Chrys. Serm post r●ditum. n 40. great store of blood shed was made, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Or Font was filled with blood (for then the Fonts, were little wells, or cistems, whose tops were no higher than the Church— pav●ment.) To this I add that the ordinary gloss upon those words saith. Ne quis existimet Lyra. in loc. secundum, vel tertium Baptisma, post peccata posse fieri. (i) the Apostle used those words lest any Man should imagine, that a second or third Baptism might be used to release us of sins, so doth Dionysius Cart: expound them of Baptismal grace, and our vulgar Concordance in the title of Illuminati, adds Per Baptismum. Why Baptism is called Illumination, the words following declare, viz. because with the Outward Sacrament of water, the inward grace of the Spirit is as by a conduit conveyed, whereby Original, and actual sins passed, are remitted and the strength of sin is abated by the same Spirit of regeneration, and a new life kindled, and the peaceable, and sweet tranquillity of Christ's Kingdom by the comfortable promises of the Gospel, is tasted, which is an heaven upon earth, for Grace is the Inchoation of glory. All these things are expressed by these words following. Tasted the heavenly gift— made partakers of the holy— Ghost— tasted of the good word of God— and the powers of the world to come. For a man that is endued with the regenerating and illuminating Spirit of God may very well be said to be enlightened when as our mere natural soul and understanding is called a light; of which, and the common and ordinary concurrence of God's Spirit it is said Joh. 1. 9 It Inlightneth every Man that comes into the world. Clemens Alex. and Naz. Observe that the very Clem. Alex. Paed. l▪ 1. Naz. Orat. 40. heathens called a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i) light, only because he was endued with the light of a reasonable soul, much more may those be said to be Enlightened, who are endued with the Spirit of Illumination from God. Ephe. 5. 8. Ye were darkness but now are light in the, Lord and. 1 Joh. 1. 5. God is light, for the baptismal regenerating Spirit, is the Spirit of God. Eusebius noteth, in the life of Constantine the Great. Post baptismum sibi visus est luce Euseb. de vita Con. l. 4. n. 45. plenus, & quasi numine siderari. (i) Assoon as he was Baptised, he seemed to himself to be full of light, as if he had been assisted by some heavenly power, & people had such a conceit of Baptismal illumination, that Nazianzen reporteth of his reverend Father, that as he Naz. Orat. 19 came out of the Baptismal font, to them a visible light seemed to shine round about him. But I proceed. CHAP. V That the word renewing, doth in this place signify baptism, those that fall after baptism, have yet left to them a second remedy, and that is repentance. WE have seen that those that fall into sin after baptism, must not expect a release, or remedy for their sins by any second, or new baptism the words which follow (as some do dangerously understand them) at the first view, seem to exclude such sinners, from the second remedy of repentance; which is surely an erroneous conceit as will appear presently. If they fall away (it is impossible) to Renew them again unto repentance] the plain meaning of these words is; That those which fall into their old unregenerate, and carnal course of living, after they have once been renewed by baptism, must not expect to be restored to their regenerate, and former integrity, & innocency and cleanness, and freedom from the guilt of their sins, by another new baptism, for a second baptism cannot acquit them of their sins, so as their first baptism did repentance, (which signifieth amendment of life,) is not obtained by a second▪ renovation by baptism, for that cannot ●enue them so as to make them appear clean▪ and pu●ged from their sins in the sight of God, water once washed in, is accounted foul afterwards: the Philosopher could say of a fowl Bath, Qui hic lavant, ubi lavantur? St. Ambrose said of pilate's washing, in vita Diog. apud Laert. Ambr. non diluit, sed in quinavit, in psa. 61 they that wash in foul water, had need to wash again, a second baptism is so foul, that it addeth a new pollution, as will appear hereafter. Indeed, God by one baptism, wherewith his Regenerating Spirit doth concur, doth renew men unto repentance, or amendment and newness of life; but if afterwards we fall away, by polluting ourselves with new sins, let us not so flatter ourselves as to imagine that we can be restored, and renewed by a second baptismal renovation, for no such renewing is to be expected. There are two remedies prescribed by God, for assoilment from our sins; the first is Baptism, Act. 22 16 Arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins. The second remedy is Repentance, Act. 3. 19 Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blo●ted out. To renew them to repentance] If the Apostle meant, that it were impossible for those that fall after baptism to repent, it may be wondered why he did not say, It is impossible to repent and why he should use two words, Renew, & Repentance, for repentance itself is a renewing. Renewing is a general word, & may be distributed into two sorts. First, there is a renewing Sacramental, and baptismal, when a man is baptised, or illuminated, and thereby initiated to a new state and way of living according to new rules of life. Secondly, there is a renewing Moral, when a man once illuminated or baptised, having fall'n into grievous sins, yet by grace given, changeth his wicked course of sinning to a careful and conscionable new way of living according to direction of the Gospel. Hence I collect, that the meaning of these words is; That he that hath once been renewed by baptismal illumination, to repentance or amendment of life, if such a man fall, he cannot the second time be renewed by a second baptismal renewing, a second baptism will not acquit him of his sins; but yet he is not excluded from a moral renewing, by leaving his sinning, which is called repentance: briefly though he may be renewed, yet it may not be by a new baptism, & though he may repent, yet his repentance is not to be wrought by a second baptism. For the right understanding of this exposition I here lay down to the Readers view these few plain propositions. First, a man that after baptism falls into sin though ever so great, yet by the Grace of God, may repent and be recovered. Secondly, a man baptised, that is fall'n in his old carnal living may be renewed, and possibly may become a new man and a new creature; for a sinner after baptism may he renewed, because he may repent. Thirdly, the reader may take notice, that in this place the words Illuminated, and Renew are of the same signification. So that the meaning is that, he that is once by baptism illuminated, cannot again by baptism be illuminated, and he that is once by baptism Renewed, cannot again by baptism be renewed to repentance. Fourthly, a man may once be enlightened and baptised, and thereby renewed to amendment of life, and repentance, and freedom or acquitment from his sins past, and this by the Spirit of God in the laver of regeneration, and by the virtue of Christ's death▪ But after this one renewing by baptism, he cannot again be renewed to resipiscence, newness of life, and acquitment from his sin by a new baptism. To renew them] All though a sinner cannot be renewed more than once by the Sacramental renovation of baptism, yet there is another way left open for renewing, and that is penitential renovation, and acquiring new Spiritual Graces, and this way is, and aught to be frequently iterated, as it is said, 2. Cor. 4. 16. The inward man is renewed day by day, and to this we are exhorted, Ephe. 4. 23. Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, that is, by excluding our sins, and by acquiring new and higher graces. So that when our Apostle saith: It is impossible to renew them] he cannot possibly mean, that renewing is absolutely impossible, but only that renewing by a new or second baptism is indeed impossible. When St. Peter desired, John 13. 9 That not only his feet, but his head also might be washed, he had this answer: He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his Aug. de fide ad Pet. Diac. c. 36. n. 74. feet; which place is by Saint Austin urged again rebaptisation: Baptisma semel dandum est, non iterandum, Baptism must be given but once and cannot be repeated. Indeed daily sinning, hath need of daily purging by humiliation, confession, repentance, prayer and continual labour in quitting ourselves from the overruling of sin; there is that corruption in us that requireth daily spiritual physic to expel it, or rather a daily dying unto sin, more and more, as we are exhorted, Eph. 4. 22. and Colos. 3. 5. To put off the old man, and to mortify our earthly members. but yet not by a new baptism, for there is but one baptism, and that cannot be iterated. Because it is said that this one and only baptism is Prosp. Resp. ad Capit. Gallo. n. 28 & 26. cap. 2. for the taking away of sin, and that not only actual sin but Original also; It would be inquired whether we may truly affirm that a man that hath been baptised, with all the efficacies of true Christian Baptism, is void of original sin? Prospe● saith, very home, Baptismo delentu peccata originalia in ●is, qui non sunt pred●stinati ad vitam, (i) That by baptism the sins even of such who are not predestinated to life are blotted out, and yet we find St. Paul complaining, Rom. 7. 23. I see— a Law in my members warring against the law of my mind— Captivating me to the law of sin, which surely he meant of original Corruption. To this the answer is, that by baptism and baptismal grace all sins past, whether original or actual are remitted so (as our Divines say,) Quoad reatum, se● imput●tionem, (i) we shall not be charged with them in judgement, they shall not be imputed to us; they are forgiven, but yet they still ramain in us they are not extinguished, or extirpated, our nature still remaineth corrupt, and the sour leaven of sin yet worketh, the Serpent continueth in our bosom, though the sting be taken out, so that it shall not sting us to death: and this truth do●h evidently appear by the effects of our original corruption producing daily actual sins both in Parents and their children, as the same father observeth; Circumcisus gignit Prosp. Sentent▪ 298. n. 37. pr●putium— sic baptizatus trajicit peccatum originale in prolem, (i) as he that was circumcised begat an uncircumeised son; so he that is baptised propagateth original sin to his child, which could not be if original sin did not still remain in the baptised, but I return to my purpose. I am next to show that the ancient Expositors delivered the same exposition which I have done. St. Ambrose upon those words, To ●enue to repentance] saith, Quid ergo exclusa est paenitentia? absit; sed renovatio per Ambr. in loc. sacri baptismatis lavacrum, secunda vice fieri non potest; (i) shall we say that the Apostle here quite excludeth repentance? No but he only denieth it to be possible by a second baptism. So doth Theodoret expound the same words; Apostolus non probibet me●icamentum paenitentiae, Theod. in. loc. sed Divini baptismi definitionem doce●: (i) the Apostle doth not deny the second remedy of repentance only he showeth, that we are confined and limited to one only baptism; and Theophilact upon the same place saith, Non si segniter vivamus, aut ex fide excidamus, Theoph. in loc. rebaptizari nobis dabi●ur— non o●or●et iterare baptismum, sed in priore persever are, (i) If after baptism we live carelessly, or fall from the faith, no second baptism can be given, but we must hold us to our first and Anselm. in. loc. to one baptism. St. Ansel● upon this very place reads the words verse 2. not as we now do conjunctively, Doctrine of baptisms, but severally, of baptisms, of doctrines, (which Erasmus approveth of) and he thus expounds it, N●c rursum jacentes sundamentum baptismatum] ut quaeratis it●rum baptismali undâ lavari, (i) not laying again the foundation of baptisms, so as to desire a second baptism. Lastly, Epiphanius describing the Novatian heresy, who urged this place against receiving those into the Church upon repentance, who had fallen after baptism, tells us that the meaning of the words, impossible to be renewed to repentance] is Nemo 1. Epiph. haer. 59 potest secundum lavacrum accipere, (i) No man may be twice baptised, which he illustrateth by this example. As she that hath once parted with here Virginity, can never corporally recover it again; but yet she may attain unto the grace of continency, so they that fall after baptism, can never be again baptised, but yet they are not excluded from a second grace, even the medicine of repentance, and this exposition is also asserted by Eusibius Emiss. occasionally touching this Scripture, Post baptismum sola paenitentia sanat non iterum per baptisma Euseb, n. 24. sanari possunt, (i) after baptism there is no salve for sin, but only repentance, for men can not be healed by any new Baptism: now I proceed to the next words whereby a reason is given why second, Baptisms cannot be admitted. CHAP. VI How a Second Baptism is said to be a new crucifying of Christ, that it is ignominious to the all sufficient sacrifice of Christ, and that it not only doth no good to a sinner, but much harm by aggravating his sins, as rain maketh weeds to increase. SEeing they crucify to themselves, tee Son of God afresh] 1. Reason They that will be a second time Baptised in expectation of remissions of sins committed after their former Baptism, do in a manner crucify Christ a second time, not as if Christ could be actually, and really re— Crucified, but yet such re— Baptised ones, do it to themselves, (that is) by their mean and base estimation of that one all-sufficient, and only sacrifice for sin. For as Christ died but once for sin, because his once 〈◊〉 dying is a plentiful and sufficient expiation for all our sins through our whole life, and aught to be accounted a continual sacrifice; and because we are but once to be admitted to the benefit of his one death by one only Baptism answering to his once dying, of which it is said. Rom. 6. 3. So many of us as were Baptised Pareus in loc. into Christ, were Baptised into his death. That is, admitted to the benefit of his death as is confessed by P●r●s, Therefore, whosoever shall be a second time baptised, for remission, and expiation of his sins doth thereby show, that in his false apprehension, and misbelief, Christ's once dying, which was once applied to him by one Baptism, is not by him accounted sufficient to satisfy for his former sins committed before Baptism, and his later sins, after Baptism; and therefore he will be again Baptised, and thereby a second time admitted to the benefit of Christ's death, and thereby applying a second crucifying of Christ to himself, as if that one former application, were nullified, or insufficient, for as there is but one death of Christ, so there is but one Baptism, by which that one death is applied to a Man; S. Basil saith. Baptismus est similitudo Basil. de Bapt. lib. 1. n. 18. Crucis, mortis, sepulturae, r●surrectionis. (i) Baptism is the similitude, or representarion of the Cross, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. He that will have two Baptisms doth imply a similitude of two deaths. Christ died but once▪ and we in our Baptism died with him. Christ dieth no more, nor we by Baptism can die any more with him, Theophilact so expoundeth Theoph. in loc. these words. He that will be twide Baptised doth thereby make a representation of two Deaths, and two Crucifying 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 Satisfactory to the Justice of God for all our sins both before, and after Baptism: Therefore 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 Baptisms; for as his once dying is a sufficient redemption, so one application of it to ourselves by one Baptism, is a sufficient application. If therefore by sin we fall away from the benefit of Christ's death by suffering sin to live and reign in us, having once died unto sin Sacramentally by Baptism, we must return to the benefit thereof, by repentance, and mortification of sin, and not by a new, or second Baptism. For the earth, which drinketh in the rain etc. vers. 7. 8. Here is a second reason alleged against re— Baptization, 2. Reason taken from the similitude of the earth with Man, for the earth which hath been watered by rain from Heaven, and dressed by the husbandman, if it bring forth good fruit answerable to its watering and dressing, it is a sign that the blessing from God still continueth on it. Even that blessing wherewith it was at the Creation blessed, when it was said Gen. 1. 11. Let the earth bring forth grass, and the fruit tree; But if after this watering and dressing, it beareth only weeds, thorns, and briers, than 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 means to kill them, or to extripate them. So that Christian, whose soul hath been watered with Baptismal Grace, and dressed with holy doctrines of repentance, and faith toward God, and hath been instructed in the certainty of the resurrection, and of Judgement eternal: and yet for all▪ this, bringeth no fruits of Righteousness and Holiness, but contratily aboundeth luxuriantly in all manner of carnal v●ces, let him not think that these weeds, and thorns of his soul can be mortified or killed by a second baptismal watering. Which (if it should be applied) would rather accumulate, higher and increase his sins, then diminish them, even as rain doth weeds▪ because such a second Baptism, will be accounted ●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, B●ing●th forth thorns and thistles. G●n. 3. 18. So that baptised Ambro. in loc. One, who bringeth forth no better fruit is nigh unto cursing and like unto Thorns his end is, to be burnt. He saith but nigh unto Cursing, not yet altogether accursed, 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 fin●m permanent in peccatis suis. In this exposition of this Scripture all this while the reader doth not find any imposibility of repencance, of renewing, or of remission and pardon of the grand blasphemy; the impossibility here mentioned ●s only an impossibility of renovation and repentance 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 men's minds. 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 Mosaical Scriptures, and Aug. confess. lib. 12. c. 31. 32. their Expositors, may serve for all other Scriptures: Cum alius dix●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, agreeable 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 suitable to the various senses of men, although some see more in them, than others have discerned, my humble prayer shall be with him, Domine nec fallar in Scriptures; nec fallam ex eyes, (i) Aug. confess. 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 concerning the former Exposition; what moved the Apostle to handle the Doctrine of Baptism, and so strictly to forbid Anabaptism in this Epistle to the Hebrews. THe sum of the former Exposition is; That if a man fall from baptismal Grace, he must nor expect a restoring thereunto by a Second baptism, this place being the chief in Scripture, by which Anabaptism, or Rebaptization is expressly inhibited, though something obscurely. It would now be inquired whether this Word Enlightened in this place may not signify those that are instructed, or chatechised only, and not those that are baptised; and this, because some think that instruction in the Christian doctrine, is here principally meant, for that the custom of the Church was, that in Adulto baptism, (which was the baptising of people when they were in years 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 Illum●nati, (i) the Enlightened, before they were actually baptised, 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 baptised; as Eus●bius Naz. orat. 19 & 20. Soz. l. 7. c 8. Ruffin hist. l 2. c. 11. Soz lib. l●b. 6. c. 〈◊〉 Bishop of Caesaria in Ca●padocia, who was the Predecessor of St. Basil, and after him Nectarous was chosen Bishop of Constantinople by Theo●osius the Emperor, immediately after the resignation of Nazianzen, and then Nectarius was not baptised. So was St. Ambrose before he was baptised chosen, and compelled to be the Bishop of Milan; surely St. Ambrose, and the other also were perfectly instructed in Christianity and known to be learned before they were chosen to those high places, especially, in such a learned age of the Church; wherein they li●ed▪ and yet St. Ambrose after he was so chosen, is styled but Catecumenus, and was never called Illumina●us, until he was baptised And yet we find that those who were baptised in their infancy, were then called Illuminat●, before they were Catechised. For St. Cyrils' Catechisms are therefore called, Catech●sis Illuminator●m, because they were employed for the instruction of such as had been baptised in their minority and were therefore called both catecumeni (because they were yet under the Catechiser) and also illuminati, because they had been baptised. So that it is apparent that some were called Illuminates, who were not sufficiently instructed, and some were called Catecumeni, who never had been baptised, and therefore were not called Illuminatis. St. Cyril saith, Antebaptismum Catecmenus eras, nunc fidelis vocaris; Cyril Hiero. n. 4. (i) before baptism, they were called Catecumen, but after baptism (if they were once admitted to the Eucharist) they were styled, Fideles (i) the faithful; but in case they had been baptised, and not yet admitted to the Lords Supper, than their appellation was, Neophyti, (i) New plants: yet both the Fideles, and the Neophyti Paulin in vita Amb●. n. 1. were called Ill●minati, St. Ambrose would fain have declined the office of a Bishop after he was chosen and alleged for himself, that the Scripture forbade that such a man as he was, should be a Bishop, for he was not so high as a Novice or Neophyte, 1. Tim. 3. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for (said he) if a Neophyte (who hath been baptised) may not be a Bishop, much less may I who am inferior to a Neophyte, but in the rank or form, of the Catecumen●▪ not baptised, and therefore inferior to all that are baptised. In a word the appellation of Illuminates was not given them because of their light of knowledge, but only because they had received the light of Grace baptismal. In the next place I am to show some reasons why our Apostle doth thus forbid second Baptisms, and what occasioned him to handle this doctrine in this Epistle which is scarce found evidently any where else in Scripture especially to be so offensive and sinful as is here set ●orth▪ to this query my answer is, that the Apostle had great and weighty reasons so to do, partly because of the Hebrews or Jews unto whom he wrote, and partly because of the Gentiles, unto whom this doctrine would be needful, as well as to the Hebrews, as will appear anon. First, For the Hebrews, and particularly the Sect of the Pharisees in which St. Paul had himself been brought up, and accurately instructed. The Heb●ewes in their legal religion used divers and frequent washings, and Baptisms, whereby they thought themselves to be acquitted of any former pollution; and indeed God had commanded some washings, whereby, as by a type and figure of outward washing, he signified what pureness of life he required of his servants, Exod. 19 10. Sanctify the people, and let them wash their clothes, and of sanctifying the Priests he saith, Exod. 29. 4, Thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the Tabernacle, and shalt wash them with water, and Exod. 30. 15. Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands, and their f●et, at the brazen laver when they go to Minister— that they die not, which washing was actually performed, Exo●us 40. 31. To these Scriptural washings the Scribes and Pharisees added more traditional washings as we find in the New Testament, thereby imaging that any pollutions attracted by touching any unclean thing, were done away Matth. 15. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees said, why do thy Disciples transgress the tradition of the Elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat. And those traditional washings are called Baptisms, Mar. 7. 3. The Pharisees, and all the Jews when they come from the Mar●●t, except they wash their hands oft, they eat no●. So they washed cups, pots, brazen vessels, the original word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i) unless they Baptise— and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vers. 4. 1. (i) baptisms of vessels, and so again, Luk. 11. 38. the Pharisee marvelled rhat Christ washed not (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) suitable hereunto St. Ambrose speaketh, Judaei baptizant Cali●es (i) the Jews baptise cups. Besides Amb. de Initiandis cap. 4. n, 30. Epiph. hae. ●7. there was a special sect of Jews before the birth of Christ mentioned by Epiphanius, and called Hemerobaptistae— qui quotidie etiàm hieme in aqua mergerentur cred●ntes se sic ab omni culp● ablui (i) the Hem●rohaptists were every day dipped in water, even in winter also, believing that thereby th●y were purged from their sins. Now these traditional practices and erroneous opinions of the Jews, occasioned the Apostle to write this passage, especially in this Epistle directed to the converted Hebrews. This reason is rendered by Theodoret upon that place Theod. in loc. Docet judaeos qui crederent, ne existimarent sanctissimum baptismum ●sse similem baptismis judaicis, illi enim non solvebant peccatum, sed corporis sordes purgabant, hinc frequentèr adhibebantur, Baptismus autem noster, unus est. (i) he teacheth the believing Jews, that they should not think our most holy Baptism to be like to the Jewish-baptismes, for by their sins were not remitted, but only the body was cleansed— therefore their Baptisms were often reiterated, but our Christian baptism is but one, the like reason is given by Theophylact (i) fortasse Theoph. in loc. ills Hebraei ut qui legi affixi erant, multos baptismos judai●● more etiam in Gratia predicabant (i) perhaps those converted Hebrews held this dangerous opinion that although they fell into foul sins after Baptism, yet that a new Baptism would acquit them from all their pollutions as they were once made believe the Jewish Baptisms did. Therefore the Apostle giveth the Hebrews this seasonable and profitable monition, to prevent their unreasonable presumption of sinning, upon a false conceit that their new sins might be remitted by a new baptism, and this conceit was also amongst Christians who were Gentiles, as is next to be showed. Secondly, this doctrine against Rebaptisation was useful to succeeding ages of Christians among the Gentiles, by reason of abuses, which probably would arise amongst them, & as may reasonably be thought) were foreseen by the Apostolical Spirit. For who is now ignorant of the great troubles and controversies that have been in the Church about Clino-baptisme, adulto-baptisme— Rebaptisation of Heretics and Schismatics— paedobaptism— and (to this day) about Anabaptism. Such doubts in a matter of so great weight are worthy of an apostolical determination, which is here set down with great gravity and severity, when we are told that such as will be rebaptized, do to themselves re-crucify Christ. Rebaptization is not so light a matter as some take it to be, Sr. Austin said upon great Aug. epist. 163. &. utrum rebaptizari an non baptizari perniciosius sit difficile est judicare Aug. cont▪ donatist. l. 2 n. 37 vide Epiph. n. 29. 1 Maccab. 1. 15 1 Cor. 7. 18. vide Joseph. Antony's l. 12. c d▪ & Martial. l. 7. 29. Aug. Epist. 203. deliberation. Rebaptizator peior ●sse potest quam intersector, (i) he that rebaptizeth may be far worse than he that murthereth. God so ordered the Sacrament of Circumcision, that it could not twice be administered to the same person; the two differing sects in Palestine, I mean the Jews and the Samaritans, could nor recircumcise one another neither was it ever attempted that I find upon the apostate and impure recu●i●e● among them but only on Symmachus as Epiphamus saith, Christian Baptism is the Circumcision of the heart, therefore he that will be twice baptised, must first get two hearts, as St. Austin saith, Wherefore I think it will not be overmuch impertinent to this business in hand of expounding that place, Heb. 6. 4. to discourse a little the question of Anabaptism, or Rebaptisation, upon what reasons and grounds it was practised by old Heretics and by that worthy man St. Cyprian, and in some cases by the Church Catholic, but most especially because our Apostle even St. Paul himself is alleged by some as a countenancer and practiser thereof, by that story related, Act. 19 CHAP. VIII. The distinction of Baptisms into true and false, the forms of pseudobaptismes among Heretics, after their dippings a true baptism may be administered, yet is not to be accounted Anabaptism. the Novatian baptism was a true baptism. St. Cyprian in part is excused. BEcause this impossibility of renewing appeareth to b● m●ant only of renewing by a new baptism, and that a new baptism, is not only useless, but sinful also; I am now to discourse the reasons that have moved old and new Anabaptists, to attempt second baptisms. Epiph. hae. 76. The word Baptism is Vox dualis, an aequivocal word of a double signification. First, it is taken improperly, and abusively, when 1. that is called baptism which indeed is not so, but only hath some outward similitude thereof, yet wanteth the Essentials of true baptism. Secondly it is taken properly, for that baptism which 2. was prescribed by God: (for Sacramenta sunt de ●aelo, God must be the author of Sacraments properly so called) and administered so, with the essential part thereof, as by the author of it is prescribed. For the first kind I have showed, that the traditional washings of the Jews are called baptisms, but improperly▪ and so the very Heathens had their baptisms, for they imitated the Christians in initiating their Novices by washing as Tertullian oft observeth; Ecclesia Tert. de prescript. and Advers. Quintil. n. 30. and 10. diaboli●mitatur illam Christi in lavacro, etc. and again, Ethntci per aquas imitantur sacris— Ecclesia diaboli b●ptismum ex●r●et in suis: (i) The worshippers of the devil imitate the Church of Christ in their laver: for heathens are initiated in their rites by a baptism, and Just. apol. 2. n. 13. the same relation was before delivered by Justin Martyr. Now such false and nominal Baptisms as these, do not at all bar either jewish, or heathenish converts from a true Christian baptism. Besides these, there were other false and aequivocal baptisms, or Pseudobaptismes among Heretics, who professed Christianity, which they called Baptisms, although in truth they were not so, because they wanted the very essentials of true Christian baptism, of which we have very frequent mention in the Church-writers, as namely of the Valentinians, who thus baptised, In nomine ignoti pa●ris, in ve ita●e Matris, and in nomine Iren. lib. 1. c. 18. n. 107. jesu; as Irenaeus saith, (i) in the name of the unknown Father, in the truth of the Mother, and in the name of Jesus. So the baptism ministered by the Marcionites, was vain and null, for this reason as St. Basil thought because they thought God was the Author of evil, and Basil. Epist. 2. ad Amphi. n. 35. therefore they would not baptise in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and for this reason the baptism of the Pepuzian Montanists, was by the same father adjudged void, because they Bafil. Epist. 1. ad Amphican. 1. n. 34. baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of Montanus P●is●illa. So also, the baptisms administered by Eunomius the heretic, were by the Church adjudged void and null, because he baptised, in nomen Epiph haer. 76. Dei incarnati Filii Creati, & Spiritus Sanotificativi, (i) in the name of God uncreated, of the Son created, and the sanctifying Spirit. Such false baptisms as these cannot disable any who have been dipped in this form, from receiving the true baptism of the Church, upon their conversion, and desire of the same; If our Commenter should dip one in the words of the same faith, which himself hath professed in his book, viz. In the name of the Supreme God & his deified Son not Supreme God: being in this profession a manifest Antitrinitarian, who can doubt, but that such a dipping will not be a baptism, but the party is (for all this unbaptised, and by reason of the same Doctrine which our Commenter hath commented, the baptisines by Photinus the heretic were adjudged void, because he Baptised Sozo. l. 4. c. 5. not into the Eternal Son of God, for he thought h●m to have had his beginning from Marry his Mother▪ Upon these reason's Origen expressly saith. Baptismus fit Otig. in Eze. hom. 7. in nomine Patris, Fi●●i, & Spiritus Sancti— si quis pauca commutans, unxerit quemquam, is Oleum dei ponit ante ido●um. (i) Baptism is to be in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, If any shall but a little alter this form, and so Baptise, he doth thereby lay down the Baptismal Oil of God before an idol. Quod vult Deus in S. Austin, proposeth a very pertinent Aug. to. 6 de haeres. Epist. 1. n. 3. question to this matter now in hand, in these words. Post quas haereses ec●l●sia Baptizet & non rebaptizet? (i) He would know after what heretical Baptism, the Church might Baptise such as had been dipped before, and yet that the Church shall not be charged with rebaptising. To which question, S. Austin, in Aug de eccles. dog. c. 52. n. 73. another book, returned this good answer. Those that have been Baptised by heretics without invocation of the ho●ie Trini●ie, and returning to the Church, do receive baptism in the name of the Trinity, such we pronounce Baptised, but not rebaptised; for we may not account such to be baptised, who were not dipped in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy ghost; and such were those, who were dipped, by the Photinians▪ Montanists, Manichees, and by Ma●cion, Cerdon, thus he. And in this, S. Cyprian may so far, be justly excused, in requiring that those who had been so dipped by those heretics should be again re— dipped by the Church in lawful baptism for (saith he. Haeretici illi non possunt Cyp. de haer. Bapt. n. 85. baptizare, qui negant dieta●em Pa●ris, aut Filii, aut Spiritus— nam Marcion non poterat qui negabat Trinitatem. (i) Those heretics can not minister true baptism, who therein, deny the Godhead of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy ghost, for therefore Martions was no baptism because he denied the Trinity. And therefore such pseudobaptismes as were Ministered by such heretics, so, as is showed before, Cyprian will not call Baptisms. Non est Baptismus, sed tinctio. (i) It must not be called a baptism but a dipping. And of those whom the Church baptised after they had been formerly dipped by those heretics, he saith. N●n est r●— Baptiza●io Cyp. ibid. ad Quint. n. 86. ●ae●eticorum, sed haptizatio. (i) We can not say, such heretics are rebaptised; but that they are baptised. If Cyprian had held himself to this Doctrine, and gone no further in his zeal, against the heretics, and schismatics of his time, he had escaped much blame, where with succeeding ages have charged him, and not without Cause as will appear anon. Upon Cyp●ians grounds, of Baptising A●ti●rinitarians, who had been so foully dipped before the Canons of the first Nicene Council, (as they are recorded by Ruffinus) direct; that when any heretic of the sect of Paulus Samosat●nus, would forsake that heresy, and join with the true Church, that such an one, should not be entertained, before he were new— baptised, this is in the 21 Canon of Ruffi●us. But before, in the ninth Ruff. n. 16. Canon it is ordered, that if any Catharist, or Novatian, leave that sect, to join with the Church, he should be received, and for such there is no mention or direction of a new baptism, because the baptism of the Novatians was a true baptism, but the Samosatenian dipping was but a Pseudobaptisme, because Samosatenus denied the Godhead of Christ as is before declared. Also, before the Nicene Council, and Cyprians time, amongst the Canons of the Apostles, recorded by Clemens, one is, Ordinati, vel Paptizati ab hae●eticis, reordinandi, and r●baptizandi sunt● (i) Those that have been ordained, and baptised by heretics, must be re— ordained, and re— baptised this was not intended, to countenance a Second Baptism, but because the tinctions, or dippings of those who would not confess the Trinity were not to be esteemed Baptisms. And therefore Athanasius also (after the Nicene Council had condemned the Arrian heresy, for denying the Eternal Godhead of the Son) saith plainly. Ar●iani verum Baptismum Athan. count. Arrian. serm. 3. n. 6. amittunt qui● verum filium negant. (i) The Arrians in denying the Son of God do thereby cease to administer true Baptism; for we find, that after that Council the Arrians (denying the Trinity) would neither use the same form of Doxology which the Church Catholic used, nor the same form of invocation of the Trinity in Baptism, but glorified, and baptised thus. Gloria Patri, cum filio, in Spiritu, and In nomine Patris, Basil. de Spirit c. 25. n. 27. per filium, in Spiritu. Because they would not acknowledge the Son, and the Spirit, to be equal to the Father. CHAP. IX. That the disciples of Ephesus. Act. 19 who had been Baptised by John's disciples before, were rebaptized, because John's Baptism was then out of date, and null. THe principal precedent of a Second, and a true Baptism, after an imaginary, and pseudobaptisme is clearly set fo●th by that passage of the great Apostle, and recorded Act. 19 of the Ephesian disciples▪ who had been baptised unto John's Baptism; but because that baptism was out of date, at the time when they were first dipped, therefore when they heard S. Paul's words they were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus For although john Baptisi's baptism, was a true Baptism, whilst the time of his Baptismal office lasted, in so much that our saviour, never (that we find) caused any to be re— baptised, who had been baptised by john; yet we know that John's Baptism was to have a period, and not to last always. But how long it was to last, and to be in force is the chief question material for the exposition of this passage. To this question I will set down the answer given Optat. lib. 5. by. Optatus, That john's baptism being to repentance, and belief in him that was to come, even Christ, to be manifested, especially to his death, and resurrection, this baptism, must last till then, and further also, until Christ had ordained a new form, and law of baptism to be perpetual in his Church. So that until Christ, after his resurrection had given a new rule, and precept of baptism, the old baptism of john was accepted; but after Christ had once said Go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son etc. I say after this, John's baptism was expired, nor could he, or his Disciples baptise any longer in that form of believing in him that was to come, because now he was come, and manifested, and gone out of the world Christ's new law, and precept of baptism▪ was the bounds, and limits of Io●n's baptism, from that time all baptisms must be In the name of the Father, and of the Son. & c? Now these Disciples of Ephesus, were indeed Baptised with John's Baptism; but they were so baptised, when it was to late, and when that form of baptism was quite expired, and out of date; for their baptism was after Christ had settled the new law of baptism In the name of the Father. & c? Without the observation whereof, a thousand dippings, or duckings, will not make one baptism; so that those Ephesians can not be properly said to have been baptised, because the very essence of that Sacrament was wanting: Optatus speaketh Opt. lib. 5. home to this purpose. Hiqui apud Ephesum post leg●m, johannis Baptisma●e baptiza●i leguntur— in Sacramento erraverunt, quia jamintroductum fuerat baptisma Domini, & exclusum fuerat se●vi (i) Those Ephesians who are said to have been baptised with John's baptism, greatly erred in that Sacrament, because then, the Baptism of the Lord Christ was brought in, & the baptism of his servant john was shut out. Briefly that baptism which before Christ's new precept was good; and useful; after the precept, became useless, and void. So saith the same Father of the same question. Post hodiernum non licebat, quod heri licuit (i) after Opt. ibid. that day it became unlawful, which the day before was lawful. But how shall it appear, that these Eph●sians were not baptised either by S. john himself, or else by his johannists, till after the death of Christ, and after he had prescribed this new form of baptism. I answer, thus; probably, first they confess they were baptised to John's Baptism, they say not by john. Secondly. john never was at Ephesus for aught can appear. Thirdly john had been dead at least 14 years, before this time and passage, (some say 19 years.) It was 12 years after Christ's resurrection and ascension, before S. Paul took that journey to Ephesus. Fourthly before Christ's resurrection & his Commission given to teach, and baptise all nations, the Gospel might not be taught and preached to the Gentiles, as Mat. 10. 5. these Eph●sians were, for the Apostles were forbidden to go to the Gentiles, or even to the Samaritans, who dwelled in that land, and were partly of the Jewish religion, and the seventy went not out of the land, as appeareth. Luc. 10. 1. No more than Christ did, therefore in all likelihood these Eph●si●ns were neither taught nor baptised, till after the new law of baptism. Fiftly had they been jews of Ephesus, and had been timely baptised with in the Holy Land by john's baptism, S. Paul would not have caused them (more than others) to be rebaptised, nor would God so have countenanced rebaptisation, as to give them the Holy ghost at imposition of hands. Now whereas some late Expositors deny that those Ephesian disciples were again baptised by S. Paul's direction, and this they do because they are unwilling to give such a countenance to Anabaptism; the truth is, that they were indeed then baptised, as that narration doth clearly show, and yet, that act doth not at all warrant any re— baptization properly so called. Origen saith. Refertur in acts quod baptizati a ●rig. in Rom. ●●. 5. n. 50. Johanne, rebaptizati sunt in nomine jesu, quia Johannis baptisma, ●rat baptisma, in lege non in Christo. (i) It is related in the Acts, that those were rebaptised, who had formerlic been baptised to john's baptism; because John's baptism (then) was no better than the legal washing, and was not a baptism in Christ. For it could not be accounted an Evangelical baptism because it was not so performed as Christ had prescribed. S. Cyprian clearly affirmeth. Baptizatos a Paulo eos, qui jam baptismo Joannes. Cyp. de haer. Baptiz. prope fin. n. 85. (i) the Ephesians were baptised by Paul, who had been before baptised with John's baptism; and yet that this act doth not warrant two several Baptisms S. Ambrose showeth. Baptizati baptismo Joannis, Act. 19 Amb. de Spirit. l. 1. c. 3. revera baptizati sunt postea— nec itera●um est baptisma— sed non erat ptenum baptisma. (i) Those Ephesians were indeed baptised by Paul, and yet it was not re— baptization▪ because that baptism of john was an imperfect baptism. Finally, the jews in our time may as well justify their Circumcision, which unto this day they use sacramentally, because they believe that the promised seed of circumcised Abraham, is yet to come, yet we know their circumcision is mortiferous and S. Paul hath said. Gal. 5. 2. If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing (that is) if you be therefore circumcised, as believing that Christ is yet to come in the flesh. Even so the baptism of john sacramentally used, was an engagement to believe on Messiah to come, which baptism if it be so used after Christ is come, and gone, how is it any better than the now lewish circumcision? seeing both are upon the same reasons quite expired, and out of date, and are moreover a denying, that jesus is the Christ. All this while, I find no warrant, or lawful precedent of a Second baptism, for when a true baptism succeedeth a pseudobaptisme, it must not be called a re— baphization, but a baptism. Thus much of the lawfulness of a true baptism after a pseudo baptism. CHAP. X. Of true Christian baptism, that it may not be twice ministered. No heretic maintained two baptisms, but only Martion, what Martion, was, and his reasons for multiplying baptism, why the Novatians, Donatists and our new Anabaptists do re— baptise. Cyprian's error; and Athanasius his ludicrous baptism. IN the next place, we are to inquire, whether those who have been truly baptised according to that form, rule▪ law, and precept which our saviour prescribed for baptism, after his resurrection Math. 28. 19 May in any case be rebaptised: for our Christian religion would be a very pleasant easy religion, if those that fall into any grand, and enormous sins▪ after one baptism, may be affoiled, and wholly acquitted, totiès quotièt, as oft as they fall, by new baptisms. But surely, renewing by a new baptism is that renewing, which our Apostle tells us is Impossible. One true Baptism is indeed a renewing to repentance, and so S. Paul called John's baptism Act. 19 4. john verily baptised with the baptism of repentance and so is our Christian baptism, but after this one renewing by baptism to repentance, it is impossible to be renewed by a Second baptism to repentance. Amongst all the old, and new Anabaptists, since the birth of Christ I find none that ●ver asserted, and taught a second baptism to be lawful and useful, after one baptism (which they thought and confessed to be a true and lawful baptism) except only Martion, But lately amongst us, some teach that Baptism may be iterated, as well as the Lords Supper who was a most odious and despicable Heretic; he indeed permitted three several successive Baptisms, and accounted them all lawful, (though in truth not one of them was so) the reason which moved him hereunto is related by Epiphanius; Thus Ma●cion (saith he) was born in Pontus, Epiph. haer. 42. and was the son of an Orthodox Bishop, and lived a c●asle single life a good while; at length he deflowered a Virgin, and was therefore by his own venerable Father ejected out of that Church; then he traveled to Rome, and there petitioned to be vestored to the Church, but could not obtain it; hereupon he began a new Sect, and among other impieties, he ordained that a man might be thrice Baptised if he sell so oft into sin, and this he did, because himself so fell: And because he could not obtain▪ absolution from the Church by penance, therefore he would have it by a new Baptism;— Epiphanius addeth further, that this Nartion permitted women to baptise: (as he had good reason) that so the same persons might release, with whom the sin was committed. A second kind of Rebaptisation, was practised by the Catharists or Novatians, and also after them by the Donatists, both of them African monsters: but theirs was upon this reason. They had separated themselves from the Church Catholic upon pretence, that it was not a true Church; and therefore they thought that true baptism could not their be ministered; whereupon, such Separatists as departed from the Catholics, and joined with those Heretics, were entertained by receiving a new baptism, which yet those Heretics would not confess to be a second baptism, but a baptism, accounting the baptism formerly received in the Church Catholic to be void and null And in this very case it was, that the religious Bishop and holy Martyr Saint Cyprian erred, and his African Council with him. For because the Novatians rebaptised the Catholics, therefore Cyprian caused the Novatians, which forsook the schism, and joined with the Church, to be received by a new baptism, when they had been before baptised by the Novatians, (Excepting only such who had formerly been baptised in the Church Catholic.) For he also thought that the Novatians, being Heretics, and divided from the Church, had not power to confer baptism, and that such baptisms as were by them conferred were but pseudobapbaptismes, and therefore void and null; although they had used the same form of Baptism, which Christ prescribed. And this was much pressed by Cyprian, not only upon the reason before alleged, but also in a prudential consideration, for (saith he) If the Catholic Cyp. de haer. bapt. n. 85 Church should admit of, and acknowledge the baptism administered by Heretics to be a true baptism, than none of those Heretics would be persuaded to return to the Church: But this Allegation hath more of policy then of Christianity. And indeed, it appeared that the Novatians also, did therefore rebaptize the Apostate Catholics, not because they did seriously think their former baptism void, but craftily they so pretended, that thereby they might gain Proselytes, and to magnify their own congregations. For we find that Novatus himself, or Novatianus as Saint Cyprian calls him: Novatianus ipse, Cyp. de haer. bapt. p 323. qui alios transfugas ab Ecclesia rebaptizabat tamen ipse non era● rebaptizatus: (i) Novatian, who rebaptised others, who had revolted from the Church, yet himself (a revolter also) was not rebaptised. Eusebius relateth Eus. hist. l. 6. ●. 33. the Story more largely thus: Novatus in his youth was possessed by an unclean spirit, and so committed to the Exorcists, then falling into a dangerous sickness when he dispaired of recovery, he was baptised in his sick bed, where all the rites of baptism use not to be administered;— yet after his recovery, his baptism was never completed— yet this hypocrite, whose own baptism was hardly perfect, though he forsook the Church, and forced others to be rebaptised, himself never was so rebaptised. Upon the like reasons, the Anabaptists at this day, will not acknowledge themselves to be Anabaptists, or rebaptised, or take upon them professedly to administer a second Baptism. But they say, that Infants are not capable of Baptism, and therefore such as were so sprinkled by the Church, before they had the use of reason, their Baptisms are to be accounted void and null, although those Infants were baptised, In the Name, of the Father, etc. as Christ commanded. So in outward profession, neither the Novations, nor Donatist, nor our Anabaptists do require, or maintain any second Baptism, but they say, their own Baptism is the only Baptism. The Ecclesiastical History reporteth the like case in a differing matter which fell, in a passage of discourse between two Bishops, who were both at the same time Bishops of Constantinople; the one was john chrysostom, who was Bishop of the Catholic Church; the other was Sisinnius, a very learned in ingenicus Bishop of the Novatian Congregations, (For in those days all Catharists, whether Novatians or Donatists liked well of Bishops) these two met, and Chrysostoms' first said, It is against the Canon of the Church, that one City should Ruff. in can 10 l. 1. c 6. Soc. l. 6. c. 20. have two Bishops. Sisinnius answered that it was true, but withal, that he knew but one Bishop in the City of Constantenople. His meaning was, that the Catharists did not acknowledge chrysostom to be a Bishop, nor did the Catholics acknowledge Sisinnius to be one: so in effect neither party could say, there were two Bishops. In like manner, Saint Cyprian, and his party, accounted the Baptisms of Heretics to be void; and the Heretics accounted theirs to be void, so neither party would acknowledge more than one Baptism, and yet both sides erred: for the Baptism administered by the Church was a true Baptism, and so was that which the Novatians ministered, as was confessed by other Churchmen then living; as namely by Corneleus the famous Bishop of Rome, a learned man, and a glorious Martyr, who at that very time signified his dissent Euseb. hist. l. 6. c 36. from Cyprian, in that opinion of rebaptising the Novatians, as Eusebius testifieth. The principal reasons (besides policy) which on both sides were pretended for rebaptisation, were these two. First, they said, that baptism was void and null, which had been administered by a person who was not fitly qualified, or that had no authority to baptise. So Saint Cyprian allegeth in defence of rebaptisation. Nemo rite baptizatur nisi ab ●o qui licentiam baptizand Cyp. lib. 1. ●pist, 6. n. 67. habet: (i) None can be said to be rightly baptised, except they were baptised by one, who had a licence and faculty to Baptise.— And addeth further, that Schismatics who have separated themselves from the communion of the Church, can have no authority to administer that Sacrament which belongeth to the Church to confer, neither may the members of the Church receive baptism from Heretics, with whom it was not lawful, so much as to eat and drink. Thus he on the other side, the Separatists confessed, that baptism might not be renewed, if it had once been administered Been, well, but they would not grant that the Catholics could administer it well. The second Allegation was, that the Baptism which 2. had been administered to a person, who was not qualified so as to be a subject capable of Baptism, was to be accounted void. This is the reason which at this day is urged by our Anabaptists against praedobaptisme, because Infants cannot be taught, therefore they may not be baptised. To these Allegations, the answers in brief are. First, 1. Resp. the unworthiness or unfitness of the Baptizer, cannot nullify the baptism, because (as Optatus answereth Opt. lib. 5. the Donatists, (i,) Caeleste munus credenti non ab homiste, sed à Trinitate consertur; (i.) The Heavenly gift of baptismal grace is not conferred by the person baptising, but by the Trinity, and of the water of Opt. ib. Baptism, he saith, Aqu● vera illa est, quae non de loco non de persona, sed de Trinitate condita est: That is true baptizmall water, which is sanctified by the Trinity, and not by any unworthiness, either of the place, or of the person baptising. And whereas the Donatists confessed, that when baptism was administered well, it could not be itterated, he answereth, that when Christ said, john 13. 19 He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet.] He spoke of Baptism,— of the thing, not of the person, for than he would have said, He that is washed well, etc. But in that he added not the word (Well) it was to signify, Quicquid in Trinitate factum suerit bene est: (i) Opt. ib. That Baptism which is ministered in the Name of the Trinity, is well ministered. Now because Baptizmal grace is conferred only by the Trinity; therefore the Baptism is not nullified by the Baptizers' unworthiness. As when white wool is died into a royal purple, the Opt. ib. colour is not called principally by the touch or handling of the Dier, but by the blood of the fish Purpura & Murex: So neither is it the Officiating of the Minister, but the Operation of the Trinity through the blood of Christ▪ that giveth Baptismal grace, which grace cannot be impaired or nullified by the unworthiness of the Minister. And therefore Saint Cyprian upon better consideration, in one of his Sermons, said, Sieve Judas, sive Paulus baptize●, Chr●stus peccatum tollit: Cyp. serm. de Bapt. Christi, n. 94. (i) Whether Indas, or Paul baptise, it is Christ, who nevertheless taketh away sin. And this was also the judgement of Saint Austin concerning Baptism administered by the Donatists, who were both Separatists, and Heretics▪ Donatistae non rebaptizandi sunt, quia in Aug. Epist. 48. Nomine Christi baptizati sunt— inter Baptismum Apostoli, & Ebriosi, nihil interest, si ut●rque sit Baptismus Christi: (i) The Donatists may not be rebaptised, because they have been already baptised in the Name of Christ; there is no difference (substantial) between that Baptism which is ministered by an holy Apostle, and that which is ministered by a debashed fellow; If the Baptism be in that form which Christ ordained; and what Christ's Baptism is: Optatus tells us, Christ appointed in what the Nations should be Opt. lib. 5. Baptised, viz In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, etc. But he did not limit by whom they should be Baptised; and therefore (saith he) Quisquis in Nomine Patris, Filii. & Spiritus baptizaverit, Apostolorum opus implevit: (i) Whosoever shall Baptise in the Name of the Father, & c. doth perform that Baptism which was given in charge to the Apostles: for when Christ said, goand Baptise all Nations, he did not say, do you Baptise, and none other: Thus he. Now albeit, all men have not a Commission, or calling to Baptise, yet if it be so performed as is said, by persons that are not qualified thereunto, those persons are indeed to be accounted presumptuous intruders; but yet the Baptism, for substance is a true Baptism, and shall stand, neither may it be iterated, although it was ministered with violation of good order. When Athanasius was a Boy▪ playing with his fellow boys; in their game, Athanasius acted a Bishop, and in their sport, he baptised another Boy, but used the manner, and the form of words, which he had seen and heard used in the Church: Hereupon, when the business was brought before the Church Bishop Alexander adjudged, that ludicrous Baptism, to be a true Baptism, and would not suffer the Boy that was so Baptised, to be rebaptised; although at that time (for aught can appear,) Athanasius, who Baptised another, was himself unbaptised: As see in Sozomen, In Soz. l. 2 c. 16. Ruffinus l. 1. c. 14. Socrat. l. 1. ᵃ Ma haeus Epmus. Nor. An. Dom. 1637. this Diocese in a Town called Acle▪ about ten years since, a woman Baptised an infant, in the form prescribed in the Gospel, whereof when notice was given; the than most learned and vigilant ᵃ Bishop, would not appoint the child to be rebaptised, but yet ordered that the woman for presuming to do that office which did not belong to her, should be publicly reproved; so careful were the Ancient and modern Churchmen to avoid Anabaptism. To the second Allegation of uncapableness of Baptism▪ 2. Respons. particularly of infant's, their indocibility cannot be a sufficient reason to nullify their Baptism, or to rebaptize them. For first, we do nothing doubt, but that Infants born 1 of Baptised Parent● are capable of Baptism, as well as the Jewish Infants were of Circumcision, and we think the Evangelicall Proph●t, Esa. 49 22▪ Prophesied of such presenting of Infants to the Church, which are to be brought in their arms, and that infant's are capable of Sanctification, and that as they have formerly, so they may still receive the holy Ghost; as it is said of Jeremy, c 1. v. 5. and of John Baptist, Luke 1. 15. and that such are esteemed by Christ, and called believers, Matth. 18. 6. where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are used. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke 18. 15. Because the Spirit of God, is the seed of Faith, and of all Christian virtues; and therefore it is called the seed, 1 John 3. 9 & 1 Pet. 1. 23. so that Infants having the Spirit, may thereby be said to have Faith;— In radice, semine, potentia, actu primo, & in fundamento; because the Spirit is the root, the Seed the foundation, and first act of Faith: Now as we read Act. 10. 47 Can any man forbidden water that these should not be baptised which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Upon these grounds▪ St. Cyprian with his Council (when the question was by the Epistle of Fidus moved, whether Infants of two or three days old might be Baptised) answered, Quid deest ei, qui in ut●ro, Dei manibus formatus Cypr. lib. 3▪ Epist. 8, n. 71▪ est— unusquisque nostrum in Osculo Infant is, de●et recen●es Dei manus c●gi●are, etc. (i▪) No capacity of Baptism is wanting in the Infant— he was form in the womb by God, when we consider that the youngest Infant is but newly come out of his Creators' hands, why should we doubt to salute him with an holy kiss? And St. Austin saith, A parvulo recens na●o, usque ad decrepi●um Aug. Enchir. cap. 43. n. 58. senem, nullus prohibendus est à Baptismo; (id est) Baptism may not be forbidden to any age, from the newborn Babe, to most extreem old age. But secondly, suppose that Baptism administered to 2. Infant, were not duly and rightly with good order, conferred on that age, the fault must be imputed to the Minister, and not to the Baptism (being performed in the form prescribed by Christ) nor to the Baptised Infant, and the same reasons before alleged against rebaptising of others, will serve as well against rebaptising of these. But so much hath been by Divines unanswerably written and said for paedobaptism, that nothing of moment can be added by me. CHAP. XI. That the ancient Church allowed but one Baptism, is showed by their deferring it till ripe years, and to old age; that their delay was also for carnal respects, the danger of delaylaying it, the Story of a Jew-Anabaptist, and an example upon an Arian pseudobaptisme; the conclusion of this Exposition. IF the Ancients accounted paedobaptism, so good and lawful as is said, it may further be demanded, why they did so frequently and almost generally defer & put off their Baptism, either until ripe years, & even to very old age, or their death bed; and yet we find by many passages in the Church Records, that men exceedingly fear to die unbaptised; and did exceedingly lament for their friends that died without Baptism. Saint Aug. Epist. 180. Austin reporteth, that in any time of danger or persecution, there used to be great confluence of people to the Church requiring Baptism— and this was because they feared to die without it: And the sisters of the Emperor Valeminia● us the younger did greatly mourn not so much for the death of the Emperor, Amb. de obit Valent. n. 46. as for that he died without Baptism as Saint Ambrose declared. That men did so defer their Baptism, it is most evident, and yet not only ordinary, ignorant and common people, but also the most considerable, prudent, honourable and learned men in their days; the godly Emperor Constantine the first, who was the greatest advancer of Christian Religion, being also born of Euseb. de vita Const. l. 1▪ n. 47. Christian Parents, yet he would not be Baptised till his old age, when he was 65 years old and but a little before his death as Socra●es saith so his son Constantius Soc. l 1. c. 26▪ Euseb. in vit. Const. 4. Soz. l. 2. c. 32. the Emperor and Valens, and Theodosius the elder a most Godly Prince, these all deferred baptism until they thought that their death was near; and of the clergy (besides those before mentioned, who were elected Bishops before their baptism) Nazianzen was 30 years; and Austin was 34 years old before they were baptised; to omit, others, Rhenanus observeth Rhen. in Tert. de coron. mil. annot. n. 12. Amb. de paenit. l. 2. c. 11. n. 34. that in the primitive Church. Soli adulti serè baptizati, (i) though some infants were baptised yet mostly they baptised at years of discretion, and S. Ambros affirmed. Si paenitentia non esset, Omnes different ablu●ionis gratiam▪ usque ad senectutem. (i) If it were not for the Second remedy, of Repentance, no Man would be baptised until his old age, and death bed. Which bed-riddenbaptized are therefore called Clinici, and Tertullian understandeth Cyp. lib. 4. Ep. 7. Tert. de Resur. n. 20. that passage 1 Cor. 15▪ 29. of. Vicarium Baptisma (i) That the living were baptised in the stead of others that died unbaptised. If we shall curiously examine, why the ancients deferred baptism so long, it will appear, that their reasons mostly were Carnal and voluptuous, for because they believed, that baptism was the Sacrament of remitting sins past both Original and actual; and also because at the time of baptism, the person to be baptised, made a solemn profession of renouncing the world, the flesh, and the devil, & that they thought themselves much more obliged to a pure, and strict Christian life, after this vow, then before, and because they were very unwilling to part with their worldly pleasures, and lusts; therefore they put off their baptisms, till the time of old age▪ when their lusts should leave them. S. Austin confessed of himself, that when in his youth he Prayed for the grace of Chastity, yet in his heart he did not desire it might be presently given him. Aug. Conf. l. ●. c. 7. Domine da mihi Chastitatem, sed noli modo— timebam ne me ci●ò audiret— malebam expleri, quam extingui concupisc●utiam▪ (i) Lord give me Chastity, but give it not yet, I was afraid God would grant it too soon, for I desired rather to satisfy my lusts, then to have them extinguished. Against such carnal delayers Nazianzen very gravely Naz. Orat. 40. inveigheth. It is absurd (saith he) to defer baptism for such voluptuous causes; It is the Devil that suggesteth thus. Give me thy present time, and youthful days; let God have thy weak old age— Do not therefore accumulate thy sins, that in baptism a greater number may be remitted— On thy death bed, the physician will be busy about thee, the cries of thy wise and children will disturb thee;— the priest labouring to prepare thee for heaven will be quarrelled at, by thy kindred which gape for thy estate— besides, even in thy youth one c●●m of bread, may suddenly end thy life, and if thou shouldest die without the Sacramental mark of the great shepherd; Satan may surprise thy Soul, as thiefs do sheep not marked, this deferring baptism doth moreover give a great evidence, to the world, of thy lusts, and that thou desirest still to continue in them— he added further. If thou hast any infant-childrens, let them be presently dedicated to God by baptism, lest they also be enticed to sin,— Samuel was promised to God, before he was borne, and— Baptismus puero magnum est ●muletum, & incantamentum. (i) Baptism is a preservative, and an holy charm against sin, thus he and much more, and indeed, to defer baptism only to prolong our time of lose— living, what is it, but (against the Apostles direction) therefore to sin that grace may abound. S. Austin reporteth of himself. That in his youth, he Aug. Confess. l. 1. c. 11. fell into a dangerous sickness, and therefore desired baptism, but before it could be administered, he began to recover, so it was deferred, hereupon himself confessed, Laxata sunt loca peccandi. (i) He was let lose to all manner of sin, and when some reproved him, others would answer for him— sine eum facere quodvult, nondum enim Baptiza●us est— tamen non dicitur, sine vulneretur nondum enim sanatus est▪ (i) Let him alone, let him do what he will, for he is not yet Baptised: they might as well have said, let him be wounded, for he is not yet cured. Others would delay baptism, under pretence of fear, lest they should not be able to satisfy and keep the vow, which is there to be made, when as it was in truth therefore, because they were loath to leave their pleasures and lusts; for when some had been persuaded to come to the pabtismal font, who were known to have put away their wives, and taken other women, and so lived in adultery, when they were required to put away those women before they could be baptised; they have chosen, rather to live without baptism, then to put away their concubines and so have returned unbaptised as S. Austin reporteth. Aug. de side, & Op. c. n. 78. Others would say, they deferred baptism until the anniversary baptismal day's Easter, or Pentecost came, and then they would pretend, that they would stay longer, until their kindred came— or that they were not provided of a gift to Offer— or that their white baptismal garment was not made, or that they had not sufficient provision to entertain the baptizers, or that they would stay till the Bishop, or the Metropolitan came, that he might baptise them, these were but excuses, Naz. Orat. 40. the true cause was, as is showed by Naz. They would not forsake their lusts. They feared to engage themselves to live a strict Christian life; which reason, was Tert. deBaptism. c. 18. long before intimated by Tertullian when he said. Qui intelligunt pondus baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem, quam dilation●m. (i) They that understand the weight of baptism, will more fear to take it upon them, then to delay it, for in those days conscionable men upon their baptism, resolved to live a strict, and austere life, being persuaded that sins after baptism, were far more ponderous, and displeasing to God, than sins before baptism, and that baptism was an easier remedy for former sins, than repentance, or penance was for later sins, as Nazianzen also urgeth in his baptismal Naz. Orat. 40. Oration to deter those from sinning, who were then to be baptised. Post baptismum peccare grave est— co●rectio (per penitentiam) est baptismo molestior; quantam vim lacrymarum impendemus, ut cum baptismo exaequari possit. It is a heavy thing to sin after baptism— renewing by repentance is a greater molestation, then by baptism; O what an abundance of tears must fall from us before our repentanced can equalise the water of baptism. Now what necessity was there, that men should so put off, and procrastinate their baptisms until old age, and their death— bed that then they might be acquitted of all their sins, and go out of the world clean and pure; but that the Church did by our Apostles words in this place, and others understand an Impossibility of any new or Second baptism. The Excl●siastical History, in detestation of Re— baptization Socrat. l. 7. c. 17. reporteth a memorable story of a bergerlie vagabond jew, a notorious hypocrite, who went to several congregations, and sects of Christians, counterfitted himself to be converted to Christianity, learned to answer such Catechistical questions as were required of them that petitioned for baptism, and had been baptised in the Church of Catholics, at Constantinople, and had got much money which charitable people had bestowed on him in pity of his poverty, and congratulation at his baptism, after this, he went to another congregation in the same city of the Novatiau sect, and there presented himself with the like hypocrisy as one newly converted, and petitioned the bishop that he might be baptised (concealing his former baptism) Paulus the B●shop commanded, that preparation should be made for baptising this Jew, so the font was filled with water, and a white baptismal garment was bought for him; and when Paulus had proceeded so far in the baptismal office, that he was come to the time of dipping him; looking into the font, he perceived, that there was no water in it, than he commanded the font to be replenished, (supposing that the former water was sunk into the bottom hole for want of care in stopping that sink,) and caused the sink, and all crannies to be carefully stopped, and so proceeded to dipping; but lo! the Second time, the wather was vanished; whereupon Paulus was much amazed, and looking upon the jew with indignation, said. O homo, aut ve●e●ator es, aut baptismum accepisti. Soc. l. 7. c. 17. (i) O man either thou art a counterfeit, or else thou hast been baptised before, hereupon, One of the standers by, wistly viewing the jew, declared that he had indeed been before baptised by Bishop A●ticus, who was the successor of chrysostom, this business happened in the time of Theodosius the younger. Not long after another strange passaage happened, in the same city of Constantinople, which was taken as a Nic. l. 16. c. 35. signification of the nullity of such pseudo— baptism as was ministered by those heretics who denied the Godhead of Christ, For when one Barbas was to be baptised by an Ar●an Bishop named Deuterius, this Arian changed the baptismal words prescribed by Christ, and said Baptiza●ur Barbas in nomen Patris, per filium, in Spi●itu. (i) Barbas Baptised in the name of the Father, By the Son, in the Spirit. At these words, the font-water presently vanished out of sight, and Barbas was amazed, and fled unbaptised. This I trust is sufficient for the clear exposition of that hard place, which principally was intended to assert the unity of Christian baptism, and not the Impossibility of repentance. The sum of what hath been said in this exposition, is comprised in the 4 Conclusion following. First that the Impossibility there mentioned, is not to be understood of an Impossibility of repentance, nor of an Impossibility of renewing, but only of an impossibility of being renewed, by a new, or Second baptism. Secondly. That baptism having been once administered, in that form which is prescribed by Christ; no Second baptism may be ministered to the parties so baptised, upon any pretence either of non age in the baptised, or unworthiness, and unfitness in the baptizer. Thirdly, that such baptisms, or rather dippings, which are ministered by those heretics who deny the Trinity, and therefore do not d●p, in that baptismal form which is prescribed by Christ, are utterly void, and null. Fourthly. That baptism rightly administered to those who have been heretically dipped before, is not to be called a rebaptisation but a baptism. By all that hitherto hath been objected, It cannot appear; That the blasphemy against the Spirit (what soever is meant by that sin) is absolutely unpardonable, but still there is one remedy left, whereby the sinner may find help, and that is repentance. CHAP. XII. An Exposition of Heb. 10. 26. The particular sin against the holy Spirit is showed to be the denying Christ to be God, what is meant by accounting his blood to be Common, or unholy. The unsufficiency of legal Sacrifices: and the sufficience of Christ's sacrifice. THere is another place in this Epistle, much urged by some divines, by which they would infer, that if a man once fall into this sin; there will be no means or hope of pardon left, the words are thus read. Heb. 10. 26. 26. For if we sin wilfully after we have received the Knowledge of the truth; there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sins. 27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgement, and sierie indignation. & c? In this Chapter we have an evident discovery of the grand capital sin which is commonly called. The sin against the holi● Spirit, or Holy Ghost, wherein, the obscurity of it (as it is delivered in three of the Evangelists,) is cleared; and by examination of the Apostles words in this chapter, it will appear, that the sin which in the gospel is called the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is the blasphemous undervaluing of the Person of the Son of God, whose Godhead is there called the Holi● Spirit, or Holy ghost, as hath been showed before in my Second book, and this blasphemio consisteth in the denial of the Godhead of jesus Christ, whereby his all-sufficient Sacrifice is undervalved, and the Son of God is trodden underfoot, as being esteemed but a creature, and a mere man, and thereby becometh contemptible, and his Blood, even the blood of the Covenant is esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] (i) But common ordinary, unholy blood no better than the blood of another ordinary common man, and not Sanctified and ordaineth for that great and high mystery to be offered as a full, and sufficient expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world, according to the Covenant of God. For he that denyeth the Godhead of Christ, must needs think, that his blood is but common blood, as other men's blood is, and therefore, not of sufficient worth and value to redeem the world, more than another man's blood is, and indeed if his blood be no better than the blood of another man, and if it be not the royal blood of God. Act. 20. 28. It hath not, it can not redeem us. Now whether the sin mentioned in this place, be absolutely unpardonable, and altogether remediless, will better appear, by a diligent exposition of that text, as it stands in relation to the context both before, and after it. For if we sin & c?] If every sin which is committed after we knew, and professed the Christian religion, should be unpardonable, what man could be saved? seeing the most righteous men fall, and therefore do daily pray forgive us our trespasses; therefore this saying can not be understood of every sin, but surly here is one special grand, and capital sin meant, and what that is the words going before, and following, do declare. For verse 5. it is said in the Person of the Son of. God Sacrifice, and Offerings thou wouldst not, but a Vide. Psal. 40. body hast thou prepared for me.] That is, because the Legal sacrifices, or the blood of bulls, and goats, could not redeem man, therefore an humane body was prepared for the Son of God, that in that assumed humane nature, he might in man's stead, bear the curse, and suffer death, which man had merited. And because we, who are but mere men, weak and sinful, can not by ourselves perform the will, and law of God (without performance whereof, no man can be saved) therefore, the Son of God came, in our stead to perform the whole law, so as was required, and willed of God, as it is said vers. 9 Then said I lo I come to do thy will o God] So that both the active obedience of Christ in doing the law, and his passive obedience in suffering the punishment of our transgressions, are here set forth in these words vers. 10. By the which will, we are sanctified, through the Offering of the body of ●esu, Christ, once for all] That is by Christ's performing the will, or commandments of God in our stead; and through the Sacrifice of himself on the Altar of the Cross, for our sins, his mystical body, or Church, is Sanctified, for it is said vers. 12. This man (Christ) Offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever] and again vers. 14. h● one offering he hath perfi●ted for ever, them that are Sanctified] and then we are exhorted vers. 22. Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith] and vers. 23. Let us hold fast the Pro●ession of our faith without wavering.] If we sin— there remaineth no more sacrifice &c] Having shown what the foundation of our Christian religion is, namely Jesus the Son of God, God Incarnate, and in his humane nature performing the covenant, law, and will of God, both actively, and passively, for us, and in our stead; and requiring that we should have a full assurance of faith, of the truth of that Doctrine, without which faith, Christ will not profit us; he now shows the sad consequences of rejecting this doctrine, by Apostasy, or, falling away from our Christian religion, in these words, There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for, of judgement] So that the sin here meant, is Apostasy that is, forsaking Christianity, as Julian did, esteeming of Christ, but as of an ordinary Coman man, and therefore distrusting, the sufficiency of his blood, and death, as not an equivalent price, and ransom for man's redemption. The truth of this Exposition will better appear by the words following, wherein this particular sin is evidently expressed, and is called, verse 29. Treading under foot the Son of God— counting the blood of the Canant unholy; or (as it is in the Original.) a common thing— and doing despite unto the Spirit of Grace.] Now to tread under foot, is to vilipend and undervalue Christ, as esteeming him not sufficient to take away, or satisfy for our sins: to count the blood of the Covenant unholy or Common, is to esteem of the death and blood shedding of Christ to be of no more virtue and power, than the death and blood of another Common man; and they that so basely undervalue Christ, as to think and to account him but a mere man, do despite unto the Spirit of Grace.] What is the Spirit of Grace in the Son of God, but his Divine Spirit and Godhead, even that Spirit from which all Graces flow, which are called the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. So they, who have no higher estimation of Christ, then of a mere man, do despite unto his Divine Nature, his Godhead; for what greater spite can be, then to un-God him? the word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to despite, in effect is all one with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in Saint Matthew, and the Spirit of Grace here is the same which is there called, the Holy Spirit which doth signify the Godhead of Christ as hath been showed before. For if he that despised Moses Law, died without mercy] verse 28. Yet Moses was but a mere man, and so but a Theod. in loc. fervant to this our God. Quan●ò morte dignior est, qui Mosis Deum hab●t despicatui: (i) What shall become of him that despiseth the God of Moses, and the saving Doctrine of Christ▪ who is the Only Eternal God. Moses propounded life as a reward to them that should perform the Law. Christ did perform that Law in man's stead, to man's behoof and benefit, and offereth to men, the benefit of that performance, and with it life eternal, only with this condition of believing on him. Therefore, that man which will not give credit to this joyfull-Evangelicall offer, must expect to perish eternally: for if Christ be rejected absolutely, and salvation through him despised, and not hoped for, or expected. There is no other sacrifice for our sins possibly to be found, nor any other Name by which we can be saved. By what hath been said, it appeareth that these words, (If we sinne) in this place, signify the sinning of the grand sin of rejecting Christ, not trusting or believing in him for redemption So doth this word sin signify the same, in that saying of our Saviour, john 16. 9 The Comforter will reprove the world of sin, because they believe not on me.] For as no sin shall be imputed to them that believe rightly in Christ, with a true faith, working by love. So, to them that will not believe in him, all their sins must needs be laid to their own charge, without any help or remedy, because there is none other sacrifice for sin, but only Christ, But I proceed. CHAP. XIII. Of several degrees of denying, and rejecting Christ and salvation by him; as First, some denied outwardly, only by compulsion, and the terror of torments. Secondly, some wilfully uncompelled. Thirdly, others both wilfully, and after knowledge; as Arius, Julian, and this Commenter: Theophylact and Anselms Exposition of this place. IF w● sin wilfully] Many have sinned this sin of denying Christ, who yet did not deny him with a settled and full resolution, and willingly in their heat▪ many denied him in the times of persecution, for fear of torments, who did secretly in their Conscience retain the Christian Faith. So Pet●r denied him, but was restored to his former state by repentance, and the Orthodox Church never doubted of such deniers, but that they might have the remedy of Repentance, and did condemn the Novatians upon this very reason, for denying the benefit of repentance, and refusing to admit those (who had so sinned by fear and infirmity) to ecclesiastical penance. Sain Cyprian most compassionately took upon him to excuse some, who had for a while suffered for Christ, loss and torments, but at length yielded to deny, by Cyp. ser. de lapsis. n. 80. the infirmity of flesh and blood▪ Caro non animus deficiebat. (id est,) Their defection was only of the flesh, but not of their mind, and so was not wilful. And St. Ambrose maketh a great difference between the● that deny Christ uncompelled, and wilfully, and those that are compelled thereunto Ambro. de Paenit. l. 1. c. 3▪ n. 33. by torments. Non est simile neg●re Deum sponte, & suppliciis victum. (i) It is not alike sin in them, when one denies Christ wilfully, and uncompelled, and another in the agony of torment, and he puts up this supplication to God, in the behalf both of persevering Martyrs, and of failing and fainting Consellors. Domine Ambr. de Elia, & je. c. 21. n. 17 jesus admit victores ad requiem; Victos ad compunctionem, (i) Lord Jesus give rest and peace to those that hold out in Martyrdom unto death, and to them that faint, give the grace of repentance. But of the second sort and degree of sinning this sin uncompelled, the jews, Turks, and heathen infidels are culpable, who do with a full resolution of will, purposely and wilfully reject and refuse the benefits offered by Christ. But there is yet an higher-degree of this sin expressed in the words following. (If we sin wilfully) After we have received the knowledge of the truth.] Everyone that denieth Christ▪ doth it not with a full consent of his will, and in his conscience; nor doth every one that denieth him wilfully; so deny him after he hath received the gladsome knowledge of him by the Gospel. But to deny him wilfully, and that after we have received the knowledge of his saving health offered, is this grand capital sin, and is a total Apostasy and renouncing of Christian Religion. This was the sin of julian the Apostate, and of Arius the Heretic, as Beza, and the Geneva gloss note. For Arius Beza. & glossa Genev. in loc. was a Priest, and a Preacher of Christian Religion by his profession; and julian was brought up therein, and very accurately instructed in the knowledge thereof by the care of two Emperors his predecessors, as was confessed by this Emperor julian in a letter of his which is yet extant amongst the Epistles of St. Basil, wherein he thus writeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apud Basil. Epist. 207. (i) I have read (the Gospels) and understood them, and do despise them. Of this kind of falling away from Christian Faith, both taught, and once professed, it is said, v. 38. The just shall live by his Faith, but if a man draw back my Soul shall have no pleasure in him. Finally, that it may clearly appear, that this sin is to be understood of rejecting Christ and despising the offer of salvation by him, as if he were unable to procure it for mankind; or as if men imagined that there is some other way and means besides Christ, and without him, whereby salvation may be obtained, the words following do show. There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but a certain fearful looking for of judgement, etc.] There is none other name by which we can be saved, but only Christ; his One sacrifice of himself on the Crols, was the only sacrifice for sin, of which all legal sacrifices were but Types and Figures▪ He who totally rejecteth salvation by Christ, shall never find any other means, by which he possibly can be redeemed and saved. Julian rejected Christ, and sought to heathen gods for salvation, but in vain. Turks expect salvation by their false Prophet Mahomet rejecting Christ, esteeming him to be but a creature, and a Prophet only: Arius undervalved Christ also, and accounted him but a creature, not acknowledging him to be (as in truth he is) the only God, even as our Commenter denieth him to be the Supreme God. This is the treading under foot, and undervaluing his most precious blood, and All-sufficient sacrifice: For if Jesus Christ be not the only and the Supreme, and most high God, his death could not have redeemed us; He that esteemeth Christ to be but a Creature, and one but preferred, exalted, or deified by God▪ must also consequently think, that Christ was insufficient to take away the sins of the world; and he that thinks him thus insufficient doth thereby most extremely, and perniciously depreciate and vilify his precious blood: and this it is which is here c●lled the treading under foot the Son of God, and accounting the blood of the Covenant Common or vulgar blood, nothing better than the blood of other men. Those men that so think of it cannot possibly frame or excogitate to themselves any other reasonable, or probable way of Redemption, and salvation, but necessarily must with horror look only for judgement of condemnation, and consequently fiery indignation This surely is the right meaning of th●se words▪ and thus have some ancient Expositors expounded them, mine Exposition is not new. Theophilact upon these words thus writeth: This Theoph▪ in loc. saying is against the Nestorian Heretics, who said, that Christ was a mere Man, and that his blood was common blood, nothing differing in worth from other men's blood Thus he, For indeed N●sto i●s divided Christ, denying the Personal Union of the two Natures, (as I have showed before;) and therefore would not confess the blood of Christ to be (as it is) the Blood of God; and upon this misconceit, he said, at the Council of Eph●sus, that he could not call the Man Cbtist, God, for it he should, it would follow, that he must call him Bim●strem & ●rim●strem Deum; (id est) A god of two Soz l. y. c. 33. or three mon●ths old; not considering that those say are not incongruous, to be said of that Person who is Emmanu●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 i●a vilipenderi●, ut eum ad Ansel. in loc. salutem sufficere non credat, nec Cenus humanum emundan●em; id est, to count the blood of the Covenant unholy (or common) is to thi●k so vi●●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 only unpardonable, when it is accompanied with final impenitency; 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 Christ's all sufficient sacrifice once offered on the cross) there is none other sacrifice for sin, either possible, or to be expected; yet after all this grand Impiety and Apostasy, it is ●not said, nor intimated, that the sinner who so sinneth cannot repent; repentance is not quite and absolutely taken away, nor is the sinner wholly 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 total Apostasy, he can reasonably expect none other issue but a fearful judgement of condemnation, and fiery indignation: yet nothing hindereth, but that this Apostate may return to his former faith and profession, and repent of his Apostasy, for although this rejecting, or renouncing Christ may for a time be total, and plenary, yet it doth not follow, that it shall be final, 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 baptised,— and continued afterwards steadfast in the Apostles Doctrine. Wherefore the sum of all this threatening 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 only thing which maketh this grand sin to be absolutely unpardonable, is impenitency, obstinacy, obdurateness, and perseverance therein, until death; and in this case only, is that saying to be understood, It shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come▪ In this Sense only did the ancient Expositors understand Aug. in expos. Epist. ad Rom. n. 96. those words, St. Austin saith, Quid restat nisi ut peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum quod non remittitur, nullum intelligatur nisi perseveran●ia in nequitia— cum desperatione indulgen●iae▪ (i) No sin against the Holy Ghost is to be conceived unpardonable, but perseverance in that wickedness and desperation. So Theophilact writing upon those words, If we sinne wilfully, Theoph. in loc. etc. Tells us they are to be understood▪ De permanen●ibus sine paeni●entia: (i) It is meant of such as continue obdurately without any repentance,— he addeth. Si non p●rmaneamus— veniae certe locus est, u●● 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.] N●quaqu●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 only 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 judgement] saith. Aliud te expectat judicium nisi per paenitentiam renovatus fueris— In hoc, paenitentiam non excludit Apostolus— nec prepititationem quaefit per paenitentiam, nec dejicit per desperat●onem non ita est inimicus nostraesalutis— von enim dixit non est ultrà paenitentia, neque dixit, non est r●missio; sed Hostia, inquit, ultra non est, hoc est, non crux ●ecund●— quicunque paenitentiae medicamentum neglexerit ignis aemulus devorabit eum. (i) Unless thou repent, judgement waiteth for thee, he doth not deny possibility of repentance, nor reconciliation by it, he doth not cast the sinner down to desperation, he is not such an enemy of our salvation, for he doth not say there remaineth no repentance nor there is no hope of pardon only 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 blasphemy is absolutely unpardonable, or that this blasphemer can not (by God's mercy) repent. It doth not appear that such sinners are wholly left to final impenitency and desperation, but we find the contrary, that some have repent, and returned to the Lord their God. CHAP. XV. Whether such Blasphemers as are before mentioned Question (may upon their Repentance) find mercy? two sorts of Repentance: First, Legal: Secondly, Evangelicall, of Judas and his Repentance: the difference between penitency, and resipiscencie: Objections out of the Old Testament cleared: Why temporal pressures, are not always 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 obtain mercy, and pardon, so that their repentance shall not be fruitless? The ground, and reason of this inquiry, is taken from some passages, in Scripture, where we find that some who are said to have repent, yet have not been relieved, for of Judas it is said. Mat. 27. 3. When he saw that (Christ) was condemned, herepented himself. To this, and the like say 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 threaten in the law, which causeth fear and horror of punishment only, and looketh no further; this, divines call repentance legal, because it is caused by the preaching of the law only, as when a sinner considereth the plagues that hang over his head, it will make him sorrowful, this is called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (i) Carefulness, dread, and anxiety, for sins committed, in respect only of the ensuing punishment, thus Cain, and Ahab repent, and of Judas it is there said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i▪) he was grieved. The Second part or ingredient of repentance (which added to the former, makes a complete repentance, and acceptable) is the consideration of God's mercy, grounded upon his promises in the Gospel, such as. Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden etc. This is called repentance Evang●lical, and is expressed by the word. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 3. 19 and 2 Cor. 7. 10. which is rendered fitly, by the word r●cipiscencie which signifieth, a returning to one's self, a recovering of our lost wit or former good estate, this ever is accompanied with amendment of life, or at least a resolution thereto. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Tertul. n. 41. and 15. Naz. in Poem. n 44. Tert. de Paenit. n. 15. est animi demutatio, est ●um quis corrigit vitam improbam. (i) a Changing of our evil thoughts, and correcting of our evil life, for repentance which is only a sorrow for sin, is but fruitless, without amendment, of life. Vana est paenitentia ubi nulla emendatio (i) Vain is thy penitency, without amendment, or resipiscency Judas proceeded no further than the first degree, sorrow, in respect of his sin, and accusing conscience, and ensuing punishment— he said I have sinned, but he sought not for pardon. Peter sinned— then he wept bitterly— 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 ark, burr it returned. The impure Crow, the emblem of reprobates, it wears a mourning garment too, it went out of the a●ke, but never returned▪ David sinned, often repent— he Confessed peccavi▪ he smote his breast (so far a reprobate judas, might 2 Sam. 24. 10. Luc. 10. 13. go)— but David ceased not here, burr added Lord take away the iniquity of thy servant, the Publican smote his breast— but added, God be merciful to me a sinner. The penitent Jews Act. 2. 32. first are pricked in hart— but added, Men and brethren what shall we do? Legal repentance only driveth men to sorrow, despair and destruction, but evangelical resipiscence 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. Christ's first miracle, was turning water into wine, to signify, The law-preaching alone to a sinner, will turn his waters of repentance, into blood, death, destruction, and despair, but the Gospel— promises added, turn our watery tears into wine and gladness, and this conceit Durand stumbled on, and thus expressed it. Aquam Dur. Rat. l. 6. c. 72▪ in vinum mutare, est timorem de peccati●, converti in exultationem mentis. From what hath been said; I think I may safely take up this conclusion that when soever a sinner, though ever so great a blasphemer, shall confess, repent, and amend his sin, and turn unto the Lord his God according to the rules of evangelical resipiscence, that penitent sinner shall find merciful entertainment. For when I see that there is no sin so great, but that the Scriptural exhortations, and invitations to repentance, may, and verily d●● extend to it, and to the greatest blasphemer. I can not imagine, that such a repentance shall be fruitless and vain, 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 show mercy to a true penitent. Tertullian saith. Deus non comminaretur non paen●ten●i, si Tert. de Paenit. n. 15. Aug. de fide ad Pet. Diaco. n. 74. non ignosceret paenit●nti, and to the like purpose S. Austin saith. Deus nunqu●m peccatori indixisset pae●itentiam, nisi paenit●nti, veni● conced●nda esset. (i) God would never have threatened 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 than what shall be answered, to those say in the old Testament, where God professeth the contrary. Prov. 1. 28. They shall call upon me but I will not answer they shall seek me carlie, but they shall not find me, no not when fear, distress, anguish cometh upon them▪ Isay. 1. 5. When ye spread forth you hands, when ye make many Prayers, I will not hear, I will hid mine Eyes; and▪ Jer. 14. 12. When they fast I will not hear, their cry, and Ezech. 8. 18. Though they cry in mine Ear, with a loud vaice yet I will not hear them, and▪ Zach. 7. 13. and Mich. 3. 4. The like say 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 hear them. For answer hereunto, let the reader look on the context of those places, and he shall find, that those Cries * plus tristitiae quam paenitentiae. Tacitus. hist. lib. 1. p. 445. Pro. 1. 29. Isa. 1. 15. jer. 14. 10. Eze 8 17. Mich. 3. 3▪ Zach. 7. 11. were not the Cries 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 fear of the Lord, their hands are full o● blood. That they loved to wander (to idols) they have filled the Land with violence they eat the flesh of my people; they stopped their ears that they would not hear, hereupon God professeth▪ that the Clamours of such impenitent sinners, and oppressors shall not divert his temporal plagues, this is all that is there intended. But that the hearty groan of a sinner truly penitent, shall not avert Eternal plagues, doth not by these words appear. And in consideration of the most wise dispensatious of the Almighty, it is no marvel, that he refuseth to withhold, or withdraw temporal punishments from impenitent sinners, seeing he doth not always remit a temporal affliction unto a sinner trudie penitent, no not when he forgiveth the sin, as appeareth in David 2▪ Sam. 12. 13. I have sinned— The Lord hath put away thy sin— howbeit, the Child shall die. * Lueretia apud Livium. Des. 1. l. 1. Ego me, Etsi peccato abs●lvo, supplicio non Lib●ro. The reason why temporal afflictions are not always remitted, either to true, or false penitents upon their C●yes, is given by S. Hierom. Magnae faelicitatis ●st interdùm, Hier. in Ezech. 8. 18. ad praesens, misericordiam non mereri— ut malis coacti, intell●gant quid fecerint. (i) It is in some cases, a sign of great happiness, not to obtain mercy, and releasement, that men may learn by afflictions, how greatly, they have sinned. So S. Ambrose saith of Amb. Epist. l. 3. n. 52. Cyp. count. Demet. n. 75. Naz. Orat. 20. n. 19 the same, people of whom the Prophets spoke those things. Judaeos' in potestat●m hostium dedit Deus, ut a Caelo remedium quaererent. (i) God delivered his people the Jews into the hands of their enemies to provoke them to seek help from heaven Cyprian saith. ●eus qui beneficiis non intelligitur, plagis intelligitur. Nazianzen saith. Plaga corda●is viris, doctrina est. (i) When men will not listen to God, for his benefits sake, he will open their understandings with afflictions— temporal plagues to wisemen, are active sermons. If we rightly consider, to what end, God sendeth, or permitteth temporal afflictions to fall, both upon penitents, and impenitents; we shall find it rather a token of his mercy, than a sign of his anger: we honour a Physician, or a surgeon for curing us, though it was done by bitter potions, or painful sear, and cuttings. Ama medicum percussorem, quia e●us plaga est Hier. n 38. mater medicinae. (i) Because the pain he puts us to, proves a medicine. God is our physician, tribulations are his medicines, which he therefore applieth, only, that they may heal us, and howsoever the medicine be sharp, and seem very evil, and penal, and for present displease us, yet. Quae hic pu●antur mala, in Ambr. in symb. n. 20. and n. lact. n. 17. Cael● bona sunt. (i) On earth that which is thought evil, in Heaven is known to be good, for it is here taken to be a punishment, which indeed was but a medicine. V● curate medicus vulnera vulneribus, as a Surgeon Pros. Epig. n. 33 Aug. Epist. 48. cureth a wound, by lancing. Qui phrenetioum liga●, & lethargicum excitat, ambobus molestus, ambos amat. (i) He that binds a mad man, and with a blow rouseth up one falling into a drowsy lethargy, angreth both, and yet to both doth a friendly office. And although these temporal judgements, are set forth unto us, as signs of God's anger, because they are such things as angry men wish, and bring upon their enemies, yet they are indeed arguments of his care over us, and used as preventions of worse evils. Divina bonitas, ideo irascitur in hoc seculo, ne Ir●scatur Prosp. in sent. 5. n. 33. in futuro (i) God showeth signs of his anger in this world, to prevent his anger aeternal, in the world to come. Men are ready to say, or to imagine, that God doth not hear, or regard the Prayers of men in affliction, because he doth not send present deliverance, but this is an error in us, for God ever heareth, yea and granteth the request's of truly penitent, and faithful souls, though not to our fancy, and desire, yet substantially to our greater benefit. Bonus Deus non Aug. Epist. 38. tribuit saepe quod volumus, it quod maluimus trebuat. (i) though he grant not that particular thing which we expected, yet he giveth that which we would rather choose, if both were propounded to us. And therefore some prudent Christians have been so far from murmuring at afflictions, that they have earnestly desired Orig. in Psal. 37. hom. 2. Aag. vita. l. 3. cap. 29. them of God. Domine, oro, flagella me, and noli me res●rvare cum illis qui non flagellantur— & Domine hic seca, ure, ut in ae●ernum parcas. (i) Lord I pray thee chastise, lance, and sear me in this life, and reserve me not to perish eternally with them that have their pleasures in this world. And for this they have a parterne from a Prophet. Jer. 10. 24. O Lord correct me, but with judgement, not in thine anger. This is enough to the question in hand viz. that this Grand sin, is not always left to final impenitency, nor is the repentance (if it be true) of such sinners vain and fruitless, and consequently, that this sin is not absolutely unpardonable. CHAP. XVI. An Exposition of that place. 1 John. 5. 16. Of the distinction of sins into venial, and mortal, what is meant by a sin not unto death, and a sin unto death, that all sins are not Equal. THere is yet another doubt to be cleared, which, seemeth to represent this grand sin, as if it were altogether, and absolutely unpardonable, which is occasioned by those words. 1 John. 5. 16. If any man see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death, I d●e not say, that he shall pray for it.] By which words (at first sight) it may seem, that 1. some sins are deadly, or Mortal, and others sins not deadly, for from these words, the Fathers often use to distinguish sins▪ into Venial, and Mortal, whereas we are well assured, that every sin, even the very lest p●ccadillo, is in itself Mortal, and may bring damnation, and yet we doubt not, but the greatest Capital sin may by God's mercy become Vemal, and may be pardoned. Secondly, it may seem by these words, that although 2. some sinners may, and in Christian Charity ought to be prayed for; yet others, without breach of Christian Charity, may be omitted, and not prayed for; which yet seemeth very rough and harsh, seeing we are commanded Mat. 5. 44. both to love our enemies, and to pray even for them that persecute us. Wherefore, for the right understanding of these difficulties, it will not be amiss to examine these words diligently, by way of an Exposition. For surely, if any sinner in this life, sin so deadly, that we may not p●ay for him, and if Prayer be absolutely forbidden by these words, who will doubt but that such a sinner is absolutely unpardonable, and wholly left to desperation; now to the words, If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death.] In these words the prudent Reader may observe. First, That the sin here meant, is such a sin as 1. may be seen perceived and discerned. Secondly, That it must be discernible, whether it 2. be unto death, or not unto death. Thirdly, That because no particular sin is named, 3. therefore any sin which is perceived to be a sin not unto death, may be prayed for, and so pardoned. Fourthly, let it be observed, that the Apostle do●h 4. in the next verse set down what he means in this place by sin; for verse 17. All unrighteousness is sin: John 3. 4. and he had said before, chap. 3. verse 4. Sin is the transgression of the Law. From whence it may be reasonably collected, that any unrighteonsnesse or transgression of the Law, or any sin, (if it be discerned to be not unto death) may be prayed for, and possibly pardoned. A sin not unto death.] How any sin can be said to Beza. in loc. be a sin, and yet not unto death is hard to be understood, seeing we read, Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sin is death; for any sin ever so little rendereth us liable to death, and is affirmed so by Beza: Omtria peccata per se lethali●: (id est,) All sins in their own nature are deadly. Our very lapsed nature in Adam's mass Original sin, and our minima peccata; there is no sin so small, or unconsiderable, but draweth after it the weight of eternal wrath, and a thousand times meriteth eternal death. Thus he, and Calvin very truly saith, Omne peccatum per se mortale; Calv. instit. 2. 8. 59 (id est,) Every sin in itself is deadly, but when the sins of holy men are said to be not unto death, and venial; it is because by God's mercy they obtain pardon, and not because the sins are of themselves venial; for who doubteth, but that in the reprobate, all sins are sins unto death; but in the Elect, no sin is unto death. Saint chrysostom observeth upon those words, Matthew Chrys. de compunct. n. 18. 5. 22. Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, etc.] De levioribus dat sententiam, ut de gravioribus non dubitare debeas: (id est,) Christ pronounced sentence of Hell fire, against so small a sin, that no man should doubt what greater sins deserve. Again, there are very grand and capital sins, which yet in some persons, are sins not unto death, as Galathians 5. 19 Adultery, Murder, Drunkenness, Seditions, Heresies, Idolatry, etc. of which it is there said, They that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God; and yet we know, that some of the Patriarches, and many converted from Heathenism hath committed these sins, but obtained pardon, and shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Noah's excess, David's adultery, the Corinthians incest, Peter's denial, and the jews denying and crucifying the holy One, and Paul's persecuting the Church; all and every of these sins, in those penitent and Elect vessels, were sins not unto death. This I think will not be denied. Not unto death.] But why are some men's sins called not unto death, when the very same special sins in other men are indeed sins unto death? The Poet murmured at such a thing. Committunt eadem, diverso Crimina fato; Juven. sat. 13. Ille crucem, sceleris precium tulit, hic Diadema. For many sins, and very capital ones, are common both to the Reprobates, and to the Elect, and yet in the Elect, and the same sin is not unto death, which in the Reprobate is unto death. The answer is, that our Apostle calls that sin, a sin not unto death, which is confessed, repent, forsaken and amended, before our death or departure out of this life, when a man doth not obdurately continue, and persevere in his sin until his death, but forsaketh it in his life-time, so that the leaving of his sin and amendment of life, may be seen by his brother; for how else shall a brother see, that the sin is not unto death, but by the sinners leaving it, desisting from, and amending it, as by ceasing from adultery, rebellion, oppression, and the like, for so the Apostle telleth the Corinthians, such as these were some of ye; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, 1 Cor. 6. 11. So that sins not unto death, are not so called, from the nature or merit of sin, but from the circumstance of the time or person sinning and desisting. For (as is said) Every sin is mortal, deadly and unto death eternal, if we look only on the merit of sin; but every sin, though the most grand and capital sin, is not unto death if it be repeated of, and left, before the departure of the soul from the body. So the gloss expoundeth this place. Non ad mortem.] Id est, non usque ad mortem; (i.) A sin not unto death, is when the sin is not continued in, until the time of death; and of David it saith, David sinned not unto death, for he repent, and obtained pardon; so that the same sin in one man not repenting produceth damnation, when in another it is pardoned upon repentance. Neither do we hereby assert any Stoical f Amb. n. 33. Novatian, or g Aug. n. to 6. habes Sardos' venales alium alio nequiorem ●ul Epist. 125 jovinian equality of sins. For although no sin may well be called bettet then another, because all are naught, yet one is worse than another. Of two ill painted pieces▪ one asked, uter det●rior est? (i) which is worst? and of two evil, things, in the Comedy it is said, h Plaut in Aulular. Act. 2. sce. ●. Alia aliâ pejor est— optima nulla est: (i) one is worse than another, neither can be called best (i) i Aug. count. mendac. c. 8. n. 77. Furum non est ide● quisquam bonus▪ quia pejor est unus, (i) One thief is worse than another, yet no thief is therefore good. Sin in general is k Bafil. n. 5. Proles Dia●osi, and l Theod. n. 13. mater mortis, & m Chrys. n. 59 grandis Damon peccatum; (i.) the bra● of the Devil, the mother of death, and itself is a Devil; and so is called in the Gospel, yet sins are of several growths and degrees. For therefore are there several degrees of torments in hell, apportioned to the degrees of sins. There is a sin as a mo●e, and as a beam, and a Camel; so there are stripes, many stripes, weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, worm, fire and brimstone; the damned shall be bound up in bundles, according to the likeness and degrees of their sins, and every bundle shall have its just portion, as we read of that particular portion, of Hypocrites. It is a memorable and a terrible observation, which Origen makes upon that saying, Numb. 14. 34. where for one sin in one day, a whole year of punishment is apportioned, If for every sin of ours, a whole year of Orig. in loc. hom. 8. punishment shall be allotted, I fear that neither the duration of this world, nor the eternity of the next world, will be long enough to end ou● torments. Let us not therefore flatter ourselves▪ w●th the conceit of a little, or a venial sin, as if such deserved not death, for the very lest sin, is liable to eternal death, except it be confessed, and in this life in some measure repent. But I proceed. CHAP. XVII. Was is meant by a sin unto death, the judgement of the Fathers and the Ancient expositdrs therein, and the discipline of the primitive Church thereunto correspondent, that the greatest sins, both have been actually, and so may be pardoned, in what sense the Fathers called some sins venial, and some Mortal. THere is a sin 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 sin 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 God's Truth and his Precepts, and that even to death and martyrdom, nor upon all these together: This saying is most likely to bear it; A sin 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 sin unto death.] This sin unto death, I conceive not to be intended of any particular sin, whether it be absolute Atheism, or the blasphemy of Ar●us, denying the Godhead of Christ, or of Eun●mius denying the Holy Ghost, or total Apostasy from Christianity, or Adultery, Idolatry, witchcraft, murder, sedition, or any of these grand sins mentioned, Gal. 5. 19 such as the Fathers do usually (●in some sense) call sins Mortal, Mortiferous, and Capital. My reason is, because it may be made apparent by Scriptures, and the Records of the Church, that particular men, who have sinned these sins severally, have been by God's mercy and his castigations reduced to renounce their errors, 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 entreated, and we know that many Heathens, Atheists, Apostates, and ●rrians have Paulinus in vita. Ambrosii n. 3. & Athan. to 2 page 448. n. 17. been reduced to Confession of their sins, and to repentance of their Arrianism●, and those who have not been actually reduced, yet during their natural lives, were in a condition reducible, if grace sufficient and prevalent had been given; so that their conversion was not absolutely impossible. Beza finding fault with distinction of sins into Beza in lo●. venial and mortal as the Schoolmen sometimes use it, (for which he had good reason) affirmeth, that it is absurd to say, that mortal sins are utterly left without all hope of pardon, and yet he thinketh the sinn● unto death here mentioned to be that sin 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 sin against the Holy Ghost, would, and could repent— Certè veniam consequerentur; (i.) certainly they would and might obtain pardon: Thus he. Unto 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 anxi●tics, and is most agreeable with the Analogy of Faith, particularly with the Article of forgiveness of sins, and co●respondeth best with the justice and mercifulness of God; for thus they writ. A sin unto death, is any grand or capital sin, (such as is before mentioned out of Gal. 5. 19) in which a man liveth, continueth, and dieth impenitently. And that it is therefore only so called, a sin unto death: because it is obdurately, and impenitently continued, and persevered in unto the end of our life, and expiration of our souls. So O●cum●nius saith, Solum hoc peccatum ad mortem O●●um in loc. est, quod ad pae●tentiam non respicit: (id est) Only that sin is a sin unto death which never is repent. Beda ●n loc. And Beda saith, Pecca●um ad mor●em, peccatum usque ad tempora mortis protractum diximus r●cte posse intelligi—— est de tali magno peccato, quale David commisit si pro●ractum sit usque ad mortem: (id est) A sin unto death, may truly be understood of a sin continued in, until the time of our death— such a great sin as David committed, if we persevere in it till death. So doth Saint Hierome understand it, Pecc●tum ad Hier. in Evag. objurg n. 41. mo●tem est, cum tempus r●●●ssionis in vitio inueni●: (id est) A sin unto death is when death cometh, and findeth us continuing in sin. So doth Saint Austin expound this very Text, Peccatum Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 19 ad mor●●m est, si in hac perversitate finierit ●anc ui●●m: (id est) The sin unto death is when a man continueth in sin 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 absurd intelligunt, ●um peccare in Spiritum & ●sse sine Aug. de fide & oper. c. 16. n. 79. venia reum aeterni peccati qui usque ad finem vitae ● oluerit credere in Christum: (id est) It is no inconvenience ●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 glosses expound it. Ad mortalem] (i) usque ad mor●em vitae— quod in hac vit● non corrigitur— est final●s impaenitentia si quis perseveret in eo usque ad finem vitae inclusiuè; (i.) unto death signifies to the end of our life natural— that sin which is not amended in this life— it is final impenitency— 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 itself, but for the sinners' 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 repent of, and so is pardoned: that this is the judgement of St. Austin, I have divers times shown before; and especially in that place alleged by me before, pag. 201. cap. 14. whereafter after a long discourse concerning the sin called the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, he concludeth. That no sin against Vide supra ●▪ 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 amendment. To this doctrine of the pardonableness of any sin, though ever so great, upon repentance; the Church discipline of old, was correspondent: for in the Ecclesiastical Canons recorded, by St. Basil it is ordered. That whosoever had denied Christ (in time of persecution) should be debarred from the Communion all his life time, until his death bed, and remain only in the number and rank of penitentiaries, but upon point of death, he should be restored, and the Sacrament administered to him, and this— propter fidem divinae Clementiae: (i) because the Church believed, that our merciful God did pardon those true penitents who had fallen into that grand sin of denying Christ. Upon the same doctrine did the father's ground their distinction of sins, calling some men's sins venial, and others mortal; just as St. John here doth, a sin unto death, & a sin not unto death. For so Origen mentioneth mortale peccatum, and St. Amb●ose speaketh of, crimen Orig▪ n. 41. Ambr. n. 9 15 Aug▪ n. 6773 77. Prosp. n. 34 mortale, and— Erratum Noae erat veniale. So doth St. Austin call sins— V●nialia— Morralia capitalia— Damnabilia: and so doth Prosper, and so doth the Church of England's Liturgy mention a Deadly sin, and all these only in this sense, as Saint Ambrose expresseth himself; Venialis culpa est quam Amb. de Paradiso, cap. 14. s●qnitur confessio; (i.) that sin is called venial which is confessed, or repent of. And so that sin is only a deadly sin, or a sin unto death, in which men live, and die impenitently, and therefore unpardonably, as is showed before. CHAP. XVIII. The meaning of these words Idoe not say he shall pray for it, that this praying, and not praying is to be understood of the living, and not of the dead, the practice of the Church in praying for penitents, the manner and form of Ecclesiastical or external penance, viewed in the Roman Lady Fabiola, in what case God forbade praying for sinners in the Old Testament. THere remaineth yet a greater difficulty in the words next following whereby this sin unto death may seem to be such a sin, as the Apostle forbiddeth men to pray for, whereby he may also seem to set the brand and mark of absolute unpardonablenes upon the sinner, as being quite forlorn, and bereft of all remedy, and left utterly to desperation; for thus we read. A sin unto death, I do not say he shall pray for it.] It being granted that the sin unto death is one of those capital sins, before mentioned out of Math. 12. 31. and Gal. 5. 19 In which the sinner continueth impenitently, all his life time, and therein dieth, we are next to inquire, whether the Apostle meaneth, that such a sinner so dying, is not to be prayed for after his death; or whether he mean, that such a sinner is not to be prayed for during his life— time, whilst he continueth in his sin without repentance. For if we grant that, by these words, a man dying in that sin, is excepted from being prayed for after death; than it will follow that the other sort of sinners, which sin not impenitently unto their death, may be prayed for after death, and so prayers for the dead must be allowed of, as if they were warranted by Scripture, which the Church of England doth neither practice, nor allow of; although we can not deny, but that the ancient Church used them so as I have showed above, in my first book. To this inquiry, the answer is, that the praying or not praying here mentioned, is to be understood of men living, and only during their life time, for so the Apostle meaneth, he that is seen, or known to confess his sin, to repent, and amend it; may be prayed for by the Church, whilst he is living; But he that is not perceived, or perceived not to Confess, repent, and amend his foul visible, and noted sins, whilst he liveth, the Church hath no direction to pray for such a sin, or for such a sinner in this sense, that the sin may be forgiven which is never repent. Or that the sinner may be pardoned, notwithstanding his obdurate persisting, and continuing in his sin, no, not whilst he is living, and much less when he is dead. So, here is no warrant for praying for the dead, whether they died penitently, or impenitently, but in what sense, an impenitent sinner, during his impenitency, may, and aught to be prayed for in this life, will appear hereafter more clearly, but first, I must show the Church practise in praying for sinners. The reader may consider that this Epistle is Catholic, written to the whole Church, and upon this direction, the Church Catholic, used to p●ay most earnestly, yea, and with tears, and lamentations, for such sinners, who for some grievous, and known Crime had been excommunicated; and this the Church did, at such times, as the sinners appeared to, and in the Church, or at the Church doors, as penitents, confessing, and bewailing their own sins, in garments of sackcloth, and their faces besmeared with ashes, b●gging on their knees, both the prayers of the Church, and also reconciliation, and re— admission to the congregation, and communion. The manner of penitents humiliation, and of the Church's commiseration and compassion, we have very frequently described in the Church Histories, and the Fathers, thus. In the wist●rne Church (saith Sozomen) Soz l. 7. c. 1●. Ambr. 34. 37. Epiph. haer. 59 Origen. lamb. n. 30. there is a set place appointed, where the penitents stand, with a sad countenance, mourning, and weeping, than they cast themselves down on the pavement being clad in course sack— cloth, and their beauty obscured, and defaced with ashes, and with long sorrow, and fasting, they beg the prayers of the Church to God for them; Confessing their sins openly; If the Bishop be present, he Compassionately kneels, and weeps, and prays with them, and for them; and so doth the whole congregation. S. Jerome relates the particular Hier. Epist. 30. n. 8. penance of the noble, and religious Lady Fabiola, as it was performed in his own time. She had been divorced; and after divorcement she was married to another man, whilst her divorced husband was living. But she repent, and confessed her offence, with great sorrow, in sack— cloth and ashes, publicly, in the sight of the whole city of Rome— Episcopis, presby●eris, & populo Collacrimantibus (i) herself, and the Bishop's present, and the priests and the whole multitude altogether compassionately weeping. This was the use, and manner of the Churches praying for those Brethren, or Sisters, which were thus seen to confefs, and express penitency for their sins, and therefore not sinning unto death impenitently, and this they did upon this direction. If any man see his brother sin a sin that is not unto death, let him pray for him &c S. Ambr●se doth exhort the sinner to confession, Ambr. de paenit l. 2. c. 10. n. 34. and penitency by this motive. Fleat pro te mater ecclesia, that the Church our Mother may pour out her tears for her Children, and it is required as a Christian duty of the people to show compassion by prayers and tears, for such penitents, and he himself used to weep, when he heard a penitents confession; Amb. ibid. c. 8. & Pa●lin. in vita. Ambiguity n. 2. for saith he. Surely I ought at least to pray, and weep for him; f●r whom my Saviour vouchsafed to die. Thus the reader may perceive, that the praying, and not praying, here mentioned, is meant only of men living, and not of the dead; for neither the sins, nor repentance of the dead, can be seen by the living. The Apostle's discountenancing, prayer for the impenitent sinner, is no more than what God himself had done before in the old Testament, in forbidding man's intercession, for averting temporal judgements from rebellious sinners, as a warning, and intimation, what he intended to do to obdurate and impenitent sinners concerning eternal judgement. So he commanded Moses Exo. 32. 10. Let me alone, and reproved Samuel. 1 Sam. 16. 1. for mourning for Saul, and Commanded his Prophet Jer. 7. 16. Pray not thou for this people. Even as S. John will not approve of our praying for sinners during their impenitency, because he knew that from such▪ God will not avert his eternal plagues. But whether any man can be in such a forlorn and desperate condition in this life, as that he may not at all be prayed for, is the next thing to be examined. CHAP. XIX. That the greatest sinners, during their natural life may be prayed for, in some sense, Certain propositions of divines examined, the practice of the Synagogue, and Church in praying for all mankind for heathens, Jews, infidels, heretics, persecutors, idolaters. FOr the understanding of this needful question, I will first lay down to the reader's view, some propositions, which I find dogmatically asserted, by some divines, both lately, and heretofore. First, they say, There is no sin so great, that it can The Confess▪ the assemb. c. 15. l. p. 27. bring damnation upon those who truly repent.] This Proposition I do assent unto as being very true, if it be understood of Evangelical repentance before mentioned, and not of that repentance, wherewith Judas is said to have repent, and that truly, in that kind of repentance. Secondly they say. Prayer is not to be made for those ijdem. c. 21. P. 38. of whom it may be known, that they have sinned the sin unto death.] This proposition is very dubitable. For if this sin be particularly determined, to be one certain sin, as the denying Christ to be God, or blaspheming the holy-ghost, or apostasy, or any one, or all those sins mentioned Gal. 5. 19 Yet while the sinner is living, his repentance is not absolutely to be despaired of, and therefore he may be prayed for, so as will be showed anon. By'r if by the sin unto death is meant, any of those sins, continued, and persevered in obstinately, without repentance, until the sinner be dead, then amongst us there will be no question left, for no man will affirm that such sinners, are to be prayed for, after they are dead. Thirdly they say. That it can not be certainly known Beza in loc. p. 618. by us; who do commit this sin unto death, until the sinner be dead, therefore, that we may not (upon this pretence) forbear to pray for any sinner whilst he liveth, and so not for such sinners.] This I take to be very true, if it be rightly understood in that sense which anon shall be discovered. Fourthly, That no sinner, (during this life,) is absolutely to be despaired of, for be possibly may repeat, and so be pardoned.] This Proposition is affirmed, and asserted by S. Austin, and by Prosper. Quamdiu hic vivunt Aug. Epi. saint 50. n. 31. Pros. de vocat. Gent. l. 2. c. 37. Aug. Retract. l. 1. cap. 19 non sunt desperandi— Dum in corpore vivitu●, nullius est desperanda reparatio, nullius est negligenda correctio— De quocunque pessimo in hac vita, non est desperandum, nec ●ro ill● imprudentèr oratus, de que non desperatur. (i) No man (though the greatest sinner,) is utterly to be despaired of during his life time, therefore his amendment must not be neglected; neither is it any vanity or fo●ly to pray for him, of whom we may not despair. Now I proceed to the words. I do not say he shall pray for it.] This Scripture seems more difficult because other texts seem to speak the contrary, we may find in Scripture, both precepts, and practise, for praying for all men, even the worst of all. 1 Tim. 2. 1. I exhort that requests, Supplications, Intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for Kings etc. Here are as many, and as full words as can be desired: prayer for Kings, even then when Nero reigned, and persecuted the Church. Just so Christ commanded Mat. 5. 44. Pray for them that persecute you, and so himself did for his Crucifiers. Luc. 23. 34. forgive them Father. and Act. 7. 60. Lord lay not this sin to their change. In the old Testament, the Temple is re— built upon this reason, that Sacrifices, and Prayers might there be made for King Cyrus, and Darius, both heathen Kings Ezra. 6. 10. So Josephus writes that in the Temple Josep. Anti q. l. 11. c. 4. and lib. 13. and n. 21. Phil. de leg. ad Caium. n. 20. of jerusalem and in Egypt Sacrifices were daily offered, for Caesar, and the people of Rome, for Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, Ptolemy, and Cleopatra, who were all heathens, and Philo reports, that particularly, every day, a Bullock, and two Lambs were Sacrificed in that temple for Augustus Caesar; and further, that therefore the four Colours in the Priest's Ephod, represented all the Elements, to signify, Sacrificaturus totum mundum introducit— ut totum Philo. de vita Mosis l. 3. & de Monarch. l. 2. n. 11. 14. mundum deprecatorem allegare possit; (i.) the Priest in his Sacrificing, considered the whole world, and did represent the whole world as a suppliant, and delinquent before the Lord; here is no particular sinner excepted, either from the benefit of law sacrifices, or Gospel prayers. But let us see what the practice of the Church Catholic hath been, in this point of prayer; for if both, law, and Gospel, and the Church, have in all ages prayed for all kinds, and degrees of sinners, Certainly S. John's meaning was not to exclude any sinner whilst he lived, from being prayed for; I will instance in the most unlikely sinners, and the most underserving our prayers, as heathens, and infidels, who being no members of the Church yet were prayed for. Cyprian Cyp cont. Dem n 75. Fulg seu. p. Diac. n. 3. Aug. Epist. 107. & haer 88 c. 6. saith. Orant Christiani pro salute ●●hnicorum. (i) Christians pray for the Salvation of heathens. Fulgentius saith. Tota ecclesia precatur, ut infidelibus donetur fides. (i) The whole Church prayeth, that faith may be given to Infidels, and S. Austin saith. Sacerdos ad altare hortatur populum orare pro incredulis. (i) The Priest at the very altar (in time of the ●olie Euch●rist) exhorted the people to pray for unbelievers, and from this practice of the Church Catholic, he reproveth the Pelagi●ns, who affirmed that men by their own power, without assistant grace might perform the will of God. This Doctrines (saith he) frustrateth the devotion of the Church; for, why should she pray for that, which is not by grace, or the gift of God. And just so Prosper argueth Prosp. Respon. act Genuens. n. 30. against them. If faith be not the gift of God. Frustra orat Ecclesia pro non creden ibn● ut credun●. (i) In vain doth the Church pray for infidels, that they may believe, if faith were not the gift of God. Neither were these prayers put up for heathens, or wicked and profane men. Only at such time, when they were about to be converted, or when they seemed to incline to Christianity; but even then whilst they were at their worst. Fulgentius prayeth thus. Domine, Fulg. vel Paul. Diac. de incar. n. 2. Opt. lib. 3: mal●s, bonos facito. (i) Lord, make them good, who are now wicked; and Optatus▪ expounding that place 1 Tim. 2. 2. saith. Paulus orandum praecipit, pro regibus gentilitèr viventibus. (i) Paul appointed heathen Kings to be prayed for, even whilst they lived in their heathenism. So the Church prayed for heretics and persecutors, whilst they continued both heretics, and persecutors. Athanasius saith. Populus Alexandrinus Orat Atha. de populo Alex. n. 19 pro Constantio Artiano, and Persecutore. (i) The people of Alexandria prayed for the Emperor Constantius who was both an Arrian, and a persecutor. and Epiphanius prayed for john an heretical Bishop of jerusalem in these Epiph. Epist, ad joannem. n. 31. words. Domine praesta Joanni, ut rectè credat. (i) Lord grant unto john a right belief, for surely there is very great cause to pray for the conversion of such whose heresies, and persecutions do endanger the very being of the Church; and chrysostom presseth this duty of praying for such, because saith he it is an act, and Chrys. serm. d. Cruse & latr. n. 48. Machar. hom. 18. sign of far greater Charity, to pray for our enemies, then for our friends, finally the Holy man Macarius said. Sancti Orant prototo genere Adae (i) Holy men use to pray for the whole generation of Adam. In those books de vocatione Gentium, which go under the name both of S. Ambrose, and also of Prosper, the custom of the Church in praying for all sorts of men is fully set forth. Supplicat ubique ecclesia deo, Amb. de voc. Gent. l. 1. c. 4. Prosp. n. 53. non solum pro Sanctis, & jam regeneratis, sed pro Omnibus infidelibus & inimicis Crucis Christi, pro Omnibus idolorum cultoribus, pro omnibus qui Christum in membris ipsius persequuntur, pro Iudaeis— pro haereticis— pro schismaticis— quid autem pro ipsis petit, nisi ut relictis erroribus, convertantur ad fidem etc. (i.) The Church doth now every where put up supplications to God, not only for her own holy and regenerate members, but for all infidels, and enemies of the Cross of Christ for idolaters, persecutors, jews— heretics, schismatics; and thus she prayeth for them that they may be converted from their errors to the true faith. The like is found in the Epistle of Bishop Caelestinus written in the behalf of Prosper and Hilary, and is amongst the works both of Austin, and of Prosper, setting forth not only Aug n. 72. Prosp▪ n, 62. what kinds of men were prayed for, but also what prayers were used. Obsecrationum sacerdotalium sacramenta, quae ab Apostolis tradita, in toto mundo, at que in Omni Catholica ecclesia, uniformiter celebrantur— praesules humani generis agunt causam apud divinam clementiam, precantur ut infidelibus, donetur fides, ut idolaatriae liben●tur ab erroribus, ut Iudaeis lux veritatis appareat, ut haeretici resi piscant, ut scismatici Spiritum redivivae Charitatis accipiant, ut lapsis, paenitextia remedia conferantur, etc. The holy Rites of sacerdotal prayers descending down from the Apostles times, are uniformly celebrated in every Catholic Church in the world, the prelate's are the Orators to God, in the behalf of all mankind, they pray for infidels, that faith may be given to them: for Idolaters, that they may be delivered from their errors: that the Jews may embrace the truth; that heretics may recant: and schismatics may recover the Spirit of Charity: that all lapsed sinners may have the remedy of repentance. Lastly, upon all these precepts, and precedents both of the Scriptures, and the Church primitive, the Church of England, with great piety, and prudence prayeth also for all men, yea for her Enemies, In the Litany. and Collect on good-friday. persecutors, and slanderers, that they may find mercy and forgiveness, and for the conversion of all jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics. This I trust is sufficient (if not to much) to set forth; that any sin though ever so great, during his life time, may be prayed for, at least so far as that he may have the grace of convension from his sin. * Orandum est pro bene & malè viventibus▪ ut bonus perseveret, malus convertatur Aug. ad frat in Erem. hom. 42. And upon these grounds and reasons, I would make no scruple at all to pray for the repentance of that party whom I know to have committed that sin of which it is said, It shall never be forgiven, because I am fully persuaded that the threatening there is conditional. viz. It shall never be forgiven without conversion and repentance, as I have showed before, and therefore if I knew any man who had committed tha● sin in that high degree, as it is described by. Beza viz. [He who ' is enlightened with the knowledge of God's truth, so that he Beza. in 1 Joh. 5. 16. can not be ignorant though he would: yet upon set purpose doth maliciously oppose and resist God purposely, and knowingly.] I see no cause why I should doubt to pray for grace, and the conversion of such an heinous sinner, whilst he is yet alive. No man living is debarred from the prayers of the Church as you have heard, no not the lapsed, or excommunicated, nor those that are thereby delivered to Satan, for even that most severe censure was intended for their Conversion, and Salvation, only as S. Austin noteth (u.) Ecclesia non Aug. de Civit. lib. 21. c. 24. Orat pro diabolo. (i) The Church prayeth not for the apostate Angels, and withal he there professeth, that if he did certainly know those men that were predestinated to hell fire (which no man can know without an especial revelation) then indeed he would no more pray for them, then for the devil. CHAP. XX. The meaning of those words▪ I do not say that he shall pray for it, the difference between praying for the person, and praying for the sin, the different prayers for a sinner penitent, and a sinner impenitent, the practice of the Church in praying for her persecutors, and against them, the prayers of Christ, and S. Stephen explained, the case of Alexander the Coppersmith. HAving showed, that the Charity of Christian prayer is so largely extended unto all sinners, of what height-soever▪ I am now to set down positively what I conceive to be the meaning of the Apostle in these words.— I do not say he shall pray for it.] Surely here is something forbidden to be prayed for; or at least, something that we have no warrant to pray for. For the understanding hereof I desire the reader to observe that S. john doth not forbid that the sinner unto death should be prayed for, but that the sin must not be prayed for, and this observation may very easily be discerned in the Original▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, answereth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so our English translation taketh notice of this meaning, this▪ I do not say he shall pray for it.] for it? that is, not for the sin; but S. John doth not say he shall not pray for him, (that is) for the person sinning, so for all that is here said, the person may be prayed for, only the sin must not be prayed for. According to this exposition, the reader may observe, that in the words going before, the Apostle directeth us to pray for the brother that sinneth not unto death, but not for the sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he shall give him ●●se: the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, answereth to the person either of him that prayeth▪ or of him that sinneth not unto death, but it can not be meant of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the sin, for so he had written incongruously. All difficulty will be taken away if we do but distinguish the act from the person, and the sin from the sinner, thus. The person may be prayed for, but the sin may not be prayed for. But then, If the person sinning unto death may be prayed for, as well as the person sinning not unto death where is the difference, which the Apostle here intendeth to show between, the prayer for a penitent, and the prayer for an impenitent sinner? To this I answer, that the difference is very great, and very evident; for we pray for the penitent, that he may be forgiven, and this we pray absolutely, but for the impenitent sinner we do not pray that he, and his sin may be forgiven absolutely●, but conditionally, that he may be converted, and may have the grace of repentance, and amendment, and so may be forgiven, and live, we pray for the persons conversion, and forgiveness, but we pray not that his sin may be forgiven without conversion, and therefore the Apostle directeth, not to pray for it. For if we should pray, that the sin may be remitted without any consideration or pre— supposition of repentance; then we should also with prayer for remission, pray for the permission of sin, and thereby we should imply that we would have God to give leave, and allowance, and liberty to sin, nay to give toleration, commission, countenance, and approbation to sin, as if we would desire that God would grant to man a licence to sin impune; the very imagination whereof would be an high impiety and therefore the Church in her prayers for sinners not yet penitent, prayed for them with mention of her desire their conversion as hath been fully showed, and may to this day appear. The Church of England upon this very reason, prayeth for Turks and infidels that they may be saved, but for their salvation she doth not pray immediately, and unconditionally, as if she desired their salvation together with their continuance, in living and dying in their infidelity, but thus she prayeth. Take from them Collect. ut Super on Good Friday. ignorance, hardness of hart, contempt of the word, and fetch them home to thy flock— then after these conditions; comes in. That they may be saved. This is to pray for the persons of sinners, but not for their sin, pray not for it. The true Church never prayeth against the persons of the greatest sinner on earth, or her greatest enemies. Only the prayeth against their sins, without breach of charity toward their persons, S. Austin thus prayeth Aug. Epist. 16●. Idem. to. 6. n. 8. against the Donatist's heresies▪ Deus errorem vestrum occidat in vobis, and of the Manichees he saith. Non vos, sed errores odimus, and S. Jerome said the like of the Pelagians. Hier. proaem. in Jere. p. 270. Non hominum, sed errorum ●imicus sum. (i) That God would kill their errors— that their persons are not hated, but their heresies only. Now to hate, and detest and endeavour the extirpation of sin and to pray against it, without hatred of the person, is just▪ bona persecutio, quae non hominem, sed peccatum ejus Prosp. in Psal▪ 100 insectatur. (i) It is a good persecution, when the sin only, and not the person, is oppressed, just so did our Church pray against her enemies▪ Abate their pride, assuage their malice and confound their devices. This may well stand with Christian charity without any hindrance of our prayers, for the amendment, conversion and salvation of their persons. For it] we pray for our enemies, but it is ut Convertantur, Aug. n. 28. idem. n. 31. for their conversion▪ and for infidels, but ut Credant. (i) That they may become believers, but we do not pray that they may be saved in their sins, they living and dying in their infidelity. S. Austin writing upon those words Joh. 17. 9 I pray not for the world.] Aug. n. 102. saith. Pro non credentibus non postulatur, ut illis diffidentibus ignoscantur peccata, sed ut bonitas, & pat●entia dei expectet si sorte vellent corrigi— ut dilationem long●m accipiant. (i) We pray not for unbelievers, that their sins may be pardoned whilst they continue in their unbelief, but that the goodness and patience of God would for bear them a long time, that so happily they might amend. For to pray absolutely for the salvation of a grand scandalous sinner, without respect had to his conversion, were to abuse the truth and righteousness of our most righteous judge. Beza saith. Profa● sunt qui Beza. in. 1. Joh. 5. 16. hoc peccatum petunt remitti, non resipiscentibus. (i) They are profane who desire pardon to impenitents; I have heard of some hypocrites, who made their silly proselytes believe, that God was so far from being angry, that he took pleasure in seeing such of Saints sinning, as Father's smile, when they see their young children playing, or else that God winketh, and can not see sin, in such pretty black Saints. Now, albeit, in the prayers of our Saviour, and the Protomartyr S. Stephen the words run. Forgive them Father Luc. 23. 34. Act. 7. 60. — and Lord ●ay not this sin to their Charge without any explicit and overt mention of their Conversion, and repentance, yet we are not so to understand them, that those grand sins should absolutely be pardoned, without any conversion or repentance; but that the prayers for forgiveness, must presuppose and imply an inclusive prayer for the means leading to forgiveness which are faith, conversion repentance, and amendment, as if our Saviour had said, Father; Open their eyes that they may know, and confess me, and adhere to me, and repent, and so that their sin may be forgiven, and never laid to their charge. So S. chrysostom understandeth Chry n. 48. Fulg. n. 14. the words of Christ, for saith he upon these words. hinc tria, & quinque millia conversa, and so Fulgentius noteth upon S. Stephen's prayer Paulus converticur per orationem Stephani. (i) That these prayers did imply the conversion of these sinners, for by virtue of them. 3. and 5. thousand, yea and S. Paul, was converted, and this is clearly expressed in S. Peter's sermon Act. 3. 17. 19 as an exposition of our Saviour's words, And now brethren I wots that through ignorance ye did it, repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, to signify, that the blotting out of sins, ever presupposeth repentance. Finally, whereas some object that we may nor pray for the Conversion of the malicious enemies of the Church because (they say) S. Paul did not pray for Alexander the Copper— smith mentioned. 1 Tim. 4. 14. but said The Lord reward him according to his work. To this we say. First. It doth none appear that S. Paul did not at all pray for his conversion. Secondly. S. Paul did not hereby forbidden prayer for him. Thirdly. That as those words are no prayer for his conversion, so neither are they accounted by the best expositors, any imprecation; but an Apostolical commination, and a leaving of him to the judgement of Theoph. in Loc. Theod. in Loc. Anselm in Loc. God. Theophilact expounds it thus. Reddat pro reddet, verbum pronunciantis est, non imprecantis, and so saith Theodoret, and Anselm. (i) He saith the Lord reward him, (for) the Lord shall, or will reward him, it is not the wish, but the forewarning of the Apostle; and therefore S. Jerome to express rather the meaning then the letter of those words, for reddat, reads, Reddet ei Deus. (i) God will reward him, which is no more than is said of other sinners Heb. 13. 4. Whoremongers, and adulterer's God will judge. CHAP. XXI. A recapitulation of the former Expositions of the four places. That final Impenitency cannot properly be called the grand sin. The difference of Repentance, required to the grand sin, and to other inferior, and unknown sins. The danger of misunderstanding the solifidian doctrine. Of the misbelief of the Incarnation of Christ, censured with Charity. The Conclusion. IT is now high time to ease the Reader, and to release him from my tediousness, and to draw to a conclusion, by summing up what hath been delivered concerning this grand sin against the Holy Ghost in the Expositions of all those difficult places of Scripture; the breviate whereof I do here represent in a few conclusions. First, To that saying, Matthew 12. 31. It shall not be 1. forgiven.] The meaning is, that it shall not be forgiven to that man who liveth and dieth in that blasphemy impenitently. Secondly, to that saying, Heb. 6. 4 6. It is impossible 2. — to Repentance.] The meaning is, that they cannot be restored to newness of life, and remission of sins after Baptism, by any new or second Baptism, but yet Repentance is not impossible as a second remedy to them that have fallen after Baptism, neither is it during life absolutely denied. Thirdly, To that saying, Heb. 10. 26. If we sinne wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the 3. truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.] The meaning is, he that wilfully rejecteth Christ's only and all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, by accounting his blood Commo●; that is, by esteeming it to be but the blood of a mere man, a mere creature; and therefore to be no better, nor of more worth than the blood of another man; and in this blasphemous conceit and infidelity, liveth, and dieth; that man must look for nothing but judgement of condemnation, and fiery indignation; because there is none other sacrifice for sin possibly to be found, but Christ crucified, who then was, and is, and ever will be, Emmanuel. Fourthly, to that saying, 1 John 5. 16. There is a sin 4. unto death, I do not say that he shall pray for it.] The meaning is, that whosoever shall commit the grand sin, and in that sin shall persist, continue and persevere obdurately, stubbornly, and impenitently, his whole life time, and die therein without repentance, and without special revocation, recantation, or retraction thereof that man must needs perish everlastingly. All prayers for that man so living & dying, will be unprofitable for his souls health. For though whilst he liveth we may pray for his conversion, and perhaps beheard (for aught we know) yet to pray for his pardon and salvation immediately, without praying for, and desiring his conversion, as being necessary in order to his pardon and salvation) is a foul abuse of God's Truth and righteousness. Fifthly, That if all these Expositions prove true, and 5. be so found and approved by the Christian Reader, than my former conclusion will necessarily follow, that neither this sin which is called the sin against the holy Spirit, nor any other sin how great soever, is absolutely unpardonable, but upon special and particular repentance thereof, the sinner may find mercy and forgiveness. From this doctrine of the necessity of repentance, to go before forgiveness; some divines suspect, that the grand and only unpardonable sin, is final impenitence, because it is true, that this grand in is pardonable if it be timely repent, and as true; that when it is accompanied with final impenitence, it shall never be forgiven, and indeed such a conceit did fall from the pen of Saint Hierom; Impenitentiae crimen solum est, quod Hier. Epist. 4. 8. n. 9 veniam consequi nou potest, (i) impenitence is the only fault which cannot obtain pardon. To this conceit the answer is, that impenitency cannot be called properly the sin unpardonable, because of itself it is not always to be called a sin; for impenitency is blameless, where no sin is; the holy and unspotted choir of heavenly Angels, as they are impeccant, so are they not— penitent, and yet offend not thereby. But impenitency in grand and capital offenders, is a weighty and an aggravating circumstance, then when it is the perpetual concomitant of sin, and a consequent finally; it makes the 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 ●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 Maxim, 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 the sin, much rather may a greater circumstance, as when a rich man, and a poor 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 only in case it be accompanied with final impenitency; seeing that other sins also, which are not of so high impiety, cannot be pardoned without repentance, according to our Saviour's words, Except ye repent ye shall all like w●se p●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 Christian religion, it nullifieth the wonderful and gracious work of redemption, for if the Lord Jesus be not the only Jehova, the Supreme and most high God, than 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 soul's health; for this is the anchor of our faith, he that once offendeth in Apostatising 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 si●s of inferior rank I conceive a general confession and penitency will be accepted through Christ, by our most merciful, 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 only 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, del●ct●, and so called as being derelicta, (i) delinquencies, or desertion of that Aug. quaest. in Levit. n. 8●. 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 of all our sins, and a deprecation for God's 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 God's Mercy accepted through Christ, and therefore the holy Psalmist thus confesseth, and thus prayeth, 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 general confession. God be merciful to me a sinner, Salvianus saith, Veniam peto etsi delictum nescio, (i) I pray Salu. 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 ver● 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 certain pardonable sins without which a man can hardly live, which shall nor hinder a godly righteous man from heaven, provided that the generally confess, and deprecate them in the lump; and such an acknowledgement 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 historical faith, or a bold ungrounded conceit that they are elected to heaven, and shall be saved by this fancy, therein abusing the most comfortable and wholesome 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. ●. 15. venia in Gehennam detrud●ntur, (i) those that presume to act all manner of unrighteousness, 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 Erroneous Opinions and misbelief of the Incarnation of God, which I thus state. If the denial of the Godhead of Christ, persevered in impenitently▪ until death, (For after death, none of the damned are Atheists, or Arians) will certainly bring upon such a blasphemer, eternal perdition, because this blasphemy utterly disclaimeth the grand and principal means of Redemption, and so of salvation. I ask, 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 Virgin Mary, as conceiving it to be too great an abasement of the mighty God to pass through, and suffer the pollutions of the womb. And also, because they read in Scripture, John 13. 13. and 1 Corinthians 14. 47. The second man is the Lord from Heaven. Thus did some of the old Heretics believe, as the l Basil n. 37. Valentinians, and m Naz. n. 34. Apollinarius, n Aug. to 6. n. 9 the Manichees, and o Epiph, haer. Apelles said that Christ made himself a body of the Elements, and did not take it from Marie. And this they professed in a pretended honour 44. of Christ p Aug. to. 6. n. 10. jusipienti honorificentia as Saint Augustine calleth it; (id est) foolishly thinking thereby to honour Christ; and this was also one of the Tenants of the late Anabaptists, as we find in the sixteenth Centurie. Now to affirm these things is to gainsay the Doctrine and promise of Redemption, by the seed of the woman and the promised seed of Abraham and the son of David, for Christ is not from their loins, if his body came from Heaven; and although a simple well meaning soul, should live and die in this error, who hath always adhered to the main principal Doctrine, viz. God in Christ, and God incaruate, believing Vide supra, lib. 3. cap. 10. & 11. that Christ performed the Law actively for him, and also suffered death on the Cross for him in a body▪ howbeit not in such a body as descended from Adam, shall we affirm that such a misbeliever must necessarily perish? I answer, that I dare not so pronounce, because this sinful and erroneous conceit of the incarnation is at most but one of these sins which our Saviour called A word spoken against the Son of Man, Matthew 12. 32. For it is only against this humane nature, and no blasphemy against his Holy and Divine Spirit, or Godhead, and of such sins he saith, It shall be forgiven him, viz. If, such a sinner with an humble heart make an acknowledgement and general confession of his secret and unknown sins, (wherein this will be included) so as is before said, with a resolution to decline any thing that he knows to be sinful, so much (as by assistance of Gods, Grace) he can still holding himself close to the main foundation which the forenamed old Heretics did not, but vented many blasphemies against the Divine Nature, and also polluted themselves with many fowl Moral vices. I say, when Jesus Christ hath said, It shall be forgiven, how dare any Man presume to say, It shall never be forgiven. For, although the Erroneous conceits of Christ's Body coming down from Heaven do disturb the Order of God's dispensation, and the congruity of the work of Redemption and correspondence thereof with the words of the Covenant, yet it doth not take away, and root up the foundation. This doth not un-God our Redeemer, nor deny utterly the gracious work of Man's Redemption, So as this most blasphemous Commentary hath none; which I now (together with my weak endeavours in opening the dangerous Doctrines thereof) leave and submit to the censure of the learned, and to the nameless author thereof: I say, of both our Writings, as Saint Cyprian did Cyp. lib. 4. Epist. 9 to Paptanus. In die judicii ante Tribunal Christi utrumque recitabitur. To God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, three Persons, one only God, be ascribed all honour and glory for ever and ever Amen. Qualitèr haeretici pro falsae opinion, in die judicii puniendi sunt, nullus potest scire nisi Judex— patience est Deus, quia affectis piae opinionis errand. Salvian. degub. l. 5. p. 163. FINIS. THE TABLE Of the Contents of each several CHAPTER. THE FIRST BOOK, Containing General Animadversions upon the Commentary and Commenter, and the assertion of the Souls Immortality. Chapter I. CErinthus, Artemon, Theodotus, and Page. 1. Natalis, Authors and spreaders of the blasphemy of the denying Christ's Godhead. The Divine warning of Natalis: That after these Paulus Samosatenus, and Arius, were maintainers of the same Heresy. The spreading of it in several parts of the known world, even in our Britain. That it was here discovered in Queen Mary's days. And punished by fire in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and of King James; That the same is now revived by this Commenter, the quality of G. M. who negotiated in the Printing and publishing this Commentary. Chapter II. That the Commenter, though he carefully concealed Page 4 his own name, yet caused this his Book to be presented to divers persons of quality. That this Commenter is the first that ever published this Heresy in our English Print. Three reasons conceived why he concealeth his own name. Chapter III. Of the licensing of this Comment; the Licensers' Page 7 censure of it; and an Apology for him, in that he called this Commentary, a Comment, and in his letter to an honourable Person declared it to be erroneous. The copy of the Letter, a parallel passage of Libanius concerning Julian, and the Manichees concerning their Founder Manes; the ancient practice of burning such heretical books. Chapter IU. The Commenters' compliance in unsainting the Page 10 Apostles. The reason why the Title of Saint was of old withdrawn from Churches by the decree of a Council. That the abuse of images occasioned it, and yet that the Title of Saint was not denied to the persons of Holy men: Of his condemning Tombs. Something concerning Hypocrisy in long hair and short. Of the reason of the Nazarites long hair, and the hypocrisy of their imitators. Chapter V The Commenters' compliance with the old Arians. Page 15 The judgement of the Ancients concerning the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Vindication of Eusebius, concerning the words Homo ousion, and Homoi ousion, and also of the Nicene Fathers falsely charged by the Commenter, as if they favoured his own Heresy. How the Father and the Son are said to be Opposite, and yet both are but one God. The Commenters' Error in the Logical Doctrine of Relatives. Chapter VI That this Commenters principal design, was by Page 16 his pretended Commentary, to darken and extenuate, or confute the clear Evidences of this Divine Epistle, only because therein are many great Testimonies of Christ's Godhead: That herein he imitateth the practices of the old Heretics, Martion, Valentinus, and the Manichees. The Commenters misexpounding Hebrews 1. 6. in allowing Divine Adoration to Christ, and yet will not acknowledge him to be more than a creature; and in applying the appellation Jehova, to one whom he denieth to be the Supreme God, contrary to Psalm 83. 18. what prostration signifieth. Chapter VII. That this Commenter mis-expoundeth Hebrews Page 21 2. 2, 3. That the Gospel is therefore preferred before the Law, in that the Gospel was delivered by God himself immediately for it was delivered by Christ himself who is the Supreme and only God, whereas the Law was delivered, indeed by the same God; but mediately by the Ministry of Angels, or Creatures. A true Exposition of Acts 7. 53. and of Gal. 3. 19 and Exodus 20. 21. Moses and Paul reconciled. That Christ is the Author or Testator of the Evangelicall Testament, and not only a Witness or Martyr, as the Commenter would have him. Chapter VIII. The Immortality of the Souls of Men asserted against this Commenter, from our Saviour's Page 23 words, Matthew 22. 32. Luke 23. 43. That the Article of Resurrection is therefore expressed to be said of the body only, because the Soul dieth not, which is showed in Saint Paul's Rapture, and Saint Stephen's Prayer, from Church Writers, Philosophers, and Physicians observations in Anatomy the Souls mortality was the old Arabic Heresy. Of the immortality of Christ's humane Soul, and consequently of ours. That the Doctrine of the Souls immortality is now an Article of the Creed, and why this Article was then newly added to the old Creed. Chapter IX. That the Article of Christ's descent was added to Page 26 the old Creed, principally to set forth the Immortality of the Soul of Christ, and so of our souls: An examination of the tradition oral, and the writing of Creeds: The sum of the ancient Doctrine of Faith, briefly delivered by Irenaeus, and the most Ancient Creed thereunto agreeing, recorded by Tertullian. Chapter X. That divers additions were made to the old Creed Page 29 occasioned by divers Heresies. What the Heresies were, and what Articles they occasioned; and particularly, that the Arabic Heresy (denying the Souls immortality) occasioned the Article of Descent, is probably showed for that it was not any Creed generally received, before the death of Saint Austin, the Nicene hath it not yet, the Athanasian at first had it not, nor is it in the symbolical Hymn, called Te Deum; A modest censure of the Athanasian symbol and an Observation concerning the multitude of Creeds. Chapter XI. Of the word Hades, which is translated Hell, Page 32 that it proves the soul's immortality in that it signifies a being, subsistence or permanency of the souls of dead men separated from their bodies, and residing in a Mansion and Condition invisible to us Mortals. That the place and state of souls separated, is kept secret from us, though the knowledge thereof hath been, and is much desired. Of Saint Hierom's and Curina's visions, and the apparition of Irene deceased. Chapter XII. A censure of those visions of Saint Hierome, and Page 35 Curina, by comparing them with the Ecstasies of Saint Peter, and Saint Paul, mentioned, Acts 10. 10. and Acts 22. 17. What an Ecstacie, Trance, or Vision is. In what manner God spoke to the Prophets in visions. Of Saint John's Revelation. The difference between Divine Inspirations and profane Enthusiasms. That the one illuminates, the other obtenebrates men's understanding, and how such raptures or exstacies do argue and prove the Souls seperabilitie, and immortality. Chapter XIII. That the Apparitions of the dead do not prove the Page 39 Souls immortality. For that they are not really the Souls of men deceased, but possibly may be the delusions of Satan assuming the shapes of men. Why Necromancy is forbidden, Deuteronomie 18. 11. Albeit the dead cannot appear to the living at their desire. That the state of Souls separated is concealed. Chapter XIV. That the Souls immortality is confessed by the Page 41 Church Catholic. That the Commemoration of the dead in the Church Litnrgies, was principally to set forth the Church's belief of the immortality of their Souls. For that the dead receive no benefit by the prayers of the living: The Opinion of some Divines concerning Saint Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus, 2 Timothy 1. 18. and of that saying, 1 John 5. 16. of which see a full Exposition in my fourth Book. Chapter XV. That the Father's did not believe (as the Commenter Page 43 doth) that Souls departed are insensible, as if they were dead, or asleep, because the Saints departed do pray for the Church Militant, as the Father's thought. Chapter XVI. Of the departures of men's souls. That their conductors, Page 48 and leaders to the other World are Angels good or bad. That souls separated are settled in certain Mansions, is showed by Scriptures, and Fathers, whereby the permanency and immortality of the soul is clearby proved. That all those several mansions go under the general appellations of Heaven and Hell. Chapter XVII. A particular detection of the blasphemies contained Page 51 in the Commentary, which are reduced to these two heads The first, showing the blasphemies against the Godhead of Jesus Christ. The second, showing the blasphemies against the Incarnation of God and his gracious work of Redemption. CHAP. XVIII. The dreadful consequences of the Commenters' Page 51 blasphemies, in denying the Godhead of Christ, and his great works both of Creation and Redemption. That it is much better, never to have been born, or by death to be annihilated, or to perish as the beasts do, then to live and die in these sins, and to rise to judgement. The conclusion of the first Book. The Table. THE SECOND BOOK. Containing an assertion of the Godhead of Jesus Christ against the Commentary. Chapter I. AN introductory discourse concerning Page 1 the sin against the Holy Spirit, as it is described, Matth. 12. 31. Mark 3. 29. Luke 12. 10. Divers doubts, difficulties, and opinions thereof. Chapter II. What the word Blasphemy signifies; That this Page 4 sin was the blasphemous denying the Godhead of Christ, The spreading of that Pharisaical blasphemy amongst Jews and Heathens. Of Apollonius; of Tyana the Magician compared by Heathens, with Christ for miracles. Certain considerations premised for clearing doubts concerning this sin; and two conclusions extracted from those consisiderations. Chapter III. That the Godhead of the Son is called Spirit, 7 and Holy Spirit, that every Person in the Trinity is, and may be called the Everlasting Father, in respect of Creatures, and yet how the appellation Father is proper to the first Person. That every Person is holy, and an Holy Spirit, and yet how the appellation Holy Spirit is proper to the third Person. That the words Spirit and Ghost signify the same thing. Chapter IU. Divers Observations of the words of Christ, Matthew Page 20 12. The result is, that the Pharisee's blasphemy consisted in the denial of Christ's Godhead. The difference between a sin against the Son of Man, and against the Holy Spirit. The judgement of the Fathers herein. Chapter V The Opinion of later Divines concerning this Page 14 sin, that they affirm Arius and the Emperor Julian the Apostate to have sinned this sin. An examination of the particular sin of the said Arius and Julian, and a brief narration of their lives and deaths. Chapter VI. Why the Blasphemy of denying Christ's Godhead Page 33 is called the unpardonable Sin, that the Commenters' Doctrine in this grand Heresy, is no better than Judaisme or Turkism, that it is by the Fathers esteemed, and called Antichristianisme. To deny Christ's Godhead is to renounce redemption, and salvation by him, wherein the worth and preciousness of the blood of Christ consisteth. Chapter VII. That the Commenter in Logic showeth himself Page 37 to be a Porphyrian in denying the Godhead of Christ, and followeth the Heresies of Cerinthus, the Manichees, and Arius, and acteth for Antichrist, and Turkism. The Charactor of Socinus. Of the Grand Antichrist, and his numerous Corporation, which is the Mystical body of iniquity, and of their preachers. Chapter VIII. Of the Union 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 mutual communication of properties between the Divine and Humane Natures in Christ. The Heresy of Nestorius, his life, condemnation, banishment, and exemplary 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 Christ's Page 33 Deification. In what sense Christ may be truly said to be Deified in time, who was the only God from all Eternity. The true sense of divers say in Scripture concerning Christ's Exaltation. How the Son of God comes to be called Christ. Chapter X. How those scriptural say are to be understood Page 37 which mention the abasing or minoration of Christ the Son of God. An Exposition of 1 Cor. 15. 24. Concerning Christ's delivering up the Kingdom, and reigning till judgement, and his subjection afterwards. Of which see more in the 2 Section of this Chapter. Chapter XI. Why the unpardonable Sin is fastened rather Page 52 on the deniers of the Godhead of the Son, then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons in the Scriptures Expression. Of the form of words used at Baptism, diversely mentioned in Scripture, and the reason of that diversity. That Christ mediateth for us in Heaven, not verbally (as the Commenter would have it, but by a real presenting that Person, who in our stead, did perform and suffer what was required of his mystical Body. Chapter XII. The Godhead of Jesus Christ shown by Scriptures Page 55 Prophetical and Evangelicall by the Type of the Tabernacle, which was as a visible habitation of God representing the Body of Christ. How the Heathens imitated 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 than the Temple: That (notwithstanding, the Commenters cavil) the patriarchs belived in the same Son 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 final or ultimate Object of The Christians prayer and worship Chapter XV. How the only and most high God became a Priest Page 65 and a Mediator: That Christ is prayed to, and yet is a Mediator: How Christ is said to pray, and yet is the supreme God: That every Person in the Trinity may be prayed to. Chapter XVI. The Godhead of Christ shown 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 custom of bowing, when the Name Page 71 Jesus is mentioned, was appointed principally to set forth his Godhead, and to keep Christians in a continual Confession and memory 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 Trinity hath any name proper, but only the Son: Of divers appellative Names of God. Chapter XIX. An enquiry, 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 only the Name Jesus: The Authors submission hereof to the learned Reader. Chapter XX. The Godhead of Christ shown from his appellation Page 79 Jehova: That no mere 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 Book, with the Page 82 Authors resolute Confession of Jesus Christ to be the most High, and the Only Lord God. The Table. THE THIRD BOOK. Containing an Assertion of the Incarnation of the most High and Only 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 Eternal Godhead of Christ, and to the Article Homo-ousion: His judgement concerning Gods visible appearance to the patriarchs, in the Person of the Son: That the supreme God appeared to Abraham in the Person of the Son: The Unity 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 truly. Two questions propounded concerning the visibility, and invisibility 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 IU. 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 corporeal shape: Of Gods walking in Paradise: That the apparitions of God in corporeal shapes, were but Preambles, and Prefigurations of his Incarnation. Chapter V That the Incarnation of God was foreshowed in Page 13 words, and by promises: The meaning of the Image of God wherein Man was made: The meaning of the oath under Abraham's thigh: The mystery of Abraham's entertaining God at meat, and of jacob's wrestling with God, unfolded: What is meant by the Backparts of God: A rejection of the errors of the Anthropomorphites, and an Explication of the first Article of England's Religion. Chapter VI The second question, Why the Fathers said, Page 16 that only the Son was seen by the Patriarches, 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 Saint Austin therein, and the Author's submission thereof to the Reader: That because God was to be Incarnate, only in the Person of the Son, and not in the Person of the Father, therefore the ancient Fathers said, that God was seen in the Person of the Son only, and not in the Person of the Father. Chapter VII. The Incarnation of the Son of God is showed against Page 22 the Commenter; That a mere Man may be said to be Incarnate, and so may Christ be truly said, and much rather, because the soul of Man may exist without a body, and the Godhead of Christ really did exist from Eternity without a Body, until his assumption of a temporary shape, and his Incarnation in an ever durable Body. That the Scripture calleth him that denieth Christ's Incarnation, a deceiver, and an Antichrist. Chapter VIII. That the Son of God was to be Incarnate necessarily, Page 27 by virtue of the Covenant, although God could have saved Man by his Power, without the Incarnation: Of that curious question, viz. What God did before the Creation? That God was never solitary, though always but One. Of the Everlasting, or Eternal Covenant between the Persons of the Father, and the Son before the world. Chapter IX. Of the Covenant between God and Man, divers Page 33 times▪ renewed. The first words of the Covenant about the Tree of Knowledge before the fall. The second words of bruising the Serpent's head since the fall. The same Covenant with Abraham, and afterwards with Moses in more words. The outward signs of the Covenant, viz. Sacrifices, circumcision, Tabernacle, and levitical rites. That the Legal and Evangelicall Covenant are but one. The words of the Evangelicall Covenant. Why it is called a new Covenant,— the Covenant of Grace, and of works,— a better Covenant,— and a Testament of Christ's surety— ship: The reason why Christ was circumcised and Baptised. Chapter X. That (as our state & condition now standeth) Page 38 man cannot be redeemed and saved, but through the Incarnation, Obedience, and death of the Son of God. That our salvation is not wrought by the request and verbal entreaty of Christ, nor by the power only, of God without satisfaction of his Justice. The distinction between Christ's satisfaction and his merit. How Gods just Sentence was fully executed on man, and his Law perfectly performed by man. Chapter XI. That Christ was a Person fitly qualified to stand Page 41 in stead of all Mankind: The mutual unity of Christ and Mankind; in that Christ t●oke his flesh from Man, and Man received the Spirit from Christ. That from this mutual unity it is, that Christ's Obedience both Active Passive with great justice, and equity, may be imputed to Mankind. Chapter XII. What interest the unregenerate man hath in Page 54 Christ. That the Divine Spirit of Christ is communicated to the unregenerate; and therewith some common graces. That the Doctrine of the Church declareth the benefit of Christ's death to be offered to all men, good, and bad. That God is essentially present in every creature, though not commugnicating his sanctifying Grace to every one: The Stoics error concerning the souls of Men. Apollinarius his Heresy concerning the soul of Christ. Chapter XIII. The Heresy of Valentinus and others concerning Page 59 the Body of Christ compared with the Heresy of Apollinarius concerning Christ's Soul. That the Arguments proving the derivation of the flesh of Christ from man's body, do as well prove the traduction of his soul. That the soul of man by nature is Carnal: The doctrine of the Church of England doth not clearly determine the original of Christ's soul: That if the traduction of souls be granted, it will argue a greater nearness and conjunction of God and Man. Chapter XIV. The question of the propagation of the soul of Page 63 Christ, and of other men's souls discoursed: the difficulty thereof showed out of Saint Austin, and his inclination and reasons to believe traduction rather than a daily new creation of souls: The judgement of the Western Church herein alleged by Saint Hierome: That the opinion of Traduction is not inconsistent with Christian Faith: But if it be granted, it argues a nearer relation between Christ and us, than otherwise: the Author leaves it undetermined with submission to the judicious Reader. Chapter XV. The Ubiquity of the Spirit of Christ: Of the Page 67 diversity of the Graces thereof: In what degree and measure the Spirit with its common Graces is communicated to men unregenerate: How the one Spirit of God is in Scripture represented, as if there were more than one: how it is said, to be withdrawn, or not yet given, when it is always present: That the union of God and man is hence concluded. Chapter XVI. That the presence of the Spirit doth not always Page 71 sanctify, is proved from the unction of Heathen Kings: How such are called Gods anointed: though they were not ceremonially anointed with oil: of Christ's Unction, and the appellation of Christians: Vespasian's touching and curing the infirm thereby. The King of England's cures and unction: Of the gift of healing mentioned, 1 Cor. 12. 9 Whether it be utterly ceased. Chapter XVII. The union of Christ, and his Church further Page 76 showed. Why Christ is called Adam: David and Jacob: Why all mankind was extracted out of one man; Why Saint Austin denied that there were any Antipodes: The difference between Christ's union with all mankind and his more special union with his Church: An Exposition of Heb. 7. 9 Touching the difference of Levi and Christ, who were both in the loins of Abraham, which place is purposely obscured by the Commenter. The Table. THE FOURTH BOOK. Containing a discussion of this Question, Whether the blasphemy of denying Christ's Godhead (which is the sin against the holy Spirit) be absolutely unpardonable; with full Expositions of certain Scriptures in the Hebrews, and other places which concern that sin. Chapter I. THe question stated: The judgement of Page 1 some late Divines therein, and their grounds: That to affirm it absolutely unpardonable, seemeth derogatory to the infinite mercy of God in Christ, and the grace of repentance. The efficacy of true repentance. Chapter II. That this sin possibly may be pardoned, upon Page 5 the sinner's repentance: That God's threaten are not to be understood as absolute, but as conditional: That therefore his threaten are not always executed, and yet his Truth not violated. That threaten are intended for provocations to repentance; an observation upon Theodosius. The judgement of the Father's concerning those threaten. Chapter III. That the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, or Page 8 Godhead of Christ, is then only unpardonable, when it is accompanied with final impenitency, a short Exposition of Matth. 12 31. Chapter IU. Whether the grace of repentance be absolutely denied Page 11 to those who have once sinned this sin. The judgement of some Divines herein. A full Exposition begun of Heb. 6. 4. concerning final impenitency. That the word enlightened is there meant of Baptism. That the principal scope of that place is against the presumption of Anabaptism, or a second Baptism. Chapter V That the word Renew is to be understood only of Page 16 renovation by a new Baptism. That sinners after Baptism may have the remedy of repentance, but not by a new Baptism. The distinction of renewing. 1 Baptismal. 2 Moral or penitential. Four Propositons, by which the meaning of these words is collected. In what sense sins original, or actual are said to be taken away in Baptism. Chapter VI. How a second Baptism, is said to be a new crucifying Page 19 of Christ: That it is ignominious to the All-sufficient sacrifice of Christ: That a second Baptism doth no good but much harm, it aggravates sins, even as rain maketh weeds to grow, that these words do not prove an impossibility of repentance; but only an impossibility of renewing by a new Baptism. Chapter VII. A review of those words, Heb. 6. 4. and some Page 25 doubts cleared. That none were anciently called illuminate, but only the Baptised; That Catechising was not then called illumination. What moved the Apostle to handle the Doctrine of Baptism, and so strictly to forbid Anabaptism in the Epistle to the Hebrews, rather than in other Epistles. Chapter VIII. The distinction of Baptisms into true and false: Page 30 The forms of Pseudobaptismes among Heretics; That after their dipping, a true Baptism may be administered, and yet cannot be accounted Anabaptism: The Novatian Baptism was a true Baptism; Saint Cyprian is in part excused. Chapter IX. That the Disciples of Ephesus, Acts 19 who Page 34 said they had been baptised to John's Baptism, were (notwithstanding) then Baptised by Saint Paul's appointment, yet that this example doth not warrant Anabaptism, because John's Baptism was then out of date and Null: john's too late Baptism compared with the now Jewish Circumcision, and both found unlawful. Chapter X. Of true Christian Baptism; that it may not Page 38 be twice ministered. No Heretic maintained two Baptisms but only Martion: What Martion was, & the reason why he multiplied Baptism: The reasons why, Novatians, Donatists, and the late Anabaptists rebaptised; answers to their reasons: Of baptising Infants, of Saint Cyprians error, and Athanasius his ludicrous Baptism. Chapter XI. That the ancient Church allowed but one Baptism, Page 46 is showed by the then frequent deferring it till ripe years, or old age, That their delaying was mostly for carnal respects: The danger of delaying Baptism: The Story of a Jew Anabaptist: An example upon an Arian Pseudobaptisme: The summary meaning of that Scripture, and the Exposition concluded. Chapter XII. A full Exposition of Heb. 10. 26. The particular Page 52 sin against the Holy Spirit, is showed to be the blasphemous denying Christ to be God; What is meant by accounting his blood common or unholy: The unsufficiency of legal sacrifices, and the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Chapter XIII. Of several degrees of this sin of denying and rejecting Page 57 Christ and salvation by him. First, some deny him outwardly, only by compulsion and terror of torments. Secondly, Others wilfully uncompelled. Thirdly, Others, both wilfully, and also after-knowledge, as Arius Julian, and this Commenter. The concurrence of Theophilact and Saint Anselm in the sense of this place. Chapter XIV. That the remedy of repentance is not absolutely Page 61 taken away from them who have sinned the grand sin of denying and renouncing Christ: That such possibly may repent: That this sin is then only unpardonable, when it is accompanied with small impenitency. The Conclusion of this Exposition. Chapter XV. Whether such blasphemers, if they repent may Page 64 possibly find mercy: The difference of repentance Legal and Evangelicall. The repentance of Judas: The difference of Repentance and Rescipiscence: The Conclusion, that true repentance is never totally rejected: Objections out of the Old Testament answered: Why temporal pressures are not always removed upon true repentance. Chapter XVI. A full and large Exposition of 1 John 5. 16. Page 70 That the Fathers called some sins Venial, and some Mortal, albeit every sin in its own nature and merit is mortal or deadly. What is meant by a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death: That sins are not equal. Chapter XVII. The judgement of the Fathers and ancient Expositors Page 74 concerning sin unto death: The Discipline of the Primitive Church correspondent to their judgement. That the greatest sins may be, and actually have been pardoned: The true sense of the Fathers in calling some sins venial, and some mortal. Chapter XVIII. The meaning of those words, [I do not say he shall pray for it] That the praying or not Page 79 praying mentioned, is to be understood of the living, and not of the dead: The practice of the Church in praying for penitents: The manner of Ecclesiastical or outward penance showed in the penance of the Lady Fabiola. In what case God forbade praying for sinners in the Old Testament. Chapter XIX. That no condition of any grand sinner, is so desperate Pag 83 during life, but that he may be prayed for in this sense, that he may have the grace of conversion: Certain Propositions of Divines concerning the matter now in hand, are examined: The practice of the Synagogue and Church in praying for all Mankind, the concurrence of the Church of England therein; praying even for Heathens, Idolaters, Persecutors and Heretics. Chapter XX. The meaning of those words [I do not say he Page 89 shall pray for it] set down positively, and conclusively: The difference between praying for the Person, and praying for the sin: The different prayers for a sinner penitent, and a sinner not yet penitent. The practice of this Church in praying for persecutors, and yet against them. The prayers of Christ and Saint Stephen explained. The case of Alexander the Coppersmith. Chapter XXI. A Recapitulation of the former Expositions of Page 94 those four places. That final impenitency cannot be called the Grand sin. The difference of repentance required for the inferior and unknown sins. Of the Solifidian doctrine. The particular sin of misbelieving the Incarnation of God censured with Charity. The conclusion of this fourth Book. FINIS. Errors of the Press. In the Title page line 12 for 1647 read 1646. In the advertisement to the reader, p. 3. l. the last, to Joh. Hen. Bisters●ldius add and published An. 1639. In the preface p. 12. l. 29 r. only. In the 1. Book, p. 18 l. 10 r your word is▪ p. 28. l. 7. r. mortuos, p. 29 l. 18 r. one Lord, p. 30 l. 38 r. Nicetas, p. 33 l. 41 r. a dead, p. 34 l. 32 r. Sentence, p. 47 l. 19 soul r. joul, p. 51 l. 29 pro r. per in the margin. In the 2 Book. p. 3 l. 8 fur r for▪ p. 6 l. 27 Lucan r. Bucan p 8 l. 33 Ehat r. That, p. 12 l. 16 aith r. saith, l. 18 sod r. Son l 23 conjicietur r. conjicietur, p. 17 l. 19 r. how can, p 18 l. 37 Olympus r. Olympius, p. 22 l. 15 r. Grat● justitia, p 26 l. 19 r. also, p. 28 l. 8 r. Son of David, l. 12 no r. nor▪ p. 32, ib. r. so in S. Chrysost. is called, p. 29. l. 28 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p 32 l. 22 r. Patellarii, l. 27 r. Goddified, l. 34 r. Deificatio est Dei imitatio, p. 34 l 11 r. became, p. 37 l. 14 r. As is, p 39 l 2 r Saints, p. 42 l. 33 r. the, p. 43 l 6. r. contrectas. l. 8 r. Christus, p 49 l 20 r. not at all, p. 54 l. 15 r. Vngentem, p 58 l. 9 r. sacrifice, p. 59 r. Dei, p. 65 l. 27 r. orat, p. 73 l. 19 r. before▪ p. 83 l. 1. 38, r. 83 l. 3 r. Decep●i. In the 3. Book, p. 1 uli. r. of the heresy of Artemon, p. 2 l. 13 r. there, l. 39 r. de Demonstra●ion●, p. 3 l 34 idem, p. 4 l. 2 you mean, p 4. l. 5. r etc. l. 8 r. and, p. 5 l. 9 Tertullus, l. 11 r. as in the l. 12 these r. the p. 7 l. 37 ● that the, p. 8 l 33 r. Majesty, p. 9 l. 15 r. Nemo essentiam Dei vid●t, Deus essentia invisibilis, p. 11 l 34 r. viderunt, l. ●9 r. with our first Parents, p. 12 l. 33. r. figura veritatem, p. 15 l. 15 r. Posterio▪ itatem l. 31 r. Audian errors, p. 7 l 18 r. we read, p. 18 l. 33 r. and the holy Ghost l. 38 p. 119 r. p. 11, p. 19 l. 22 leave out id est, l 35 r. other fathers, p. 22 l. 12 r. Christ cannot be said to be Incarnate, for neither can th● faithful be said to be incarnate though, p. 23 l. 8 r. and to, p 25 l. 30 r. is, p. 26 20 r. were, p. 29 l. 3 r. sum▪ p. 31 l 26 r. it, p. 37 l. 21 r est, p. 42 l 33 r. 3 r. Son, p. 43 l. 8, r. is also put, p. 51 l 17 ●. 1. 2ae. p. 52 l. 4 r. to p. 56 l. 26 r. thep. 58 l. 30 r. as, p. 62 l. 3 r. implicitly Lio 3 p. 78 l. 26 r▪ intimated. Lib. 4 p 6 l. 34 r. converted, p. 9 l. 35 r. Arian, p. 20 l. 23 r. jacientes, ib l. 33. r. her, p. 21 l. 11 r. the Son, p. 22 l. 15 r. twice, p 23 l. 19 r. highn, p. 25 l 20 r. Adulto-Baptism p. 28 l. 21 r. them, p. 30 l. 32 r mitiantur, p. 38 l. 31 r. (but from but to supper)▪ p. ●9 l. 17 r. Martion, ibid. l 27 r. there▪ p 41 l 32 r. Cornelius, p 43 l 10 r. caused, p 45 l 27 r infants, p 73 l 10 r ad mortem, ib. l 30 p 201 r. p 62, 87 l 30 r. sinner, p 90▪ l 39 r. of, p 92 l 12 r. such Saints, p 94 l. 22 r. to renew them. p 99 l 25 r. john 3 john 6 38 that he came down from heaven. p 101 l 6 r. Pupianus: Errors in the Margin, The Preface, p 8 l 5 r. 1 Cor 12, 13: The 1 Book p 1 l 2 Euseb. lib. 5 r. cap. 28 p 23 l 9 r. Tull. Epist. 69 lib. 5 p 33 l 3 r. Euseb. de Demonst. p 46 l 8 r. n. 6: The 2 Book, p 9 l r. Pelagian. p 31 l 17 r. lib. 4, p 33 l 4, r. dofilii Divinitate p 38 l 2 nu. r n. 27, p 44 l 11 r. de verb. Domini, l 16 & p 45 l 7 p 45 l 9 r. serm. 48▪ p 80 l 10 r. 5 n, 13: The 3 Book▪ p 2 l 3 r. 23, p 5 l 7 r. Sue●. p 7 l 7 r. lib. 5 n: 17, p 12 l 4 r. c. 7, p 23 l 3 r. 64, p 24 l 3 add it: homil: 40 Antioch: p 41 l 7 r Ambrose, p. 44 l. 1 r Aug: in Ps: 21: The 4 Book, p 8 l 4 r. vide infrà cap. 21, p 15 16 r n: 50 p 29 l 16 l 12 c: d: r: lib. 12 c: 6, p 30 Ambr: de sacram lib: 4 c: 4 p 33 l 3 r: 1 c: 6, p 41 l 5 lib: 6 c: 36: r: lib: 7 c: 2, p 44 l r: Episcop: Nor: p 4 9 l 2 r: cap. 1 ●: 78, p 67 l 14 Des: 1 l 1 ●: Dec: 1 lib. 1, p 69 l 4 r: Augustini p. 72 l 4 ●: 18, r: n: 28 l p 73 l 2 to: 6 r: August n: 5 to: 6, p 85 l: 10 r. Haeres: 88 to: 6, ibid. l 12, r: ad Genuenses, p 86 l 9, r: de p 91 l: 2, r: suprà.