Theos anthrōpophoros. Or, God incarnate.: Shewing, that Jesus Christ is the onely, and the most high God· In four books. Wherein also are contained a few animadversions upon a late namelesse and blasphemous commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrewes, published under the capital letters, G.M. anno Dom. 1647. In these four books the great mystery of man's redemption and salvation, and the wayes and means thereof used by God are evidently held out to the capacity of humane reason, even ordinary understandings. The sin against the Holy Ghost is plainly described; with the cases and reasons of the unpardonablenesse, or pardonablenesse thereof. Anabaptisme, is by Scripture, and the judgment of the fathers shewed to be an heinous sin, and exceedingly injurious to the Passion, and blood of Christ. / By Edm. Porter, B.D. sometimes fellow of St. John's Colledge in Cambridge, and prebend of Norwich.

The GODHEAD OF Jesus Christ. (Book 2)

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 Athana∣sius* 1.1 noteth, Contumelia unius Personae est blasphe∣mia universae plenitudinis deitatis; (i.) A Comumelie against any one Person in the Trinity is the blaspheming of the fulnesse of the Godhead.

But if you say, that by this sin is meant some par∣ticular sin or blasphemy onely against the third Person; I ask, Did not Ananias and Sapphira thus sin? Act. 5. 3. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? Yet I think no sober Divine will pronounce Ananias* 1.2 absolutely damned. Origen saith, Deus non punit bis—* 1.3 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 depart cleaner to the other world. The Jewes 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 Ho∣ly Ghost, that he offered money for it; yet St. Peter invited, and exhorted him to repentance, not despair∣ing of his conversion: and the Church Primitive in∣vited those hereticks to her Communion and fellow∣ship, whose special heresie was the denying the God∣head of the Holy Ghost, as the a 1.4 Eunomians and Ma∣cedonians, whom the Church did therefore call b 1.5 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (i.) enemies of the Holy Ghost; and those that did come in to the Church, she entertained,* 1.6 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 erre in deli∣vering false glosses and expositions upon Scriptures: and Isychius saith, Qui aliena docent, in Spiritum bl••∣sphemant,* 1.7—sic peccant qui Prophetarum dogmata non interpretantur ad intentionem Spiritûs; (i.) They bla∣spheme the Spirit, who interpret doctrines of the Prophets otherwise then they int••nded. St. Austin saith, Donatistae* 1.8 peccant in Spiritum, quia ••xufflant baptisma Catholicae Ec∣clesiae; (i.) The Donatists sin against the Spirit, when they renounce the baptisme which they received in the Church-Catholick, because that baptisme was administred to them in the Name of the Holy Ghost; and yet both Austin and the Church did perswade 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 1.9 Ne contrista eos in quibus est Spiritus; (i.) Do not vexe, 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 Con∣version, and Salvation.

Some expound this unpardonable sin to be when we resist the motions of Gods Spirit after we are en∣lightned, and so sin with knowledge stubbornly and rebelliously, because it is said, Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible fur those who were once enlightned, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, &c. if they fall away, to renue them again to repentance. Upon this place misunderstood, Nova∣tus, and his Cathari grounded their heresie, that such as fell into sin after baptisme, could not be received into the Church, though they repented; as we read in Epipha∣nius.* 1.10 But did not David commit adultery and mur∣ther knowingly? did not Peter deny Christ, not ig∣norantly, but timerously? both of them after illumi∣nation; 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 sem∣piternam,* 1.11 sed severiorem disciplinam significat; (i.) It signifies a more severe, but not an eternal punishment.

You see the question concerning this sin growes ve∣ry difficult; and indeed it is as Athanasius calleth it,* 1.12 Tenebricosa, & p ofunda sententia, an intricate and pro∣found sentence, but yet very advantagious to be r••ghtly 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* 1.13 what is meant by blasphemy?

TO blaspheme (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 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 Di∣vine Spirit; the Pharisees said it was done by the spirit of Beelzebub; for what greater obloquie or bla∣sphemy can be invented, then when God is called De∣vil? The Pharisees knew that this wonderful work was done by some power in Christ, which was more then humane, and therefore they knew it must pro∣ceed either from God, or from the Devil, and therefore as St Hilarie noteth, Quia humanam infirmitatem haec* 1.14 tanta ejus opera excederent▪—& confiteri, Dei nol∣lent—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, Beel∣zebub; and Christ a Conjurer; and this was a blas∣phemy in the highest degree.

This Pharisaical blasphemy spread far and near, both among Jewes and Heathens, and amongst these it was a common received errour, that Christ was a Magician, as Eusebius notes. There was (in the first age after* 1.15 Christ) * 1.16 one Apollonius of Tyana, a notorious Magi∣cian, that did many strange feats; amongst the rest, when he was convented before the Emperour Domitian in his Consistory, to be punished, presently he vanish∣ed out of sight: this Apollonius is by Hierocles in Eu∣sebius compared with Christ, as being equal to him for miracles, insomuch that the Emperour † 1.17 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 hea∣thens ex••olled this Magician far above Christ, as we

read in St. Austin; and because in the dayes of Origen* 1.18 some Egyptian Magicians, like Mountebanks, in the open Market-place, cured diseases, raised spirits, pre∣sented 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* 1.19 magick. I say seemed, onely, for we learn from our Saviour, that one devil is not cast out by another, and Satan is not divided against himself; and although (when ignorant people imploy one Witch to help them against another) some present ease may seem to be procured; yet indeed as Austin observeth, Non exit* 1.20 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 ••yrannizeth more in the soul, and maketh his possession stronger. Because this is a dange∣rous apostasie, to seek to, or to attribute the work of God to him, therefore Christ used divers arguments against it, and so did the Ancient Fathers, Origen, Athan. Euseb. Austin, and others, which having but touched, I omit, to avoid digressions.

The greatest difficulty in this question, is, what our Saviour meant by the words, (holy Spirit, or holy Ghost) when he said, The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven: for the understanding whereof, I will lay down a few Considerations to the Reader, that from them he may gather the true meaning of that hard saying.

First, That in Christ there are two natures, 1. His Godhead or Divine nature, by which he is called God over all blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. 2. His humane nature, or manhood, made of the seed of David, accor∣ding to the flesh, Rom. 1. 3. The first of these is called Forma Dei; the second is called forma Servi, both are* 1.21 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 Ser∣vant.

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 mention∣eth two kinds of blasphemies against Christ, th•• one against him as he is the Son of man, and this is par∣donable, 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 Scri∣pture is taken two wayes; 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, Baptizing them in the N••me of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Ho∣ly Ghost, Matth. 28. 19. and this distinction is ac∣knowledged by divers late Divines of the Reformed Churches; a 1.22 Polanus, b 1.23 Bucan▪ c 1.24 Tilenus, and d 1.25 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 signifie the Godhead of the second Person, Jesus Christ.
• 2. That to deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ, is that blasphemy which in the Gospel is said to be unpar∣donable: And this is my Conclusion; which here∣after 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 Spi∣rit; so in another place the Godhead of the Son is called the Everlasting Father, Esa. 9. 6. For unto us a child is born, his Name shall be called wonderfull, coun∣s••llour, 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 Fa∣ther, because he is God, for the Godhead of every person (being but one in all) is & may be called the everlast∣ing 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 se∣verall and distinct pr••prieties and personalities; for al∣beit every Person is the everlasting Father, in respect of men and of creatures, because all concurred in the creation, yet onely the first Person hath this Per∣sonall proprietie 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 1.26 so God the Father, is the Father of God the Son; that is, the Fa∣ther of the Person of the Son, but not the Father of the Godhead of the Son. b 1.27 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 one∣ly because the Person of the Son assumed the humane nature, and form of a servant, as S^t. Augustino hath observed

upon that saying, Ps. 22. 10 Thou art my God from my mothers belly. ^c Pater est Deus & Dominus Filio, quia in eo est forma servi;—De ventre matris Deus meus es tu. Ps. 22. 10.—Sed ant•• omnia secula Pater est, (i.) The Father is the Lord and God of the Son, because the Son assumed the form af a servant; therefore it is said in the Psalme, Thou art my God from my mothers belly, but the Father may be said to be his Father from eternitie.

As every Person is called a Father (so as is said) so also every Person is called Holy, because the God∣head 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 stiled, Holy, Holy, Holy, Esa. 6. 3. Revel. 4. 8. and yet the third Person hath a property and personality in holi∣ness, not communicable. But now we must distin∣guish thus: Holyness in God is either the holyness of Nature, and so every Person is holy; or holyness of Office, that is, to be a Sanctifier; and thus it is the property of the third Person: for although the Fa∣ther and the Son do sanctifie, yet they sanctifie me∣diately by the Spirit, but the Spirit sanctifieth imme∣diately by himself, so that when sactification is said to be the work of the whole Trinity you must thus un∣derstand it. Pa••er est fons, Filius exemplar, Spiri••us impressor Sanct••••a••is, (i.) The Father is the Foun∣tain, the Son is the Pattern, the Holy Ghost is the Stamper or Communicator of holyness in us and to us; as the whole man is said to see, but he seeth onely by the eye.

Next▪ I am to shew that every person is called Spirit: for John 4. 24. God is a Spirit, and every Per∣son is God, and it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of my Father which speaketh in you, Matth 10 20▪ and the last Adam was made a quickning Spirit, 1 Cor▪ 15 45 We see there is mention of the Spirit of the Father, & of the spirit of the Son (for the last Adam, must needs be meant of Christ) neither are these observations new but are the old Collections of the Primitive Church

writers. St. Basil saith, d 1.28 Spiritus appellatio est commu∣nis tribus personis, (i.) The appellation of Spirit is communicable to the three Persons, and before him Tertullian saith, e 1.29 Iesus Christus est Spiritus Dei, (i.) Je∣sus Christ is the Spirit of God. Athan••sius speaketh more home, f 1.30 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 1.31 Spiri••us sanctus vo∣catur Spiritus I••su; (i.) The holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Jesus.

Neither let the English Translation of these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 trouble thee, because they are in some places translated holy Spirit, and in others holy Ghost, and sometimes they signifie onely the third Person, as Matth. 28. 19. But in another place they signifie the Spirit or Godhead of the second Person, as he breathed on them and s••ld, Receive the holy Ghost, John 20. 22. of which he also saith I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world, Matth. 28. 28. which is meant of the comfortable presence of his Godhead, by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts: for so also the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when it signifieth the soul, or humane Spirit of Christ, it is sometimes translated Spirit, and other times Ghost as Luk. 23. 46. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, (that is, my soul) and having said thus, he gave up the Ghost, that is, his soul and life.

Now for as much as the Godhead of Christ, or God in Christ, is a Spirit, and also is holy, it may be truely said without any fallacy, both Logica••ly and The∣ologically, not onely disjunctively, but compositively and joyntly, the Godhead of Christ is an holy Spirit; for of him it is said, Rom. 1. 4. that he was declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit of ho∣lyness, which surely is an holy Spirit, by which he is said to sanctifie the Church, Ephes. 5. 26. & Heb. 2. 11. & Heb. 13. 12. And to this St. Austine speaketh very pertinently and plainly, h 1.32 Quia Deus est Spiritus, po∣test dici Pater Spiritus, & Filius Spiritus, & Pater sanctus, & Filius sanctus, Trinitas potest appellari Spi∣ritus Sanctus: (i.) Because God is a Spirit, it may

be said, the Father is a Spirit, and the Son is a Spirit: and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy, and the Son is holy; the whole Trinity may be called an holy Spirit.

CHAP. IV. That the blasphemy against the holy Spirit men∣tioned, Matth. 12. was meant of the denying and blaspheming the Godhead of Iesus Christ.

FOr the right understanding of this question▪ I de∣sire the Reader to take notice of these few obser∣vations following.

1. That this Pharisaciall blasphemy was uttered, and intended onely against the Person of Christ, and therein onely against his Godhead, and therefore the answer of Christ must needs be a Vindication of his Person, and of his Godhead, for otherwise Christ might seem not to have answered punctually, to the slander and blasphemy objected, if we shall confess that the blasphemy was against the Person of the Son, and yet imagine that his answer is onely concerning another Person, viz. the Person of the holy Ghost.

2. Observe again, that Christ doth not there make any mention of the blasphemy against the Person of the Father, (though there was as much reason that he should as to mention a blasphemy against the third Person.) But he keeps himself punctually to the se∣cond Person himself, against whom onely this blas∣phemie was spoken, and intended, neither did he at this time go abour to assert and vindicate the honour either of the Person of the Father, or of the Person of the holy Ghost, against which Persons, nothing was expresly said, or meant; but be did onely declare the power and Truth of his own Godhead in his own Person, and therefore he said, If I cast out divels by the Spirit of God, the 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 spake onely of his own Person, like a good disputant, confining himself exactly ad idem, to the same thing the Pharisees spake of; so in his answer, and in de∣nouncing judgement against those blasphemers, by the rule of right reason he must still continue his speech of the same Person; therefore in effect he saith thus: Although a word spoken against me as I am a man, and the Son of man may be forgiven; yet a blasphemy or word spoken against me as I am very God, cannot be forgiven. Or thus, The villifying, depraving blaspheming, or speaking against my humane nature, may be pardo∣ned; but the depraving, denying, or blaspheming my Godhead, my divine Nature, my divine and holy Spirit, shall not be forgiven.

4. Observe again, that the Jewes had indeed de∣praved him in both his Natures. 1. In his man∣hood thus, Behold, a glutton, a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners? Matth. 11. 19. and afterwards, Is not this the Carpenters son? Matth. 13. 55. disparaging him for his mean parentage: this is the Exposition of St. Amb••ose, a 1.33 In Filium Hominis p••ccare est remissius sentire de carne Christi, &c. To sin against the Son of Man, is to conceive too basely of the flesh of Christ;—and they that so sin, are not utterly excluded from par∣don. 2. The Jewes blasphemed him now in his Godhead, by denying it, and ascribing the miracle to confederacy with Beelzebub; and of this blasphemy, which doth take away the very foundation of remissi∣on of sins, it is said, It shall not be forgiven.

5. I may adde hereunto that those unbaptized Pharisees in probability, did not intend any obloquy or blasphemy against the Person of the holy Spirit as it is the third Person; of which they had never been instructed, neither had they so much Christianity as those disciples at Ephesus, who though they had been baptized unto Iohns baptisme, yet they had not so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost. Act. 19. 2.

Thus having shewed that in Scripture, and in the writings of the Fathers and later Divines, the God∣head 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 de∣nying Christ to be God, is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which is there said to be unpar∣donable.

Now that in a Doctrine of so great moment and concernment, the Reader may understand that I do not obtrude any novell and private opinion of mine own upon him: I will 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 dayes, the Church ever had; who in his book De Communi essentia Patris, &c. aith, b 1.34 It is hard to conjecture what our Saviour means by those words, He that speak∣eth 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 inf••riour to the Spirit, and yet the So saith, The Father and I are one;—If he that saith to his brother; Thou fool, shall be cast into 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 onely? And a little af∣ter, he saith:—D••i••at••m V••rbi, ipse Christus Spi∣ri••um Sanctum voc••t, & humanitatem suam, Filium Hominis n••minavit: (i.) Our Saviour called his own Godhead, the holy Ghost, and his own Man∣hood, 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 A∣thanasius.

To him I adde the Opinion of St. Hil••r••, who was contemporary with Atha••asius, who in his Ex∣position of that Text, Matth. 12. 32. saith, c 1.35 Si ne∣getur D••us in Christo, caret omni mis••ricordia: (i.) If a Man deny God to be in Christ, that man shall finde no mercy. And again, he saith, d 1.36 Blasphe∣mia

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 quo∣ted, speaking of Saint Peters deniall of Christ, saith, Because to deny Christ to be God, is that sinne which shall never be forgiven; therefore Peter de∣nied thus, I know not the Man, because a word spoken against the Son of Man may be forgiven. The very same conceit hath Saint Chrysostome also, in his Sermon of Peters deniall, and upon these words,—I k••ow not the Man:] e 1.37 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 finde that the judge∣ment of these two great Doctours was, that the de∣nying of the Godhead of Christ, is indeed that great unpardonable sinne. To this I adde the te∣stimony of Saint Basil, who deserved to be called the Great. He in that excell••nt Book De Spiritu Sancto, saith, f 1.38 Testificer omni Homini Christum pro∣fi••en••i, sed ••um neganti Deum ••sse, quod Christus nihil ••i proderi••: (i.) I testifie to every Man, who pro∣fesseth himself to be a Christian, and yet de••••ieth Christ to be God; Christ shall nothing at all pro∣fit that man: And if Christ do not profit us in the remission of our sinnes, I am sure, our sinnes shall never be forgiven in this world, or in the world to come.

CHAP. V. The Opinions of later Divines concerning the unpardonable sin: A brief Narration of the life and death of Arius, and of Julian the Apostate.

TO the above-named Ancients, I subjoyn the o∣pinions of our later Divines, who in their Ex∣positions and Tractats, where they inquire what par∣ticular sin this is, although they do not agree therein, yet when they inquire what persons have sinned this sin, they do commonly affirm, for one, that Arius in his Heresie did s••n thus: and this is the opinion of Polanus, and also of Bucanus and others. Now the* 1.39 onely noted heresie of Arius was the denying the Godhead of Jesus Christ▪ saying, that he was not from everlasting, and that he was but preferred to be a God. Just as our Commenter would have him onely exalted and deisied.

This Arius was born in Africk, and was a Presby∣ter or Priest of the Cathedrall Church of Alexandria in Egypt: In that City in the dayes of the Emperour Constantine the Great, there were ten Churches (be∣sides* 1.40 the Cathedrall.) Just such as we now call Pa∣raecial or Parish-Churches, wherein ten of the Pres∣byters of the Cathedrall Church, were the incum∣bents, and Preachers, of these ten Arius was one, and was more esteemed, and followed then any of his bre∣thren▪ It fell out that the Bishop of Alexandria died; Arius gaped for the place, but mist it, for one Alex∣ander was elected; then Arius raised a faction, and revived the former Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus, preaching this damnable doctrine, that Christ was not God. When Bishop Alexander was informed of this, he convented Arius, and upon examination discovering his Heresie, excommunicated him: Then divisions appeared, for seven Priests, twelve De••cons, and se∣ven

hundred Virgins had joyned with Arius. Great dis∣cord grew among the people, some taking part with A••ius, and others with Alexander: then the Empe∣rour by Letters commanded both of them to desist from disturbing his subjects, but this could not ap∣pease them: then he called that famous Councill of Nice, of about three hundreth and eighteen Bishops, from all parts of the Romane Empire. They condem∣ned this Heresie of Arius, and compiled that Confessi∣on 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 Imperiall Edict, but was afterwards recalled, and exhibited in writing a Confession of Faith to the said Emperour, which he allowed of, and upon an oath taken by Arius, that he believed so, as he had writ∣ten, the Emperour commanded that he should be re∣ceived into the Church. (This equivocating hypocrite had in his bosome secretly at the same time, another Confession of his own hereticall Doctrine written, of which he meant.) The Emperour was then at Con∣stantinople, Arius and his associates were going to the Church to require admission, but the Bishop of Con∣stantinople, whose name also was Alexander, had resol∣ved 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; Do∣mine,* 1.41—si Arius ••ras••in synaxin introducetur, nunc di∣mittas s••rv••m tuum,—sin Eccl••siae parca•• tolle Arium, (i.) If Arius must be brought into the Church to mor∣row, Lord, now let thy servant depart in peace; but if thou wilt be mercifull 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 voyded his bowels, spl••en, liver and blood, and was there found suddenly* 1.42 dead, as Socrates relateth: so died this blasphemer▪ Faetida mor•••• faetida mente, as Ruffinus noteth, a stink∣ing

death suitable to his stinking soul;—Cacando as the marginall note is. For a long time after people would point at that place in detestation of Arius, untill a well affected brother of the Arian sect bought the place, and to smother the fame of that judgement, and* 1.43 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* 1.44 Julian the Aposta••e, he was the son of Constantius, who was brother to Constantine the Great, and was by this Emperours command, carefully brought up in Christi∣anity, wherein he so profited, that he was admitted to be one of the Clergie, and was appointed; (i) Anag∣nost. that is, the L••ctour, or Pible-Clark in the Church of Nicomedia, and (to shew his great zeal) he and his brother Gallus, joyned in building a Church over the Tombe of a Martyr, and so precise he was, that he lived a monasticall strict life and after, when he was declared C••sar, or heir apparent, by his Cousin the Emperour Constantius, for a time he continued in such a seeming religiousness, that the good Father St. Hilary stiled* 1.45 him Religiosum Dominum, (i.) his Religious Lord: But when he had got the command of a powerfull Army, he rebelled against the Emperor Constantius, and caused himself openly to be proclaimed Emperour, 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 baptisme 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* 1.46 Apostasie and grand sin of this Iulian, was the denying Christ to be God; for he would not vouchsafe him any better appellation then Galilean, son of Mary' Car∣penters 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* 1.47 sent it to the treasury; Foelix the questor, having be∣fore scoffingly said, En qualib••s v••sis Mari•• filio mini∣stratur!

(i.) See what rich vessels the son of Mary is served withall! and having robb'd the Church in great derision, they sent Urine to be presented at the holy Table in stead of Wine, as Theodoret writeth. It is* 1.48 therefore plain enough, that Julian did therefore for∣sake 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 sinne of Julian was the unpardonable sinne against the holy Spi∣rit.

Wherefore, God to deter all Professours of Christi∣anity from this damning blasphemy, hath manifestly stretched out his own hand in vengeance for the ex∣emplary destruction of these two ringleaders in this Grand blasphemy: of Arius his end you heard before, and upon this Julian his anger appeared more evident∣ly; insomuch that the Heathens in those dayes said as St. Hierome reporteth, who was an ear-witnesse: O* 1.49 how can Christians say that their God is patient and long∣suffering, seeing he hath taken away Julian in such anger, and sudden fury!—& ne mo••i••o quidem spatio, in∣dignationem suam differre potuit, (i.) and could not for a little space defer his indignation.

Whilest the Church gr••oan••d under the pressures of this Apostate, the Ecclesiasticall History relates a strange* 1.50 passage of a man, That in a Church had a vision in a dream or ecstasie, he knew not which, for he saw Apo∣stles 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 dispu∣tant against the Aria•• heresie in the dayes of Constan∣tius) 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 Iulian is at this hour slain, and bid him signifie the

fame to Athanasius. Theodoret also reporteth of an ho∣ly* 1.51 man, named Saba; that as he was earnestly, and with tears praying against the tyranny of Iulian, sud∣denly 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. dayes march from the place where Iulian* 1.52 died; and because it could n••ver appear by what man Iulian was slain, men might well think it was done by some extraordinary means; for though the Pe••sian king (against whom Iulian made his last war) made great inquiry through his whole Army, and proposed great honours and rewards by proclamation, to him that had* 1.53 slain the Roman Emperour, yet ••one could be found to take that honour upon him. Nay, I finde in Socrates,* 1.54 that one Calisius, who was of the train or life-guard of Iulian, reported in writing that this Iulian was wound∣ed and slain, à Daemone, that is, by a good or a bad Angel (for by Heathens both sorts are called daemones;) upon these presumptions (which to me seem not un∣probable) the Church-men of those dayes did attri∣bute the destruction of this blasphemer to the extra∣ordinary hand of God; and therefore Nazianz••n in one of his Orations against this Iulian useth this ex∣pression: Audi••e angeli,—quorum opera tyrannus ex∣tinctus* 1.55 est; (i.) Hear O ye Angels, by whose Mini∣stery this Tyrant was destroyed.

I might here adde the like examples of Gods venge∣ance shewed 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 burnt his body to ashes: As also how the Arians ac∣counted him after his death for a Martyr, as Epiphani∣us* 1.56 notes.

But, Olympus an Arian Bishop perished by a more memorable vengeance, for having blasphemed the Tri∣nity* 1.57 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 que∣stion.

This Exposition being admitted upon those places in the 3. Evangelists, (as I do firmely believe it is the true meaning thereof) this question will be clear, which by other Expositions hath a long time much perplexed our Expositours, and could never give satisfaction to the Reader, nor could the Ex∣positours tell us certainly upon what persons they could fasten this sin, and therefore Beza in his notes upon 1 Epist. of Saint Iohn, c. 5. v. 16. tells us, it is the sinne of the Devill, 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 deny∣ing* 1.58 the Godhead of Christ is said to be especi∣ally unpardonable?

THe reason why the denying the Godhead▪ of Christ, is said to be the irremissible sin is, be∣cause* 1.59 if Christ be not indeed, the true and onely and supream God, then he hath not redeemed us; and we are and must be for ever, Massa d••mnationis, (i.) a lump of perdition, and fuell for hell-fire; 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, Ʋpon this Rock will I build my Church, that is, upon this Confession, that Christ is the Son of God; for the Church is the nurse∣ry* 1.60 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 foun∣dation can no man lay, then that is laid, which is Iesus Christ, 1. Cor. 3. 11. for, This is life everlasting, that they might know thee the onely true God, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent, John 17. 3. that is, as St. Austin expounds* 1.61 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 afore∣named Father, when he desired vehemently to work upon his Readers he divers times used this expression: Per Divinitatem & humanitatem Domini obsecro: I be∣seech* 1.62 you by the Divinity and humanity of our Lord. And both he and other Fathers in their Exposi∣tions* 1.63 of that saying, Be wise as Serpents, Matthew 10. 16. Tell us, that the Serpentine prudence is, that when he is a••saulted, he exposeth his body to blowes, that so he may preserve his head; To teach us, that we also in time of persecution, Custodiamus caput,* 1.64 id est, Christum in confessione, (i.) though we fail in some inferiour 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 ca∣put,* 1.65 est Divina natur••, saith Eus••bius; and Saint Hierome gives the reason, Q••oniam Deitas quae in eo erat, guber∣nabat,* 1.66 (i.) The Godhead in Christ did govern the hu∣mane 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 con∣fess* 1.67 that Christ is his Lord God, cannot be a Christian. For such a mans religion is no better then the religion of Jewes and Turks; for both these confess a God, but* 1.68 neither of them confess Jesus to be that God. And * 1.69 Ca••ion in his Chronicle saith, that the Arian Heresie did open the door to let in Tur••isme, and was Praecursor Mahometis, (i.) that Arius was the forerunner of Ma∣homet, and so of Antichrist; and Mr. Fox doubteth not to affirm, that the Turk is the principall Antichrist: and the Fathers long ago said as much of the A••ian Heresie, and very jnstly: For A••hanasius said, Ariana haeresis est praecursatrix Antcihristi, (i.) The Arian Heresie 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 in∣deed* 1.70 the A••ians are not to be accounted Christians, be∣cause they opposed Christ in his Godhead, which is the onely foundation of Christianity, therefore with great reason they are called Antichrists; and therefore Saint Ambrose doubted not to affirm Ariani sunt Antichristi à* 1.71 Iohanne designati, (i.) That the Arians are those An∣tichrists which Saint Iohn pointed at, 1 Iohn 2. 22. and St. Hilary writidg against Constantius the Arian Emperour, (in whose dayes Arianisme so dominered:) Christus expect••tur, quia Antichristus obtinuit, (i.) that* 1.72 we may now exspect Christs second coming▪ because An∣tichrist is already come: for nothing can be imagined to be more opposite and contrary to Christ & Christian Religion, then 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 depre∣cari* 1.73 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 onely Medi∣atour?

This is that confession which the gates of Hell have alwayes laboured to conquer by the power and cruelty of persecutors; for what did those tyrants chiefly aim at in all their torments,—Nisi ut neg••tur Deus in Chri∣sto,* 1.74—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 helpfull to us for salvation, then Heathenisme was to them. But we confess and firmly believe that Jesus Christ is God, the supream God, the onely 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 onely a creature, and a meer man; and if so, then he cannot be a Redeemer of us; for can any man imagine, that the death of one meer man, and that but a tempo••ary death, could satisfie 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 mercifull, so is he most exactly just, and will have the utmost farthing paid. St. Austine saith truely, N••c* 1.75 Dei justitia impedit misericordiam, nec misericordia justi∣tiam, (i.) Neither doth his justice lessen his mercy, nor his mercy his justice: And again he saith, Iusta est gra∣tia* 1.76 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 Lambe could not take away the sinnes of the world, except he were the Lamb of God, and Agnus-Deus, God the Lamb;* 1.77 nor could a crucified man satisfie 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 advan∣tage us, except we believe as Tertullian saith, Christia∣norum* 1.78 est Deum mortuum ered••re, (i.) The Christian must believe that he that died for him, was God. And albeit some Heretickes and Heathens scoffed at a crucified God, yet the Church never was ashamed of him. St.* 1.79 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 denie the work of redemption by him, and so Turcizeth, and acteth for An∣tichrist: of Antichrists mysticall 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 onely a surety of Gods promise, and died to assert the truth of the Covenant—as a witness &c p. 136,] and that the ••xpia••ori•• sacrifice for sin, was not by him off••r••d on earth,] P. 116 146. He talketh of∣ten 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 shewed himself to be a true Porphyrian Logician▪ for as I shewed before, if Christ be nor the onely and supream 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 then a creature; for grant him the first blasphemy, that Christ is not God, and the second blasphemy must needs follow.

This is a revivall of a very ancient heresie of Cerin∣thus in plainer words, who taught as Irenaeus sheweth,* 1.80 That Christ descended upon Iesus, when Iesus was bap∣tized, and that before his passion, Christ departed from Iesus, and left Iesus 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 meere c••eature, ust as our Commenter teacheth, and this in ••ffect is all

one with the Heresie of the Manichtes, who although they did not deny Christ to be God (as the Commen∣ter doth) yet they would not believe that the Emma∣nuel or incarnate God was crucified, but another in his stead, and that a creature too. Whereupon St. Austin* 1.81 saith to them: Miseri, non timetis ne dicatur vobis in ju∣dicio, ego cos liberavi pro quibus pessus sum: ite, ille vos liberet cui meas ascribitis passiones? (i.) Are ye not a∣fraid, ye wretched men, that Christ in judgement will say to you, Depart from me, and go to that meer crea∣ture, to whom you ascribe my passion; for I redeem∣ed those onely for whom I suffered? Now if Christs passion on earth did not redeem us, to whom shall we go for redemption, seeing he redeemed onely those for whom he suffered?

I wish our Commenter would consider another speech of this renowned Father, who whilest he continued in the said Manichean Heresie, 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 be∣lieve the passiou of Christ, but erred therein, and yet no more phantastically, or dangerously then this Com∣menter doth, he said of himself, Ibam ad inferos portans omnia mala quae commiseram nam Christus pro eis non sol∣verat, cum crediderim crucem ejus phantasticam. (i.) 1* 1.82 was going to hell with the burthen 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 meer man, and that his death was onely as a witness, or Martyr to seal a Truth with his blood, and not at all for mans redemp∣tion, shall be so far from receiving the blessing of Re∣demption by him, that he shall moreover bring, and accumulate a curse upon himself: For so the ancient Martyr Ignatius understandeth these words, Ier. 17. 5.* 1.83 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 meer man, and yet trusteth in him: And Athanasius doubted* 1.84 not to say, that the Arians who called Christ a crea∣ture,

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* 1.85 calls them Porphyrianos, because Porphyrie once had been a professed Christian, and had revolted to hea∣thenism, as Socrates saith.

Thus the Reader may perceive that this blasphe∣mous denying Christs Divinity, doth dissolve our Re∣ligion into Heathenisme and Antichristianisme. I have heard from the mouth of an ancient and most learned Doctour, that Socinus the Father of our late society of Socinians, was the son of such Parents, where∣of one was by Religion a Turk, and the other a Chri∣stian, and that therefore Socinus laboured to bring Turcisme, and Christianisme to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Religion, by denying the Eternall Godhead of Christ, as Turks also do; which grand impiety is so destructive to Christian Religion, that it may be fitly called the Devils master-piece; and so the ancient Fathers esteemed it. Epiphanius called Arius* 1.86 statuam Diaboli, (i.) An Idoll set up by the Devill, and St. Hilary said of it, Mihi diabolus erit, qui Arianus▪* 1.87 (i.) He that Arianizeth is no better then Satan; and Athanasius called it Haeresin totum Diabolum induentem;* 1.88 (i.) An heresie indued with the whole plenitude of Sa∣tan: For the Devils cannot be saved, and such blasphe∣mers as these shall never be forgiven.

It was the opinion of Theodoret, that the grand An∣tichrist* 1.89 of all shall be the Devill, shewing 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 mysticall 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 indu∣ed with his malignant spirit, which make up his mysti∣call* 1.90 corporations, which is the Mystery of iniquity: And this was the opinion of St. Austine, and by him divers times expressed thus, Diaboli corpus sunt impii, ipse est corum caput, ficut 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,* 1.91 Corpus Diaboli est imptorum multitudo, (i.) The body of the Devill 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 intel∣ligunt* 1.92 hic non ipsum principem, sed multitudinem homi∣num cum ipso—do••c fiat magnus populus Antichristi, (i.) Some do not here understand onely the great An∣tichrist of all, but also a great multitude of people with him—untill at length Antichrist become as a po∣pulous nation: and Prosper saith moreover, Antichri∣stus* 1.93 praec••nes mendacii sui habiturus est, (i.) Antichrist shall have preachers to set forth his lies, who will edifie his great body for destruction, such as* 1.94 also St. Hilary calls, Novi apostolatus sub Antichristo Praedicatores, (i.) Preachers of a new calling under An∣tichrist.

Now if amongst other Hereticks also may be admit∣ted to be members of the body of Antichrist, surely none will be more advantagious to him, then those who blaspheme Christ in his highest title by denying* 1.95 his Godhead, Irenaeus, and after him divers old Wri∣ters, conceived, that the grand Antichrist will appear out of the Tribe of Dan, because of that saying in Iere∣my 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 An∣tichrist shall be sealed to salvation.

CHAP. VIII. Of the hypostaticall union of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Jesus Christ, the communication of the properties of each na∣ture, the life and death of Nestorius, and how Christ is said to be deified

FOr the avoyding 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 hea∣ven 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 subsi∣stence in one Personall union: but as our soul and body united and composed are one Man, and one Per∣son, so the Godhead and Manhood united in Iesus, are one Person, one Christ.

Now these two distinct natures, to wit, the God∣head 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* 1.96 communicatio idiomatum, (i.) The result or effect of the Personall union, is a communication of proper∣ties; which rule is laid, and more plainly expressed by St Austine in these words. Ʋnilas Personae Christi, sic* 1.97 constat ex humana & divina natura, ut quaelibet earum, vocabulum impertial alteri, (i.) The unitie of the Per∣son of Christ doth so consist of the Divine and humane natures, that each nature imparteth its appella∣tion mutually to the other; so that what is properly

belonging to the divine nature, is ascribed as done al∣so by the humane nature; the same is also thus expres∣sed by Theodoret, Communia Persona evadunt, quae sunt* 1.98 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; eternall, 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 Heauen:] 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 ought we know) but onely 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 weaknesse, 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 truely called Deus crucifixus,* 1.99 (i.) God crucified (as is shewed before out of Saint Hierome,) and Nazian saith, Si quis crucifixum non ado∣rat, 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 Jewes cruci∣ed* 1.100 God; and the same Father speaking of the tears which Christ shed over J••rusalem, calleth them, Lacry∣mas Dei, (i.) the tears of God. So St. Chrysostome calleth Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i.) the crucified God. The Prophet Esay prophesying of the birth of Christ, Esay 9. 6. Vnto us a child is born] immediately addeth—his name shall be called The mighty God: and the Church used the same language. Fulgentius saith, Ma∣ria* 1.101 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.) Mary brought* 1.102 forth a child that is God. So Saint Ambrose speaketh, i 1.103 Deus natus est ex virgine, God was born of a Virgine; and Athanasius saith, k 1.104 Deus incarnatus, & Deus passus est, God was incarnate, and God suffered. This do∣ctrine 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 blas∣phemy, and the Church accounted such as taught the contrary, to be in the number of the most dangerous hereticks, as may appear by the story of Nestorius, thus in brief.

This Nestorius was by birth a German, and was ad∣mitted* 1.105 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 hereticks, and so eager therein, that he incensed the Emperour against them, using this proud speech; O Imperator, da mihi* 1.106 terram purgatam h••re••icis, & ego tibi eoelum vetribuam. (i.) If the Emperour would purge his Empire of here∣ticks, he would assure him of Heaven. He was a man very cloquent, and so proud thereof, that he disdained to reade the ancient Writers, and so being ignorant of Catholick Doctrine, he fell into this Heresie of divi∣ding or separating the two Natures of Christ, and par∣ticularly teaching that the Virgin Mary ought not to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the Parent or Mother of* 1.107 God; and because some of his sect would have her cal∣led onely '〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the mother of a man: Nestorius desiring to go in a middle way, would have her called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (i.) the Mother of Christ, but at no hand, the Mother of God: so his error was in this, that he divided, and rent 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* 1.108 unum Deum, alterum hominem: (i.) Nestorius would have fancied two Sons of God, and two Christs, where∣of 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 Trinitie against the sentence of the Church as it was long before the time of Nestorius, recorded by Gregorie of Neo-Cesaria, qui* 1.109 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 red••mption, if the Person who died for us was not in his very death, very God so that he (by reason of that Personall union before mentioned) might truely be called D••us crucifixus, God crucified; and therefore our Commenter is also in this errour, who will afford Christ no better Title then a Divine Man, p. 136. which is no more then ••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. Austine in one of his Books, had said, that* 1.110 Christ was D••mini••us homo, but he retracted it—Quia D••m••nusest, saith he, because he is more then a Man of the Lord, for this Man is the Lord. For this hypostaticall, or Personall union must be in and go through all the great dispensations of our Saviour's Med••atourship, both in his active and passive obedi∣ence; for otherwise his fulfilling the Law had been be∣neficiall to none but himself, and his passion could not have sufficed for the whole world therefore the Personall union was most necessary to that great work, and is declared both in the Scriptures, and in the Fa∣thers.

For whereas we now reade, 1 Iohn 4. 3. Every spirit that confesse••h not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is* 1.111 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* 1.112 Spirit that divideth Iesus; that is, which separateth his Divine from his humane nature. The Scripture joyneth both in a communion of properties (as is said

before) for Elizabeth calleth Mary, Luk 1. 43. The Mother of my Lord:] no doubt but she meant the mo∣ther 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* 1.113 Dominatione divini••as est, & in divi••i••ate Dominatus; That in the title Lord the Lord God is meant. So a∣gain, 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 like∣wise, 1 Cor. 2. 8. They would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.]

Now I ask who is the Lord of glory, but onely God? Consider now that to have a mother, and to have blood, and to be crucified, though they be such things as properly belong to the humane nature, yet you see that these humane infirmities are said of God, because the same Person is both God and Man. To this Doctrine of the Scripture, agreeth the doctrine of the Fathers concerning this communication of proper∣tics: for because in Scripture, Christ is called the Son of David, therefore St. Chrysostome without any scru∣ple, saith that David is a 1.114 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and because the Scripture calleth Iames, the brother of our Lord, Gal. 1. 19 the same Father saith that Iames was b 1.115 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that David was the Father of God, Iames was the brother of God; and also St. Austine saith, that David was c 1.116 Parens Dei, the Parent of God: and O••i∣gen saith, d 1.117 Corpus Iesu▪ 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 condem∣nation of Nestorius the Councill of ••halcedo•• added this to the Creed as an Article of Faith, e 1.118 Mary the mother of God, and afterwards in another Creed ratified by the edict of Justinus the Emperour. f 1.119 The Virgin Mary is again called the Mother of God. And the Em∣perour Justinian built a Church, and called it g 1.120 Tem∣plum De••pa••ae, the Church of the mother of God; and Gregory Nazianzen long before, in an Epistle written to Cledonius, had affirmed, h 1.121 Si quis Mariam non cre∣di••

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (i.) He that doth not believe Ma∣ry to be the mother of God, himself is an Atheist, and with∣out God. Nestorius for denying this Doctrine was summoned to the Councell of Ephesus, which was cal∣led* 1.122 by the authority of the Emperour Theodosius the younger, where Cyril of Alexandria sate President; the Councell deposed Nestorius out of his Bishoprick and the Emperour banished him: In his banishment, his blasphemous tongue rotted in his mouth, and was eaten out with worms: so he died with a mark of* 1.123 Gods vengeance on him; as Arius did, and the Church History passeth this hard sentence on him: Ex his mi∣seriis ad sempiterna supplicia migravit, that he departed out of this misery into eternall torments.

Notwithstanding, all this Thal••ia Arii, this pretty* 1.124 Commentary tells us, that Christ is not the supream God, nor ever was a God till he rose from the dead, for then he was Consequently Deified: so if he be God, he must be but of a late Edition. This Doctrine har∣moniously agreeth with the Heathens Theology, which also tells us of Dii superi, inferi Medioxumi, Magni, Mi∣nuti,* 1.125 Patellani, (i.) High and low, and middle gods; great and small, and Pint-pot deities. The deifying of heathen Emperours, hath as good authority from Scripture: I have said ye are Gods, Psal. 82. And Ro∣mulus,* 1.126 Julius, Augustus, & Dominus Deusque noster Do∣mitianus, are as well God deified as Christ himself (by this Comment.) And in the Church-Writers, Deifica∣tion (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which is the word used by Dionysius,) is ascribed to mortall men: for that Father sheweth that an holy Man, indued with the Spirit of God, may be said to be Deified; that is, assimulated to God, in∣dued* 1.127 with, sanctified, and united to God: And in another place he tells us, Deificatio est imitatio; (i.) De∣ification is the imitating of God: and to the same pur∣pose, Nazianzen saith, Spiritus nos deificat (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is his word) Men indued with Gods Spirit are Deified, because God is in them, and as it were mingled with them, and worketh in them: And Athanasius saith, Homines in quibus est Spiritus, Deificantur, Atha. ad Se∣rapion. n. 26. vid. 2 Pet. 1. 4. Now in what sense our

Saviour may be said to be Deified in the later times of the world, who was the supream and onely God from all eternity would next be inquired.

CHAP. IX. More concerning Deification, and in what sense Christ may be said to be Deified.

THe Arians were in this Doctrine something more ingenuous, then this Commenter, though in them it was also most pernicious; for they* 1.128 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 Scrip∣tures call some creature so: But they would not con∣fess him to have the same Godhead with the Father; for they said that he was Deus factus, made a God, or* 1.129 deified, and that he was the Son of God, not by na∣ture, but by gift, or grace, and not by eternall gene∣ration, but by power given, as Kings are called Gods; for so Saint Ambrose observeth, Deus in Scripturis est.* 1.130 1 Verus. 2 Nuncupativus, nam sunt qui dicuntur Dii, & non sunt. 3 Falsus, ut D••mones: (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 an∣gry, 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 na∣ture 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 per∣son 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 then became the body of God (as is shewed before out of Origen) and so that▪* 1.131 Father expresseth himself thus; Christus deificavit humanam naturam quam suscepit; Christ deified that humane nature which he assumed. Neither may we think so grosly of this deification, as if the flesh of Christ were turned into the Go••head, but onely be∣cause it is joyned to the Godhead, and assumed into a personall union with it; therefore the Name of God is also stamped upon it; so that we may truly say, the man Christ is God, and yet the body and soul of Christ still are, and for ever will be creatures. In* 1.132 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* 1.133 Jesum adorant incarnatum carne, qu••m de••fi••averat: The Archangels did alwaies before the incarnation, worship the Son of God, but they worship him now in that flesh, which (by assuming it) he now hath de∣ified. For now it is the flesh of God, as the Scri∣pture 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 1.134 Non deificatus fuisset homo, nisi verbum fuisset incarnatum.—And—h. Chri∣stus 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.* 1.135 1. saith 1. Paulus missus est per Christum jam totum Deum, quia ex omni parte immortalem; That Paul is said not to be called by man, because Christ was at that time wholly God, because now he was perfectly immortall, so he fastned this deification, or immorta∣lity* 1.136 only on his humane nature▪ for his divine nature was the immortall God from all eternity; and Theo∣doret upon those words God hath, highly exalted him.] Phil. 2. 9. saith, Est de carne quae deificata est, nam domi∣nus* 1.137 gloriae non dicitur glorificari; 'Tis meant of the flesh of Christ deified; for as he is the Lord of glory he can∣not be exalted, deified, or more glorified. So Origen* 1.138 saith of a Levitical sacrifice, that it signified, Carnem Christi in coelis deificandam, that the flesh of Christ in heaven was to be deified, and this deifying the flesh of Christ is said to be done in heaven, because there it was glorified and immortall▪ and on earth he is said to be deified, because of the Hypostaticall union of his* 1.139 2 natures, whereby his flesh was indeed Caro Dei, the flesh of God.

By thus distinguishing the two natures in Christ, the ancient Fathers answered the objections of old hereticks, made against the eternall divinity of Christ; for in the same sense that the Son of God is said to be* 1.140 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 na∣med—That all power is given him in heaven and in earth,—that God raised him from the dead,—and that Jesus is made an high Priest for ever; all these sayings and many more of this ••ind are to be understood of the hu∣mane nature of Christ, but cannot be verified of his divine nature. Athanasius doth in generall give us this excellent rule, m 1.141 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 posses∣ed before by his Godhead; and in this sense onely is the Son of God said to be anointed, and so only is he called Christ, o 1.142 Ʋnctus est, non ut Deus, sed ut homo* 1.143 erat: p 1.144 Erat Verbum, Filius unigenitus ante incarnatio∣nem, sed non nominaetur Jesus Christus nisi post incarnatio∣nem, 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 na∣ture, not of his Godhead, as Athanasius expounds it, Profecit non verbum sed caro.

So again, Omnia mibi traditae sunt à Patre.] Nam antea non erat homo: so again, God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ,] Acts 2. 36. God cannot be said to make him, but onely in respect of his incarnation; for otherwise the Father is said to beget him, but not to make him.

So again, The Father giveth life to the Son;] that is, to his flesh, and as he is Man. So Christ is said to receive the Spirit without measure;] that is, his hu∣mane nature received the Divine Spirit; for in him the Godhead dwelt bodily; so, The Father is greater then I;] That is, as I am Man: and he hath given him a Name,] still as he was Man: and in this sense onely is Christ said to be Deified: for nothing was in Christ be∣fore 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 ascri∣bed to any other God; because there is no God but he; and therefore Epiphanius doth truly affirm, Ante* 1.145 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 onely in consideration of incarnation.

CHAP. X. How those words which signifie the abasing and minoration of the Son of God are to be under∣stood of his delivering up the Kingdome, and end thereof, and of his subjection to the Fa∣ther.

AS no Title of Majesty, Exaltation or Deification could be newly added to the Son of God, except he had humbled himself to incarnation: So neither could any tearms or words of minoration and subjecti∣on 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 (shew∣ed* 1.146 before) he is said to be born—to grow—to weep—to pray—to thirst—to suffer—to die—and yet to be truely called Deus mortuus; Though dead, yet God nevertheles S. Hilary upon these words. The Father is greater then I,] saith, Pater est* 1.147 major Filio respectu hominis assumpti, sed Filius non est minor Patre respectu Deitatis: The Father is greater then the Son, in regard of the Sons assumed Manhood, but the Son is not less then the Father, in respect of the Sons Godhead. For in consideration of the Divi∣nity of the Son, he saith, The Father and I are one.* 1.148 They are one, and that not onely in will, or concur∣rence 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* 1.149 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* 1.150 ut Filius Hominis, imperat ut Deus: (i.) Christ prayed as

he was the Son of Man for as he is God he command∣eth. And again he saith of the death of Christ: Christus* 1.151 moriebatur, & non moriebatur- secundum hominem—se∣cundum Dium: (i.) Christ died—for he was a Man, Christ was immortall—for he was God. So the mino∣ration of the Son of God: Ful••entius saith, Exi••••∣ni.* 1.152 io fuit acceptio formae servilis, the making of himself to be of no reputation, was by assuming the form of a servant; just as a King doth condescend below himself in the disguise of mean apparell.

But the principall doubt is, how Christ can be be∣lieved, and said to be the true, onely, supream and eternall God, and all one with the Father in the Unity of Godhead, seeing the scripture tells us, I Corinth. 15. 24.

• 1 That Christ shall deliver up the Kingdome to God the Father.* 1.153
• 2 That Christ shall reigne, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.
• 3 That then the Son himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him: For how can it stand with a supream God, and an eternall King, to deliver up his Kingdome, and so to reign but for a limited time untill, and then to become a subject?

1 For answer hereunto, I say first, that Christs delivering up the Kingdome to the Father, doth not imply any resignation or annulling of his own interest, nor excluding of himself, or abdicating his own domi∣nion, but a communication of that power which he received (as he was man) to his Father, who is the same God with him. For as he is said to deliver the Kingdome to the Father; so the Father is said to have delivered all things to the Son, Luk 10. 22. All things are delivered to me of my Father: and Matth. 28. 18. All power is given unto me in Heaven, and in Earth. Yet no man will say, that the Father by this gift, excluded himself from his own dominion; still God is Lord of all things but by this gift he communicated his Domi∣uion to the Man Christ, and yet reserved it to him∣self.

Now what is this Kingdome that shall be delive∣red? the Kingdom of Christ is his Church, his Saint, his Elect, and what kind of delivering is here meant? were not the Church, and Saints, and Elect Gods Kingdom before? and how are they said to be delive∣red up to the Father, who never had been out of his hands?* 1.154

I answer with St. Austin, Tradere regnum est ere∣dentes 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 ru∣ling 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 judgment, they shall be given up free from those intanglements, 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 chaft Virgins, and as a Philosopher said to his disciple: reddam te tibi meliorem. So Christ shall de∣liver* 1.155 us up to the Father in better condition then he found us, for although God by his Omnipotency ru∣led over us before, yet it was but as a King over stub∣born and rebellious subjects; but then the same God shall reign over the same subjects amended, and whol∣ly, and willingly, and joyfully submitting themselves to his divine will.

Secondly, where it is said, Christ shall reign till he* 1.156 hath put all his enemies under his feet; This doth not signifie that Christ shall reign no longer, but that the Kingdom of Christ shall indure untill then, in despite of all the opposition of heresies, Persecutors and Ty∣rants, 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 per∣petually opposing, resisting, and rebelling against him, but yet the King still holdeth his kingdome; so al∣beit

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 victorie through our Lord Lord Iesus Christ, 1. Cor. 15. 57. Christ reigneth during this world, as a Warrior, as the Lord of Hosts; but after∣wards he shall reign as a true Melchisedec, king of Sa∣l••m, Prince of peace: so that his kingdom doth not end with the world, but shall be refined and reformed, not by any change in our King, but in his subjects, and this is the meaning of this word till in the judgment of Expositors; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: do not alwaies signifie an utter ces••ation. b 1.157 Donec non est definiens tempus. c 1.158. Donec non habet finem, sed consequens quid∣dam. d 1.159. Donec non adimit posterius. e 1.160. 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 signifie 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 sub∣ject]* 1.161 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 Iacob 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 naturall* 1.162 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 then that preferment which was con∣ferred on it by his Godhead, therefore this subjection cannot be meant of his own naturall body, but it is indeed meant of his body mysticall, 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, Atha∣nasius saith, f 1.163. Cum omnes nos subjicimur, tum ipse dici∣tur subject; When all we are subjected to Christ, then Christ is said to be su••ject; and Saint Ambrose saith, g 1.164. 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 di∣vine will (as is shewed before) the whole Body of Christ cannot be said to be fully subject, and his mysticall body which consists of men over-ruled by the power and rebellion of flesh and blood never was yet perfect∣ly subjected to God, nor ever will be wholly obedi∣ent to him, untill (after the resurrection,) they shall be thus delivered up to the Father, perfectly Sanctified* 1.165 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 annu∣merato 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 universall 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 un∣derstand that neither this Deification, preferment, or exaltation; nor this Subjection which is said of Christ, doth in the least measure, derogate from his Eternall, and Supream 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 ex∣amined, being one of the grand Arguments, used by A••iu•• and his Sect, against the eternall God∣head of the Son. Therefore I crave thy patience (good Reader) whilest I discourse unto thee two questions pertinent.

First, how it can be said, that The Son himself shall* 1.166 be subject, whereas in truth, onely h••s Church is then to be subjected more then it was before, and not his own Person, no not his very humanity; (more I say, then it was whilest he walked on the Earth) For then he was not onely without sin, but moreover, he was obedient to death, even the death of the cross?* 1.167

For the understanding hereof I premise three consi∣derable observations: First, the Apostle doth not say, the Word shall be subject; for then he must mean that the Godhead of Christ should be subject, which is im∣possible: but he saith, the Son shall be subject. Now we know, nothing is more frequent in Scripture, then that holy men are called the Sons of God, as Matth. 5. 9. Luke 6. 35. so that the subjection of the Son of God, doth here signifie the perfect subjection of holy men at the resurrection of the just, as will more appeare anon.

Secondly, I observe, that whereas he saith, The Son himself shall be subject, and yet cannot mean the natu∣rall and individuall Person of Jesus Christ, but onely 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 mysticall, as be∣ing really united to his body naturall, and with him

who is the head, they are One body; so that Christ, and his Church are called One Christ, which by the Fa∣thers, is usually called Plenitudo Christi, & Christus ••••∣tu•• & Christus Ʋniverisus. Tertullian in his sense said* 1.168 of this mystery, Ecclesia (est) Christus, cum ad fratrum g••nuate proter dis, Christum contractas: and so Saint Austine, Christi facti sumus, non so••um Christani, Pleni∣tudo Christi est caput & membra, C••••istus & Ecclesi.: (i.) The Church is Christ, so that when you are pro∣strate at the knees of the brethren, you touch the knees of Christ—We are not onely Christi∣ans, but we are Christ; the Fulness 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* 1.169 be subject] by which future expression, it may clearly appear that the subj••ct••on here meant, is not yet come to pass, and therefore cannot be understood of the naturall, proper, and individuall Person of Jesus Christ: for all manner of subject••on that can be expected from him, is already perfect in his own proper humanity, because himself never rebelled against the Godhead. Nazianzen saith of him, Annon nunc subjectus est? an* 1.170 ut de De•• hoste 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 Mysticall (which is the Church of Elect, & ••s called by her Spou∣ses* 1.171 own name) the same Father saith▪ P••cca•• a nostra sumpsit & inobedientiam—quamd••u eg•• inobediens sum, Coristus per me inobediens est: Cum subjectionem no∣stram implev••rit, nosque addu••••r••t, tum ips•• subj••ctus dici∣tur; Christ hath taken our sins and d••sob••dience on himself, so long as I am inobedient, so long Christ by me is said to be inobedient, when he hath wholly subdued us, and presented us perfect to the Father, then the Son himself is said to be subject.

The answer to this question, How the Son himself* 1.172 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 subje∣ction,

and so long as they are not fully subjected, the Son himself is not wholly subject

For if the naturall body of Christ be called Christ; (as it is when we say Christ is buried, when onely his body was buried) much rather may his great Myst∣call and P••liticall Body be called Christ, and so it is, 1 Cor. 12. 27. The Body of Christ,—all the Members are but one Body, so is Christ: and Gal. 3. 2••. All are one in Christ Jesus; see 1 Cor. 6. 15.

If it were not for this reall union of Christ and his Church, how could Christ truely say, I was hungry,* 1.173 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. Austine, a 1.174 Non enim Christus in capite, & non in corpore, sed Christis to••us in capite & in corpore: and again, b 1.175 Vnus est Christus, caput & corpus, ipsi sunt ego: and again, c 1.176 Carni Christi conjungitur Ecclesia, & fit totus Christas ca••u & corpus: and again, d 1.177 Fil••i Dei sunt c••orpus unics Filii Dei, & ••um ille caput sit, nos Membra, unus 'est F••lius Dei, and more yet: e 1.178 Caput cum corpore su••, unus est Christus: The Apostle saith, Eph. 5. 31. We are member•• of his Body, of his flesh, and of his bones▪ upon which words, the same Father saith, f 1.179 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 onely in the head, for the whole Christ consisteth of the head and bo∣dy—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* 1.180 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 1.181 Vnita•• est à capite ad pedes; head and foot are united as one Body: and therefore by the Ancients, h 1.182 Those which are strong in Christ are called his bones. The Apostle is the mouth of Christ, Saint Ambrose wished, would I were* 1.183 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* 1.184 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 1.185 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 affl••ctions 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 Mysticall Bo∣dy of Christ, (which is his Church) by the holy Mar∣tyrs, for confirmation of Evangelicall Truth; as it is there said, For his bodies sake] that is, for the edifica∣tion of his Members, and these Passions of Martyrs are here called the afflictions of Christ, though they were acted onely 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 onely by the Adoption of Grace.

This cannot be denied, but withall we should un∣derstand, 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 onely by Grace by Adoption and Electi∣on; and therefore it is said in regard of this humane Nature, All power is given me in Heaven, and in Earth;* 1.186 and therefore Christ is called Gods elect Servant; and Saint Peter calls him a stone chosen and precious; for in∣deed it was of meer 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* 1.187 delivered by Saint Austine, Susceptio hominis per Verbum erat Gratia, nam quid meruit ille Homo qui Christus est? and again, Susceptio hominis ipsius in Deum, tota est gra∣tia,

quid meruit homo ille? ••olle gratiam, quid est Chri∣stus nisi homo? quid nisi quod tu? and in his disputes against the ••el••gians he thus argues, Ʋnde Chri∣stus* 1.188 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•• Christi∣anus, quâ ille homo fi•• Christus. That is, the taking of the manhood into God, was meerly 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* 1.189 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 1.190) Habitantem in te••d••∣••exi D••m••num Salvator••m: And Paulinus thus writes to him (b 1.191) Audiam qu••d in •••• mihi loquatn•• Deus; And Austin himself writes thus to Bishop Aurelius, (c 1.192) Jus∣sioni ••••a oporter me ob••••mpera••e, nam Christus in te habi∣tans, 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 meanes to effect this most holy Union (which cannot be said of common and or∣dinary food) and therefore is called by Saint Austin, Th•• Sacrament of union, as out of many grapes one ves∣sell* 1.193 of wine is extracted, &c ••just so (saith he) of ma∣ny men one Body of Christ is composed. I here present unto the Learned Readers consideration, an exposi∣tion of those two difficult sayings of Christ, but I do not obtrude this conceit Magisterially. He saith, Iohn 6. 53. Except ye cat the flesh of the Son of man &c.] and, Matth. 26. 26. Take, eat, this is my Body] This he said when he gave not flesh, but bread: Vide The∣ophil. in ••o••. 6. 51. This bread may truly besaid to† 1.194 be turned into the Flesh of Christ, because it is nu∣trimentally turned into the flesh of every holy Com∣municant, because such are truly called the Body, and

members of Christ, and are called Christ: but in pro∣phane 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* 1.195 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 Eucharisticall nourishment is therefoie turn∣ed 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,* 1.196 kill, and eat] the meaning was, that Peter should re? ceive the Gentiles, as well as the Jewes into the Com∣munion of the Church Quasi escam u•• incorporentur Ec∣clesiae saith Austin; so he expoundeth that of Saint Iohn,* 1.197 Except ye eat] id est, nisi incorporentur Christo. So also he expoundeth that saying, He that cometh to* 1.198 me, I will not cast him out] Quiveni•• ad Christum, incor∣poratur ei. And in that exposition of the Apocalyps 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, in∣corporantur, the meaning is, that by the fire of the Ho∣ly Ghost, the very persecutors of the Church shall be converted and incorporated into that mysticall Body of Christ; this of the first question

The second question is, What that is, which in the Saints* 1.199 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* 1.200 most holy men living, there dwelleth a rebellious sin continually unto their death, which is the same that by the Apostle is called Concupisence; for the law saith, Thou shalt not cover: and the Apostle saith, The* 1.201 flesh lusteth against the Spirit, this is that which Di∣vines call Originall 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 exp••cted in this life; for against this thorn in the flesh did this Apostle pray,* 1.202 but it was answered; My G••••ce i•• sufficient. That* 1.203 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 ac∣knowledge* 1.204 some persons just, and righteous, and per∣fect ones, as Job, and Noah, and Zecharie; the an∣swer 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 compleat yet is far from a per∣fect man, and a perfect man is yet far short of Angeli∣call perfection. Men are called just, who are not* 1.205 free from sin, Justi su••runt, & sine peccato non sue∣runt.

That this truth hath been ever acknowledged by the Church, may appear in that the Apostle saith: ••f we say we havë no sin, we deceive our selves: civitas* 1.206 Dei o••at•• dimi••te nobis debi••a, the universall Church in the time of prayer saith Forgive us our trespasses. In∣deed* 1.207 S. Austin confesseth, That a man may sometime live without acting a sin; yet that any mortall man can be without sin, he denyeth. For when the Pela∣gians urged that the Virgin Mary was without sin, he desired to be excused from all accusation of that Bles∣sed Mother of our Lord God, yet he was assured that all Saints on earrh would submit to that speech of* 1.208 Saint Iohn, If we say we have no sin, &c. Sain•• Am∣brose saith, Non gl••ri••r quia justus sum, s••d quia redemp∣tus, 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

vertues: as Ezechias was a just man, though he sin∣n••d▪ and wept, he did not lose the repute of a just man for some sins, but he retained it, because withall he performed many just and worthy actions; besides, a man is ••steemed righteous, when his un••ighteousnesse is forgiven, as he is ••steemed with God a performer of the Law, whose transgr••ssions are pardoned. Om∣nia* 1.209 mandata facta deputan••ur, quando qui••quid non fit ignosci••ur.

Now, that the rebellion of flesh and blood, or con∣cupisc••nce doth cont••nually dwell in all mankind, du∣ring 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 evill it is, which the Apostle would not do, and yet did it? it must needs be answered, that evill concupi∣scences, or carnall lusts did arise in him, which he de∣sired to be quit of, and free from, that they might not all be in him: but because evill concupiscences will ever be in mortal men, therefore his next care is, that such desires may be r••sisted, so that they proceed not into action, as he saith, Rom. 6. 12. Let not sin reign in your mortall body, that ye should obey i•• in the lusts thereof] he doth not say, let it not be, for it will al∣waies be in us: but let it not rule, and p••evail over Grace: So, Gala. 5 16. w••lk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh] he doth say, ye shall not have those lusts, but not fulfill and pe••form 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 evill desires, so as no evill desires at all should arise in you, yet resist them, do not obey them; Tene* 1.210 manus, pedes, ocu••o••, &c. withhold your members from acting those carnal suggestions.

Where he saith, What I hate that I do.] We are not* 1.211 to imagine that the Apostle meaneth, that although he hated fornication, adultery, rapine, &c. yet he did act these things; but he meaneth that he hated evill lusts, which yet did continually arise in him, he desired they might not all be in him. No∣lo

concupiscere, & tamen con••upisco; O ••i, & tamen* 1.212 ago, quamvis membra••••eneo, arma nego. So himself ad∣viseth, Rom. 6. 13 Y••••ld not your members as i••st ••ments of unrighteousness: Although sinfull desires arise in* 1.213 your carnall heart. Rebellant? r••bella, pugnant? pugna. This is the strife betwen the flesh and the spirit, he did continually resist those temptations. Luctabatur, no••* 1.214 subjug••ba••ur; alwayes str••ving 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 over-ruled by the flesh, they do please* 1.215 God Carnem portant, sed non p••rtantur ab ••a.

Where he saith, Rom. 7. 25. With the mind I my self serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the Law of sin:] We are not to think that the naturall mind or intel∣lective faculty of this Apostle was free from carnall con∣cupiscence; for by nature our whole man body and soul is carnall: but the mind here signifieth his under∣standing, reformed and renued by the Spirit of God; for the very naturall spirit, or mind of man needeth •• renuing by the Spirit of Grace, as himself saith, Ephes. 4. 23. B•• r••nued 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 blame∣less: But that his Spirituall part, or in ward man did detest that which his carnall part or outward man did suggest.

Just so doth this Apostle ascribe his holy and spiri∣tuall actions, not to himself, but to the Grace of the Spirit, as 1 Cor. 15. 10. I laboured more then 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 Mysticall Body, and so is the Whole Christ, cannot be perfectly subject, and obedient to the Godhead, untill this mortall hath put on immortality, and our naturall

body be raised a Spirituall body: when Christ hath put down all carnall and sinfull 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 Spirituall part, by which he is born of God: but he is also born of flesh, and by that onely he sinneth.

CHAP. XI. Why the unpardonable sinne is rather fastened on the deniers of the Godhead of the Sonne then on them that deny the Godhead of the other Persons:

BUt why should the denying of the Godhead of the Son be so especially said to be a blasphemy unpardonable, when as the denying of the God∣head of the other Persons is also damnable; for first, Saint Basil saith expresly more then once, Qut Spiritum sanctum Cr••••turam vocant, incidunt in¦blasph••miam* 1.216 illam irremissi••item: He that calleth the Holy Ghost a creature, falleth ••nto the unpardonable sinne; so that Eunomius the Heret••cke who said the Spirit was the Creature of the Son, was involved▪ in* 1.217 this blasphemy as well as Arius, who said the Son was but a Creature of the Fa••her••▪ and therefore called him M••ttendarium, onely an Emissarie of the Father, as Ruffinus reporteth, and Saint Cyprian cal••eth the Devill* 1.218 (who is under the pressure of eternall unpardonable∣ness) 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 holyness, no man shall see God, Heb 12 14. Therefore how can that man expect the gift of Holy∣ness, who denieth the Author of Holyness, which i•• the Holy Ghost.

Secondly, He that denieth the Godhead of the Fa∣ther, is an Atheist, for all sorts of Religions which con∣fess* 1.219 a God, do also confess a Fatherhood in that God; even the Heathens called their Jupiter a Father, but how can an Atheist expect salvation from God, who denieth that there is any God?

For answer hereunto it may be said, that although the denying of the Godhead of any Person in the Trinity be destructive to salvation, yet this sin is rather▪

fastned on the deniers of Christ, then the deniers of the other Persons. First, because the confession of the Father and the holy Spirit is not salvificall without the Confession of Christ; for even Heathens confessed both a Fatherhood, and a Divine Spirit of God, as ap∣peareth by the confession of Ne••u hadnezar, Dan. 4. 9. but the Confession of Christ is alone salvificall, because he is not alone, as himselfe saith, John 8. 16. I am not alone, but I and the Father which sent me: for the confession of Christ in∣cludeth* 1.220 the whole Trinity as Saint Basil affirmeth. Chri∣sti 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:* 1.221 Christus implicat Pa••rem unguentem, Filium unctum, Spiri∣tum unctionem, (i.) The appellation of Christ is the pro∣fession of the whole Trinity, declaring the Father a∣nointing, the Son anointed, and the Spirit who is the ointment; and therefore albeit the form of Baptisme was precisely set down to be in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; yet because the Name Jesus Christ implyeth all these, Saint Peter mentioneth onely this name, Acts 2. 38. Be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Iesus Christ for remission of sins: so doth Saint Paul also, Rom. 6. 3. Galati∣ans 3. 27▪

Secondly, the unpardonable sin is fastned on the de∣niers of the second Person, rather then on the deniers of the other Persons, because the work of redemption was immediately wrought by the second Person. For it was the Person of the Son onely that became a Surety for us, and not onely a bare Witness or▪ Testifier (as the Commenter affirmeth) the Son onely took upon him our nature, and therein fulfilled the Law for us, and suffered death in our stead for our transgressions, he onely was our Surety and Mediatour, and he onely was incarnate, and died, and rose again, and carried our flesh into Heaven with him, and there still conti∣nueth a Mediatour for us, not by any verball pleading, or intreating for our salvation, but by presenting there in the glorious Sanctuary of Heaven, that humane body and

soul, which had actually and perfectly performed the whole Covenant of God; and therefore even in the most strict Justice of God, shewing that Heaven is due by the said Covenant to all his mysticall Body, for which his naturall Body was sacrificed on the Crosse for the expiation of all their sinnes, which was pre∣figured by the High Priests entering into the Sanctum Sanctorum.

All these dispensations and actions which conduced to our salvation must be ascribed onely to the Person of the Sonne, but cannot be said of the Father, or of the Holy Ghost. For that was the Heresie of the* 1.222 Sabellians, who were therefore called, Patripassiani; for these workes are proper to the Sonne alone. Fi∣lius natus, passus, resurr••xisse, ascend••sse dicitur & non* 1.223 Pater: As Augustine saith, (i.) The Father can∣not be said to be born, or suffer, or to rise again, or to ascend, but onely the Sone.

Therefore Kisse the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish, Psalme 2. 12. For the denying of him▪ is the renouncing of salvation.

CHAP. XII. The Godhead of Jesus Christ shewed by Scrip∣ture, and by the type of the Tabernacle.

BEcause the apprehension, and believing of this great Mystery of God Incarnate is a wonderfull consolation to the Christian, and the denying thereof pertinaciously, a certain note of eternall perdition: therefore the Scripture hath very evidently and fre∣quently declared this weighty truth, both by express words, and otherwise: for the child to be born of a Virgin, must be called Emmanuel, Esay 7. 14. that is, God with us, or God incarnate; and the same Prophet Esay 9. 6. giveth that childe such Titles, as cannot be attributed to any meer creature, as—The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. This Prophets words do so agree with the Evangelicall, and Apostolicall Doctrine: (as the Word was made 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 ever∣more, Rom. 9. 5.) that Saint Jerome called this Pro∣phet* 1.224 Esay, Non solum Prophetam, sed Evangelistam, & Apostolum; Not onely a Prophet, but an Evangelist, and an Apostle; for as the Prophet before the incarna∣tion bringeth in God, saying, I have sworn by my self—to me every knee shall bow, Esay 45. 23. So the Apostle applieth that saying to Christ, being the same God, (but now incarnate) of whom Esay spake, Rom. 14. 11. As it is written, As I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me. So that the saying of the Psal∣mist, Psalm 97. 7. Worship him all ye gods, is applied to Christ, Heb. 1. 6. Let all the Angels of God worship him.

Neither doth the Scripture set forth this great truth onely by words, but also by the visible type of the Iew∣ish 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 there∣fore God confined them to perform their worship of him at the Tabernacle or Temple; lest they like other Nations, should set up a God of their own invention, or worship the host of Heaven; seeing men naturally desire, either a sensible object of their adoration, or at least will fancie such an one in their brain.

The Israelites (not yet weaned from idolatry) be∣fore the Tabernacle was erected, made a Calf or Oxe to worship, just as they had seen the Aegyptians wor∣ship before, the like figure in memory of Ioseph, as* 1.225 some thought, who had preserved them by corn in the Famine, because that beast doth usually work in Til∣lage: and because in after-times the Jewes abhorred image-worship, not admitting any such Statues in their Temple; Therefore the Heathens thus usually twitted them, Incerti Iudaea Dei—And Iuvenal saith* 1.226 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 wor∣shipped, or that they worshipped nothing but the Clouds or Heaven. For the Heathens used to set up visible images before which they performed their a∣doration not intending to worship the Images termi∣nativè or finally (as our Commenters word is) but they worshipped them just so as the Commenter saith, Christ was worshipped. For they terminated their wor∣ship in their gods, whom they thought to be assistant, and present in those images, as Arnobius affirms from* 1.227 the mouths of Heathens, Nos nec aera, nec auri argen∣tive ma••e••ias Deos esse dec••••nimus, sed cos 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 in∣habit the Images. So Saint Augustine alleadgeth,* 1.228 Trismegistus affirming, that Images were as the bo∣dies

of their gods, and that the spirit was by Art (Ma∣gick) invited to reside in them.—Simulachrum* 1.229 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 Ceremo∣nious* 1.230 Dedication of it to that god, and so inviting him by Charms, and Magicall Conjurations to shew himself to be present in that image, as Conjurers (they say) have had the evill Spirit in a ring or boxe: And this is diverse times affirmed by Origen, the man∣ner whereof is partly touched in the Story of the De∣dication of Nebuchadnezzars image.

For the Devill apishly imitating God, indeavoured to set up his own worship, in such a manner as God hath appointed for himself. For, Psalm 96. 5. Dii Gen∣tium Daemonia: (i.) The gods of the Gentiles are Devils.

Therefore as God manifested his presence in the Tabernacle and Temple, where the Israelites were required to worship God; so the Devill manifested his presence in Idols, and Idoll-Temples, that so he also might be there worshipped; and this appeareth by what we reade of Heathen Oracles, and the Images of Iuno and Fortune, which uttered words as Lactan∣tiüs sheweth out of Valerius.* 1.231

CHAP. XIII. The Godhead of Christ further proved from the typicall Tabernacle and Temple.

IT will not be impertinent to this business in hand, to inquire why God confined the Jewish worship to the Tabernacle and Temple, as it is manifest he did; for, Levit. 17. 3, 4. the Israelites are required upon pain of death to bring their sacrifices to the doore of the Tabernacle. So the publick Passeover is to be sa∣crificed onely in the place which the Lord shall chuse, Deut. 12. 5. and what place that is, we finde set down, 2 Sam. 7. 13. The house that Solomon the sonne of David shall build; and this building was perfor∣med by him, 1 King 8. 20. and God declared his ac∣ceptation of that House or Temple, 2 Chron. 7. 12. The Lord appeared to Solomon,—and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to my self, for an house of sacrifice.

Now the reason why the Israelites were confined to perform their worship in this place, was, because God would keep them in a perpetuall memory and con∣fession of the Messiah to be incarnate; of whole incar∣nation both the Tabernacle and the Temple were but Figures or Types: Templum erat figura Corporis Do∣minici,* 1.232 saith Augustine, (i.) The Temple was the Figure of our Lords Body; for as God did manifestly shew his presence in the Tabernacle and Temple, by a cloud, and the Glory of the Lord filled both; as we reade, Exodus 40. 34. and 1 Kings 8. 10. So did he in the Body of Christ by his great Miracles, Deus erat in* 1.233 Templo,—V••rbum caro factum: (i.) When the Word was made flesh, God was there as n his Tem∣ple.

So that the prudent and religious sort of Israeites in the Typicall Tabernacle and Temple, did indeed

worship their god, who as yet was but Typically in∣carnate; for the Tabernacle did represent an hu∣mane body: Philo and Josephus both of them Jewes by birth and religion, called the Tabernacle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.234 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i.) A moveable and a portable Temple, as a mans body is: the covering of it was with skins, as mens bodies are covered, Exodus 26. 14. and with Curtains, as mens bodies are with Garments; and it represented the Body of Christ.* 1.235 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 Ta∣bernacles, 2 Cor. 5. 1. and 2 Peter 1. 14. Hence it is (no doubt) that so often mention is made of worship∣ping towards the Temple of Jerusalem, Psalme 5. 7. and 138. 2. I will worship toward thy holy Temple; and Psalme 29. 2. Worship the Lord in the beautie of Holynesse; that is, in his glorious Sanctuary: and King Solomen prayeth, Hearken to the supplication of thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place, 1 Kings 8. 30. And Daniel prayeth with his windows open toward Jerusalem, where the Typicall Temple h••d been, and where the true Antitypicall Temple of Christs body was to be manifested.

So in effect, the Object of the Israelaticall worship was God present in his Temple, thereby feeding their faith in the promised Messiah, who was afterwards to reside in his Tabernacle of the humane nature. So that the ultimate Object of their adoration, was the Sonne of God: God incarnate, even the same God, whom we Christians now worship. The Christian Religion was before the Jewish, in time, and the Church is older then the Temple, or Synagogue.* 1.236 Priora sunt Sacramenta Christianorum quam tudaeorum. For the adoration of the Sonne of God, did not first begin, when he was incarnate; but as Saint Augu∣stine truely saith, Christian Religion was in former times, but it began to be called Christian in latter times, when the Son of God took our flesh and again,* 1.237 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 Patria••chs and Prophets before he was incar∣nate, as truely as he is by us Christians since. Before Abraham was, I am, Iohn 8. 58. and Abraham rejoy∣ced to see my day, and saw it, and was glad. It is there∣fore a vain and false cavill of this Commenter, who tell us [Faith in Christ is nor contained in all Faith* 1.238 in God,—because in the description of the Faith which was in the ancient Elders, Hebrewes 11. there is no mention of Faith in Christ] Indeed there is no mention of the word Christ, but the Sonne of God was believed in by those Patriarchs, before the same Sonne of God could be called Christ▪ for in their dayes the Sonne of God was not yet Christ▪ for he was not anointed, nor could he be capable of anoint∣ing before he was incarnate (as is shewed before) The Sonne of God was God from everlasting, but this God was not Christ as yet, because he was not anointed, otherwise then in the purpose and Decree of the same God, and typically in the annointing of the Tabernacle, Exodus 30▪ 26, 27. and in the uncti∣on of Kings, Priests and Prophets. But faith in God must needs signifie faith in the Sonne of God, who is now the Christ, because there is no other God but he; for the Father and the Son are the self same One, and onely God.

Now if it be demanded why the holy Israelites wor∣shipped toward the Tabernacle or Temple, as if God were there onely, seeing it cannot be denied that God was then every where, Filling Heaven and E••••th, Ieremy 23. 24?

I answer in the words of Fulgentius; When God* 1.239 is said to be in a place, or to descend and come to it, it is not to be thought that God changeth place, so as to leave one place, and to goe to another, but—Significat manifestation••m ejus: (i.) It sig∣nifieth that God doth then manifest his presence in that place, wherein he was before; but did not shew, and declare his presence so, as when he is said to de∣scend.

So S. Chrysost▪ me expoundeth the Mission of the Sonne. Missio Fili•• qui ubiqu erat ••n••eà, corpoream ap∣par••ntiam* 1.240 significat, non mig••at à loco in locum: (i.) When the Sonne of God is said to be sent, who was every where before, it signifieth his Cor∣poreall appearing, and not a change of place.

And because the Godhead did manifest its presence in the Tabernacle and Temple; therefore the Isra∣elites did there, and toward that place perform their worship: yet we finde that sometimes sacrifices were offered to the Lord, in other places, as by Gideon, Iudges 6. 26. but it was by expresse command of God.

So did Elias also, 1 Kings 18. 36. but it was not in Judaea, but in Israel amongst Idolaters▪ yet with some conformity with the Temple, as is there men∣tioned. Eli••s offered at the time of the Evening Sa∣crifice, which was the Figure of Christs death to be at the ninth houre; and this also not without an instinct of Gods Spirit, for he was a Prophet.

CHAP. XIV. That the Christian when he prayeth, setteth his minde on God in Christ, as the finall Object of his Prayer; (as the Jewes prayed to God, then residing in the Tabernacle, or Temple;) because the now glorified Body of Jesus, is the Temple wherein the Godhead will for ever dwell.

AS the Israelites prayed to God, whom they con∣ceived to be present in the Tabernacle▪ or Tem∣ple, so the Christian when he prayeth, setteth his minde on Jesus Christ, conceiving him to be the Ob∣ject of his Prayer; for he believeth and considereth

him to be the Temple, wherein his God is for ever resident, and in that Temple he seeketh his God, where his mercy hath been manifested, and wherein the great work of Mans Redemption hath been acted and performed, and so looketh on his God through Christ.

The rubricks of the ancient Church Litu••gies, (as we finde in severall ages of the Church) directed men to pray thus: Sacerdos ante O••ationem dicit, Sur∣sum* 1.241 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, Psalm•• 115. 3. And we say, Our Father which art in Heaven, (as himself taught us to whom we must pray) be∣cause as his Godhead is, and was alwayes there; so his glorious Body was to be in Heaven, and is, and for ever shall be the Temple wherein the Godhead is to be sought to, and found. For in Christ dwelleth all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily, Colossi••ns, 2. 9. He saith bodily, in comparison of Types and Figures, the Tabernacle was but the shadow of Gods residence▪ but the Body of Christ was the Substance and Truth of that shadow.

The inhabitation of the Godhead of Christ in his Body, is described by Saint John most significantly to this purpose, John 1. 14. The Word dwelt amongst us.] where dwelling is expressed by the tearme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i.) God was intabernacled, which signifieth that his Body was the Tabernacle of the Godhead, as Theo∣doret* 1.242 observes.

The Leviticall 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. Iohn 2. 19, 21. Destroy this Temple, & in 3 dayes I will raise it up.—But he spake of the Temple of his body. For Ie∣sus est Deus, & Templum Dei, saith Nazianzen, (i.)* 1.243

Jeius is both the Temple of God and the God of the Temple. And so Saint Austine saith, Christus est Sacer∣dos* 1.244 & 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* 1.245 utero Virginis formatu••: (i.) Christ is the Temple built in the Virgins womb. And Athanasius more plain∣ly expresseth this Mystery: Digni sunt Ariani, qui* 1.246 ••aepè percant, qui prisci populi reverentiam ••rga Tem∣plum laudant, sed D••minum in carne ut in Templo suo adorare recusant: (i.) The Arians have well deserved perdition, who praise the Iewes for their reverence to∣wards the Temple, yet themselves refuse to worship the Lord i•• the Temple of his Body. Solomon saith, Pro∣verbs 9. 1. Wisedome hath built her an house. Who is wisedome but God? and what house is it? but as Athanasius often expoundes that saying. Corpus Chri∣sti* 1.247 est Domus sapien••iae: (i.) The house of Wisedome is the Body of Christ. The word building in Scri∣pture, is applyed to an humane body, as well as to an house, G••nesis 2. 22. Deus aedificavit costam in mu••e∣rem: (i.) God builded the woman of Adams rib. and Ru••h 4. 1. Rach••l and Leah—did build the house of Israel,—and in three dayes I will raise it, Iohn 2. As if it were the raysing of an house. So the Mysticall Body of Christ, which is his Church, is called Gods building, 1. Cor. 3. 9.

In brief, Iesus Christ in respect of his divine Na∣ture, is our God, and the Temple wherein our God dwelleth, and that which is truely said to be—his rest for ever, Psalme 132. 14. Is his glorified Body now in Heaven.

When we compose our selves to Prayer, we lift up our mindes to this God in that Temple: God—Incarnate is the finall and ultimate Object of our ado∣ration: there is no way to approach to our God with any hope of obtaining pardon and remission of sins, but through the open doores of the Temple of his wounded body: therefore our Prayers are all sealed with Through Iesus Christ our Lord.

He that maketh any approach to God otherwise, then

considered in this Temple, must expect to finde him onely as a severe and offended Judge, but wh••n he looketh on us through his Sonne, his severity is sweetned. Filius est dul••edo D••i: (i.) The Sonne is* 1.248 the sweetnesse of God. When he beholdeth us through Jesus Christ, he is pacified and g••acious; the clouds and tempests of Gods anger are asswaged by the sere∣nity of the Countenance of Jesus,—Vul••u quo Coelum tempestatesque s••renat.* 1.249

Are we not therefore called Christians, because we worship God in Christ? To him Saint Stephen dire∣cted his Prayer, Acts 7. 57. Lord Iesus, receive my spi∣rit. 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, Iohn 14. 13. Whatsoever ye shall aske in my Name, that will I doe, 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* 1.250 in finally, but God in Christ] not believing, or not con∣sidering that the Godhead is in Christ. And there∣fore Christ in respect of this Gohead is to be believed in, and prayed to finally and ••ermina••ely, as the ut∣most 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 Mediatour, and a Priest, which is next to be discoursed.

CHAP. XV. That the most high God became a Mediatour, and a Priest, and that Christ is prayed unto, and yet is a Mediatour: Every Person in the Trinitie may be prayed unto.

THe Commentor tells us, [That the supream God* 1.251 can no way be a Priest, and therefore Christ is not supream 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 onely 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 Mediatour, and both by assuming humane nature.

For if it be demanded how we can pray to Christ, seeing he is our Mediatour and Priest, who interceed∣eth, 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 finall Object of our Prayer, who is our Mediatour?

To this it may be answered, that Christ is a Medi∣atour, in the same sense that he is a Priest, and in that sense he prayed. Now he became a Priest, and a Mediatour by ass••ming Manhood; for Saint Chry∣sostom••* 1.252 saith truely, Christus oraba•• ut homo, nam Deus non ••rat. (i.) Christ prayed in that he was a Man, for God doth not pray. And Saint Austine saith, Chri∣stus* 1.253 est Sacerdo▪ quatenus est Filius hominis. (i.) Christ is not a Priest, but by being the Sonne of Man. For although it be said, Rom. 8. 26. The Spi it maketh inter∣c••ssion for us: (though the Spirit as it signifieth the third Person, was not Incarnate:) the meaning is

onely, 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 Austine* 1.254 expounds it; not that the Spirit it self prayeth for us. When Eudoxius the Arian was newly placed in the E∣piscopall seat of ••onstan••inople, the first sentence that he uttered was this bla••phemy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.255 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Father is impious, the Sonne 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 onely 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, be∣cause there is none greater to be prayed unto; there∣fore God must be incarnate, before he can be a Priest, or pray; but as he was a perfect Man; so might he pray for us; and as he was perfect God, so we may and must pray to him.

For all Prayer is directed to God onely, but not to the Father onely; and because the Godhead is in eve∣ry Person, so that every Person is God; therefore Prayer may be made to any Person and Christ will yet still continue our Mediatour, both to the Father, and to the Holy Ghost, and to himself also; for he that prayeth to one Person, prayeth to all three Persons, for they are all inseparately involvd one in another. The Fa∣ther 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 P••rsonality or Propriety of the Father is not in the Son; for the Father cannot be called the Son, nor the Son the Father, otherwise then (as is shewed be∣fore) that the Godhead in any Person is the Eternall Father. Divines have observ'd upon that place, Io. 16. 23 Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my Name] He saith the Father, not my Father; for if he had said, My Fa∣ther, then the asking had been confined to one Per∣son;

for onely one is the Father of the Son of God: but in that he saith, The Father, he doth not debar us from praying to the other Persons, because (as hath been shewed out of Esay 9. 6.) every Person is the e∣ternall Father, because every one is one God.

There is but one God in the three Persons, and that one God, the second Person (being God Incarnate) is our Mediatour; and though he be Mediatour, be∣cause Incarnate; yet neither his Mediatourship, nor his Incarnation do nullifie his Godhead, so that our Sa∣viour is Mediatour for us to himself, to his own God∣head; so that we may pray to the Son, to hear us for his own sake. For Iohn 14. 14. Where it is said, If ye aske any thing in my Name.] The old reading was, as may be yet seen in S••. Hierom••, If you aske me any thing in my Name; and Beza confesseth as much, though he imagi∣ned that it was taken out of the Margin into the Text. So Christ is prayed to as he is God, and he is Mediatour, as he is Emmanuel; Every Person is God, therefore every Person is to be prayed unto; and he that nameth but one Person in Prayer, doth not exclude the rest, because all are but one God.

This was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, de∣livered singularly and profoundly by Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine, Vnus Deus in tribus, & haec tria* 1.256 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* 1.257 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, &* 1.258 omnia in omnibus, & unum omnia: Every one is in eve∣ry one, and all in every one, and every one in all, and all in all, and One is all.

Hence it is that every Person may be prayed unto, and glorified; as in Scripture the Seraphims crie, Holy, Holy, Holy, Esay 6. 3. Rev. 4. 8. and the Christian

Church, both ancient and modern, in her Doxologies used to glorifie the three Persons alike, Gloria Patri & Filio & Spiritui; and in her prayers invoked all, and in her Creeds confessed all,

CHAP. XVI. The Godhead of Christ, shewed from the ado∣ration of his Person, and how God is to be wor∣shipped, being incarnate.

IF it be again demanded, how we can perform Di∣vine 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 Atha∣nasius* 1.259 objecteth, Adora quoque Sanctos ob Deum inhabi∣tantem. 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 Mani∣chees worshipped the Sun, because they thought the* 1.260 Son of God was there.

For answer hereunto, we are to understand that God is in another manner existent in holy men and other creatures, then he is existent in the humane nature of Christ, (as is shewed before, chap 8) For the Godhead and Manhood in Christ, are one Person, but not so in other creatures; God dwelleth in a Saint, 1 Iohn 4. 16. yet you cannot say that God and the Saint are one person; for if so, then that Saint must be called God, and should be worshipped as God; but we pro∣fess* 1.261 with Saint Hierome, that we are so far from wor∣shipping

a Saint, or a martyr, that we will not worship an Angell, or an archangel, nor Cherubim, nor Sera∣phim; but neither do we refuse to worship God, though he be invested with his humane nature, his hu∣miliation by taking the form of a servant upon him, doth not ungod him, neither can we separate his God∣head from his manhood, that so we might worship the pure Godhead alone. Fidelis veneratur Domi••um in corpore latentem, saith Athanasius: the faithfull wor∣ship* 1.262 God though veiled in his body, as we may per∣form civil worship to our King, though he be clad in vulgar apparell, yet not worship his apparel, and No man will say to the King, First put off thy Robe and Crown,* 1.263 o King, and then I will do obeysance to thee; and if the King should put off his Robe, yet none would worship the Robe.

So no man can say to Christ, Lay aside thy Body, and then I will adore thee, but we adore God in Christ, although God be there united unseparably with his body, and if we could separate his body real∣ly from his Godhead, we should not worship it alone, because it is a creature: and this also is the determi∣nation of Athanasius: Quis tam vecors est ut ita loqua∣tur, Absiste à corpore ut te adorem? oec? who is so foo∣lish* 1.264 as to say to God, lay aside thy Body, that I may worship thee? or who can shew us his body emptied of his Godhead? Therefore albeit we do not adore his Body as the Ʋtimate and uttermost object of our adoration, yet we resuse not to worship our God with his body Concomitant; for St. Thomas when he saw Christs body and touched his wounds, yet he said My Lord, and my God, Ioh. 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, Psalme 99. 5. What is meant by his Foostoole? St. Chrysostome tells us, The earth is his Footstoole, Isa. 66. 1. Because the Body of Christ was* 1.265 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 onely: as also if in time of divine ser∣vice, 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 assem∣bled on the Sunday, and because they used to adore God, with their faces turned toward the East, as Ter∣tullian saith, and some also said that Christians wor∣shipped* 1.266 Bacchus and Ceres, that is, Bread and Wine, because at receiving of the Sacrament they used a re∣verend adoration of God, as we read in St. Austin; yet these slanders did not deter the Christians from their* 1.267 usuall discipline. But these Brethren would think (as I suppose) that themselves were much wronged, if a man should tell them, that they worship a Chaire, 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 worship∣ped the earth? No, saith St. Ambrose: Non terram, sed Iesum nascitu um è terra & resurrecturum: he wor∣shipped* 1.268 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 ado∣ration, and genuflection is of a higher consequence, and greater weight, then some Christians are aware of as will appear by that which followes.

CHAP. XVII. That genuflection to our Lord Jesus was apoint∣ed onely to be as an acknowledgment of his God-Head.

Because the great work of mans redemption is founded upon the Godhead of Jesus, and that the denying, or disbelieving that doctrine, is a cer∣tain mark and character of unpardonablenesse, there∣fore, good Christian Reader consider with thy self, what a charitable and prudent care this Church of England had of thy soules health when, (to keep thee in a per∣petuall memorie thereof, and a continuall confession of this great and weighty truth, she required that when the Lord Iesus shall be mentioned, in time of divine service, lowly reveren••e be done; the reason alleadged by that Canon is of the greatest concernment that can* 1.269 be imagined [Testifying their due acknowledgment, that the Lord Iesus Christ, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and eternall 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 com∣prised] by which words it is apparent, that the princi∣pall intent of that Canon, was for the acknowledg∣ment of the Lord Jesus to be the true, and eternall Son of God, and thy redeemer, which is that necessa∣ry doctrine which I have endeavoured all this while to set forth; and this is the very same reason that is alleadg∣ed 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 followes immediately,—Every tongue shall con∣fesse to God (that is) that every one shall acknow∣ledge adoration due to this our God. And so again, where it is said, Phil. 2. 10. At the name of Iesus eve∣ry knee should bow] the reason followes, verse 11. That

every ••ongue should confesse that I sus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father] to signifie that therefore bowing to Jesus Christ is required, that by it he might be acknowledged to be the Lord; and certainly therefore onely did the Church of England require this ado••ation ado••at••on of Jesus, to have a perpetuall, and so∣lemne confession thereby of his Godhead; yet our Commenter will not confesse Jesus to be God, though he do confesse that [Divine r••verence is commanded ••o be given to Christ by bowiug, &c. in the s••m•• manner* 1.270 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 per∣formed religious adoration to Jesus, (as the Catholick* 1.271 Church did) but yet ••hey would not confesse 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 aga••••st the Sahellians and Arians out of the Church C••••ed, to ••f the Son, and the Holy Ghost be but creatures; Cur* 1.272 non dicimus ••redo in Deum, & in univ••r••am crea••u∣ram?—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 obse••ved in the Arians* 1.273 by St Ambrose, that they did not adore Jesus, because they thought him to be God, but Vir••ute prae••epti: only because they bel••eved that such an adoration was injoyned, Philip. 2. 10. their colour for it was because the honour of genuflection is there said to be given to Iesus, by G••d ve••se 9. and so they would* 1.274 have it due to him onely by gift, and not by nature; indeed Saint Ambrose saith, that the honour of ge∣nuflection was the gift of the Father to the on, just as the Sc••ipture saith; but Saint B••sil doth ful∣ly shew the meaning of that Scripture,—God—* 1.275 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 it self, but not given to the

divine nature, that honour was naturally due to it that is, to the Godhead of Christ. So that the meaning of the Church, and the intent and purpose for which she appointed reverence to be done to Je∣sus, was onely the acknowledgment, 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 ado••ation shall be by any Christian authority forbidden, or Jesu-worsh••p (as some have in de∣rision called it) shall be made an a••ticle of accusation, and obloquie, seeing it hath been practised in the Pri∣mitive Church, long before there was any direction for it by any Ecclesiastical Canon, except only the Ca∣non of Scripture.

But if it be said, that the bowing of the knee mentio∣ned, Rom. 14. ••1. be clea••ly said and meant of the time when Christ shall sit in judgment: I say so too, and it is true, but therefore not before; for then Heathens, Atheists, Apostates, Persecutors, Tyrants, yea, and devills, and all the damned shall be compelled by the rod of iron to confesse, and acknow∣ledge and submit to his Almighty Power and God∣head, when the Saints both then and before have, and shall with willing and chea••full submission ac∣knowledge* 1.276 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 sub∣mit 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 ra∣ther under this name Jesus, then under his other names, se••ing Jesus is also a name given to meer creatures, as to ••oshua, Act. 7. 45. H••brewes 4. 8. and others? I answer, if the adoration were intend∣ed to the bare name, I think the exception were j••st, but because we pros••sse to worship onely the person Jesus, and yet not every person so named, but onely the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the Godhead for ever resideth; who can blame us for worshipping our onely Lord God, and that in time of publick worship? for if we should therefore for bear to worship lesus, because some meer creatures are so named, then by the like reason we should forbear to worship God, because some creatures are called gods, as Moses, Exo. 7. 1. and Magistrates, Psa 82. 6. and 1. Cor. 8. 5. but we worship God onely, and no creature, and to God all possible ado••ation is due,* 1.277 whether by genuflection or otherwise; Sa••nt Basil saith, Ad cultum ••ei, & Domini I••su, flect••reoportet genua, id est, in the worship of Iesus our Lord God it is meet we should bow our knees.

But yet if we must worship our God upon the naming of him, it would be inquired why this name Iesus is so especially insisted upon, why not at the name 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 satisfie any humble Christian, that the great Apo∣stle, Philip. 2. 10. hath insisted onely in that name: yet for the Readers further satisfaction, let him consi∣der,

that no Person in the Trinity hath any p••op••r Name, but on••ly the second Person, and the second Pe••son hath no proper Name, but onely the Name Iesus. For who can tell me what is the proper Name of the Person of God the Father, or of God the Holy Ghost? For every Person is God and Lord, every one is Iehova, every one is I••h, and Eheih, and Adonai▪ for these names signifie 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 toge∣ther are E••o im, that is, Pot••nt, Gen. 1. 1. in the plurall number. And all these names are mostly repre∣sented 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 se∣verally peculiar to each severall Pe••son, as the wo••d Father, Sonne, or Word and Holy Ghost; in some places of Scripture, though the word Father, and Holy Ghost, or Spirit in other places, is said of all Persons (as is shewed before.) The rule of Saint Austine is, Omnia no••ina naturae, seu ess••ntiae Dei, de* 1.278 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 re∣lation of one Person to another, are not so said. ••o* 1.279 our very Commenter could not deny, that Iesus 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 sirname, (i.) a super∣added name, as added to his proper name, and signi∣fieth Annointed, for we cannot imagine that those Kings, and other Holy Persons, which in Scripture are called Christi, (i.) Gods ano••nted, were so called as by a proper Name: so here our Saviours pr••per Name was Jesus, his surname Christ: this Title Christ being added (as for other reasons, so for this) to distinguish him from other men, who had the same proper Name Iesus, as you reade, Coloss. 4. 11. of another, that be∣ing

named ••esus, is also sirnamed 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 then the word Christ is: for where it is said, Esay 7. 14. Thou shalt call his Name Emmanuel.] The Prophers meaning was not to set forth the proper Name of the Messiah;

But to set forth the wonderfull and reall property of his Person, to be (by the hypostaticall union of two natures in one Person) Theanthropos, id ••st, God Incarnate, for so the word Emmanuel, signifieth God with us.

Therefore Tertullian writing both against the Jews, and also against Marcion the Heretick severally, when it was objected, that our Jesus was not that Messiah, which was foretold by Esaias, because he was not na∣med Emmanuel.

He answereth, Non solum sonum nominis exp••ctes, sed* 1.280 sensum,—quia qu••d significat Emmanuel, venit: id est▪ we were not to expect a meere sound and name onely; but the thing signified by that word Emma∣nuel; 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 with∣out offence by us given, adore our God.

CHAP. XIX. That the Name Jesus is the onely 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 onely the Name Jesus; th••n I trust no Christian will either dis believe his God∣head, or be offended with them that do adore this. Jesus; for the better understanding whereof, I will pre∣mise two considerations.

First a distinction of Names which I borrow both from the Ancient and the Modern Grammarians. For Saint Au••ust•••••• in his Grammer doth thus distinguish Names: Est No•••••• appellativum, ut ligo, & Proprium,* 1.281 ut Nero, id est, There is a Noune, or Name appella∣tive, as the word Plough, and a name proper, as the word Nero. And this distinction is in our vulgar Grammer▪ which I apply thus. In the words—King David—King, is a name appel••••••ive, 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* 1.282 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 pre∣sume to dictate magisterially but submit it onely as a consideration to the judgment 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 An∣cients.

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* 1.283 that God can have no proper name, his own words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Dion••sius Arep. saith that God is Anonymus, id est, without any name: and so saith,* 1.284 Justin Martyr: ••mpossibile est nomen de Deo proprié dici (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) id est, it is impossible to give* 1.285 any proper name to God; the reason why the pure Godhead can have no proper name, is rendred by Lactan••ius, and that out of Trismegistus: God (saith he) is Anonymus, and therefore hath no name, be∣cause,* 1.286 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 se∣verall proper names: as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, &c. And this is also observed by Tertullian, and the* 1.287 same reason was given by the famous Martyr Attalus, when he was asked in the middest of his torments what the name of his God was; answered? God is but One, and needeth no name; names are needful there onely where plurality is. You see the judgment 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 pro∣per name to distingush him from other gods, because there is no God but one, yet a proper name may be usefull 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 significa∣tion of that word and the reverend esteem of it by the Ancients.

OF all the appellations which are attributed to the onely and most high God, Jehova is and hath been esteemed the most fit and ad••••uate. Our Commenter doth truly confesse, that Jesus is called Iehova, but yet he doth most profanely, and falsly in∣deavour to apply this appellation to a created Angell, and that against the unanimous consent both of the ancient and our modern Divines, who constantly af∣firm that this word Iehova is not communicable to any creature as other appellations of God sometimes are; for the word Iehova as it doth imply the Lord, and Which is, so our Divines do ordinarily interpret it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Philo by the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so it sig∣nifieth,* 1.288 The Lord Eternall. Saint Austin tells us that (if there were any such Latine word) he would tran∣slate it essence, Being, and in D••onysiu•• Areop. God is called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; id est, as he is both the independent* 1.289 Being, and because all the essence, and being of crea∣tures 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, nun∣quam* 1.290 decrit, sem••er est, id est▪ he never was wanting, never will be, for he is alwaies, which cannot be af∣firmed of any meer creature; and therefore the Iewes had this word in such reverend estimation, that it was accounted as a crime capicall to pronounce this word,* 1.291 except onely in time of divine worship, as Philo. testi∣fieth, and Iosephus also said, he thought it unlawfull to* 1.292 speak that word, otherwise then is said befo••e; and there∣fore the Iewes when in their writings, or discourse,

they desired to signifie th••s word, they used to call it,* 1.293 Tetragrammaton. And to me it seemes that the Chri∣stian Writers had the like high and reverend esteem of this word, for Naz••anz••ne, and Hi••rom call it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; id ••st, unname∣able, and ineffable, not onely for the difficulty of ex∣pressing* 1.294 the word, but (as it may seeme) in ••egard of the reverence thereof; for this word Iehova 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 Jewes did: for so I find that Eusebius calls it; and so doth Origen, and* 1.295 so doth Hier••me. But Clemens Alex. hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which his interpreter renders Iehova, the name of four letters; and perhaps the Gnostick he∣reticks, from this word Iehova borrowed the name of their chief heavenly Prince, whom they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of which we read both in Ir••naeus, and in Epipha∣••••••s.

Now albeit this word I hova signifie no other thing, but onely God yet it is not therefore to be called the* 1.296 proper name of God no ••o••e then Logical definitions, or descriptions may be said to be the p••oper name of the thing defined, or described, though they be adae∣quate; nor in Divinity do we say that the words Om∣nipotent, or Eternall Lord are the proper name of God, though onely God is so called. Maximus an heathen in his Epistle to Saint Aussin confesseth, No∣m••n Dei proprium ignoramus; id est, although the* 1.297 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* 1.298 appellative, for (saith he) when we speak to our parents, we do not use to call them by their p••oper names, but ap∣pellatively, Father, Mother. And so we may with re∣verence call upon the Godhead, using the word Jeho∣va: because it is not a proper, but an appellative name.

For this word Iehova being rendred 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 wonder∣ful, 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;* 1.299 Ʋniversali rerum patri, nomen non est imposi••um, saith Iustin Martyr, the universall Father of all; hath no name: for though we call him God, and Father, and Creator, and Lord, &c. Non sunt nomi••a, sed appella∣tiones; id est, these are not names, but appellations (saith he) just as the titles of our King are, His Maje∣sty, his Highnesse, his Grace, our Soveraign, which no man will say are the Kings 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 Iesus. So the result of all that hath been said is, that the onely proper name of our only and most high Lord God is Iesus; and this is the reason that both the Scripture requireth adoration of God, under the name of Iesus, and the Church also, for the perpetuall memory, and confession of his Godhead doth require adoration at such times as his proper, and only Name Iesus is men∣tioned. 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 na∣med, do commit the grand sin, yet they may be truly* 1.300 said, that they which do therefore refuse to worship the Lord Iesus, because they do not believe, nor will confesse, 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 Booke, with the Authours resolute Confession, of Jesus Christ, to be the most High, and onely 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 onely, and most high God, and be not so by us confessed, and believed; we can obtain no Re∣demption, 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 Hea∣then did on his death-bead,

Animula vagula blandul••, &c.* 1.301 Quae nunc abibis in loca?

I know no other way in which redemption and sal∣vation can be expected; for Christ is the way, and the onely way, and in this bottome onely do I trust, and venture that which to me is most precious, even my soul, and the eternall state thereof.

This is that necessary Doctrine, which I have la∣boured 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: Nonne cum omni con∣fidencia* 1.302 Deo dicere poterimus, Domine, fi error est, à ••••ipso de••••pri ••umu••, &c. id est, Lord if our Christian Faith be false, and erroneous, thou thy self hast deceived us; for those wonderfull works, which have wrought this Faith in us, could be done by none other but thy self.

With like confidence Athanasius also in a disputa∣tion by him held with A••ius at the Nicene Councell, when he affirmed that the Father and the Sonne were* 1.303 but one God, Arius told him: Tu Sabellius es qui Pa∣tr••m & Filium u••um d••••••••: (i) Thou art another S••∣bellius ••n confounding the Father and the Sonne. But Athanasius replied,—TumDominus Sabellius est qui it a dixit, Eg••, & Pa••er unum sumus: (i) If I be a Sa∣bellian▪ fo•• saying, the Father and the Sonne are one God, then must Christ himself be a Sabellian, for him∣self h••th so said.

The like boldnesse and resolution in this very Do∣ctrine* 1.304 doth Saint Hilary expresse; Domine, quid me mis••rum de ••e ••••••ellisti,—Verbis tui•• credidi—de ••pit 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 pos∣sum. Id est, Lord, why hast thou deceived me thy poore creature? I believed thine own words concerning thine own self—thy servant Moses, David, Solo∣mon, 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 ••xcused, if in this Faith I live and die; for I can never recant this Doctrine.

Finally, this was also the constant Profession of that learned Bishop Saint Basil, for when Valens the A••ian Emperour had by a messenger threatned him with se∣qu••stration of his Church, and banishment of his per∣son, if he persisted in this Doctrine, which he called a foolish doctrine.

The good Bishop answered, u••inam sempiter na sit* 1.305 haec mea insipientia: id est, And so say I, and I pray

God, I may never be withdrawen from that true and most wholsome Doctrine which I have here delivered, and which our new fashion rationall animalls call fol∣ly, but that I may persevere in the Faith and Con∣fession of the Godhead of Jesus Christ unto my lives end.

And afterwards, I doubt not but I shall so continue with the Angels and Elders, Revelation, 5. 13. saying,—Blessing, Honour, Glory and Power, be unto him that sitteth on the Throne, and to the Lambe, for ever, and ever,

Amen.

L. Deo.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Atha. de Com∣mu. essent. p. 625.
• * 1.2

  Orig. in Eze. ho. 1.
• * 1.3

  Idem in Ma••. Tract. 8.
• a 1.4

  Naz. Orat. 37.
• b 1.5

  Sec. l. 2.
• * 1.6

  c. 35.
• * 1.7

  Isych. in Le∣vit. c. 10.
• * 1.8

  Aug. Epist. 53.
• c 1.9

  Aug. de gen. l. 4. c. 9.
• * 1.10

  Epiph. hae. 59.
• * 1.11

  Aug. in exp. Epist. ad Rom. n. 96.
• * 1.12

  Athan. to. 3. p. 687, 625.
• * 1.13

  •• Question.
• * 1.14

  Hilar. in Mat. Can. 12.
• * 1.15

  Euseb. de De∣monst. l. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.16

  Hier. Epist. exeg. 62. Ambr. in symb. n. 21. Lact. de Instit. l. 5. c. 3.
• † 1.17

  Lamprid. in Alex. c. 7.
• * 1.18

  Aug. Epist. 4.
• * 1.19

  Orig. Cont. Cels. lib. 1. n. 32.
• * 1.20

  Aug. l. 83. quaest. qu. 79▪ n. 88.
• * 1.21

  Philip. 2. 6, 7.
• a 1.22

  Polan. l. 3. c 6
• b 1.23

  Bucan. l. 3. p ••••.
• c 1.24

  Tilen. p. 141.
• d 1.25

  Melan. in loc. Com. de Spi∣rit.
• a 1.26

  Virg. Aene. l. 1.
• b 1.27

  Pater Perso¦nae, non essen∣tiae; Pater Filii, non deitatis.
• d 1.28

  Basil. cont. Euno. l. 3.
• e 1.29

  Tert. de Orat. c. 1.
• f 1.30

  Atha. de Com. essen. 625. to. 3.
• g 1.31

  Hier cont. Pala. l. 2. c. 6. n. 23.
• h 1.32

  Aug. de Trin. l. 5. c. 11. n. 62.
• a 1.33

  Ambr. de Spirit. l. 1. c. 3.
• b 1.34

  Arha. to▪ 3. p. 625.
• c 1.35

  Hil. in Mat. Can. 12. p. 731.
• d 1.36

  Hil. ib. Can. 31. p. 426.
• e 1.37

  Chrys. to. 6▪ p. 631.
• f 1.38

  Basil. de Spirit. c. 7.
• * 1.39

  Polan. synt. p. 340. Bucan. Lo. Com. p 174.
• * 1.40

  Epiph. haer. 69.
• * 1.41

  Athan. Epist. ad Serapion. n. 16.
• * 1.42

  Socr▪ l. 1. c. 28▪ Ruff. hist. l. 1. c. 13.
• * 1.43

  Soz. l. 2. c. 28.
• * 1.44

  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.
• * 1.45

  Hil. adv. Con∣stan. lib. 3.
• * 1.46

  Naz. in Julian. Orat. 3.
• * 1.47

  S••••. 5. 7.
• * 1.48

  Theod. hist. l. 3. c. 12.
• * 1.49

  Hier. in Ha∣bac. 3. P. 203
• * 1.50

  Soz. l. 6. c. 2.
• * 1.51

  Theod. hist. l. 3. c. 24.
• * 1.52

  Stativis.
• * 1.53

  Soz. l. 6. c. 1.
• * 1.54

  Soc. l. 3. c. 18.
• * 1.55

  Naz. in Juli∣an. Orat. 3.
• * 1.56

  Epiph. haer. 76
• * 1.57

  Pal. ad. an. 510. & Platina in vita Anasta∣••ii 2^di.
• * 1.58

  2. Quest.
• * 1.59

  AugEpist. 105.
• * 1.60

  Cyp. de simpl. cler. n. 76.
• * 1.61

  Aug. cont. ser. Arian. to. 6. n. 17.
• * 1.62

  Aug. Epist. 203.
• * 1.63

  Chry. 4. hom. Antioch. Aug. de Doct. ch. l. 2. c. 16.
• * 1.64

  Epiph. hae. 37.
• * 1.65

  Euseb. Hist. l. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.66

  Hier. in loc.
• * 1.67

  Fulg. de fide. P 9. n. 1.
• * 1.68

  Ariani J••daeo∣rum & Judaei Arianorum. Ambros. de incar. c. 2. n. 27
• * 1.69

  Carion in Const. magno. Act. & mon. in Hen. 7. n. 52. Atha. eont. Ari∣an. Orat. 2. n. 5. Apolog. 2. n. 16 Apol. de fuga,
• * 1.70

  Orat. 2. cont, Arian. n. 5.
• * 1.71

  Ambr. de fide l. 2. c. 4. n. 22. 1 John 2. 22.
• * 1.72

  Hil. cont. Const. lib. 1.
• * 1.73

  Atha. to. 3. P. 695.
• * 1.74

  Optatus, lib. 3. n. 84.
• * 1.75

  Aug. de con∣sens. Evang. c. 14. n. 84.
• * 1.76

  Aug. Exp. in Epist. ad Ro. n. 96.
• * 1.77

  John 1. 29.
• * 1.78

  Tort. cont. Marc. lib. 2. n. 41.
• * 1.79

  Hier. Ep. 1. n. 1.
• * 1.80

  I••enaeus, l. 1. cap. 25. n. 108.
• * 1.81

  Aug. de fide cont. Man. to. 6. c. 33.
• * 1.82

  Aug. Confes. l. 5. c. 9.
• * 1.83

  Ig. Epist. ad Antioch. n. 46.
• * 1.84

  Atha. orat. 1. Cont. Arian. 3. 4.
• * 1.85

  Ath. ad solit. vit. agentes, n. 18. Soc. l. 3. c. 19.
• * 1.86

  Epiph. haer. 69.
• * 1.87

  Hil. Cont. Aux. n. 7.
• * 1.88

  Ath. ad sol. vit. agentes, n. 19.
• * 1.89

  Theod. haer. fab. l. 5. n. 17.
• * 1.90

  Aug. de gen. ad lit. l. 11. c. 24. n. 68. Aug. de doct. Ch. l. 3. c. 37. n. 56.
• * 1.91

  De Gen. l. 11. c. 24.
• * 1.92

  De Civit. l. 20. c. 19.
• * 1.93

  Prosp. de pro∣mis. n. 14.
• * 1.94

  Hil. de Trinit. lib. 2. p. 25. n. 1.
• * 1.95

  Iren. l. 5. c. ult. n. 124.
• * 1.96

  Regula Theo∣log.
• * 1.97

  Aug. to. 6. cont. Ser. Arian. n. 7.
• * 1.98

  Theod. Dial. impatib. n. 13. P. 398.
• * 1.99

  Hier. ut sup. c. 6. Naz. Orat. 51. n. 35.
• * 1.100

  Origen. hom. 5. in Ps. 36. Orig. in Luc. hom 38. n. 45. Chrys. in sy∣nax. n. 35.
• * 1.101

  Fulg. de grat. n. 3.
• * 1.102

  Hier. Ep. 30. n. 8.
• i 1.103

  Ambr. in sym, n. 20.
• k 1.104

  Atha. apol. 2. n. 15. n. 22.
• * 1.105

  Soc. l. 7. c. 29. & Theod. haer. fab. l. 4. n. 16.
• * 1.106

  Soc. l. 7. c. 29.
• * 1.107

  Evag. l. 1. c. 3••.
• * 1.108

  Vincent. Lirin▪ c. 17. n. 53.
• * 1.109

  Greg. Thaum. de 12. cap. fidei, n. 2.
• * 1.110

  Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 19.
• * 1.111

  Soc. l. 7. c. 32.
• * 1.112

  Prosper de vocat. Gent. l. 1. c. 23.
• * 1.113

  Ambr. de Spir. sanct. l. 3. c. 17.
• a 1.114

  Chrys. serm. de pseudopro. n. 61.
• b 1.115

  Chrys. serm. de poenit. n. 49
• c 1.116

  Aug. de 5. haeres. c. 2. 10. 6. n. 6.
• d 1.117

  Orig cont▪ Cels. l. 1. n. 33.
• e 1.118

  Evangrius, l. 2. c. 4.
• f 1.119

  Evag. l. 5. c. 4.
• g 1.120

  Evag. l. 5. c. 21.
• h 1.121

  Naz. Orat. seu Epist. 51.
• * 1.122

  Soc. l. 7. c. 33:
• * 1.123

  Evag. l. 1. c. 7. Evag. ib.
• * 1.124

  Ath. cont. Ari∣an. or. 2. n. 5.
• * 1.125

  Plaut. in Cist.
• * 1.126

  Mart. l. 5. Ep. 8.
• * 1.127

  D••ony. Areop. de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. id. epist. 2. n. 10 Naz. or. 37. n. 29.
• * 1.128

  Ath. & Hil. cont. Arian. n. 7.
• * 1.129

  Ambros. de cil. div. c. 2. n. 26.
• * 1.130

  Ambr. de fide l. 1. & lib. 5. c. 1. n. 22 23.
• * 1.131

  Orig. in Mat. tract. 21. n. 41.
• * 1.132

  Aug. Epi. 221.
• * 1.133

  Atha. Orat. 2. cont. 2. Arian. n. 5.
• g 1.134

  Atha. orat 2. cont. Ar. n. 5. h. Id. ser. 4. cont. Arian. n. 7.
• * 1.135

  Gal. 1. 1. 1. Aug. exp. in Gal. in praefa••. n. 97.
• * 1.136

  2. Aug. Re∣tract. l. 1. c. 21.
• * 1.137

  Theod. Dial. in confu. n. 12.
• * 1.138

  Orig. in Levit. hom. 3.
• * 1.139

  3. Pet. Diac. apul. Fulg. n. 2.
• * 1.140

  Phil. 2. 9. Eph. 1. 20. Mat. 28. 18. Act. 3. 13, 15.
• m 1.141

  Athan. Ser. 4. cont Ar. n. 7. n. ib.
• o 1.142

  Ath. orat. 2. cont. Arian. n. 5.
• * 1.143

  Heb. 1. 9.
• p 1.144

  Theod. De∣cret. l. 5. n. 17. Luke 2. 52. Ath. ser. 4. cont. Ar. n. 8. & n. 22.
• * 1.145

  Epiph. haer. 69.
• * 1.146

  Tert. cont. Marc. l. 2.
• * 1.147

  Hil. de Trin. l. 9. n. 3. John 14. 28.
• * 1.148

  John 10. 30.
• * 1.149

  Hil. de Trin. l. 9. p. 185
• * 1.150

  Ambr. de fide. l. 3. n. 22. c. 3.
• * 1.151

  Id. de incarn. l. c. 5. n. 25.
• * 1.152

  Fulg. de grat. c. 2. n. 3. Phil. 2. 7.
• * 1.153

  1 Cor. 15. 24, 25, 28.
• * 1.154

  Aug. de Trin. l. 1. c. 8. n. 60.
• * 1.155

  Seneca de Be∣nef. l. 1. c. 8.
• * 1.156

  ••
• b 1.157

  Orig. 39.
• c 1.158

  Cyr. Hiero. 17.
• d 1.159

  Th••oph in Mat.
• e 1.160

  Naz. 28.
• * 1.161

  3.
• * 1.162

  ••
• f 1.163

  Atha. Cont. Apol. n. 22.
• g 1.164

  Ambr. de Fid. l. 5. c. ••. n. 24.
• * 1.165

  Aug. 83. quaest. qu. 69. n. 87.
• * 1.166

  1. Quaest.
• * 1.167

  Philip. 2. 8.
• * 1.168

  Tertul. de Poenit. Aug. ••n Jo. Tract. 21.
• * 1.169

  3.
• * 1.170

  Naz. Orat. 36.
• * 1.171

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.172

  Answer.
• * 1.173

  Matth. 25. 30.
• a 1.174

  Aug. in Jo. Tract. 28.
• b 1.175

  In Jo tract. 108.
• c 1.176

  In 1 Epist. Jo. tract. 1.
• d 1.177

  Ibid. tract. 10.
• e 1.178

  De Verb. Dei, Serm. 14.
• f 1.179

  De Temp. serm. 234.
• * 1.180

  Acts 9. 4.
• g 1.181

  Aug. de Verb. Dei, ser. 49.
• h 1.182

  Prosp. Psal. 101.
• * 1.183

  Ambr. n. 51, 34
• * 1.184

  Zach. 2. 8.
• i 1.185

  Aug. de Verb. Apost. ser. 14.
• * 1.186

  Esay 42. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 4.
• * 1.187

  Aug. de Verb. Dei, ser. 8. De Temp. ser. 84.
• * 1.188

  De Praedest. cap. 14.
• * 1.189

  Eph. 3. 17. 1 John 4. 13. Matth. 28. 28.
• a 1.190

  Hierom. Ep. 80.
• b 1.191

  Aug. epist. 58.
• c 1.192

  Id. ••e opere Monach. cap. 1.
• * 1.193

  Ad Fr•••• in E∣rem ser. 28. Sacramentum unitatis.
• † 1.194

  Vide Theo∣ophil. in John 6. 51.
• * 1.195

  Religio ••••di∣ci.
• * 1.196

  Acts 10 13.
• * 1.197

  Aug. Hom. 45.
• * 1.198

  Jo. 6. 37.
• * 1.199

  Quest. 2.
• * 1.200

  Answer.
• * 1.201

  Exod 20. 17. Rom. 7. 7. Gal. 5. 17. Psal. 94. 20.
• * 1.202

  ••
• * 1.203

  2 Cor. 12. 7.
• * 1.204

  Gen. 6. 9. Job 1. 1. Luke 1. 5.
• * 1.205

  Aug. de natura & Grat. ••. 38.
• * 1.206

  1 Joh. 1. 8.
• * 1.207

  Aug. de Civit l. 19. c. 22. De peccat. me∣rito, l. 2. c. 6.
• * 1.208

  Ambr. de Jacob l. 1. c. 6. Hier. ad Cte∣siphon cap. 5. Id. Cont Pe∣lag. l. 2. cap. 8.
• * 1.209

  Aug. Retract. 1. c. 19.
• * 1.210

  Aug. de Verb. Dei, ser. 43.
• * 1.211

  Rom. 7. 15.
• * 1.212

  Aug. de verbis Apost. ser. 5.
• * 1.213

  Id de Temp. Ser. 45.
• * 1.214

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.215

  Id. de verbis Apost. Ser. 6.
• * 1.216

  Basil. epist. 387. n. 17. 43.
• * 1.217

  Basil. cont. Euno. n. 20.
• * 1.218

  Ruff. in symb. apud Cyp. n. 91.
• * 1.219

  2.
• * 1.220

  Basil. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c. 12.
• * 1.221

  Amb. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c. 3.
• * 1.222

  ••oc. l. 2. c. 15.
• * 1.223

  Aug. de Trin. l. 1. c. 5. n. 60.
• * 1.224

  Hier. proaem. in Isai. n. 33.
• * 1.225

  Aug. de Mir. scrip. l 1. n. 74. Ruff. 6. n.
• * 1.226

  Lucan. l. 2. Juv. sat. 14.
• * 1.227

  Arnob. l. 6. n. 115.
• * 1.228

  Aug. de Civ. l. 8. c. 23.
• * 1.229

  Id. ib. c. 26.
• * 1.230

  Vide Macrob. Satur. l. 3. c. 9. de evocatione Deorum.
• * 1.231

  Lact de falf▪ Relig. lib. 2. n. 6.
• * 1.232

  Aug. de Trin. l. 4. c. 5.
• * 1.233

  Aug. de Con∣sens. Evang. n. 86.
• * 1.234

  Jos. Ant l. 3. c. 4. Phil. de vit. Mosis, l. 3.
• * 1.235

  Ath. Orat. 5. cont. Ar. n. 4.
• * 1.236

  Amb. de sa∣cram. l 1. c. 4. Aug. Ret. l. 1. c. 13.
• * 1.237

  Aug. confes. l. 10. c. 43.
• * 1.238

  1 Pag. 251. c. 11. v. 6.
• * 1.239

  Fulgen. ad Thras. l. 2. n. 9.
• * 1.240

  Chrys. ser. de Pastor. n 58.
• * 1.241

  Cyp. 82. Cy∣ril. 23. Prosp. 3.
• * 1.242

  Theod. Dial▪ Imm. n. 12.
• * 1.243

  Naz. Orat. 43.
• * 1.244

  Aug. de dog. Eccl. n. 73.
• * 1.245

  Orig. in Josh. Hom. 17.
• * 1.246

  Atha. Or. 5. cont. Ar. n. 4.
• * 1.247

  Atha. ser. 3. cont. Ar. n. 6.
• * 1.248

  Fulg disc. ob∣ject. Arian. n. 1.
• * 1.249

  Virg. A••n. 1.
• * 1.250

  P. 54.
• * 1.251

  P. 80. c. 5. v. 5.
• * 1.252

  Chrys. Hom. Ant. 32. n. 12.
• * 1.253

  Aug. de Civit. ••. 20. c. 10.
• * 1.254

  Aug. expos. in Ro. n. 96.
• * 1.255

  Soc. l. 2. c. 33.
• * 1.256

  Amb. in symb. n. 20.
• * 1.257

  Id. de Doct. Chr. l. 1. c. 5.
• * 1.258

  Id. de Trin. lib. 6. c. 10.
• * 1.259

  Ath. de incar. n. 22.
• * 1.260

  Aug. Cont. Faust. l 20. c. 2.
• * 1.261

  Hier. cont. Vi∣gil. n. 17.
• * 1.262

  Ath. 26. n. Theod dial. in conf. n. 12.
• * 1.263

  Epiph. in Anc. n. 27.
• * 1.264

  Ath. cont. Arian. or 5. n. 4.
• * 1.265

  Chrys. ser. de Trin. n. 57.
• * 1.266

  Tert. apol. c. 16. n. 4.
• * 1.267

  Aug. cont. Faust. l. 20. c. 13.
• * 1.268

  Amb. de Abrah. l. 2. n. 13.
• * 1.269

  Canon. 18.
• * 1.270

  Page 7.
• * 1.271

  Atha. cont. Arian. Or 1. n. 4.
• * 1.272

  Basil. cont. Sa∣bel. & Ar. ho. 27▪ n. 17.
• * 1.273

  Amb. de fil▪ di∣vin. c. 3. n. 26.
• * 1.274

  Amb. Hexam. l. 6. c. 9.
• * 1.275

  Basil. cont. Eu∣nom. l. 4. n. 20.
• * 1.276

  Hier. in Ruff. in••ect. ••n. 42▪:
• * 1.277

  Basil. hom. 14. n. 14.
• * 1.278

  Aug. to. 3. n. 76.
• * 1.279

  P. 332. c. 13. v. 2.
• * 1.280

  Tert. cont. Ju∣daeos, & l. 3. contr. Mar.
• * 1.281

  Aug. Gram. p. 90.
• * 1.282

  Tert. advers. Prax. n. 55.
• * 1.283

  Philo de mu∣tat. nom. n 20.
• * 1.284

  Dionys. Ar. de Divi. nom. c. 7.
• * 1.285

  Just. paaenet. 1. n. 4.
• * 1.286

  Lact. de fal. re∣l••g. l. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.287

  Tert. de Test. anim. c. 2. Euseb. h••st. l. 5. c. 3.
• * 1.288

  Philo. de Abrah. n. 7.
• * 1.289

  Aug. l. 3. locut▪ de Levit. n. 56. Dio. de div. nom. c. 5. n. 8.
• * 1.290

  Prosp. in Sent. n. 38. and Ju∣stin. Mart. pa∣rae. 1. p. 18.
• * 1.291

  Philo. devit. Mos. l. 3. n. 11.
• * 1.292

  Joseph. Antiq. l. 2. n. 5.
• * 1.293

  Philo. do vit. Mosis. l 3. n. 11.
• * 1.294

  Naz. Orat. 36. Hier. Epist. exeg. 136. n. 29.
• * 1.295

  Euseb. 26. k. Orig. 11. l. Hier. 29. Clem. stro. n. 14. Diodorus Sic. l. 1. sect. 94,
• * 1.296

  Iren. l. 1. c. 18 Epiph. hae. 62. & hae. 34.
• * 1.297

  Aug. Epist. 43.
• * 1.298

  Philo. de vita Mo. n. 11. lib. 3.
• * 1.299

  Just. apol. 1. n. 7.
• * 1.300

  Si tu neglexe∣ris nomen Dei, delet ipse no∣men tuum. August. in Psa. 91. D.
• * 1.301

  Adrian. ap. Spart. Sect. 14.
• * 1.302

  Ri. de St. Vict de Trin. l. x. c. 2. Jer. 20. 7.
• * 1.303

  Ath in disp. cum Ario. n. 27
• * 1.304

  Hil••le Trin. lib. ••••. n. 2.
• * 1.305

  Theod. hist. l. 4. c. 10.