Theologia veterum, or, The summe of Christian theologie, positive, polemical, and philological, contained in the Apostles creed, or reducible to it according to the tendries of the antients both Greeks and Latines : in three books / by Peter Heylyn.

ARTICVLI 3. Pars 2 ^da. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum. i. e. His only Son our Lord. (Book 3)

CHAP. II. That JESUS CHRIST is the Son of God; why called his only or his only begotten Son. Proofs for the God-head of our Sa∣viour. Of the title of Lord.

THat which next followeth is the first of those two Relations in which we do behold our Saviour in this present Article; his only Son; i. e. the only Son of God the Father Almighty, whom we found spoken of before. That God had other sons in ano∣ther sense, there is no question to be made. All mankinde in some sense may be called his sons; The workmanship of his creation. Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us (a) 1.1? saith the Prophet Malachi in the Old Testament. Our Father which art in Heaven, saith Christ our Savi∣our for the New (b) 1.2. The Saints and holy men of God are called his sons al∣so in the more peculiar title of adoption. For who else were the sons of God in the 6. of Genesis, who are said to take them wives of the daughters of men (c) 1.3, but the posterity of Seth, the righteous seed, by and amongst whom hitherto the true worship of the Lord had been preserved? More clearly the Evangelist in the holy Gospel; To as many as received him gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them which believed in his Name (d) 1.4. Most plainly the Apostle saying, As many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God, having received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby they cry to him Abba, Father (e) 1.5. And in this sense must we understand those passages of holy Scripture, where such as are regenerate and made the children of God by adoption of grace, are said to be born of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (f) 1.6, as Iohns phrase is, both in his Gospel and Epistle. Not that they have the Lord God for their natural Father, (for so he is the Father only of our Lord Iesus Christ) but because being begotten by immor∣tal seed, the seed of his most holy Word, they are regenerate and born again unto life eternal. This is the seed of God spoken of by St. Iohn, which re∣maineth in us; by which we are begotten to an inheritance immortal, undefiled and that fadeth not away, reserved for us in the Heavens (g) 1.7, as St. Peter tels us. In neither of these two respects can we consider Christ as the Son of God. For if he were

the Son of God in no other respect, then either in regard of Creation or Adoption only: he could not possibly be called Gods only Son, or his only begotten Son, but at the best, multis e millibus unus, one of the many thousands of the sons of God.

There is a more particular title by which some more selected vessels both of grace and glory, have gained the honourable appellation of the sons of God: that is to say, by being admitted to a clearer participation and fruition of eternal blisse; or made more intimately acquainted with his secret will. In the first of these respects the blessed Angels have the title of the sons of God. Where wast thou (saith the Lord in the book of Iob) when I laid the foundation of the earth, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy (h) 1.8? The sons of God, that is to say, the holy Angels Per filios Dei, Angeli intelliguntur, saith the learned Estius on the place. And so St. Augustine doth determine, who hereupon inferreth that the Angels. were created before the stars; and not after the six days were finished, as some it seems had taught in the times before him: Iam ergo erant Angeli quando facta sunt sydera, facta sunt autem sydera die quarto, (i) 1.9, as he most rati∣onally concludes from this very text. In this respect also the Saints in glory are called the sons or children of God, and said to be equall to the Angels in St. Lukes Gospell (k) 1.10: not that they have all the prerogatives and properties which the Angels have; sed quod mori non possunt, saith the text, but because they are become immortall, and no longer sub∣ject (as before) to the stroke of death. In the last meaning of the word, though all the Saints and holy men of God may be called his children, be∣cause they are adopted to the right of sons, and made co-heires with CHRIST their most blessed Saviour: yet is the title more applia∣ble to the Prophets of God, at least appliable unto them after a more peculiar manner, then unto any others of the children of men. I have said, saith David, ye are Gods, and ye are all the children of the most High (l) 1.11. Of whom here speaks the Psalmist, of Gods people generally, or only of some chosen and select vessels? Not of Gods people generally, there's no doubt of that, though both St. Augustine and St. Cyril seem to look that way; but of some few particulars only, as Euthymius, and some others with more reason thinke. And those particulars must either be the Princes and Judges of the earth, who are called Gods by way of participation, because they do participate of his power in government: or else the Prophets of the Lord, who are called Gods, and the sons or children of the most High, by way of communication, be∣cause God doth communicate and impart to them his more secret purpo∣ses, that they might make them known to the sons of men. Them he called Gods, as Christ our Saviour doth expound it, (then whom none better un∣derstood the meaning of the royal Psalmist) ad quos sermo dei factus est, i. e. to whom the word of the Lord came (m) 1.12, as our English reads it. And what more common in the Scripture then this forme of speech, factum est verbum Domini, &c. The word of the Lord came to Isaiah, Isa. 38.4. The word of the Lord came to Ieremiah, Ier. 1.2. The word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, Ezek. 1.3. et sie de caeteris. If then such men to whom the word of the Lord came, might justly be entituled by the name of Gods, and called the sons of the most High; assuredly there was not any of the children of men which could with greater reason look to be so called, then the holy Prophets. And yet in none of these respects abstracted from an higher consideration, is CHRIST our Saviour here called by the name of the Son of God, or so intended in this Creed. For Angel he was none in the proper signification of the word; though called the Angel of the Covenant in the way of Metaphore. Nor did he take the nature of Angels, but the seed of Abraham (o) 1.13, as St. Paul tels us to the Hebrews. We may not think so meanly of him, as to ranke him only in the list of the Saints departed: it being through the merits of his death and passion, that the Saints are made partakers of the glories of heaven, and put into an estate

of immortality. Tis true indeed he was a Prophet, the Prophet promised to succeed in the place of Moses (p) 1.14 that Prophet, in the way of excellence, in the first of Iohn v. 21, 25. But then withall, as himself telleth us of Iohn the Baptist, he was more then a Prophet (q) 1.15, that word which came unto the Pro∣phets in the times of old, and to whom all the Prophets did bear witness, for the times to come. A King indeed he is, even the King of Kings, though not considered in that notion here upon the earth, nor looked on in that title in the present Article. Or if we could reduce him unto any of these; yet take him as an Angel, or a Saint departed, or a King, or Prophet, every of which have the name of Sons in the book of God: he could not be his only Son, the only begotten Son of God the Father Almighty, who hath so many Saints and Angels, so many Kings and Prophets, which are called his Sons.

It must needs follow hereupon that IESVS CHRIST our Lord is the Son of God, by a more divine and near relation, then hath been hither∣to delivered. And hereunto both God and Man, the Angels and internal spirits, give sufficient testimony. The Lord from heaven procliamed him at his Baptisme(r) 1.16, and Transfiguration (s) 1.17, to be his well beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased: And Peter on the earth, having made this acknowledge∣ment and confession, saying, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God (t) 1.18; re∣ceived this confirmation from our Saviours mouth, that flesh and bloud had not revealed it unto him, but that it came from God the Father which is in Heaven. The Angel Gabriel when he brought the newes of his incarnation, foretold his mother that he should be called the Son of God (u) 1.19, the Son of the most High, in a former verse. And a whole Legion of unclean Spirits in the man possessed, joynes both of these together in this compellation, IESVS thou Son of God most high (x) 1.20. A thing not worthy so much noise and ostentation, had he not been the Son of God in another and more excellent manner, then any of the sons of men who either lived with him, or had gone before him: had there not been something in it extraordinary, which might entitle him unto so sublime and divine a priviledge. Though Iohn the Baptist were a Prophet, yea and more then a Prophet, yet we do not finde that the Devils stood in awe of him, (for Iohn the Baptist did no miracles (y) 1.21) or looked upon him in the wilderness, as the Son of God. To which of all the holy Angels (as St. Paul disputes it) did the Lord say at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee (a) 1.22? And who can shew us any King but him that was the Son of God as well as of David, whom God the Lord advanced to so high an honour, as to cause him to sit down at his own right hand, till his enemies were made his footstoole (b) 1.23. Though Angels, Kings and Prophets were the sons of God, by a communication of more speciall Grace, then had been granted generally to the sons of men: yet none but CHRIST our Lord is honoured with those high prerogatives, of being called his own Son (c) 1.24, his only Son (d) 1.25, his only begotten Son (e) 1.26, the first born of every Creature (f) 1.27, the first born from the dead (g) 1.28, and the heir of all things (h) 1.29, that so in all things he might have the preheminence. Which glorious attributes and titles being laid together, do put a very signall and materi∣all difference between the sons of God by adoption, and grace, and IESVS CHRIST our Lord and most blessed Saviour, who is his son by nature, his begotten Son, begotten by his Father before all times, generatione 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by an unspeakable manner of generation without help of woman▪ and yet made of a woman in the fulness of time, generatione 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by a supernatural kind of generation without help of man. In terris sine Patre, in coelis sine Matre, as it is in Origen, Without a Father on the earth, with∣out a Mother in heaven; the very true Melchisedech which hath no descent (k) 1.30 who neither had beginning of days, as the Son of God the Fa∣ther alone; nor shall have any end of life, as he is the Son of God and the Virgin Mary.

Now of this twofold generation of the Son of God, we will first speak of that which is last in Order, his generation in the womb of the Virgin Mary, in which he was incarnate by the holy Ghost, and was made flesh and dwelt amongst us (l) 1.31 for a season, that we might live with him for ever. For being begotten and conceived in the Virgins womb, after such a supernatural and wonderful manner, by the Almighty power of God, he is in that regard (if there were no other) Gods own Son, or his son by nature, his only and his only begotten Son, take which phrase we will. The Angel Gabriel doth affirme this twice for failing. Behold, thou shall conceive and bring forth a Son, and shalt call his name Jesus; he shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest (m) 1.32. And then unto the Virgins Quaere he returns this answer, The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. What? called the Son of God only, and not be so really? Not so, but that being really and truly the Son of God, he shall declare the same by such several means, ut sic merito ab omnibus vocetur (n) 1.33, that so he shall be called and counted over all the world. For that he was really and truely the Son of God, by this his generation in the fulness of time, the miraculous manner of his conception, without any other Father then the power of God, doth most assuredly evince. A son begotten in that manner, may very well be called, natura filius, non tantum beneficio filius (o) 1.34, a son by nature, not by grace and indulgence only, saith the learned Maldonate. Quia non ex viro, sed ex solo Deo concipiendus, because begotten not by man, but by God alone. Nay so peculiarly doth this miraculous manner of his generation entitle him to be the true and proper Son of Almighty God, that so he might be justly called and accompted of, had he not been the Son of the living God, by a preceding generation even before all times. And so doth Maldonate resolve it in his Commentaries on St. Lukes Gospel, though otherwise a great assertor of the eternal generation of the Son of God: whose words I shal put down at large for the greater certainty (p) 1.35: Etiamsi Christus Deus non fuisset, illo tamen modo genitus quo genitus fuit, merito Dei Filius vocatus fuisset, non solum ut caeteri viri sancti, sed singulari quadam ratione, quod non alium quam Deum haberet patrem, neo ab alio quam ab eo generatus. So he, I think exceeding rightly to the point in hand. His instance or exemplification in the case of Adam, who is called the Son of God by the same St. Luke (q) 1.36, quia non a viro sed a Deo genitus erat, because he was begotten by God and not by Man, I cannot by any means approve of: the production of our Father Adam, not being to be reckoned as a generation, but to be esteemed of as a work of Creation only. But to proceed, as Christ is properly and truly the Son of God, by this his generation in the womb of his Virgin-mother: so in the same respect is he called in Scripture, the only, and the only begotten Son of God the Father. I know that generally the style or attribute of the only begotten Son of God, is used for an argument or con∣vincing reason to prove that Christ our Saviour is the Son of God by an eter∣nall generation long before all worlds. But by their favours I conceive, that he is called Gods only begotten Son, either in reference to this his generation in the womb of the Virgin, because the only Son of God which was so begotten; or else because he was most dearly loved of his heavenly Father, as commonly an only Son is best and most affectionately beloved of an earthly Parent. To the first sense I have the testimony of Vrsinus, a Divine of the reformed Churches, who though he hold that CHRIST is principally called the only begotten Son of God, secundum divinitatem suam, according to his Divine nature: yet he concludes that aliquatenus, after a sort he may be called so in his humane na∣ture (r) 1.37. His reason is, Quia etiam secundum hane tali modo est genitus, quali nun∣quam quisquam alius, ex Virgine nimirum incorrupta vi Spiritus sancti; that is to say, because according to that nature he was begotten in such a manner as never any had been before or since, as being conceived of a pure Virgin by the holy Ghost. And to the second sense I have that of Maldonate, who on these

words, Hic est filius meus dilectus, in the 3. of Matthew, observes that filius di∣lectus and filius unigenitus, are termes reciprocal (t) 1.38: that not alone in Homer, but in holy Scripture, the best beloved Son, is called the only begotten, and on the other side, that by only begotten in St. Iohn he means best beloved. God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son; that is to say, his best beloved Son. For unigenitum posuit pro charissimo, as his words there are. But what need Maldonate be produced in so clear a case, which hath so plain an evidence from the word of God? For read we not that God commanded Abraham, to offer his only son Isaac, as our English reades it (u) 1.39, unigenitum filium tuum, the only begotten Son as the Vulgar hath it. So the Greek reads it also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is the word used of Christ, in the present Article) in the 11. Chap. to the Hebrewes, vers. 17. And yet we know that Abraham had another son, a son whom he had circumcised by Gods own command, of whom twelve Princes were to come, and whom God promised to make a puissant Nation (x) 1.40. And therefore Isaac must be called his only son, because preferred before the other in the love of his Father. Filius tuus unigenitus, i e. filius quem diligis; Isaac thine only son, that is to say, the son whom thou only lovest, as there the text, without the help of commentator doth expound it self. And if the name of unigenitus or Gods only Son, may warrantably be ap∣plyed to Christ in his humane nature, there is not much question to be made but that in the very same capacity, he may be called filius proprius or Gods own Son (y) 1.41, (He spared not his own Son) by which name he occurreth in St. Paul to the Romans.

Lesse question is there to be made, or indeed no question, but that according to the same humane nature, and in relation to his being begotten in the fulness of time, he is entituled in the Scriptures the first born of every Creature (z) 1.42 the first born from the dead, and the heir of all things: though there be something in those titles which doth require a further consideration. For first, his being called the first born of every Creature, gives no incouragement at all to the Arian facti∣ons to make the Son of God a created essence; no more then Kings may be called creatures of the peoples making, because called an ordinance of man (humana creatura (a) 1.43, in the Vulgar latine) in the holy Scripture. The reason why our Saviour is there called by the Apostle Primogenitus omnis Creaturae, or the first born of every Creature, is neither to give him the precedency of all Creatures else, or to rank his whole Person in the list of created substances: but either to entitle him to the rights of Primogeniture, which were great amongst the sons of men, or to denote that he supplyed the place of the first begotten, and was the general ransome or redemption for them. Concerning which we may take notice that by the Law of Moses the first that opened the matrix of all living Creatures, were holy and cousecrated to the Lord (b) 1.44: if of clean beasts, then to be offered up in kind to the Lord their God, but if of men or unclean Creatures, then either to be redeemed for a piece of money, or some clean beast was to be brought unto the Lord in exchange for it; as in the case of the first male child, a pair of Turtle doves, or two small Pigeons. The reason was, because the Lord having slain the first born of Egypt both of man and beast,had spared all the first born of the house of Israel; and therefore he re∣quired the first male of every Creature to be offered to him in sacrifice, that so the whole off-spring might be sanctifyed and made useful to them. But being the offering of a dumb Creature was really and of it self no sufficient price for the redemption of the first male child which opened the Matrix nor able to sanctifie both male and female in every family to the Lord their God (for he that sanctifyeth and they that are sanctifyed must be all of one (c) 1.45, as the A∣postle doth infer): therefore did CHRIST take upon himself the place of stead of the first born, that being offered unto God, the clean for the unclean, he might sanctifie all things unto God, and make them acceptable in the sight of their Lord and maker, which were of a nature capable of such sanctification and acceptance as the Lord requireth in his creature. Now as

the ransome of the first born was discharged by him; so was it just that all the rites of Primogeniture should belong unto him; which were the Principality, the Priest-hood, and the double portion. Those Reuben having forfeited by his great offence, were so distributed amongst his Brethren, that the Priesthood was be∣stowed on Levi, the Principality on Iudah, the double portion upon Ioseph, who thereupon was branched into the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasses. But they were all again united in the person of CHRIST, that being thus made the first born of every Creature, he might in all things have the preheminence. The Principality he had, for the Lord gave unto him the throne of his Father Da∣vid (d) 1.46; the Priesthood, for he was a Priest for ever after the order of Melchise∣dech (e) 1.47; the double portion, for all power was given unto him both in heaven and earth (f) 1.48. In all respects the first borne of every Creature; but how the first born from the dead, which is another of the titles given by the Apostle, considering we finde many examples of men that had been raised from the dead before his resurrection, both in the old Testament and in the new. The answer to this doubt is easie. For though those mentioned in both Testaments were for a time raised from death to life; yet were they raised to die again, as in fine they did. But to be primogenitus ex mortuis, the first born or first begot∣ten from the powers of death, includes an everlasting freedome from the jaws thereof: in which regard the Scripture saith of Christ, and of Christ alone, that being risen from the dead he now dyeth not, death hath no more power or domini∣on over him (g) 1.49. But of this Priviledge we shall speak more at large hereafter in its proper place. That which remaines is that he was heir of all things, Heb. 1.2. to the intent that he might prove himself for the Son of Abraham, the promised seed, in whom all the nations of the world are blessed. The promise which was made to Abraham (h) 1.50, that he should be heir of the world, was never verifyed in his person, nor in any of his posterity neither till the coming of CHRIST. Who being begotten by the power of Almighty God on a daugh∣ter of the seed of Abraham, and having the nations given him for his inheri∣tance, as had been prophecied before by his Father David: might pro∣perly be entituled the heire of all things according to the rights of his humane nature, which nature he derived from David the son of Abra∣ham.

Thus have we shewn how CHRIST is properly and truly the Son of God, his natural and only begotten Son, according to his generation in the ful∣nesse of time: without relating to his generation before all time was. But yet we must not give off here. For by this generation in the fulnesse of time, he was not only the Son of God, but so the Son of God, after such a manner, as that he was also the son of man. But by his generation before all times, he was not only the Son of God, but so the Son of God, after such a manner, that he was also God himself, God for ever blessed; Deus in secula brnedictus, as St. Paul calleth him in the 9. Chap. to the Romans vers. 5. Deus in carne manifestatus, God manifested in the flesh (i) 1.51, in the first to Timothy. St. Iohn speakes home unto the point, and doth more puzzle the Socinian and Arian hereticks then all the book of God besides. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God (k) 1.52 In the beginning, when was that? When God created first the heaven and the earth (l) 1.53; when the earth was without forme and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep: then the word was, that is to say, it had a perfect actuall being when all things else did but begin to be; and having then an actual and a proper being, it could not at that time, nor at any time since, begin to be, but was, and is, and so continueth without ending. In the beginning was the word; what word? that word by which the worlds were made (m) 1.54, as St. Paul hath it; by whom all things were made, saith St.Iohn (n) 1.55, and without which nothing was made, saith the same Evangelist. The word which after was made flesh, and did dwel amongst us, and by the brightnesse of his glory did declare him∣self to be the only begotten Son of the Father, Ioh. 1. The expresse image of his per∣son, Heb. 1.3. the image of the invisible God, Col. 1.15. That word in the begin∣ning

was, and was God the word: the Son of God, not by communication of grace but nature: therefore the natural Son of God, but so the Son of God, his begotten Son, as to be very God, for the word was God. The Word was God, saith the Apostle, not only by a participation of power, or communi••ation of a more abundant measure of his graces, in which re∣spects some of the Sons of Men are called Gods in Scripture; Ego dixi, Dii estis, saith the royal Psalmist: but properly and truly God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the very true God, and the Son of God. We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true. And we are in him that is true, even in his son Jesus Christ, who is the true God and the life eternal(q) 1.56 saith the same Apostle. Here have we CHRIST the Son of God, and CHRIST the true God both in one; and what need further evidence in a point so clear?

Such further Topicks as are used for the proof hereof, from the names given him in the Scripture, the attributes and mighty workes ascribed unto him, and the company of such texts in the book of God as being spoken of the Father in the old Testament, are applyed in the new unto the Son, I purposely for∣bear at present: and shall content my self with such ample testimonies, which CHRIST himself hath given to his own Divinity. For though it be an un∣usual thing, to admit a mans own testimony in his own cause, according unto that of our Lord and Saviour, If I bear witness of my self, my witness is not true (r) 1.57; that is to say, it would not passe for currant, or be taken for truth: yet when a man lyeth under any accusation, he may then speak what he can in defence of him∣self, and his testimony be allowed of towards his acquitment or justificati∣on. And therefore Christ our Saviour being challenged by the Pharisees, who were apt to cavil at his sayings, for speaking in his own behalfe, returned this answer (s) 1.58; Though I bear record of my self, yet my record is true. Upon this ground then we proceed, and though it be the last in order of our Saviours life, yet we will first alleage that passage, which happened in the high Priests hall on the day of his passion. The high Priest finding no sufficient testimony for his condemnation resolved to put him to the oath of ex officio, and therefore did adjure him by the living God, to tell them whether he were the Christ the Son of God;(t) 1.59 to which our Saviour answered, saying, Thou hast said. Which though it be equivalent to an affirmation, yet to make sure work of it and put it out of doubt, St. Marke hath given his answer in these positive termes, Iesus said I am (u) 1.60. In which it is to be observed, that when the high Priests put our Saviour to this dangerous question, he spake not of the Son of God in that vulgar sense, in which the just and righteous persons were called his sons, but of the Son of God in the natural sense, in which he could not verifie himself for the Son of God, without including necessarily that he was also God. As in the 5. Chap. of St. Iohn, where our Saviour having said, My Father worketh hitherto, and I also work (x) 1.61; the incensed Iews intended him some present mischief, not only because he had broken the Sabbath, but had said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. And this appears yet further by the following words, where it is said, that the high Priest rent his clothes, saying, he hath spoken blasphemy (y) 1.62; and thereupon pronounced him to be guilty of death: which vote, they after prosecuted before Pontius Pilate, affir∣ming that he ought to die by the Law of Moses, because he had made himself the Son of God (z) 1.63. Assuredly their meaning was, that he had made himself the true and natural Son of God, and not the Son of God by especial grace: for other∣wise they had not voted him to be guilty of death. Nor had the high Priest rent his clothes, if he had only taken upon himself the name of CHRIST, or of the Messiah, because that could not come within the compasse of Blasphemy. For they knew well that the Messiah or the Christ was to come in the forme of man; though with more outward pomp and glory (as they supposed) then our Saviour did: and therefore though they might have condemned him of folly, in that being a man of no reputation he had taken on himself the name of

CHRIST; they had no reason in the world to accuse him of Blaspheming the name of God. Now that the Messiah was to come in the form of man, being he was to come of the womans seed, was a thing so perfectly resolved on, that Eve immediately on the promise made, that her seed should bruise the Serpents head (a) 1.64, supposed that Cain her first born was to be the man, and therefore said upon his birth, I have gotten a man (or rather the man) from the Lord (b) 1.65. Possedi virum ipsum Jehovah, I have gotten a man even the Lord Jehovah, as Fagius the learned Hebrician (upon severall revises) readeth it (c) 1.66. The like conceit possessed the Parents of Noah, as many good Authours do conceive; upon which ground they said, when they gave him that name, this same (that is, this son of ours) shall comfort us concerning our work (d) 1.67. Nor had the very Iewes of our Saviours time sent to enquire of Iohn the Baptist, whether he were the Christ whom they did expect but that they knew he was to come in an humane shape, and that it was no Blasphemy to own that title.

So then the quarrel which the Iewes had against our Saviour was, that he called himself the Son of God in the literal and natural signification of the word. And this appeares more plainly yet, not only by a former passage where they sought to slay him, because he said that God was his Fa∣ther, making himself thereby to be equal with God (f) 1.68; but by a solemn conference which they had on the like occasion. In which our Saviour did not only own himself to be the CHRIST, and to claim God to be his Father in the proper sense of the word Father (g) 1.69, but added fur∣ther an expression more unpleasing to them, saying, I and my Father are one. For which when the Iews took up stones to stone him, and were demanded for which of his many good workes they were so resolved; they answered thus, For a good worke we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, because thou being a man makest thy selfe God. It seems the Iewes were of opinion that none could properly and naturally be the Son of God, or so call himself, but he must make himself to be also God: or else their accusation had been falsly groun∣ded. And if our Saviour had not known himself to be very God, as well as his natural, proper, and begotten Son, he ought so far to have consulted the honour of God, as to have traversed the enditement, refelled the ill-groun∣ded crimination, and told them plainly this, that he was not GOD, but wronged exceedingly by them in so false an inference; which the Logick of his discourse would by no means bear. For if Iohn Baptist,(e) 1.70 being asked on the like occasion, denyed himself to be the MESSIAH, and said plainely, I am not the Christ (h) 1.71: and if Paul and Barnabas, when the Lystrians would have offered sacrifice unto them, rent their clothes, and said, Sir•• why do ye these things (i) 1.72? we are men of like passions with your selves: how much more was our Saviour bound to have done the like, and not to let the Iewes run on in their misperswasion? But our Redeemer doth not so. He lets them peaceably enjoy their opinion of him, that is to say, that by calling God his Father, he had made himself God, and doth not go about to perswade them otherwise. Only he laboureth to take off the edge of their malice towards him, by telling them that according to the grounds of their own Law, it was no such heinous or unpardonable crime, for men to call themselves by the name of God (k) 1.73. And if they were called Gods in Scripture, to whom the word of God came, as it did to the Prophets, and called so without any offence that was taken at it: with how much better reason might he call himself the Son of God, even in that sense wherein they understood his words, without incurring either the sin or punishment of Blasphemy? This is the summe of the discourse between Christ and the malicious Iewes in the tenth of St. Iohn: and this doth evidently prove that CHRIST did so affirme himself to be the Son of God the Father, as that he would by no means deny himself to be God the Son. Adde unto this, that in another Dialogue betwixt him and the Iewes, he took unto himself the

name, I am. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Antequam Abraham fieret, ••go••sum, saith the Vulgar Latine, that is to say, Before Abraham was (made or born) I am (l) 1.74. Which being the very self same name by which God calleth him∣self in the book of Exodus, saying, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you (m) 1.75, may serve for a concluding Argument, that as CHRIST was not ashamed to call himself the son of man, so neither was he afraid to own himself for the Son of God, and so to be the Son of God, as to be also true God, God for ever blessed.

Thus have I done with such Records and evidence of holy Scripture which are intrinsecal to this cause, and have been chosen by me out of a greater num∣ber, with reference to the limitations fixed to my design. Some other evidence there is, which I count extrinsecal, because borrowed from the writings of Iews, Greeks, and Romans; no friends unto the cause, if not open enemies. And first beginning with the Iews, we finde this testimony given to our Lord and Saviour, by Iosephus the Historian, that it was hardly lawful to call him a man, and in the close of all, that he was the CHRIST. Erat eodem tempore Jesus quidam, &c.

There lived (saith he) one IESVS much about that time, a wise man, if at the least it be lawful to cal him a man; For he did many miracles, and was a Teacher of those who do receive the truth with gladness; drawing many after him, both Iews and Gentiles.

This was the CHRIST. (n) 1.76. This said, he speaks in brief of his

crucifying under Pontius Pilate, his resurrection from the dead on the third day after, and then concludes, Et ad hunc us{que} diem Christianorum gens ab eo cognominata non d••sinit, that the Sect of the Christians being denominated from him, continue to this very day.

Though this be more then we have reason to expect from a Iew, yet that of The∣dosius which we finde in Suidas, is more full then this. This Theodosius was a Iew, living in the time of Iustinian the Emperour, Iustinian the Emperour ha∣ving some acquaintance with one Philip a Christian Merchant told him a story to this purpose, viz.

That there were in the Temple of Hierusalem 22 Priests in ordinary attendance, and that as often as one died another was chosen in his place: that IESVS in regard of his piety and learning was chosen in∣to one of the void places, and his own name together with the name of his Parents being to be inrolled in the publick Register, his Mother came to answer in that behalf; who being interrogated of his Fathers name, reported the whole story of his incarnation, as she had heard from the Angel; and there∣upon his Name was entred in these words, IESVS the Son of the living God and the Virgin Mary (o) 1.77.

This Book or Register the same Theodosius doth re∣port to have been carefully preserved in Tiberias a City of Galilee, after the de∣struction of Hierusalem; and that he had often seen and perused it there, he being one of the principal Citizens and of authority in that place. I know the truth of this relation hath been much disputed, in regard that our Redeemer was of the Tribe of Iudah, and so not capable of the Aaronical or Levitical Priest-hood: Nor can I tell whether it will help the matter to report out of Ranulph the Monk of Chester (p) 1.78, that Hismerias the Mother of Elizabeth which bare the Baptist, and Anna the Mother of the Virgin Mary were sisters, and the daughter of a Levite whose name was Isachar: This I am sure may be affirmed in de∣fence of the story, that the Iews were not then so punctual in keeping themselves unto their Tribes as they had been formerly; that even the High Priesthood it self had been bought and sold to persons both unworthy and uncapable of so high an honour: that we finde IESVS to have preached in the Temple often, and to have done in it other Ministerial Offices, which questionless the Priests and Pha∣risees would never have suffered, had he not had some calling to it which might authorize him. And if by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Sacerdotes in the Text of Suidas we may have leave to understand some inferiour Ministers, and not the very Priests them∣selves, (as possibly enough we may) the story may then stand secure, above all exceptions. Next let us look amongst the Gentiles, and they will tell us that Augustus the Roman Emperour, in whose time the Lord CHRIST was born, consulting with the Oracle of Apollo touching his successor, re∣ceived this answer (q) 1.79.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

In English thus,

An Hebrew childe whom the blest Gods adore, Commands me leave these shrines, and back to Hel, So that of Oracles I can no more: In silence leave our Altars, and farewell.

Which answer being so returned Augustus built an Altar in the Roman Capitol, with this Inscription, ARA PRIMOGENITI DEI, i.e. the Altar of the first begotten of God. The general ceasing of Oracles much about this time, gives some strength to this. And so doth that which we finde mentioned in Euse∣bius, touching the falling of the Idols of Egypt (r) 1.80, upon our Saviours first com∣ing into that countrey. St. Ambrose in his Commentary on the 119. Psalm, doth affirm as much. Nor is it yet determined to the contrary by our greatest Criticks, but that the Prophet Esaiah may allude to this: where bringing in the burden of Egypts, he saith, Behold the Lord rideth upon a swift clowd and shall come into Egypt, and the Idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence (s) 1.81. But whether the Prophet do allude unto this or not, we have no reason to mis∣doubt of the truth of the story, and the acknowledgement which the false Gods of the Gentiles made to the Divinity of the true. In and about these times lived the Poet Virgil, one of whose Eclogues, being a meer extract of some frag∣ments of the Sibylline Oracles(t) 1.82, hath many passages which cannot properly be applyed to any but our Saviour Christ; though by him wrested to the honour of Marcellus the Nephew and designed Heir of Augustus Caesar. For exam∣ple these;

Iam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna, Iam nova progenes Coelo demittitur alto, Chara Deunt soboles, magnum Iovis incrementum.

Which may be Englished in these words,

Now shines the Virgin, now the times of peace Return again, and from the Heaven on high Comes down a sacred and new Progenie, The issue of the Gods, Ioves blest increase.

More testimonies of this nature might be added here; but these shall serve at this time for a tast of the rest. And so we end with that of the Centurion of Pilates guard, who noting all that hapned in our Saviours passion, could not but make acknowledgement of so great a Prophet, saying, (u) 1.83 Surely this was the Son of God. And this was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as much as could possibly be delivered in so few words.

Which being so, it is the more to be admired that such as take unto them∣selves the name of Christians, should think and speak less honorably of their Lord and Saviour, then the Iews, Gentiles, and the Devils themselves: yet such vile miscreants have there been in the former ages, and I doubt are still. And of those Ebion was the first, who savouring strongly of the Iew, had made up such a mixture of Religion, as might please their palates: and taught no other∣wise of CHRIST then that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an ordinary natural man, begotten in the common course of generation (x) 1.84. Eusebius so informs us of him. St. Hierome addes, that for the suppression of this heresie, St. Iohn at the

request of some Asian Bishops, wrote his holy Gospel, of purpose to assert the Di∣vinity of CHRIST, (ut divinam ejus nativitatem ediceret, are St. Hieromes words) of which but little had been said by the other Evangelists. After him there arose up Artemon, or Artemas in the days of the Emperour Heliogabalus, who held the same opinion concerning CHRIST as the Ebionites did, affirming him to be no other then a meer natural man; saving that he was born of the Virgin Mary, after a more peculiar manner then the rest of mankinde, and was to be prefer∣red before all the Prophets (y) 1.85. And against him there was a Book written, as Eusebius telleth us (z) 1.86, though the name of the Author came not to his hands. But that which is a matter of most admiration, is that Paulus Samosatenus a Chri∣stian Bishop, & a Bishop of one of the four Patriarchal Sees, even of the City of Anti∣och, should not only set on foot again this condemned Heresie, but have the im∣pudence to affirm that it had been the antient and approved Doctrine of the Church of Christ (a) 1.87. No wonder if the Prelates of the Church did best in themselves, when such a foul contagion was got in amongst them: and therefore they as∣sembled in the City of Antioch, that by the authority of their presence, and the sincerity of their doctrine, so dangerous a Monster might be quelled in the face of his people (b) 1.88. This was about the time of the Emperour Aurelianus. Nor had there been a more celebrious Councel in the Church of Christ, from that of the Apostles mentioned in the 15. of the Acts, unto that of Nice. The issue and success whereof was so blessed by God, that from those times until these last and worst ages of the Church, wherein Socinus, Osterodius, and their followers have again revived it, this wretched heresie was scarce heard of but in antient Hi∣stories. And on the other side some of the antient Writers, and the later School∣men, the better to beat down the dotages of such frantick Hereticks, as had im∣pugned the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour: have so intangled the simplicity of the Christian faith within the Labyrinth of curious and intricate speculations, that it became at last a matter of great wit and judgement, to know what was to be believed in the things of Christ. And of this nature I conceive are those inexplica∣ble and perplexed discourses about the consubstantiality and coequality of the Per∣sons; which how it can consist with the School-distinction, that the Father doth all things authoritative, and the Son all things sub-authoritative, it is hard to say: that the Son is coeternal with the Father, as in the Creed of At••anasius; and yet Principium a principio in the Schoolmens language: that there should be two distinct natures in the Person of CHRIST, and yet a communication of Proper∣ties (or Idioms as they call them) of the one nature to the other: that CHRIST in one Person should have two distinct wils, all who opined the contrary being branded and condemned by the name of Monothelites. Not to say any thing in this place of those dark expressions, in which the eternal generation of the Son of God, and the nature of the Hypostatical Vnion have been delivered by some Writers: of whom a man may say with a sober confidence that they hardly un∣derstood what they said themselves. Assuredly that antient diverb, Ingeniosa res est esse Christianum, was not made for nought. The best way therefore is to con∣tain our selves within those bounds which are prescribed us in the Word of God, in which though all things are not written which concern our Saviour, yet those things which are written are sufficient doubtless to make us wise unto salvation (c) 1.89, that so we may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that be∣lieving we may have life through his Name (d) 1.90.

And now, as far as I can go by the light of Scripture, I should proceed unto the incarnation of the Son of God, but that we must first behold him as he is our LORD, which is the last of those two relations in which he is presented to us in this present Article. Of this as it belongeth to God the Father, we have already spoken in the first Article, under the title of Iehovah, the proper and peculiar name of the Lord our God: a name so proper and peculiar to the Fa∣ther of our Lord IESVS CHRIST, that it is thought by very learned men not to be understood of the Son of God, or of God the Son, in the whole Old Te∣stament, who is most usually expressed by the name of Adonai. Thus in that cele∣brated

place of the Psalms of David, whereas we read in English thus, the Lord said unto my Lord (e) 1.91, it is in the Original thus, Iehovah said to Adonai, or the Lord Jehovah said unto my Lord Adonai. Where clearly the name of Iehovah, doth denote the Father, as that of Adonai the Son, though both be generally Englished by the name of Lord. Now the name Adonai is derived (as before was noted) from the Hebrew word Eden, which signifieth the basis or founda∣tion on which the whole building doth relie: and therefore very fitly doth express his nature, by whom as all things were created in the first beginning, as St. Iohn telleth us in his Gospel (f) 1.92; so doth he still support the Earth and the pillars of it, as it is told us in the Psalms. But for the name or style of Lord, both in Greek and Latine, it seemed to be a title of such power and soveraignty, that great Augustus, though the Master of the Roman Empire did forbear to use it. Nay which is more, gravissimo corripuit edicto (h) 1.93, as Suetonius hath it, he in∣terdicted the applying of it to himself by a publick Edict. The like by Dion is reported of Tiberius also (i) 1.94; a Prince who cherished flattery more then any vertue, and in whose Court no men were more esteemed of then the basest sy∣cophants. This by the Statists of those times imputed to policy or Kings-cra••t, ne speciem Principatus in Regni formam converterent (k) 1.95 for fear they should be thought in that conjuncture of time, when their affairs were yet unsetled, to affect the title of Kings as they had the power; which was most odious to the Romans. But in my minde Orosius gives a better reason, who thinks that this was rather done by Gods special Providence, then on any foresight of those Princes. His reason is, because that Christ during the reign of those two Emperours had took our flesh upon him, and did live amongst us. Nor was it fit, saith he, that any man should take upon himself the name of LORD, ex eo tempore, quo verus totius gene••is humani Dominus in∣ter nos homines natus esset (l) 1.96, whilest the undoubted Lord of all mankinde, was conversant amongst us here upon the Earth. And this we may the ra∣ther credit to have been done by Gods special providence, because Caligula who next succeeded in the Empire (our Saviour Christ having then withdrawn his bodi∣ly presence) was not alone content to admit this Title, but did command it to be given him by all the people. Et primus Dominum se jussit appellari(m) 1.97, as it is in Victor.

But whether this observation of Orosius will hold good or not, certain it is, that from the time and instant of the Resurrection, the style of LORD did properly belong unto CHRIST our Saviour. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same. Jes••s whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (n) 1.98. Not made, that is to say, not declared LORD by his heavenly Father before that time, when he had overcome the sharpness of death, and trampled on the grave in his Resurrection; though called so sometimes before, in the way of Anticipation, or of civil comple∣ment. Then only called, now made and publickly declared the Lord of all things. And certainly it might seem to stand with reason, that seeing all power was given to the man Christ Jesus, both in heaven and earth (for now we look upon him only in that capacity) that with the power he also should partake of the highest title, by which that power was usually expressed and signified. From that time forwards unto this, there is not any thing more ordinary in the Book of God, or in the Liturgies of the Church, or in the common speech of good Christian people, then to entitle our Redeemer by the name of the LORD; and to entitle him thereby in so clear a manner, as to make it more peculiar to him then to God the Father. So that in all the antient Liturgies both Greek and Latine, when the name of God the Fa∣ther and of God the Son occur in the same Prayer, or Hymne, as they often do; the name of Lord is constantly appropriated unto God the Son. And so we also finde it in our English Liturgie. According to thy promises declared unto mankinde in Christ Jesu our Lord; as in the general Confession: Almighty

God, the Father of our Lord IESVS CHRIST, in the Absolution; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the holy Ghost, as in some of the Collects. And this the Church did learn, no doubt, from the like expression of St. Paul, who thus gives the blessing; The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God (and not of the Lord God) and the fellowship of the holy Ghost, (and not of the Lord holy Ghost) be with you all, Amen (o) 1.99. And thus it also stands in the present Creed, in which the title of Lord is appropriated only to the Son; and neither added to the Fa∣ther nor the holy Ghost.

Nor is he called LORD only in general tearms, but Dominus nosier, our Lord, the Lord of all that doe confess his holy Name, and agree in the truth of his holy Word. A title which accreweth to him in many respects; as first in regard of our Creation. For if all things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made (p) 1.100, as St. Iohn affirmeth; If by him all things were created both in Heaven and Earth, visible and invisi∣ble (q) 1.101, as St. Paul informs us: good reason that he should have the Do∣minion over the work of his own hands, and that we should acknowledge him for the Lord our Maker (r) 1.102. In the next place he is our Lord in jure Redemptionis, in the right of Redemption. Concerning which we must take notice (as before (s) 1.103 was said) that man was made by God in his first Creation, just, righteous, and devoide of malice: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the words of Damascen (t) 1.104. Created to this purpose after Gods own Image, Vt imitator sui autoris esset, that so he might more perfectly imitate his Creators goodness. But falling from this happiness in which he might have served the Lord with perfect innocency, he made a new contract with the Devil, and became his servant, and put himself directly under his do∣minion. Do ye not know (saith the Apostle) that unto whom you yeild your selves servants to obey, his servants ye are whom ye obey (u) 1.105. If then they were the Devils servants, the Devil of necessity was their Lord and Master; for Do∣minus & servus sunt relata, as our Logick teacheth us. A miserable and most wretched thraldome, from which there was no other way to set mankinde free, but by the death and passion of our Saviour CHRIST: which he being willing for our sakes to undergo, did by the offering of himself once for all, become the propitiation for our sins (x) 1.106, and obtain eternal▪ redemption for us (y) 1.107, cancelling the bond or obligation which was against us, and nayling it to his Cross for ever(z) 1.108. Nor were poor mankinde only servants to this dread∣ful Tyrant, but for the most part they had listed themselves under him and became his souldiers, fighting with an high hand of presumptuous wickedness against the Lord God and the Hosts of Heaven. And they con∣tinued in that service, taking part with the Devil upon all occasions, till he received his final overthrow at the hands of our Saviour: who by his death overcame him who had the power of death (a) 1.109, which is the Devil: and ha∣ving spoiled principalities and powers, made a shew of them openly and triumphed over them (b) 1.110. By means whereof another title did accrew unto him of be∣ing the sole Lord over all mankinde, and that is jure belli, by the laws of war: that rule of Aristotle being most unquestionably true, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (c) 1.111, that is to say, those which are taken in the wars, are in the power and at the disposal of the Conquerour. And by the same right also of successful war, men became servants unto him, whose service, as our Church hath taught us, is perfect freedome. For Servi are so called a ser∣vando, from being saved and preserved in the day of battail. Vocabuli origo in∣de ducta creditur, quod ii qui jure belli possint occidi, a victoribus conservaban∣tur (d) 1.112, as St. Augustine from the Lawyers (e) 1.113 hath it; because although they might be slain by the Law of Armes, yet by the clemency of the Victor they were saved from slaughter, and so made servants to the Conquerour. And last of all he is our Lord jure Promotionis, by the right of promotion, be∣cause

we hold of him all those temporal and eternal blessings, which we en∣joy in this life, and expect in that which is to come. He is the Lord of Life, as St. Peter telleth us, Act. 3.15. the Lord of glory, saith S. Paul, 1 Cor. 2.8. the Lord of joy, Enter into the joy of the Lord, as St. Matthew hath it, 25.21. And he conferreth on us his servants life, joy, and glory, out of the abun∣dant riches of his mercy towards us; and whatsoever else is his, within the title and power of Lord. For having thereto a double right, first by inheritance as the Son, whom God appointed heir of all things, Heb. 1.2. and then by purchase as a Redeemer, (for therefore he dyed and rose again that he might be Lord of all, Rom. 14.9.) contenting himself with the first alone he is well pleased to set over the latter unto us, and to advance us to an estate of joynt-purchase in Heaven, of life, joy, and glory, and whatsoever else he is owner of. For to that end it pleased him to come down from Heaven, and be made man, and be incarnate by the holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; which is the first of those great works which were performed by him in order to our Redemption, and next in order of the Creed.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Mal. 2.10.
• (b) 1.2

  Matth. 6.9.
• (c) 1.3

  Gen. 6.2.
• (d) 1.4

  Joh. 1.12.
• (e) 1.5

  Rom. 8.14, 15.
• (f) 1.6

  Joh. 1.13. & 1 Joh. 3.9.
• (g) 1.7

  1 Pet. 1.4.
• (h) 1.8

  Job. 38.4.6.
• (i) 1.9

  Aug. de Civ. dei. l. 11. c. 9.
• (k) 1.10

  Luk. 20.36.
• (l) 1.11

  Psal. 82.6.
• (m) 1.12

  Joh. 10.35.
• (o) 1.13

  Heb. 2.16
• (p) 1.14

  Act. 7.37.
• (q) 1.15

  Mat. 11.9.
• (r) 1.16

  Mat. 3.
• (s) 1.17

  17.5.
• (t) 1.18

  16. v. 16, 17.
• (u) 1.19

  Luk. 1.35, 32.
• (x) 1.20

  Luk. 9.28.
• (y) 1.21

  Joh. 10.41.
• (a) 1.22

  Heb. 1.5.
• (b) 1.23

  Psal. 110.1.
• (c) 1.24

  Rom. 8.32.
• (d) 1.25

  Mar. 3.17.
• (e) 1.26

  Joh. 3.16.
• (f) 1.27

  Col. 1.15.
• (g) 1.28

  Col. 1.18.
• (h) 1.29

  Heb. 1.2.
• (k) 1.30

  Heb. 7.3.
• (l) 1.31

  Joh. 1.14.
• (m) 1.32

  Luk. 1.31, 32, 35.
• (n) 1.33

  Estius in Luk. 1.
• (o) 1.34

  Maldon. in Luk. 1.31.
• (p) 1.35

  Id. in Luk. 1.35.
• (q) 1.36

  Luk. 3.38.
• (r) 1.37

  Vrsin. Ca∣tech. pt. 1. q. 33.
• (t) 1.38

  Maldon. in Mat. 3.17.
• (u) 1.39

  Gen. 22.2.
• (x) 1.40

  Gen. 17.20.
• (y) 1.41

  Rom. 8.33.
• (z) 1.42

  Col. 1.15, 18.
• (a) 1.43

  1 Pet. 2.13.
• (b) 1.44

  Exod. 13.1, &c, & v. 11, 12.
• (c) 1.45

  Heb. 2.11.
• (d) 1.46

  Luk. 1.32.
• (e) 1.47

  Ps. 110.4.
• (f) 1.48

  Mat. 28.18.
• (g) 1.49

  Rom. 6.9.
• (h) 1.50

  Rom. 4.13.
• (i) 1.51

  1 Tim. 3.16.
• (k) 1.52

  Joh. 1.1.
• (l) 1.53

  Gen. 1.1, ••.
• (m) 1.54

  Heb. 1.2.
• (n) 1.55

  Joh. 1.3.
• (q) 1.56

  1 Joh. 5.20.
• (r) 1.57

  Joh. 5.31.
• (s) 1.58

  Joh. 8.14.
• (t) 1.59

  Mat. 26.63.
• (u) 1.60

  Mar. 14.62.
• (x) 1.61

  Joh: 5.17, 18.
• (y) 1.62

  Mat. 26.65, 66.
• (z) 1.63

  Joh. 19.7.
• (a) 1.64

  Gen. 3.15.
• (b) 1.65

  4.2.
• (c) 1.66

  Fagius in Gen. 4.
• (d) 1.67

  Gen. 5.29.
• (f) 1.68

  Joh. 5.1.
• (g) 1.69

  Joh. 10.24, 25. & 29.30.33.
• (e) 1.70

  Joh. 1.20, 25.
• (h) 1.71

  Joh. 1.20.
• (i) 1.72

  Act. 14.15.
• (k) 1.73

  Joh. 10.35, 36.
• (l) 1.74

  1 Joh. 8.58.
• (m) 1.75

  Exod. 3.14.
• (n) 1.76

  Ioseph. An∣tiqu. Iud. l. 18. c. 4.
• (o) 1.77

  Suidas in Lex. verb. Iesus.
• (p) 1.78

  Polychron. l. 3. c. 44.
• (q) 1.79

  Id. ibid.
• (r) 1.80

  Euseb. de Dem. Evangel. l. 9.
• (s) 1.81

  Esa. 19 1.
• (t) 1.82

  Virg. Ec∣log. 6.
• (u) 1.83

  Ma••. 27.54.
• (x) 1.84

  Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 3. cap. 4.
• (y) 1.85

  Niceph. Eccl. hist. l. 4. c. 20.
• (z) 1.86

  Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 28.
• (a) 1.87

  Id. ibid.
• (b) 1.88

  Id. l. 7. cap. 26, 27. &c.
• (c) 1.89

  1 Tim.
• (d) 1.90

  Joh. 20.31.
• (e) 1.91

  Psal. 110.1.
• (f) 1.92

  Joh. 1.3.
• (h) 1.93

  Sueton, August. Caesar. c. 52.
• (i) 1.94

  Dion. hist.
• (k) 1.95

  Sueton. hist. in Calig.
• (l) 1.96

  Oros. hist. l. 6. c. 21.
• (m) 1.97

  Vict. Ro∣man. hist. Epi∣tome.
• (n) 1.98

  Act. 2.36.
• (o) 1.99

  2 Cor. 13.14.
• (p) 1.100

  Joh. 1.3.
• (q) 1.101

  Col. 1.16.
• (r) 1.102

  Psal. 95.6.
• (s) 1.103

  V. l. 1. c.
• (t) 1.104

  Damasc. de fid. Orth. l. 2.12.
• (u) 1.105

  Rom. 6.16.
• (x) 1.106

  1 Joh. 12.2.
• (y) 1.107

  Heb. 9.12.
• (z) 1.108

  Col. 2.14.
• (a) 1.109

  Heb. 2.14.
• (b) 1.110

  Col. 2.15.
• (c) 1.111

  Arist. Pol. l. 1. c. 4.
• (d) 1.112

  August. de civit. l. 19.
• (e) 1.113

  Iustin. In∣stit. l. 1.