The Sacred Philosophy of the Holy Scripture, Article 3 · Chapter 24 · Notes

The Sacred Philosophy of the Holy Scripture · Article 3 · Chapter 24 · Notes

p. 155Notes.

^(a) HE to whom all the Propheſies.] This argument is the effect of that book which Lud. Crocius entitled Apodixis de Meſſia, which with ſome alterations and additions, hee might in part take out of Iuſt. Mart. his defence of the Chriſtians to Antoninus Pius, out of Athanaſius orat. de incarnat. verbi, and other of the Fathers, but moſt of all out of Hieronymus de Suncta Fide printed at …rancofurt 1602. by the name of Hebraeomaſtix. The authorities of the Talmud and other Rabins cited by them, I have of purpoſe omitted, and with many additions and proofes of the holy Scripture onelyonly, have contented my ſelfe with this plainneſſe and brevity which you ſee. But if any man deſire to ſee thoſe Iewiſh authorities, he may finde them there in Ficinus alſo de Chriſt. Rel. cap. 27. &c. in Poſtel. de orbis concord. lib. 1. cap. 3. and in many others. The authorities of the * Sibyls alſo,Yet thoſe teſtimonies fi…ted Lactantius well againſt the Gentiles, which you may read if you will Inſtit. lib. 4 ca 6. and ſuch pompous learning I have neglected of purpoſe becauſe the ſimplicity of the doctrine of Chriſt, and the certaine truth of this article, can no where bee had ſo plainely, truely and powerfully, as in the holy Scripture it ſelfe. And therefore having furniſht you with reaſon againſt the Atheiſt and Infidel, I leave it to your owne diligence to compare theſe Scriptures together as they are cited: they in the old teſtament ſhewing what was to be fulfilled in Chriſt: the other ſhewing the accompliſhment of the ſame. * The Iewes acknowledge the authoritie of the old teſtament:See the difference of their ſects in the 13 chapter of M. B…e…woods Enquities. and although they doe not beleeve the new, yet none of their moſt ſhameleſſe R…bbies durſt ever goe about to refute it, or ſhew the leaſt untruth to bee therein. And although it were written in thoſe times and amongſt thoſe people which did moſt violently fight againſt the truth thereof; yet was it ſo ſtrongly confirmed by miracles, by the innocency of the witneſſes, by the power of the holy Ghoſt, by the conſtant ſufferings of the profeſſors thereof, and by the ſelfe conſcience of the perſecutors, that all the power of the adverſary could not diſcredit it. And although the Atheiſts ever have queſtioned the authority and certainty of the holy Scriptures, as you may reade in the great controverſies thereabouts on both ſides: yet the word of the Lord, and the truth thereof indures for ever, p. 1561 Pet. 1.25. The anſwers to their chiefe objections againſt the old Teſtament you ſhall finde moſt briefe and plaine in Hen. Ainſw. additions to the annotations on the law, and the defence of the new in Marſ. Fic. de Chriſt. Rel. cap. penult. And for your caſe you ſhall finde the moſt neceſſary queſtions hereabout handled in chap. 34. following.

^(b) Gen. 49.10. The Scepter ſhall not depart from Iuda, nor a Lawgiver from betweene his feet untill Shilob come; and unto Him ſhall the gathering of the people bee.] It is ſtrange to ſee what wretched ſhifts the wicked Iewes have to wreſt the true meaning of this place rather than they will acknowledge the truth that they might be ſaved. Some will have this Shiloh to be Saul, others Ieroboam, ſome Nebuchadnezar, as you may reade in Pet. Galat. lib. 3 cap. 4. But being convinced by other prophecies and the authoritie of their owne doctors: they confeſſe that this Shiloh muſt be the Chriſt, and that hee is already come, but that hee ſhall not bee manifeſted till the time come that they ſhall be reſtored to their owne land againe, which though it bee true in a ſort, as I ſhewed Reaſon 5. yet to us it is ſufficient to marke the circumſtances of the text, and thereby to remove all ſcruple and doubt. Firſt the word Shiloh is interpreted, Her Sonne, becauſe hee was to be the Sonne of a virgin without the company of any man. Then the other circumſtance to whom the gathering or obedience of the people both Iewes and Gentiles ſhould be, cannot agree to any of the aforeſaid perſons. For before the daies of Saul, Iudah had no governement more than any other tribe, and having never had any preeminence, it could not be ſaid to looſe it by Sauls being preferred to the kingdome. And although Ieroboam tooke tenne tribes from the houſe of David, yet the kingdome of Iuda did ſtill continue a Kingdome. And although Nebuchadnezer ruled over many people, yet he ſubdued them by force, they gathered not unto him, as the word here ſignifieth, a willing obedience, and is therefore by Ierom tranſlated, expectation, or waiting for: So that none of theſe could bee that Shiloh. Therefore their wiſeſt doctors, and both their paraphraſts tranſlate it, untill Meſſiah, or Chriſt come, the text is ſo plaine. But yet it may bee here queſtioned, how this Scepter or dominion continued in Iuda in the time of the captivity in Babylon, and likewiſe in the time of the Machabees who were Prieſts of Levi, and yet ruled as Kings ſomewhat more than 160. yeares before Chriſt came. For certaine it is, that after Ianna Hirecanus the grandfather of Levi, who was the great grandfather of the bleſſed Virgin, Luk. 3.24. none of the Stocke of David bare any rule as Prince, but the tribe of Levi ſwayed all, untill the time of Herod the great. To this it is anſwered, that by the marriages of the Prieſts with the tribe of Iuda and the family of David, as it is manifeſt in Iehoiada, 2 King. 11. and others, the rule might be ſaid to remaine in Iuda. But deſcents in Iſrael, were accounted by the male-ſide onelyonly, who is therefore called Zavar of a word that ſignifies to record. And therefore in our Lords deſcent, though Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth are remembred for our comfort of the Gentiles; and to ſhew the conſtancy of Gods promiſe, His whole genealogie by his mother is reckoned up by S Luke in the ſeventy ſeventh generation: yet is the account by Ioſeph his ſuppoſed Father called the Sonne of Heli, though hee were onelyonly his Sonne in Law. And therefore the Rabbins affirme that in the time of the captivity the great councell of the ſeventy elders inſtituted by God, numb. 11.25. did ever continue. And certaine it is, that the prince of the houſe of Iuda, Zorobabel of the line of David, was he under whom they did returne from captivity. But yet that either the one or the other had any authority or rule over their fellow captives in a forraine countrie, ſtands not with any practice or policie now in uſe; no nor after their returne from thence, as it appeares, Neh. 9.37. And although Daniel were a chiefe Prince in the Court, yet he procured the buſineſſe of the king onelyonly, as Lord Treaſurer, Dan. cap. 6.2. or Chancellour, Dan. cap. 2.48.49. as Nehemiah p. 157and Mordecai by extraordinary fauour only procured the wealth of their people without any authority over them, but by ſpeciall commiſſion. But you will ſay, that the right of government remained ſtill to the tribe: yea but Iacob ſpeakes of an actuall Shebet that ſhould ſtill remaine. Therefore others anſwer, that the word foreign Shebet ſignifies either a ſtaffe, a truncheon, or Scepter, the enſigne of authority, as uſed by leaders and commanders in warre who are therefore called foreign or foreign and ſo by a metonymia it may ſignifie authority: or elſe it ſignifies a tribe, and in this ſence the tribe, or diſtinction of a tribe never departed from Iuda till our Lord came, whereas the ten tribes carried away by Salmanaſar in the dayes of Hezekiah, were ever after utterly left out of all remembrance in the holy records, ſee further in the 27. chap. R. 2. But concerning the cunning Scribe or lawyer (for ſo the word foreign ſignifies) brought up betweene his feet, as Paul at the feet of Gamaliel, it is moſt certaine that ſuch a Prince never failed from Iuda till the time of Herod the great, who not being able to win the Iewes, either by his moſt ſumptuous building of the Temple, or by his Largis in their famine, or by all the favours that he could doe them, to acknowledge his right to the kingdome by the gift of the Romans, becauſe they daily expected him that was to come of David; murdered their Sanbedrim and all the males that bee could finde of the houſe of David; ſo that he ſpared not his owne Sonne that was deſcended thence by his mother; burnt alſo the bookes of the genealogy of their Kings, and afflicted them with other calamities, till they after thirty yeeres reigne of his, were compelled to acknowledge him their lawfull king, and then according to the promiſe was our Lord incarnate, that true Shiloh, her only Sonne. But you ſay Shiloh may be interpreted his Son. I anſwer. The word foreign Shiloh by the conſonants or ſubſtantiall letters ſignifies her Sonne, but by the vowell or ſpirit above it may ſignifie his Sonne: but becauſe the van ר is wanting, it ſhall ſignifie his ſonne that is inviſible, and therefore our Saviour is both God and man. So there is no letter preſent, no letter wanting in the holy word without a deepe myſtery, higher than heaven.

^c Dan. 9. v. 24. Seventy weekes are determined upon thy people, & vponupon thy holy Citty; to reſtraine tranſgreſſion, to ſeale up ſinne, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlaſting righteouſneſſe; to ſeale the viſion and Propheſie, and to annoint the Holie of holies &c. to the end of the chapter.

The more evident and plaine any text of Scripture is for the clearing of the truth of Chriſt, the more hath the devil laboured to darken it, and to pervert the truth thereof. And though by other texts of Scripture it be plaine enough to us, that this Ieſus is the Chriſt; yet ſeeing no Scripture is ſo direct and punctuall as this for the certaine defignement of the time, the devill hath the more earneſtly laboured to bewitch mens underſtanding, ſo that they have taken more paines to make the time uncertaine, nay ſome make it nothing at all belonging to Chriſt our Lord. The errours of the Iewes you may read in Pet. Galatinus lib. 4. cap. 14. to the 19. the contradictions of the Chriſtians againſt the truth, and againſt one another you may finde in D. Willet his moſt diligent com. on Dan. Among the Iewes one Porphyry, becauſe he ſaw the text was ſo plaine for the truth of Chriſt, ſuffering at the time appointed by this propheſie; ſaid that there was no reckoning to be made of this text of Daniel, becauſe he was no prophet, contrary to the conſent of all other Iewes, and the manifeſt authority of the Scriptures, as you may reade, Eze. 14.14.20. & 28.3. Math. 24.15. wher his innocency, wiſdome, & gift of prophecie are teſtified: others among them doe wreſt the time concerning the end thereof. For the true Meſſiah not comming as they lookt for Him, in pompe and worldly glory; they ſtil looking for him that ſhould come, according to their fancy, have made theſe weeks to mean, ſome 700 yeers, ſome 7. Iubilees; others 7. tens. And becauſe many in Scripture are ſtiled by the title of Meſſiah, as you may reade Pſal. 105.19. Eſay. 41.1. and elſewhere, therefore ſome of them will have Cyrus p. 158to be meant hereby, ſome Zerobabel, others Iehoſhua, ſome Nehemiah: but becauſe neither the time nor circumſtances accord, others will needs refer it to Agrippa, who was King when the Citty and Temple were deſtroyed by Titus. And I would the faithleſſe Iewes had wandred thus alone, and that no Chriſtian by his lifeleſſe interpretation had ſided with them. But the circumſtances of the text doe eaſily overthrow them. For this Meſſiah muſt bee foreign Meſſiah Naghid the Prince or chiefe Meſſiah: or of the word foreign, Meſſiah that was to be manifeſted, that Meſſiah that was to be annointed with the oyle of gladneſſe above all his partners, Pſal. 45.7. becauſe He received not the Spirit by meaſure, Ioh. 3.34. Moreouer who is he that can be that Holy of Holies but onelyonly Chriſt our Lord, both God and man? who is hee that can reſtraine men from tranſgreſſion? that can ſeale up ſin? that can cover iniquity? that can bring in eternall righteouſneſſes but Chriſt our Lord, in whom all the nations of the earth ſhould be bleſſed? Therefore the text by theſe circumſtances is tyed onelyonly to the promiſed ſeed, Gen. 3.15. which ſhould utterly deſtroy the workes of the devil. But the errors and diſagreements of the Chriſtians have beene a great cauſe to withhold the Iewes from the acknowledgment of the truth. For they have been more different in their opinions hereabout than the Iewes, who held conſtantly, that the beginning of the time, was according to the word of the Angel, in the firſt yeere of Cyrus, when they had liberty to returne, and to build the Citty, and Temple. But the Chriſtians make queſtions whether from the going forth of the word from God to the Angel, or from the Angel to Daniel, or from the king who gave the commiſſion to the Iewes, Gordomi. Chromol. cap. 15. pag. 237. And here againe out of Ezra, becauſe it is ſaid, chap. 6.14. that the houſe was fininiſhed by the commandement of Cyrus, and Darius, and Arteſhaſte king of Perſia; queſtion ariſes whether theſe ſeventy weekes begin in the firſt yeere of Cyrus, or of Darius Hyſtaſpis, or of Artaxerxes Longhand; and whether in his ſeventh or in his twentieth yeere. And here while every man is rich in his owne opinion, and prizes at an high rate his owne reading, and praiſes his Authors, and deſpiſes, as deceived or counterfeit, ſuch as make againſt him; men have ſo puzled themſelves by prophane ſtories, and the reckoning by the olympiads; that they cannot finde, as not where to begin, ſo not where to end the account: whether at Pompeies taking of Ieruſalem, or at the birth of our Lord, or at his death, or with the deſtruction of Ieruſalem, or in the daies of Adrian, when the Iewes were baniſhed out of Paleſtina. And whether theſe ſevens of yeares (for on that the Chriſtians agree) be moone-yeeres, or Sun-yeeres; for ſuch fine ſubtilties they are driven unto, who apply their wits and ſtudies to make good their profane authorities. How much more neceſſary were it to hold conſtantly the limits appointed by the ſacred Scripture, thereby to examine and reject the falſehoods of profane hiſtories, according to the counſell of S. Peter 2.1.19. And although M. Lively Perſ. mon. pag. 188. &c. to 193. have ſufficiently refuted this fancy of moone-yeres; yet while hee ſticks ſo cloſe to the mudwall of theſe heathen ſtories, he is compelled to make this Meſſiah the Prince, to be another thing than that Holy of holies annointed. v. 24. Perſ. mon. p. 175. & 200. and ſo for a full end of the controverſie turnes this propheſie quite from Chriſt; becauſe hee cannot ſee how it can ſtand with the juſt Chronology of the times, as indeed by his account it cannot. For whereas it is manifeſt by Ezr. 3. v. 8. &c. that the foundation of the houſe of the Lord was laid in the 2. yeere after their return from Babylon, in the ſecond of Cyrus, which he makes to be in the 2. yeere of the 55. olympiad, and was finiſhed in the ſixt of Darius, Ez. 6.15. with him Darius Nothus, in the ſecond of the 90. olympiad, and yet were not the gates of the palace ſet up til the 20. of Artaxerxes of him ſurnamed Memor, in the fourth yeere of the 98. olympiad, the Iewes muſt bee very ignorant of their owne ſtory, who ſaid, Iob. 2.20. Six and forty yeares was this Temple a building, who by his account ſhould have p. 159ſaid 140. or rather 174. yeares: by which reckoning alſo Zorobabel muſt be 150. or rather 199. yeares old, when the building of the Temple went forward by the helpe of the prophets Haggai and Zach. though he were but 15 yeers old when he brought the people out of Babylon, ſee Zach. 4.9. So with him Chriſt is made to ſuffer in the fift yeere of the 65. weekes directly contrary to the grammar ſence of the 24 verſe: and the 70 weeks of Daniel are ended, by his reckoning, not in any remarkable event; but in the 37 yeere after Chriſts paſſion, three yeeres before Ieruſ…lem, and the Temple were deſtroyed. Let them limp that liſt with their Olympi…ns, let them ſtumble and fall that ſo blend their profane learning with the holy Scripture, as that they make it voide of that which is the chiefe end thereof, that is the manifeſtation of Chriſt in the fulneſſe of time, according to the promiſes. But ſee this goodly reckoning by the Olympiads, and how ſure it is. Eraſm. Schmid… proleg. in Pind. puts the firſt author of them Hercules the Idaean, one of the five Corybantes, that going from Crete to Elis, did there ſet up theſe games in the honour of Iupiter his nurſling; which was not likely to be leſſe than a thouſand yeares before Iphitus, ſeeing his father Saturne was the Sonne of him who firſt brought inhabitants thither after the floud: after which Hercules being intermitted, they were againe ſet up by Jupiter himſelfe, for his conqueſt over the Titans. But what meant theſe Cretians to appoint their triumphs in P…l…ponneſu…? After Iupiter ſix renewers of theſe gamebales are accounted before Hercules the Sonne of Amphitruo, and after him, and Oxylus, and 400 yeeres intermiſſion, they were againe ſet up by Iphitus the King of Elis, and a ſolemne Mart or Fare for all ſtrangers appointed, and the Olympiads changed from the fifth to every fourth yeere. And after this (forſooth) all accounts were exactly kept. Came ſuch perfection ſo on the ſuddaine? But if it were ſo exact for ever after, as that wee muſt examine the times of the Scripture thereby; how is it, that the moſt eminent city of the world knowes not her originall better? which ſome put in the firſt yeere of the ſixth Olympiad, other in the laſt; M^r. Livelie in the firſt of the ſeventh, but M^r. Lydiat from Fabius Pict. Varro, and others proves the firſt foundation of Rome by Romulus to have been in the firſt of the eighth Olympiad. Now if a man ſhould aske whether the Graecian account by the Olympiads, or the Romane, ab urbe condita, were the ſurer; I thinke no man that hath heard, O … G…ae…i ſemp…r pue…i eſtis, but would take the latter: for as the reckoning by the Olympiads was vncertaine, ſo was it in no uſe till a little before the beginning of the Greeke Empire, L…dy. A. M. 3229 and therefore muſt the Roman account be more ſure, becauſe it was not in common uſe before Iulius Caeſar, when learning began to ſpread, and men could not ſo eaſily range from the truth uncontrouled, A…m. 3258. Nay, ſuch baſe or rather no account was there of this leaden ruler of the Olympiads, that the author that deſcribed almoſt all the reckonings uſed among the Greekes from Caecrop…, about 700 yeares before Iphitus, and his Olympicks, though he remember Cyrus, and Croeſus, and Marathon, and the yron myne found in Crete, and the coinage of money in Aegina, and forgets not any wake, or horſe-race, or poet, or fidler of note, and conti…ues his account to Seleucus Callinicus, within 180 yeeres of the uttermoſt end of the Grecian Monarchie, above 530 yeeres after theſe Olympiads, though hee were a neighbour thereto, and takes the Iſthmians in his way, yet is there in him not one word of this goodly reckoning, that now is growne ſo bold, and dares to lye ſo loud, as to ſilence the voice of the holy Scripture, See Ma…m. Acundel. pag. 6. &c. Beſide this, theſe Olympiads are diſcredited in themſelves, M^r. Livelie gives their beginning 775 yeeres before the birth of Chriſt, that is, in the yeere of the world 3154. Suidas in the raigne of Salomon, about the yeere 3010. Calviſius in the yeere 3174. others in 3187. M^r. Lydiat put them to the yeere 3229. Moreover, Iphitus they ſay, was not the onelyonly reſtorer of them, but with him Lycurgus the Law-maker of Lacedemon; yet authorities there be that make Lycurgus p. 160108. yeeres elder than the firſt olympiad of Iphitus, Lydiat but 97. A. M. 177…: other that make him more than 80. yeares after. Moreover in this time of Daniel, here made uncertaine by theſe olympiads, that deadly Peloponneſian warre continued twenty ſeven yeares betweene the Lacedemonians and Athenians: now aske any merchant what Mart he would hold in that place which was the thorow fare betweene them both: yet to make all times agreeable to theſe olympiads, the overthrow of Babylon muſt be in the fifty five olympiad in the firſt yeere of Cyrus, after which he raigned thirty yeares as M. Lively accounts, pag. 47, &c. But M. Lydyat, and with him others of better account, puts the taking of Babylon by Cyrus to the 24. yeare of his raigne in Perſia, and but ſeven yeeres before his death, De emend. temp. ad Annum Mund. 3469. as others 3472. from all which uncertainties, and oppoſitions, I have onelyonly to conclude thus much. Let God be true, and every man a liar. For why ſhould theſe Gibeonites the profane ſtories trouble the congregation of Iſrael? Let them draw water for the ſervice of the Tabernacle: but let them not appoint the ſervices. And if God did chuſe the Fathers, the high Saints till Abraham, and of Abraham, Iſaack (for in him ſhould the ſeed be called) and of him Iacob, and made his ſeed to be a peculiar people to himſelfe, onelyonly for his ſake who was to come of Iuda: and for the manifeſtation of the truth of his promiſe to Adam, recorded moſt preciſely the times from Adam to the promiſe made to Abraham by the ages of the Fathers 2078. yeres when Abraham by faith forſook his country, Heb. 11.8. Ʋr of the Chaldees, Act. 7. v. 2.3.4. aged 70. yeeres, yet ſome men begin this account five yeeres after at the death of Terah, not well interpreting the word, Gen. 12.1. ſaid, for had ſaid, though it be not unlikely that God called him a ſecond time out of Charran into Chanaan, See Iohn Speed Cloud of witneſſes, Chap. 4. and. 5. and from the promiſe unto the Law foure hundred thirty yeeres, Exod. 12.40. Gal 3.17. then from the Law to the Temple built by Solomon foure hundred eighty yeeres, 1 King. 6.1. and from this fourth yeere of Salomon wherein the Temple began to be built, by the exact record of the raigne of the kings of Iuda and Iſrael, foure hundred eight yeeres till Nebuchadnezzar, who in the firſt yeere of his reigne, and in the end of the third of Iehoiakim, beſieged Ieruſalem, and tooke it in the fourth of the ſaid Iehoiakim, when the ſeventy yeeres of the captivity began, Iere. 25.1.18. Dan. 1.1. compared with Dan. 2.1. If the times (I ſay) were exactly accounted ſo farre; ſhall be ſo wicked as to thinke, that the Spirit of God began there in the end of the time to forget, or neglect that which had beene ſo long expected; that for which onelyonly the record of the times had beene hitherto ſo exactly kept? that which was the ſure ſtay and anchor-hold of all the faithfull? For if this Chriſt bee not Hee, in whom all the Scriptures are fulfilled aſwell for the time, as for all other circumſtances, we are yet with the Iewes to looke for one that is to come. But ſhall we to uphold the authority of heatheniſh records, diſagreeing betweene themſelves from 130. yeeres to 329. in the Perſian monarchie onelyonly, diſanull or queſtion the authority of the holy Scripture? Therefore that the linkes of that golden chaine which all the gods can neither breake nor weaken the hands of him that holds it, [Illi. Θ.] be rightly faſtned one in another: to that period of the ſeventy yeares beginning with the firſt of Nebuchadnezer, and ending with the Chaldean Monarchy: put thoſe ſeventy weekes, or ſeven of yeares, and ſo theſe foure hundred and ninety yeares having a certaine beginning in the firſt yeere of Cyrus in Babylon, according to that which Eſay propheſied of him (not Hiſtaſpis, not Longimanus, much leſſe of Nothus, or Mnemon) above an hundred yeeres before hee was borne, chap. 44.28. and Ier. 29.10. they ſhall likewiſe receive a certaine ending according to the meſſage of the Angell, at the death of our Lord. The exactneſſe of which account may appeare firſt by the Subdiviſion of the whole time, verſ. 25. firſt into ſeven weekes, a troublous time of p. 161fortie nine yeeres to build the citie, the Temple, and the wall, as you may reade at large in Ezra and Nehemiah: then into ſixtie two weekes a more troublous time, not onelyonly in reſpect of the perpetuall warres betweene Syria and Egypt, Paleſtina being the thorow-fare to both, and in particular of the crueltie of Epiphanes, that compelled them to idolatrie; but alſo of the often and great changes of their ſtate. Firſt their Princes of the familie of David failing, then they of the Maccabees, after that they were conquered of the Romanes, and laſtly enforced to acknowledge ſubjection to Herode and his poſterity. Of which moſt heavie and troublous times you may reade Dan. 11. the bookes alſo of the Maccabees, Philo, Ioſephus, and of late writers the briefeſt (and therefore I thinke the beſt) Eberus. The laſt part of this diviſion of the ſevens of Daniel is in the twenty ſeven verſe, one weeke; in the end of which laſt weeke, he ſhould cauſe the Ceremoniall Law to ceaſe, & confirme the covenant to the Many foreign Rabim. ך Romains. ב Babylonians. ר Iav…ns or Grecians. ם Medes and Perſians, for in every one of theſe chiefe Empires the expectation of the eternall kingdome was propoſed, Dan. 2.44. and 6.26. and whoſoever had faith in the promiſe of God was accepted of him.

A ſecond argument for the preciſeneſſe of Daniels account, is from the forme of the words, Seventie weekes is cut out, a word plurall is joyned with a ſingular; ſhewing an agreement of the whole in every part thereof.

A third argument may bee from the obſervation of the time of the evening ſacrifice (for here is no word emptie or in vaine) which as it was anſwerable to the time of Adams fall, to the inſtitution of the Paſſeover; ſo ſhould Chriſt by that offering of himſelfe once, make ſatisfaction for the one, and finiſh the other, that the lifting up of his hands on the Croſſe might bee as the perpetuall evening ſacrifice, Matth. 27.46. From whence I gather, that from the laſt day of the ſeventie yeeres captivity, the firſt of the going forth of the commandement from Cyrus, from the evening of that ſame day, theſe weekes were to receive their uttermoſt date, in the ſuffering of Chriſt, that the truth of the promiſe of God might bee according to all his workes, in number, weight, and meaſure, as it is ſaid, Exod. 12.41. and 51. At the end of the foure hundred and thirtie yeeres, in the ſelfe ſame day, God brought out the children of Iſrael out of Egypt.

Fourthly, and if this time of our Lord had not beene thus defined and certaine by this prophecie, for the time of his ſuffering, upon what ground did our Lord preach, Marke 1, 15. The time is fulfilled, and the kingdome of heaven is at hand. Upon what ground could Saint Paul ſay, Gal. 4.4. But when the fulneſſe of the time was come, God ſent forth his Sonne? If there were no time in all the Scripture limited which was to bee fulfilled? and if there be any other fixed for the death of Chriſt, let it appeare; how alſo was his reprehenſion of the blindneſſe of the Scribes and Sadduces juſt, that they could not diſcerne the times of the Sonne of man? Matth. 16.3. Luke 12.56. But by this account, from the deliverance out of Babylon, they might preciſely know the time of his ſuffering, as Rabbi Nehumiah the Sonne of Hacana ſaid, that hee wanted but fiftie yeeres, to the dayes of Meſſiah, as Galatinus writes out of the Talmud lib. 1. Cap. 3. So Symeon, ſirnamed the Iuſt, underſtanding the text of Daniel aright, for his hopes ſake found that favour from God, that he ſhould not ſee death till he had ſeene the Lord, Luke. 2.26.

I, but Nehemiah had commiſſion to build the wall of Ieruſalem in the twentieth yeere of Artaxerxes, otherwiſe called Darius Longhand, Nehem. 2. And it is plaine by the words of the Angell, Dan. 9.25. that the account of the ſeventy weekes muſt begin from the commiſſion to build the wall, and ſo forraine hiſtories will accord with the Angell: a ſhrewd blocke whereat many have ſtumbled; but the building of the wall, is no limit of the time, but a thing to bee p. 162done in thoſe troublous times, ver. 25. Beſide this, forreine hiſtories will not ſo accord to the death of Chriſt from thence, neither by Moone-yeeres, nor Sun-yeeres, nor with excluſive or incluſive, Perſ. M…n. pag. 183, &c. But ſuppoſe that by ſome beggerly ſhift, ſome likely agreement were made, yet from the end of the ſeventy yeeres captivity to this twentie of Artax…xes are fourtie nine yeeres at the ſhorteſt reckoning: now would I aske, with what faithfulneſſe the Angell diſcharged his meſſage, if being ſent to give Daniel skill and underſtanding of the time (for that onelyonly was the thing whereof the Prophet was ignorant) hee ſhould by foure hundred ninety, give him to underſtand five hundred thirty nine, or as ſome will have it five hundred ninetie two, or any other number; and neither in the whole nor in the parts give him the leaſt inc…li…g of any ſuch reckoning? Gordon. Chronol. Cap. 19. thinkes that here is obſcuritie ſought out of purpoſe; and that Daniel was ſtill ignorant of the time. I ſay that this anſwer is cleane contrarie to the profeſſion of the Angell in the 22. & 23. v. Was his comming to give him skill and underſtanding, and would hee blinde him in obſcuritie, binde his underſtanding unto falſhood, by giving him one number for another? he durſt not doe it, it was againſt his nature; neither dare I beleeve the Ieſuite. Beſide, where Daniel is ignorant, he profeſſes it, as chap. 12.8. but here is not a word to that purpoſe. But I anſwer, that the ſtrength of this objection depends onelyonly upon the ill interpretation of the text: for the words in 25. verſe From the going forth of the Commandement to reſtore and build againe Ieruſalem, as the old Latin hath it, Vt iterum aedificetur Ieruſalem, that Ieruſalem may be built againe, were in our former bibles (much better) to being againe as Montanus, ad faciendum reverti, to cauſe the people to returne: for the word foreign to returne in the neuter ſignification, in the conjugation here uſed is active, to make to returne. Now who were to bee made to returne, but they that had gone from thence? But take it at the hardeſt, to reſtore and to build, or to build againe, ſhould not they build, that ſhould enioy it and dwell there? ſo that of force theſe words muſt have reference to that word from Cyrus, who gave the libertie to the people to returne and to build their Temple and the citie. And all the commiſſions in the favour of the Iewes which were after Cyrus, were onelyonly to ſtrengthen and make good that firſt grant of Cyrus, as it is manifeſt Ezech. 6. and 7. and Nehem. 2.8. For the freedome of the people was the maine and firſt thing, and for their convenience the building of the citie; firſt their owne houſes for neceſſitie Ezech. 3.7. Hag. 1.4. then the houſe of God for his ſervice, Ezech. 4.3. and laſtly the wall of the citie for their ſecuritie, Neh. 1.3. the freedome & liberty of all this was granted by Cyrus as it appeares Ezech. 44.28. and 45.13. 1 Chron. 26.22. Ezech. 1.2. and accordingly about five thouſand of the people returned: and the foundation of the Temple was laid in the ſecond yeere after their returne, and by the malice of their enemies hindred, till by the encoragement of the Prophets Haggai and Zacharie the building of the Temple went forward in the ſecond yeere of Darius (moſt likely) Hyſtaſpis, as Ioſephus, Mr. Calvin, Lydyat, Pererius, Gordon, and others affirme. But eſpecially Ezra obſerveth preciſely the difference betweene Darius under whom the Temple was finiſhed, and Artaxerxes in whoſe ſeventh yeere he came to Ieruſalem with a certaine Caravan of the Iewes, about 1600 Ezech. 7. And in the twentieth yeere of the ſame Artaxerxes, Nehemiah had a further comiſſion to build the wals, and brought none of the captivity with him, but was compelled to deſire a Convoy of the King; neither did hee build any thing beſides the walls: for as for timber for any houſes, hee had not a ſticke, onelyonly by ſpeciall grace hee had out of the kings Parke timber for the gates of the citie, for his owne houſe, and for the gates of the palace or court of the Temple. Nehem. 2.7, 8. And from the foundation to this time were fortie ſixe yeeres Iohn 2.20. fully complete, though the body of the houſe had beene finiſhed foureteene yeeres before, Ezech. 6.15.

p. 163Therefore I ſay, firſt, that ſeeing the Temple was already finiſhed, and the citie wanted not houſes, but inhabitants, Nehe. 11.1.2. it may appeare eaſilie how far this one act of building the wall was from that which was ſpoken of Cyrus, both by Eſay and the Angell. Secondly, and becauſe the Iewes were already returned from Babylon, and that none returned with Nehemiah. And thirdly becauſe the wall was the laſt thing performed in the end of theſe troublous times of the firſt ſeven Sevennits, or 49 yeeres of which the Angell ſpake, it is impoſſible, and contrary to the very record of the holy Scripture, that theſe foure hundred ninety yeeres ſhould take their beginning in the twentieth of Artaxerxes or at any time either after or before, but onelyonly at that time when Zorobabel fanned Babel, and brought out the people thence. Hee that will ſee more to this queſtion may reade Dr. Willet whom I cited before, and Ioh. Speed Cloud of witneſſes, Chap. 5.

(d) Haggai 2.9. The glory of this latter houſe ſhall bee greater than of the former, ſaith the Lord of hoſts, and in this place will I give peace. What the ſtatelineſſe and magnificence of Solomons Temple was, himſelfe exceeding all the Kings of his dayes both in riches and honour; the Temple among the moſt ſumptuous buildings being the moſt excellent, and about which he tooke moſt care; his father David a Prophet, as himſelfe having deſcribed the paterne to repreſent that Temple not made with hands wherein the king of Glorie would dwell, may eaſilie be thought to bee ſuch, as the wiſeſt, richeſt, and moſt glorious king of the whole world could make it. But leſt wee ſhould not conceive ſufficiently thereof, the bookes of the Kings, and Chronicles doe enlarge our underſtandings by the imployment of almoſt two hundred thouſand men for ſeven yeeres and …o halfe; by the deſcriptions of the materials and their preparation; the roofe … ing ſet with precious ſtones, the walles overlaid, yea the very pavement and hinges of the doores being of pure gold; ſo that no hiſtorie remembers the like building both for coſt and workmanſhip. Now what this ſecond Temple buil… by a ſmall band of poore captives in all but fortie two thouſand three hundred ſixtie, beſide their ſervants a wretched number of ſeven thouſand three hundred thirtie ſeven, and that in a deſolate countrey, amidſt ſo many enemies that hindred their building, was like to bee in compariſon of Salomons, every man may eaſily conjecture. And therefore this Prophet ſaith, Chap. 2, 3. That this new built houſe in compariſon of the former was nothing, as you may further ſee, Ez. 2.12, 13. Was this houſe then more excellent in reſpect of the ornament or priviledges? God promiſes by his prophet Chap. 1. v. 8. that he would take pleaſure in it, and that hee would be glorified. Where the word foreign ecabd by the want of the letter ה which in number ſignifieth five, and in ſence would be tranſlated, I will glorifie it; is ſuppoſed by the Rabins to intend the want of five things in this latter Temple which were in the former, Firſt the Ark with the covering and Cherubims, ſecondly, the fire from heaven, thirdly, Shecinah, or the Divine preſence manifeſted in the oracle, Levit. 16.2. Numb. 7.89. 1 King. 6.5. Fourthly, the holy Ghoſt, which ſpake not by any Prophet after this Darius in whoſe dayes the Temple was built, fifthly the Ʋrim and Thum…nim. And this many of our learned doe embrace, as you may reade everywhere: but Pet. Galat. lib. 4. Chap. 9. cites the booke foreign yoma, or of dayes interpreting the five things to be. Firſt the Arke as before: ſecondly, the pot of Manna: thirdly, the oyle of anointing: fourthly, the rod of Aaron: fiftly, the box with the offering of the Phliſtines, by the ſide of the Arke. But the author of that booke was too careleſſe, as it is apparent, 1 King. 8.9. 2 Chron. 5.10. where it is directly affirmed, that nothing was in the Arke but onelyonly the two tables of the Law. And is it likely, that the offering of the heathen ſhould bee brought into the moſt holy place, before Chriſt had entred thereinto? But howſoever, ſeeing by all confeſſion it appeareth that this houſe was not to bee compared with that p. 164of Salomon, either in outward beautie, or in riches, or in outward holineſſe, being ſo often and grievouſly profaned by Heliodorus, the agent of Selencus, then by his brother Epiphanes, who ſet the image of Iupiter in the Temple of God, and enforced the Iewes to forſake their Religion; after by Pompey, by Craſſus and others, or in the other high and heavenly ornaments and priveleges, the glory thereof muſt needs conſiſt in this, that the Lord of glory, the Meſſiah and Saviour of the world would glorifie that Temple with his preſence, and in that Temple preach peace with God, by his owne ſatisfaction for the ſinnes of the world. You may reade hereto, Ioh. 8.12. to the end, and chap. 10.23. to 40. and 18.20. And thus the ſubſtance being more excellent than the ſhadowes, and Chriſt by his ſuffering having finiſhed the ceremoniall Law in the time while this houſe did ſtand, according to this prophecie, it is neceſſarie that this Ieſus be the promiſed Meſſiah, ſeeing this houſe ſtood but fourtie yeeres, the time of repentance and no more, after the death of our Lord.

(e) Haggai 2.7.8. Yet one little while and I will ſhake the heavens and the earth; the Sea and the dry land. And I will move all nations, and the deſire of all nations ſhall come, and I will fill this houſe with glory, ſaith the Lord of hoſts.

Marfilius Ficinus de Rel. Chriſt. cap. 27. interprets this place too ſlackly according to the letter onelyonly, underſtanding by the ſhaking of the heavens, that Starre which conducted the wiſemen at the birth of Chriſt, and a ſuppoſed Ecclips at his death. The Evangeliſts tell us of a darkeneſſe over all that land, but no author of ſufficient credit avowes any Ecclipſe of the Sunne in the full Moone when**See praef. Iac. Chriſt. in Cat. Palaſt. pag. 2…. the Paſſeover was kept: by the ſhaking of the earth he underſtands that e…thquake at the ſuffering of Chriſt, and another mentioned by Ioſephus. Hi…rto alſo he brings the taxing of all the Roman provinces by Auguſtus Luke 2. and the rebellion of Iudas of Galilee, mentioned Acts 5.37. By the moving of the Sea, hee meanes the miracle ſpoken of, Mar. 4.35. and Iohn 6.16. to 22. when by his word our Lord commanded the winds and ſeas, and they obeyed him. And if this interpretation had reſted with Ficinus by profeſſion a Phyſician, by ſect a Platonick, I had ſaid nothing; but ſeeing other profeſt Divines, and they not of the leaſt account, doe follow him herein, as Crocius aforeſaid, I thought it fit to cleare this text rather by that interpretation which the Apoſtle makes hereof, Heb. 12.26, 27. which is directly to this purpoſe for which I cite it, where by the ſhaking is ſignified the removing of thoſe things that are ſhaken, that they which are not ſhaken may remaine. Now the whole drift of that Epiſtle is to prove that the Law had but the ſhadowes of things to come, but the body was Chriſt. Therefore by the heaven underſtand the Eccleſiaſticall eſtate of the Iewes as it was ordered under the Law, and at Chriſts ſuffering utterly finiſhed: for the Law made nothing perfect, but was onelyonly the bringing in of a better hope, Heb. 7.19. and Chap. 8. all. By the earth underſtand the civill policie, which was likewiſe ſo ſhaken by the Romans, that they had not power to put any man to death, Iohn 18.31. And after by Adrian were they utterly ſcattered from being a people. Theſe things then being thus ſhaken, and by the ſhaking removed; the ſacrifice of Chriſt and his kingdome muſt remaine, that he may be yeſterday, and to day, and the ſame for ever, Heb. 13.8. that is, before the Law, and under the Law, and after the Law; the onelyonly Mediatour betweene God and man. And as it was with the Iewes, ſo likewiſe the inhabitants of the Iſlands of the Sea, and of the maine land, were to bee ſhaken, that they might forſake their ſervice of dumbe idoles, to ſerve the living God, Acts 14.15. 1. Cor. 12.2. that ſo our Lord might bee the deſire and joy of all nations, and the Scripture fulfilled, which ſaith, Rejoyce thou barren that beareſt not, breake forth in joy thou that travelleſt not; for the deſolate Church of the Gentiles, hath many moe children than ſhee, the Synagogue of the Iewes that had the husband. Eſay 54.1. For he came unto his owne, but his owne received him p. 165not, Iohn 1.11. And therefore was hee made a light unto the Gentiles, unto the uttermoſt ends of the earth, Eſay 49.6. Acts 13.46.47. that is to us, even to us of this Iſland, utterly removed from all the world beſide. Glory be to thee, O Lord moſt high.

(f) Gen. 49.5, 6. Simeon and Levi brethren, their ſwords are the inſtruments of violence, Into their ſecret let not my ſoule enter, Let not my glorie be united to their aſſembly: for in their rage they ſlew the man, and in their ſelfe will they houghed the oxe.

The interpreters differ in the tranſlation of this text, firſt about the word foreign mecherotheikem which ſome bring from the roote foreign chur a furnace or crucible, but tranſlate it, in their habitations, as if it deſcended of foreign ghur to ſojourne or dwell as a ſtranger, others derive it of foreign machar which among other things ſignifies a ſword; and may well bee the theame of foreign machaers in Greeke a ſword; by which word Arius Montanus doth tranſlate it moſt fitly to the ſence, and without any underſtanding of the word (in). Another difference is about the word foreign ſhor, which being pronounced ſhur, ſignifies a wall, and for the authority of the Chaldaean Paraphraſt is by many interpreted, they pulled or digged downe the wall. In which ſence though it agree well to that purpoſe for which I cite it; that the high Prieſts of Levi, and the Scribes of Simeon, through their malice and violence againſt our Sauiour cauſed him to die, & ſo in their ſelfe will pulled down the wall of partition between the Iewes and Gentiles: yet the word being pronounced ſhor, as it is pointed in this place, doth every where ſignifie an oxe, and ſo with foreign which ſignifies to pull out by the rootes or to cut a ſinew, as it is uſed 2 Sam. 8.4. and 1 Chron. 18.4. Hee boughed their chariot horſes, is by the Greeke and ſome other good interpreters here turned as you ſee foreign they houghed the oxe; neither is there at all any mention of digging downe a wall, Gen. 34. where this deed of the ſonnes of Iacob is recorded, but that they made ſpoile of all their cattell. And although the other ſonnes of Iacob were actors in this buſineſſe; yet was it by the inſtigation of Simeon and Levi, as the whole multitude before Pilate were perſwaded by the Prieſts and Scribes to aske Barabbas, and to kill the Lord of glory. Now concerning their ſcattering among the other tribes; of Levi you may reade Ioſhua 21. of Simeons ſcattering in the cities of Iuda, of Dan, in mount Seir alſo, and the countrey of Amalek, you may reade Ioſ. 19. and 1 Chron. 4. from verſe 24. to the end. And as the Levites though diſperſed, yet for their zeale in avenging the idolatrie of the Iſraelites, Exod. 33.26.7, 8. had this honour from God, to teach Jacob his judgements, Deut. 33.9, 10 ſo the Simeonites likewiſe tooke this honour to themſelves to be teachers of the law in the Synagogues of Iacob, as the Levites in the ſcholes of Iſrael, as the Thargum of Ieruſalem hath recorded, and by theſe was that fulfilled which Iacob here propheſies concerning the man of men ſlaine by them, and that oxe the great ſacrifice for the ſin of the whole world, ſinew-cut or deprived of all ſtrength or life as concerning his fleſh, which fact of theirs the Patriarch doth ſo deteſt, as that neither his tongue nor thought ſhould give conſent thereto. For although the ignorant multitude thought that the Meſſiah ſhould come in worldly glory; yet the Prophets knew that his kingdome was ſpirituall, and that by his death they were to be freed from death, and him that had the power of death, to whom they were ſubject becauſe of ſin. And therefore was it that Davids heart ſmote him when he had cut off the lap of Sauls garment (for Saul was a figure of Chriſt) leſt by that fact he were likewiſe a paterne of them, and ſo in ſome ſort partaker with them of whom he propheſied, Pſal. 22.18. They parted my garments among them. But you ſay the Scripture is not to bee ſtrained, for by that meanes everie thing may be made of any thing: but there is one onelyonly ſence of the Scripture, and that according to the letter. I Anſwer: Our Lord ſaith, That Moſes writ of him. Can you ſhew it by the letter? hee ſaid p. 166indeed, A Prophet ſhall the Lord raiſe up unto you from among your brethren like unto mee, him ſhall ye heare. So he raiſed up David, Salomon, Eſay and the reſt, and they did heare and beleeve them; but him whom the Father ſent they beleeved not, Iohn 5.38. Therefore this was not hee of whom Moſes wrote. Is this your literall underſtanding? He ſaith alſo, that Ionas was a ſigne of his buriall, and yet there is not a letter of it in all the booke of Ionas. Adam ſaid, This is now bone of my bone, and fleſh of my fleſh, and therefore ſhall a man leave his father and mother, and ſhall bee joyned to his wife. Saint Paul from hence Eph. 5.32. and Heb. 2.14. c… cludes that ſeeing the children were partakers of fleſh and blood; therefore the Mediator alſo muſt be incarnate. But hee could not prove it by the letter, and therefore hee calls it a great myſterie. So then there is a myſticall ſence of the Scripture, as well as a literall. And the myſticall is rather to bee taken in this place; becauſe the Patriarch himſelfe in the firſt verſe of this Chapter, promiſes to tell them what ſhall befall them in the laſt dayes. Now it is manifeſt, that of the three eſtates of the Church: Firſt, under the law of nature: Secondly, of the ceremonies: thirdly, and of grace; that of grace onelyonly could bee called the laſt dayes. For the eſtate of the Church under the law of nature was the firſt, and not utterly finiſhed, till the tables made of the unknowne matier were broken, Ex. 32.16.19. and then began the law of the ceremonies when the ſame words were againe written in the tables of ſtone which Moſes hewed, Exod. 34.1. which middle eſtate alſo laſted untill the Goſpell of repentance was preached by Iohn the Baptiſt, and was utterlie finiſhed in the Conſummatum eſt, Iohn 19.30. and then began this laſt eſtate of grace, called the laſt dayes, as it is manifeſt, Ioel 2.28. compared with Acts 2.17. and Hebr. 1.1. and 1 Iohn 2.18. So that this prophecie of Iacob, though it were in ſome ſort fulfilled as concerning their diſperſion in the ſecond ſtate of the Church, as I ſhewed; yet the uttermoſt accompliſhment of their foule offence in ſlaying that man, figured by their crueltie toward the Sychemites, could not bee till the laſt dayes when Chriſt was manifeſt in the fleſh. Compare herewith (if you will) Iacobi Brocardi Myſt. cap 1.49 and note (b) on Chapter 13. number 7. And hee that followes that rule of one onelyonly literall ſence, as hee makes no difference betweene the hiſtoricall bookes of the Old Teſtament, and any other true hiſtorie, ſo doth hee deprive himſelfe of that hope and comfort which he might receive by them concerning Chriſt, and makes them fruſtrate of their chiefeſt end, and directly gaineſayes that of the Apoſtle, Heb. 1.1. After ſundrie ſorts God ſpake in times paſt to the Fathers. See Iacobi Brocardi praefat. in int…pretat. Bib. fol. 25, 26, &c. if their doings and ſufferings were not predictions of the ſufferings of Chriſt, and of the glories that ſhould follow.

How much better was that ſaying of the father? The new Teſtament is hidden in the old, and the Old is manifeſt in the New.

But you ſay, by theſe allegoricall and myſticall ſences of Agar and Sinai, and the like, any forrein ſence may be concluded. I Anſwer, The Scriptures being to give us hope and comfort in Chriſt, there is one rule for their interpretation, which out of Saint Peter I remembred even now, that the interpretation be to manifeſt the ſufferings of Chriſt, and thereby our deliverance from the puniſhment of our ſinne: or the glory of Chriſt, and therewith the hopes that are laid up for us in heaven. And what allegoricall, myſticall, or anagogicall ſence ſoever is brought in beſide this rule, the rule of our holy faith, is as eaſily thruſt out, as it is brought in. And this is the true Cabala of the Scripture both old and new.

Troubled with all kinde of hereſies] The hereſies or errors about this truth of our Lord Chriſt incarnate are in briefe of three kindes. The firſt, concerning the perſon, who was this Chriſt: the ſecond concerning His nature and being: the third concerning the attributes or proprieties of his being. The moſt ancient p. 167hereſie concerning the perſon of the Meſſiah was that of the Herodians, of whom you reade in the Goſpell, Matth. 22.16. Marke 3.6. Theſe, as Epi…anius remembers Panarii lib. 1. held that Herod the ſonne of Antipater the Idumean was the true Chriſt promiſed to the Fathers, becauſe the ſcepter did utterlie ceaſe from Iuda in his time: but the gathering of the nations was not to Herod, as Iacob propheſied, ſo their hereſie vaniſhed. Hitherto you may bring all thoſe falſe gloſſes of the Iewes who turne the prophecies fulfilled in Chriſt, to other perſons, as to Ezechiah, to Zorobabel, to Nehemiah, to Iehoſhua, and to others, as they thinke fitteſt to mocke of the holy oracles from the true Meſſiah, as you may reade in Pet. Galat. lib. 4 cap. 17. and in the note (h) above. But their greateſt miſtaking was in their counterfeit Meſſiah, who from Numb. 24.17. called himſelfe Barch…chab, that is, the ſonne of the Scarre, of whom they were foretold by our Lord himſelfe, Iohn 5.43. If another ſhall come in his owne nam…, him ye will receive. But it coſt them the d…ſtruction of their citie by Titus, and ſo many miſeries as enſued thereon. Such another Barch…zib… they had in the dayes of Adrian, by whom after the ſlaughter of innumerableThey ci… the author of the booke Iu…h…ſia for t…i…e ſo many as went out of Egypt. Poſtel. de orbe cond. w…ites 600000 of both theſe you may reade Galatin. lib. 4. cap. 21. perſons, they were utterlie chaſed out of their countrie, and not ſo much as the name of their citi…, f…m his owne name called Aelia, left unto th…m; and thus have they lived i… baniſhment ever ſince. But the lewdneſſe and follie of other ſucceeding hereticks did equall this of the Iewes. And firſt that of Simon the Witch, who gave out himſelfe to bee the Chriſt, which though Auguſtin… affirme in ſo many words, yet Tertullian, and Epiphanius have onelie ſo much in effect, that hee was that virtue and great power of God as you reade, Acts 8.10. How great then was his ſchollar Menander? who to all the falſhood of his M…ſter added this, that hee was greater than Simon, Epiphanius in Pan. The hereticks called the Sethians, held that Chriſt which was borne of the Virgin Mary, was no other then Seth, named Gen. 4. the ſonne of Adam. The Ophites held that the Serpent which deceived Eve, was Chriſt, as Auguſtine ſaith: but neither Irenaeus, Tertullian, nor Epiphanius affirme it. But Auguſtines authoritie alone is ſufficient to make us thinke that the Maniches held that the Serpent which taught Eve knowledge, and came in the laſt dayes to ſave the ſoules of men, muſt needs bee Chriſt. But theſe ſotteries were ſo ſenceleſſe, as that they neither laſted long, nor ſpread farre. But the enemie of mankinde would not ſuffer the fountaine of life, the ſincere doctrine of Chriſt to bee untroubled, and therefore beſide theſe hereſies concerning the perſon, who was that Chriſt promiſed to the Fathers, hee brought into this faith, which wee hold concerning Chriſt the ſonne of the Virgin Mary, ſuch confuſion of opinions concerning his nature and properties (for his offices are in queſtion now) that Mahumed, Alcoran Cap. 20. rejoyced in himſelfe that hee was delivered from the opinions of the Chriſtians, ſo monſtrous in themſelves, ſo contrarie one to another, that the verie enemies of theſe hereſies were in confuſion thereabout, and as here and there contrary one to another, ſo ſometime to themſelves. You may reade if you will, the ſtories of the hereticks in the Fathers, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Iſidore, Euſebius, Ruffinus, and other hiſtorians of the Church, and in briefe, he that gathered from them all, the commentator on Aug. de haer. I, for avoiding of confuſion, will remember as occaſion is, the hereſies under the name or names of the moſt famouſed authors or defenders therof, and that without reſpect either of the time wherein they lived, or other opinions which they held beſide: for I write not the hiſtorie of the wars, but the triumph onelyonly of the Chriſtian faith.

1. The Monophyſitae or hereticks which held but one onelyonly nature in Chriſt, were of divers families: for Eutiches, while hee went about to refute Neſtorius, who held as two natures, ſo two perſons in Chriſt, confeſſed that Chriſt was of two natures God and man before the uniting of them both; but after the p. 168union of them, they became as one perſon, ſo one nature: becauſe the manly being was utterlie ſwallowed up of the Divine, and changed thereinto, as a drop of vineger in the Sea doth utterly looſe both the taſte and being of vineger. This the Armenians and Iacobites heretofor… have held, but now they are returned to the true faith. Mr. Brerewoods Enquirie pag. 154. and page 173. Euagriu… hiſt. Eccleſiaſt. lib. 4. Cap. 9, 10, 11. charges Anthimus Biſhop of Conſtant. Theod ſius Biſhop of Alexandria, and Severus, to have taught one onelyonly nature in Chriſt; but what or how, he ſhewes not. But you may finde in Theodotus the …e…der Collect. lib. 2. that their hereſie was one with this of Eutyches.

2. Ap…llinaris as others, Apollinarius contrarily upon that text of Io…n 1.14. The word b…cam… fleſh, held that in Chriſt the fleſh and the word were c…nſubſta… tiate, or made one ſubſtance, ſo that ſomewhat of the word was turned into fleſh, not remembring the interpretation which followes in the ſame place, that the word made his tabernacle or dwelling in us.

3. The Timotheans ſaid, That of the two natures thus united in Chriſt, a third thing muſt reſult, which is neither very God nor very m…n, but a confuſed effect of both natures. And this third being the Theod…ſians held to be mortall; but the Armenians hold it to be immortall, and no way ſubject to any ſuff…ring. The Cophti in Egypt hold but one nature in Chriſt, not by commixture to cauſe a third being of both, but interpret their meaning according to the true faith, Brerewood Enquir…e. Cap 22.

4. But on the other ſide, Ebion, Carpocrates and Theodotion affirmed that Chriſt was pure and onelyonly man, begotten by Ioſeph of his wife Mary, as other children, and that God was in him, as in Peter or Paul, or any other man, and by a greater progreſſe in virtue, hee came to be more righteous than other, becauſe he received a more noble ſoule than other men, by which he knew and reveiled heavenly truths, and by an aſſiſting power of God, he wrought miracles, as Moſes or other of the Prophets had done before. This hereſie the Socinians, as Wentz. à Budowecks doth charge them, have renewed of late; yet after by him it ſeemes, they are come to yeeld unto Chriſt as much as Arius.

5. Artem…n, Theodotus of Byzant. or Conſtantinople, Paulus of Samoſata, and Photinus held that Chriſt had no being before hee tooke beginning of his mother, and ſo was onelyonly man by nature, but that God, which Epiphanius expounds the Word, deſcended into him: which error Athanaſius Epiſtola de incarnat. contra Paulum Samoſat. holds to be all one with that of Carpocra…es.

6. Cerinthus to that progreſſe in virtue of Ebion and Carpocrates, a…ded this, That Chriſt, which hee interpreted the holy Ghoſt, deſcended into Ieſus the ſon of Mary, when he was baptiſed in Iordan, and made knowne unto him the Father, whom hee knew not before; and hence it came to paſſe that Ieſus afterward did ſuch great miracles, becauſe Chriſt was in him. Thus of one hee made two Mediators, one Ieſus wherein Chriſt was, and another Ieſus without Chriſt: for hee added that Ieſus ſuffered and died, but that Chriſt without any ſuffering flew backe to heaven; as Colarbaſus alſo after him did teach. This Cerinthus is that hereticke as ſaith Epiphanius, that troubled the Church in the Apoſtles time, affirming that the Gentiles ought to bee circumciſed, and keepe the Law, which hereſie of his the Councell of Ieruſalem determined, Acts 15.

7. The hereticks called Alogiani, becauſe they denied Chriſt to bee God the Word, hold in effect as much as the former concerning his nature, but yet deny not, but that for his great grace and virtue he was made the Mediator for other men. But the writings of Saint Iohn they vtterlie denie; becauſe, ſay they, the other Evangeliſts doe no where call Chriſt the Word. Anſwer. But they call him, and prove him to bee God, as Matth. 1.23. God with us, from whence is the gift of pophecie, and power to caſt out devils, Matth. 7.22. ſo Marke 1.24. The devils confeſſe his power, and him to be the Holy one of God. And Luk. 1. p. 16934.35. The Angel profeſſes that holy thing which was to bee borne of the Virgin, to be the Sonne of God. All his glorious miracles prove as much, which were neither wrought by the power of Baalzebub, as the old Iewes, nor yet by magicke, or by the meanes of the Cabala, as the later Iewes affirmed, but onelyonly by the power of God, as our Lord himſelfe proves by an unanſwerable argument, Luk. 11. …rſ. 14. to 23.

And theſe are the moſt famouſed hereſies of them who held but one nature in Chriſt, …i…ine as Eutyckes, who changed the humane nature into the divine: or humane; as Apollinarius, who thought the divine nature was changed into the humane: or one mixt nature of both theſe, as the Timotheans beleeved: or purely humane, as Ebion, Cerinthus, Ph…tinus and the Alogians: wherein it will not be unfit that we briefly conſider their reaſons, and ſee what anſwers are, or may be mad… thereto.

§. 1. And firſt concerning the hereſie of Eutyches, you may by this ſee how dangerous it is. For if it be put, that after the union of both natures, the humane nature was utterly ſwallowed up of the divine; ſo that the divine-nature onelyonly remayned, then it muſt follow of neceſſity, either that we are ſtill in the ſtate of damnation, or that God muſt ſuffer and dye for us, in the divine nature: which as it is impoſſible; ſo yet ſhould wee be ſtill in the ſtate of c…ndem…ation. For if our redemption bee not wrought for us in our owne nat…re, the divine Iuſtice is ſtill unſatisfied: ſo wee are ſtill in our ſi…ne. And therefore the Councell of Chal…edon, held by ſix hundred and thirty Fathers to condemne theſe errours of his, viz. that the natures were apart before the union, as if the humanity had had any being before it was taken to the Godhead; or that the beings in themſelves, or their proprieties were either confuſed, or changed, confeſſed him, foreign. that is, one and the ſame Sonne in the two natures (but remember the word foreign ſignifies the nature together with the proprieties thereof) neither by mixture, nor change of natures; but as one individuall being conſiſting of both natures inſeparably. But ſome of the later Eutichians minced the mattier, and ſaid, that unity of nature was not till after His reſurrection. But that, both againſt the authority of the Scripture, and reaſon it ſelfe. For Hee received power of the Father to raiſe the dead, to give eternall life, to execute the Iudgement as he is the Sonne of man, Ioh. 5. v. 25.26.27. all theſe things not yet performed. And how can the heavens containe Him, Act. 3.21. if hee bee onelyonly God, whom the heaven, and the heaven of heavens cannot containe? Kings 8.27. or what hope can wee have of being made like unto Him, if Hee bee onelyonly God? yet have we aſſurance, that as we have borne the image of the earthly; ſo ſhall wee alſo beare the image of the heavenly, 1 Cor. 15.49. The words of our Lord himſelfe are yet more cleare, Luk. 24.39. Handle me and ſee me: for a Spirit hath not fleſh and bones; as yee ſee me have. The truth of his bodily being after his reſurrection is there argued by his eating and many other infallible proofes, during the time of 40. dayes Act. 1.3. And in the laſt two chapters of Saint Iohns Goſpell all to this purpoſe, that wee may beleeve that he that deſcended into the grave, is even the ſame that aſcended in the perfection of His manly being to appeare for us before the Father, till the day of our redemption, when he ſhall preſent us unblameable in his ſight, as it is ſaid, Heb. 2.3. Behold me, and the children which thou haſt given me, ſee Ioh. 6.39.

But ſee the reaſon of this hereſie of Eutyches, delivered by that ſecond Synod of Epheſus, called foreign; which murthered the vertuous and faithfull Flavian, and blaſted with their ſtinking curs all them that ſhould affirme that there were two natures in Chriſt, forſooth, becauſe hee is the onelyonly Sonne of God, not two Sonnes, not two Perſons, but one Sonne, one Perſon, Euagrius Hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 2. cap. 18. And yet our Lord ſaith of himſelfe, whom doe men ſay that I the Sonne p. 170of man am? Math. 16.3. And as often is hee called in the Scripture the Sonne of man, the Sonne of David, the Sonne of the virgin, of the carpenter, &c. as the Sonne of God: and yet but one Sonne, and yet but one perſon of both natures divine and humane, as I ſhewed before in the beginning of the 23. chapter. I referre you thither. But the anſwer of that wiſe Prince of the Sarazens Alamundarus was ſufficient to ſtop the croaking of thoſe foule birds of the Ephiſine cage of whom ſome comming to tainte him with that bane, he told them that he had received letters that Michael the Archangel was lately dead: when they anſwered that it was impoſſible that an Angel ſhould ſuffer either ſickneſſe or death, hee replyed: And if Chriſt have not two natures aſwell the manly as the divine, how could hee endure the paines and death of the Croſſe? For if an Angel cannot dye, much leſſe hee that is onelyonly God, Theod. Collect. loc. cit. And this may be ſufficient for all the rable rout of Eutyches. But if you deſire more reaſons againſt his opinion, you may finde them in Tho. Aq. cont Gent. lib. 4. cap. 35. And although this hereſie be imputed unto Eutyches (as I have ſhewed) yet it is plaine that it was an hereſie before Eutyches was borne. For Saint Athanaſius in his ſixt Sermon hath moſt wittily and plainely refuted it.

§. 2. The hereſie of Apollinaris is as wide from the truth on the other ſide, and as it favours of the hereſie of the Theopaſchites (which you ſhall heare anon) ſo it favours that ſottery of the Manichees that made the Godhead diviſible into parts, as you have heard before, chap. 8. note 6. 5. 3. or rather yet worſe than ſo, if any thing can be worſe than that which is worſt, or more falſe than that which is moſt falſe. 1. For if any part of God became man, then God in part of Himſelfe muſt ceaſe to be God, and God muſt ſuffer detriment or loſſe, when part of His being is either taken away or changed to the worſe. 2. So God alſo ſhould bee ſubject to compoſition and accidents, contrary to that which hath beene proved, chap. 9 numb. 3.5.6.] 3. Whereupon it would alſo follow, that ſeeing his being is moſt ſimple and pure, if any of his divine being were coeſſentiall to his humanity, then alſo the whole. 4. And moreover it would follow that God were neither infinite, nor eternall. For whatſoever is changed into another ceaſes to be that which it was before. But this is contrarie to that which hath bin ſhewed c. 2 & 3. ſo then all theſe things are impoſſible. And therefore the Scripture concludes againſt this opinion, that God is eternally one and the ſame, as S. Iames alſo ſaith c. 1.17. that in Him there is neither variableneſſe, nor ſhadow of Change.

1. But ſee their arguments. Firſt, The Word became fleſh, Ioh. 1.14. Therefore the Word was changed into fleſh, bones, ſinewes, haire, &c. Anſwer. The word foreign, was, became, or was made, hath divers ſignifications, becauſe a thing may be ſaid to bee, to become, or to be made this or that by any property or accident that is therein, as a man at 20. yeeres old is made or becomes able to guide a Ship. Cicero became or was made more learned by reading the bookes of Plato. But thus the Word was not made fleſh when hee tooke our nature on him, for ſo ſhould we make God ſubject to accidents: ſo alſo our mediator after the union of both natures: ſhould not be eſſentially both God and man, which muſt of neceſſity fall into one of theſe two Gulphs, either that the manly being in Chriſt was but fantaſticall and in ſhew onelyonly, as the Manichees and ſome other hereticks held; or elſe that Hee may ceaſe to bee a mediator, betweene God and the Creature, which were to take away our hope of everlaſting happineſſe. Againe a thing may bee ſaid to be, to become, or to bee made this or that ſubſtantially, as when the food is changed into the ſubſtance of that which is nouriſhed, thereby then it is made or become that which it doth nouriſh. But thus the Word could not become fleſh, but rather fleſh ſhould have bin made the Word. For in al manner of working to the change of one thing into another, the more noble and powerfull agent muſt have the preeminence. But this is neither affirmed in the Scripture, nor poſſible to be true.

p. 171Thirdly a thing may be ſaid to become or to be made this or that eſſentially, as every particular matier and forme under every ſpecies become, or are made one individuall; as the body and ſoule in Plato, eſſentially become the proper perſon which we call Plato. But thus the deity and humanity became not eſſentially one individuall, under any common ſpecies or kinde. For the deity came not to the humanity, as the forme thereof, which had the full and perfect proper forme, the humane ſo…le and underſtanding. Moreover all formes are ordeined for their matiers, and all matiers have in them a naturall appetite to thoſe formes whereof they are capeable. But nothing of this was in that above-wonderfull generation. For neither could the humanity when it was not, deſire that the deity ſhould dwell therein: neither was the deity ordained for any ſuch end, as to dwell in man: but of his owne onelyonly holy will, and love to man, was he pleaſed ſo to bleſſe the creature. Therefore the Word was made fleſh onelyonly by theThis wo… was made ſignifies an …nion, not a C…erſ…on. A…na. Serm. 6. uniting or taking of the manhood unto himſelfe, whereby both the divine and humane nature became in Him one ſubſiſtence, one Mediator, one Perſon, one Immanuel, to which union in natures, n…thing in nature can be equal or like. For this is that wonder of wonders which paſſes the underſta…ding of men and Angels to conceive, for which his wondrous conception by the Holy Ghoſt, his wonderfull birth of a virgin were, by which his glorious miracles, his wonderfull reſurrection, and aſcepſion, and the wonderfull happineſſe and eternity of his creature are wrought. And although as the two natures, ſo their proprieties are different in Him: ſo that wee may truely ſay of Him according to the ſeverall natures, that hee was dead, and yet could not dye, that Hee ſuffered, and yet could not ſuffer, or the like: yet muſt all theſe contradictions of neceſſity hee underſtood of the diſtinct natures in the unity of that one Perſon indiſtinct; ſo that the difference bee in the natures, not in the Perſon. And thus the Scripture hath taught us to ſpeake as it is ſaid, Ioh. 1.10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him: which clauſes though they may receive diſtinction by the differences of his being; yet in the unity of his Perſon, none at all. For the ſame Perſon hath made the world, and yet was in the world as another man. For to reſpect the Sonne according to the perfection of his deity, although nothing be eſſentiall unto him, but that hee bee eternally begotten of the ſubſtance of the Father: yet ſince he was pleaſed to take on him the office of our Mediator, it was neceſſary, that hee ſhould take alſo our being wherein alone the ſatisfaction for us ſhould be wrought. For as it was neceſſary that our Mediator ſhould be God, that hee might be able to ſave and to ſupport the manhood induring that puniſhment which might ſatisfie the infinite Iuſtice, and raiſe it up againe to life; leſt being ſwallowed up of thoſe torments Hee ſhould not bee able to give life to them for whom Hee ſuffered (for the State of the members cannot bee better than of the head.) So was it neceſſarie that hee ſhould bee made fleſh, that is, become truly and eſſentially man, that the puniſhment being borne in the nature that had offended, that nature might bee reſtored to the favour which it had loſt. Neceſſary, I ſay; but I meane not by any abſolute neceſſitie on the behalfe of God: for Hee is Debtor to no man, nor on him can any neceſſitie bee layd toward the creature without which he is infinite in glory and perfection; but yet neceſſarie with that neceſſity of ſuppoſition; that ſeeing God, for the praiſe of his Grace, would by Himſelfe reſtore His Creature that had ſinned, it was neceſſarie that hee ſhould take on him the nature and being of that creature; at …eaſt in part, if He would reſtore it but in part: but becauſe the creature had ſinned in the whole; not in ſoule alone, nor in body alone, nor in the one without the other; it was neceſſarie that He ſhould become whole and entire man, not to take on Him the ſoule of man onelyonly, but to become alſo fleſh, that he might redeeme both ſoule and body.

p. 1722. But they object that out of Saint Iohn chap. 1.14. wherein it is ſaid, that He dwelt in us as in a tabernacle, and againe it is ſaid by Saint Paul. Rom. 8.3. and Phil. 2.7. that He was made in the likeneſſe of man. By which texts it may be gathered that he was made man in reſpect of ſome property or accident only. For he that dwels in an houſe is not ſaid to be one thing with his houſe, and may goe out of it when he liſt, and he that is like another can no way poſſible be the ſame. For nothing is ſaid to be like to, but to be it ſelfe. I anſw. that neither by the one ſpeech nor by the other is it meant but that he was truely and very man, of ſoule and body as we are: but ſeeing the humane nature hath a certaine ſhew or reſemblance of clothing to the deity, becauſe the Godhead is not ſeene or apprehenſible of the creature in his owne being, but onelyonly as He is man: Therefore by that Metaphore of his dwelling in us as in a tabernacle, are we called to the meaning and true underſtanding of the M…ſaicall tabernacle whereby his manhood was figured and the promiſes after a ſort made viſible to the Fathers, as by thoſe texts of S. Paul we are brought to remember, that as Adam was created in the likeneſſe of God and loſt it; ſo the Mediator that ſecond Adam, to reſtore that firſt image, was made true man in the likeneſſe of the firſt Adam. For this is one immortall hope, that as hee is truely and indeed partaker of our nature, and one with us; ſo ſhall we be truly partakers of the divine nature, 1 Pet. 1.4. and one with Him, Ioh. 17.21.22.23.

3. A fourth being cannot come into the Trinity, but if that being which was taken of the virgin doe ſtill continue a manly being, ſo that neither the Godhead be changed into the fleſh, nor that into the Godhead, it muſt needes follow, that a fourth being is taken into the Trinity: and ſo we are bound to worſhip a Quaternity for a Trinity. Anſwer. This ſeemed no inconvenience to the ancient Fathers, as it appeareth by Athan. epiſt. de Incar. dom. noſt. Ie. Chri. contra Apollinar. For to this objection hee anſwers, that the humane body of Chriſt is the body of the increated word, and therefore is adored lawfully. And the firſt councell of Epheſus againſt Neſtorius, ſee can. 7.8. & 13. doe not ſuffer the uſe of the word Coadoration or Conglorification of the body of Chriſt, leſt they ſhould ſeeme to make two Sonnes, or two Perſons, or any way to admit any kinde of diviſion betweene the divine and humane nature, as Neſtorius taught, but that with one adoration wee ought to worſhip Immanuel. For the two natures therein make not two Perſons, but one Mediator in one Perſon, in which perſon we adore the deity in the holy Temple of his humanity, according to the commandement, Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and Him only thou ſhalt ſerve. For neither is His humanity a perſon, nor yet poſſible to be ſeparate from His deity. And ſeeing his humanity from the very inſtant of his conception never had any being but with the deity, to part one of theſe from the other, were to deſtroy the preſent being of his Mediatorſhip, and to put Him in that ſtate in which Hee was before his incarnation, and that were to make void his ſufferings and the glories which have hitherto followed thereon. If you deſire to intangle your ſelfe further in this queſtion, you may reade, Athanaſ. ſerm. 6. epiſt. ad Epict. and epiſt. de incarnatione Dom. contra Apollinar. and Epiph. adverſ. Dimaeritas.

§. 3. Now concerning that confuſion or mingling of the two natures in Chriſt into one, which the Timotheans imagined: if neither the beings, nor the proprieties of the beings divine and humane bee changed: neither the Divine into the Humane, as Eutyches imagined, nor the divine into the humane, as Apollinarius ſuppoſed: it cannot bee inferred by any reaſon, that any ſuch confuſion is or ought to be yeelded unto. It is true which the Timotheans ſuppoſed, that if any ſuch mixture were, the thing that did ariſe from that mixture muſt needs bee a third thing differing from them both. For true mixture is the union of bodily parts changed by the mixture from their former being, ſo that neither the being, nor p. 173accidents of the things mingled is ſaved or kept entire in the mixture, but (at leaſt in part) corrupted, as in the mingling of wine and water, of blacke and white colour, neither the one nor the other remaine in their perfection. And to admit this mixture in the union of the divine and humane natures in Chriſt, as it is impoſſible in reſpect of the divine being, which hath not any bodily parts: So were it utterly to make void the comming of Chriſt, which upon this mixture ſhould have ſuffered in ſuch a third being as had never ſinned.

And if this foundation of the mixture of the two natures in Chriſt bee taken away, all the Cage-worke of the Theodoſians, that the Mediatour is mortall, and of the Armenians, that hee could not ſuffer, muſt needes bee rotten and unable to ſtand. Therefore let us conſent to that Antheme of the Church. Mira…le myſterium! Deus homo facius eſt, id quod erat permanſit: id quod non erat aſſumpſit: nec commixtionem paſſus neque confuſionem. O wonderfull myſterie! God was made man: Hee continued that which hee was: Hee tooke to H mſelfe that which Hee was not, neither ſuffering commixtion to make a third being of them both, nor confuſion to change the one being into the other.

§. 4. 5. 6. 7. Now it remaines to ſhew what were the holdfaſts of Ebion, Cerinthus, Photinus, and the reſt of that ging. For you may perceive how that although they had their private differences in their opinions; yet like theeves, they all conſpired in this, to robbe the Lord of glory, of the Robe of His Divinity.

The reaſons of their opinions after the long and weariſome reading of the Fathers which recite and anſwer them ſometimes heavily and with much adoe, you ſhall finde moſt briefly laid downe by Saint Thomas, contra gent. lib. 4. cap 4. 9. & 28. which in effect ſtand only in the miſinterpreting of certaine texts of the holy Scripture. For the better underſtanding of which, let me remember you of theſe two rules. Firſt, to hold ſtedfaſtly that the termes or attributes which are given unto Chriſt in the Scripture concerning His divine being, belong unto him eſſentially and properly, whereas the ſame termes attributed to the Saints, belong unto them only by grace and appropriatly. And by this difference you ſhall anſwer their cavils when being urged with ſuch texts as this, Heb. 1.5. Thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee: they anſwer, the angels are alſo called the Sonnes of God, Iob. 1.6. & 2.1. and magiſtrates, Pſal. 82.6. yea all the Saints are called the Sonnes of God, Phil. 2.15. and 1 Iob. 3.1. and this is only by a grace appropriate, and imparted unto us; whereas Chriſt is the Sonne of God according to his eſſence and true being, as it is ſaid, Ioh. 10.30. I and the Father are one, not foreign one Perſon, but foreign one thing, one being, as Saint Paul interprets it. Phil. 2.6. That he was in the forme of God: that is, in the moſt inward or eſſentiall being, God (for he hath no matier) equall to God; that every tongue may confeſſe that Ieſus Chriſt is Iehova, for ſo the word is there to be underſtood, becauſe the Greekes every where in the old Teſtament interpret Iehovah by the word foreign the Lord. The ſecond rule is, that the proprieties of one nature in Chriſt, doe not deſtroy or denie the other nature, as where it is ſaid that He was hungrie, that he wept; that he ſlept, that He was ignorant of the Iudgement day, and of the grave of Lazarus; that his ſoule was heavie, &c. which belonged properly unto Him as man, and prove that hee was truly man, in bodie and ſoule; yet doe they not at all take away the being of his Godhead, but that with his manly being wee ought to confeſſe that hee is God bleſſed above all for ever and ever, Amen. Rom. 9.5. And by this difference well obſerved you may give a true anſwer to thoſe texts which they falſly urge to their concluſion; as where it is ſaid, All power is given unto mee in heaven and in earth, Matth. 28.18. And againe, Philippians. 2.9. That God hath exalted him. So where Saint Peter ſaith, Acts 2.36. That God hath made the ſame Ieſus which was crucified, boil p. 174Lord and Chriſt. By which texts and the like, they would conclude that hee is not God by nature, but for his merit and greater graces onelyonly called God, as it was ſaid to Moſes, Exod. 7.1. Behold, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh. For, (ſay they) Hee that receives of another to be exalted, to bee made a Lord, is not ſuch of himſelfe. But this concluſion followes not, but rather that which S. Paul affirmes, Rom. 1.3. & 4. That Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, which was made of the ſeed of David according to the fleſh, was powerfully declared to be the Sonne of God by his reſurrection from the dead, when he in is humane beeing received all power: and was exalted above every name, and manifeſtly declared to be both Lord and Chriſt, both God and man. The power therfore and glory was in him, being God eſſentiall and eternall: and in him being made man, manifeſted by his reſurrection, to dwell in that manhood eternally. And as that which theſe heretikes clatter, is directly againſt the authority of the holy Scripture, ſo is it utterly againſt all ſenſe and reaſon: For if our Saviour were onelyonly man, then our comfort which wee ſhould have by him, as being able to ſave, becauſe hee is God, were utterly deſtroyed; as a Father ſaith, I would not beleeve in him, if he were not God. And this according to the Word of God, Ier. 17.5. Curſed bee the man that truſteth in man. Moreover, if Chriſt were onelyonly man, excelling others onelyonly by his progreſſe in vertue; ſo that for his greater grace above others he might be made a Mediatour for others, then many mediatours might be poſſible to bee, ſeeing Noah, Daniel, Iob, and Moſes, exceeded others in vertue, and by ſpeciall grace many others might exceed them; but ſo our Lord ſhould not be the onelyonly Sonne, the onelyonly Mediatour, contrary to that which the Scripture witneſſeth, as you heard in the end of the Chapter. n. 10. Therefore concerning the Mediatour, what he ought to bee, let the followers of Ebion and Photin… heare Saint Paul, Heb. 4.14. Seeing then that we have a great High Prieſt, that is paſſed into the heavens, Ieſus the Sonne of God, let us hold faſt our profeſſion. And againe, Verſe 15. let the Eutychian heare, and be aſhamed, for, Wee have not an High Prieſt which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without ſinne. Therfore Jeſus our Mediatour is both God and Man. Here you may remember, if you will, that which you read before, Chap. 20, 21, & 22. More you may reade to this purpoſe in Iuſt. Martyr his Dialog. Triphon; in Irenaeus alſo, lib. 3. Cap. from 21. to 31. Tertul. de Car… Chriſti, Epiphan. haereſ. 28. & 30. And eſpecially in Tertul. de Trinit. if that booke be his.

Thus we have ſeene the falſhood of the Monophyſites: now it remaines that we alſo take a view of their opinions, that hold more natures than one in Chriſt, and among them to ſee the hereſies of Neſtorius 1. and Arius 2. and then the late opinion of Poſtellus 3.

§. 8. Concerning the poſition of Neſtorius, it may ſeeme that all authors agreed not, what it was. For hee that made that addition of the Timothean, Neſtorian and Eutychian hereſie unto Saint Auguſtine, makes the hereſie of Neſtorius nothing elſe but a mingle-mangle of the Photinian and Timothean hereſie. That Chriſt was man onelyonly, not conceived of the Holy Ghoſt, but that afterward God was mixt with that man. Againe, Socrates, Hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 7. cap. 32. writes, that many ſuppoſed that Neſtorius ſought to bring in the Hereſie of Photinus, whereas (ſaith hee) it is plaine by the writings of Neſtorius, that he onelyonly avoided this, that the virgin ſhould be called foreign, or the Mother of God. But Tho. Aquin. contra gent. lib. 4. cap. 38. cites Damaſcen to this purpoſe; We affirme, that there is a perfect union of the two natures, not according to the Perſon, as the enemy of God Neſtorius affirmed, but alſo according to the Hypoſtaſis. From whence Tho. concludes, that this was the poſition of Neſtorius, to confeſſe one perſon in Chriſt, and two Hypoſtaſes. If by Hypoſtaſes he meant the Divine and humane natures united in the one Perſon of our p. 175Mediator, neither Damaſcen, nor Thomas can blame him for it. But if by the manly Hypoſtaſis conſiſting of body and ſoule, he muſt meane a humane perſon, as Thomas in the ſame place out of Bo…tius, determines, you may ſee how they made a quarrell more than needed. For though Neſtorius had beene madd, yet would he never have held one Perſon of both natures, and alſo two perſons. But it is cleare by the later Hiſtorians of the Church, that this among other, was the hereſie of Neſtorius, that as in Chriſt there were two natures, ſo there were alſo two perſons: which opinion might eaſily take the originall from Cerinthus, Pho…i…us, and ſuch as ſtunk of that Pumpe. For if God the Word, came to dwell in Jeſus the ſonne of Mary, being a perfect humane perſon of body and ſoule, (whether at his Baptiſme, as Cerinthus taught, or from the very inſtant of his conception, as the Neſtorians of this time affirme, the poſition of Neſtorius muſt follow of neceſſitie, that there be in him, as two natures, ſo two perſons. For the Godhead deſtroyed nothing of the humane perfection which it found: So that if it came not to the humane nature, but in the ſubſiſtence of a manly perſon, then that humane nature muſt remaine in the perfection of a perſon, as it was before. Whence that followes alſo not unfitly, which hee further affirmed, that the things of infirmity which were in Chriſt, as to eate, to drinke, to ſleepe, to g…ow in wiſedome, &c. belonged to the ſonne of Mary, without the Sonne of God; and all the glorious miracles which Chriſt did worke, were done by the Sonne of God, without the ſonne of Mary.

But the ſuppoſition of Neſtorius, that the deitie came into the humanity, when the humanitie had perfect ſubſiſtence in ſoule and body, that is in the perfection of a perſonall beeing, is moſt falſe: For the Word taking fleſh of the Virgin, cauſed it to become one perſon with himſelfe; ſo that the body aſſumed was the proper, and peculiar body of God, and the humane ſoule, the ſoule of God, not of any other Perſon, but the body and ſoule of the Sonne of God; and this not onelyonly while the ſoule dwelt in the body, according to the naturall life, but alſo while he was yet under the burden of our ſinnes, his body in the grave, his ſoule in Hell, as the Apoſtle cites the Scripture, Act. 2.27. Thou wilt not leave my ſoule in Hell, neither wilt thou give thy Holy one to ſee corruption: So then the body in the grave was the Holy One of God, for nothing elſe of him was ſubject to corruption: and though it were for a time forſaken of the ſoule, yet not of the Godhead, which thing the words of the Angel doe confirme, Matth. 28.6. Come ſee the place where the Lord lay: So that our Saviour on the Croſſe, yea, even in the bands of death (as concerning his body) was ſtill the Lord and God of glory, 1 Cor. 2.8. A…d if it be moſt true, that God is more inward, and more neare unto every thing, than can be expreſſed by any words of beeing, of eſſence, of nature, ſubſtance, moities, forme, proprietie, or the like: becauſe he is the foundation unto all theſe, and in him all things conſiſt: How much more ſhall hee bee inward and fundamentall unto that body, ſoule, and Spirit of Ieſus, which hee was pleaſed to make his own, that by that body and blood of his, he might redeeme his Church, as it is ſaid, Acts 20.28. That God purchaſed his Church with his owne blood, that is, with the life and blood of that body, which was proper and peculiar unto himſelfe. Thus then the word was made fleſh, not by any tranſmutation or change of the one, or the other from their true and naturall being; but becauſe that by a ſecret and unſpeakable conjunction the Word was made one with the fleſh, and the fleſh with the Word. So then the Sonne of GOD tooke the humanitie, not that it might be another perſon beſide himſelfe; but being in himſelfe perfect God, he would alſo in himſelfe be perfect man, taking fleſh of the Virgin. (The differences of union you may ſee (if you will) in the principles of N. Byfield Chap. 16.)

This union of the Godhead and Manhood, is manifeſt by divers Texts of the holy Scripture. For evidence of which we will firſt put this infallible axiome; p. 176That of two different perſons one cannot poſſibly bee affirmed of the other, as to ſay, that Peter is Iohn, or Iohn is Peter, neither yet that the proprieties of the one, can belong to the other, as to ſay that the Goſpell of Saint Iohn is the Epiſtle of Saint Peter. Now it is ſaid Ioh. 16.28. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world, which belongs to Him, as to the Sonne of God, as Iohn expounds it, 1 Epiſt. 4.9. and then it followes, Againe I leave the world and goe to the Father, which is peculiar to him as man, as it is ſaid, Act. 3.21. Therefore Ieſus the Sonne of God and the Sonne of the virgin is one and the ſame perſon, ſo Col. 1.16. that ſame He by whom all things were made v. 18. is the head of the Church, and the firſt borne from the dead; and Rom. 9.5. Hee who is of the Fathers concerning the fleſh, is God bleſſed above all. This our Lord affirmed of himſelfe, Math. 26.63.64. to be the Sonne of God, and the Son of man, and againe, Ioh. 3.13. Hee that came downe from heaven is the Sonne of man, and againe Ioh. 3.13. He that came downe from heaven is the Sonne of man, which is in heaven: For hee that aſcended is even Hee that deſcended, Eph. 4.9. Moreover it is ſaid, Heb. 9.14. That Chriſt by his eternall ſpirit offered himſelfe without ſpot unto God. But if the humanity of Chriſt be another perſon beſide the deity, then he offered not himſelfe, but that other perſon of the humanity by whoſe death our reconciliation was wrought, and ſo not by his owne bloud, but by the bloud of another perſon, ſhould hee have entred into the holy place. So God ſhould not have ſent his owne Sonne into the world, that the world by him might be ſaved, contrary to that which is, Heb. 9.12. & Ioh. 2.16.17. But he that is mighty to ſave, even Iehovah our king hath ſaved us, Eſay 23 22. and that not with forraine bloud; but by his owne offering of himſelfe hath he purchaſed for us eternall redemption.

This then being the great myſtery of our ſalvation, that God was manifeſt in the fleſh, 1 Tim. 3.16. That God is one with us, Matth. 1.23. That that holy thing which was borne of the virgin is the Sonne of God, Luk. 1.35. it may appeare how deteſtable that hereſie of Photinus and his predeceſſours was, who made our Mediator the Sonne of man by nature, and the Sonne of God by adoption only, and how dangerous this conſequence of Neſtorius is, who of that one Mediator betweene God and man. 1 Tim 2.5. would make two perſons. If you deſire to know the growth of this hereſie, and the other poſitions of the Neſtorians, you may reade M. Broerewoods enquiries, chap. 19.

§. 9. Arius and his followers held that Chriſt was truly man, ſo that be might truly be called the Sonne of the virgin Mary, borne in time as concerning his manly body; and the Sonne of God, as being the firſt begotten of every creature, and ſo the moſt excellent creature created by the will of God the Father before all times and ages, but not coeternall with him, becauſe there was a continuance when he was not, and therefore was hee not ſay they, foreign or coeſſentiall with the Father, becauſe hee was created of that which was not, from which Errour theſe Arians were alſo called foreign. This poyſonous fountaine overflowed afterward into divers ſtreames. For the halfe Arians of whom Acatius was chiefe, held that Chriſt was foreign or of the like being with the Father by nature: but others ſaid that this likeneſſe was not in nature, but only in will and powerfull working. Whereupon Aſterius is by ſome affirmed to have ſaid that Chriſt was the vertue only or a creature indued with the power of God, other heretickes againe, as Aetius and his ſcholler Ennomius, ſaid that Chriſt was foreign or of another manner of being, unlike to the Father both in nature, and will, and hence aroſe the errour of the Dulians, who thought him onelyonly the ſervant of God in the worke of the creature, and ſo of the Bonoſians, who held him to bee the Sonne of God onelyonly by adoption. And although this Hydra might ſeeme to have beene nipt in the head by the writings of Athanaſius, and other learned men of former times, and eſpecially p. 177by the firſt Councell of Nice Anno 327. and other that followed afterward; yet never was there any hereſie in the primitive Church, that went on with that violence and ſtrength, or that cauſed more trouble and perſecution, as being confirmed by divers Councels, and ſet forward by the authority of ſundry Emperours. And for the continuance thereof, it hath been ſuch, as that unto this day not onelyonly among the Turkes, but ever in the Church of Chriſt (if at leaſt they may bee ſaid to bee of his Church, who falſly denie unto him the truth, and excellencie of his being) ſome have beene found from time to time even ſince the clearer light of the truth hath ſhined, that have maintained this hereſie of Arius in whole or in part, as Socinus, Gittichius, David the Hollander, Servetus Neuſerus, and with us, Legat, Mannering, and others. In Polonia alſo and Tranſylvania they ſwarme, as you may reade in Wents. à Bud. pag. 229, &c.

But (ſay you) is it poſſible that an hereſie ſo foule as this is taken to bee, ſhould continue ſo long, and be upheld by Councels, and maintained by Emperours, and juſtified by learned men, except there were both reaſon and authority of Scripture for it? For as no man is wilfully ill but by the errour of his judgement betweene good and bad; ſo no man doth erre wilfully, but onelyonly by miſtaking of falſhood for the truth. Anſwer. Saint Paul ſaith that there muſt be hereſies, and this I ſuppoſe ſhould come to paſſe becauſe men would not be content to learne the doctrine of Chriſt and his truth according to the ſimplicity of the truth, as he had taught it in the holy Scriptures, whereunto if men would take heed, and trie the truth as they ought, the things of God by the word of God, matiers of Religi…n by the rule of Religion, that is, the holy S…ripture alone, ſo many hereſies had not ſprung up. For mans underſtanding ſo long as it doth follow the true guide thereof, the revealed truth of God, it cannot deceive nor be deceived. But if it will preſume to be guide and make the truth of the Scriptures to follow it, it is impoſſible not to ſtray; and ſo by the juſt judgement of God men alſo grow hard and obſtinate in their owne errours, not onelyonly to reſiſt the truth, but alſo to perſecute it, as theſe Arians did very grievouſly at ſeverall times. But ſee their reaſons and their authorities.

1. The Godhead is in the Father wholly, or elſe hee cannot bee perfect God; and if the Deitie be wholly in the Father, then can it not be in the Sonne, nor in the holy Ghoſt. Anſwer. The word wholly is equivocall, or of doubtfull meaning: for wholly may ſignifie as much as with all the parts; but this cannot belong to that which is infinite, or wholly may ſignifie onelyonly, and ſo the propoſition is falſe; or it may meane aſmuch as perfectly, and ſo the propoſition is true, but the conſequence is falſe: for the Deitie is wholly and perfectly in all the perſons alike.

2. He onelyonly is the true God, that is prayed unto by the Mediator: But God the Father onelyonly is ſo prayed unto; therefore God the Father onelyonly is the true God. I anſwer. If we worſhip the Godhead in the nature, or being of God, we worſhip one onelyonly being in the three Perſons. But if we worſhip the perſons, we worſhip them in the vnitie of the Godhead, that is, acknowledging every perſon to be God. And this is that Father, that one God whom we pray unto by that one Mediator of God and man, the man Ieſus Chriſt, 1 Tim 2.5. who having himſelfe in his owne body borne our ſinnes upon the tree, 1 Pet. 2.24. is ſet at the right hand of God, and makes interceſſion for us Rom. 8.34. and hath commanded all them to come unto him that travaile and are heavie laden, that hee may refreſh them, Mat. 11.28.

3. When the Sonne was begotten and the holy Ghoſt proceeded, either hee was, or he was not: If he were before he was begotten, then was he not begotten: if he were not, then there was a continuance when he was not: and therefore of neceſſitie he muſt be created. Anſwer. Eternitie hath no reſpect of time, of before, or after, becauſe it is one continuall perpetuity, and whatſoever p. 178being or action is once therein, it is eternall. Therefore that difference of was and was not, hath no place in eternity, ſeeing the generation is eternall, ever one and the ſame, as you may ſee further in the treatiſe at the end of the booke.

4. Whatſoever is begotten, receives the nature which it hath from that which doth beget, as a man from man, fire from fire, and in all other univocall generations, in which though the natures be of one kinde, yet muſt they needs be different in number, as in Iſaak and Iacob. But this cannot be in the divine generation, for ſo there ſhould bee moe Gods than one, or if the nature of the Sonne bee in number the ſame with that of the Father, then doth the Sonne receive that nature either in part, which is impoſſible, becauſe a moſt ſimple and pure being cannot be divided into parts; or entyer and whole; and ſo the Father ſhould ceaſe to be. Neither is the generation as of a river out of a fountaine, becauſe the Divine nature is neither diviſible, nor poſſible to be encreaſed. Therefore Ieſus is not the Sonne of God by generation, but by creation onelyonly. Anſw. The being of God is not materiall, which only is ſubject to diviſion into parts, and that totality which is made of parts: but his being is intellectuall; and becauſe it is infinite, and apprehended by an infinite underſtanding, it is neceſſarie that the divine being or underſtanding be wholly in the word or being underſtood. I meane with that totality of perfection which is in the unitie of being ſpoken of in the firſt objection.

5. Either the Father begat the Sonne with his will, or againſt his will; not againſt his will: for ſo it had beene impoſſible that ever hee ſhould have beene begotten; if with his will, then his will muſt be before, and ſo the Son cannot be eternall. Epiphanius rej…cts this reaſon, becauſe all the kindes of begetting are not reckoned up: for in God (ſaith hee) is no deliberation for the inclining of his will: therefore the Deitie is that nature according to which the Father did beget the Sonne, neither ever ceaſes to beget him eternally. But this is to beget the Sonne with his will, ſeeing the will of God is his being, according to which he workes eternally, as you may further underſtand Chap. 11. note (d)

Many ſuch arguments as theſe are, and many bee brought to this purpoſe of Arius, all which, as theſe that you have ſeene, muſt take their grounds from inferiour truths in the creature, which are utterly unfit for that generation which is eternall and Divine: for to whom ſhall wee liken the higheſt, or who ſhall declare his generation? and therefore Athanaſius Epiſt. contra Arianos, cujus initium foreign ſaid rightly, that the Divine generation was not to bee meaſured by the generation of man, as thoſe Arians uſed to deceive women and children. And therefore the Scripture in expreſſing of the Divine generation, calls the Sonne the Wiſdome of the Father, Prov. 8. The Word, Iohn 1. The brightneſſe of his glory, and the expreſſe image of his Perſon, Heb. 1. That the minde herein may bee utterly withdrawne from ſenſible and naturall things. The Fathers alſo in the Nicen Councell to that queſtion of Phaedo the patron of Arius, how the Sonne was begotten of the Father? anſwered, that this queſtion is not to be asked: for ſeeing the creatures were not ever, they could not make anſwer concerning his originall that was eternall. And therefore as none knowes the Father but the Sonne; ſo none knowes the Sonne but the Father. And as I ſhewed you Log. Cap. 15. n. 6. and note thereunto. That the certaine knowledge of every thing muſt be had from the rules that are proper and peculiar thereto; ſo remember here, that ſith the creature can have no knowledge of the Creator but by that revelation which he maketh of himſelfe, you may ever repaire to his owne holy word, to be inſtructed in his holy trueth.

6. But from hence alſo Arius armed his hereſie: for becauſe Wiſdome ſaith of her ſelfe, Pro. 8.22. The Lord poſſeſſed me the beginning of his wayes; where the word foreign being tranſlated in the Greeke foreign hee created me: Arius p. 179from thence cauſed much perplexity unto the Fathers in this buſineſſe, and although Athanaſius in his oration foreign proves by divers arguments that the Sonne, as concerning his Godhead cannot be created: yet when he comes to give anſwer to this text, hee interprets it thus. The Father hath appointed mee a body, and creating me among men, hath ordeined me the Saviour of mankinde: which though it be true; yet is it not a fit interpretation for that text, if yee conſider the circumſtances before and after. The Fathers alſo of the Nicene councell being urged with this text anſwered from that addition, the beginning of his wayes, that the world was created for man: ſo that man the reaſonable or diſcurſive wiſdome of God, as concerning the intent and purpoſe of God, was firſt created, although laſt in the order of actuall being. Epiphan. haereſ. 69. in anſwer hereto, holds the diſtinction of wiſdome created and increated: but ſeeing no place of the Scripture expounds this place of Chriſt, therefore (ſaith he) it is not neceſſary to interpret it of the Sonne of God: but if you take the other circumſtances, it can belong to no other. Then if it muſt needs be referred to Chriſt, yet ſhall it be verified of his humane, not of his divine nature. At laſt he gives the true meaning of the word foreign kanah he poſſeſſed or of foreign kanan he hatcht as a Chickin, and reaſons, that as every chicken is of the ſame nature with the dam; ſo the word alſo muſt have the ſame being with the Father; and therefore bee begotten before all time eternally: you ſhall finde the true reaſon of the difference of the tranſlation in the tenth ſection following. In the meane while it is not unreaſonable to thinke that this Errour came by ſome interpreter that was an enemy to the Chriſtian faith. And yet among them Aquila tranſlates it foreign he poſſeſſed me as other foreign of the ſame theme, which might eaſily be written foreign he created. Let the ſtudents of the holy myſteries give all diligence to read the holy Scriptures in their proper language, For there this treaſon of Arius and all other hereticks is eaſily diſcovered.

7. Hee that denyes himſelfe to be good, cannot be God. But Chriſt ſaith of himſelfe, Math. 19.27. why calleſt thou me good? there is none good but one, even God. Anſw. Good is either abſolute and perfect, which is God alone, or elſe imparted, the image of that Good: and ſo every thing created was very good, Gen. 1. Goodneſſe is likewiſe in the vertue and diſpoſition of the minde, as Barnabas was a good man, Act. 11.24. or manifeſt in the workes, and thus Dorcas was full of good workes, Act. 9.36. and our Lord wrought many good workes among the Iewes Ioh. 10.32. In theſe three kindes our Lord was good as man ſupereminently, above all the orders of created things. In the firſt kinde he was good as God, which abſolute goodneſſe he denyed not to himſelfe, no more than Hee denyed himſelfe to bee God, at that confeſſion of Thomas, My Lord and my God, but rather taught that young man (if he had had wit) to follow that perfection which hee preſcribed. For being by the young mans owne confeſſion good, it muſt follow of neceſſity by that rule of perfection Follow me, that he was God and ought to be followed and obeyed, Eph. 5.1.1. Cor. 11.1.

8. Like unto this are thoſe other arguments which they bring, as where it is ſaid, Ioh. 6.57. Like as the living Father ſent me; and I live by the Father: So hee &c. If he live not by himſelfe he cannot be God. I anſwer. that this life which the Sonne receives of the Father is not accidentall, not of grace, not of foreſight or purpoſe: but ſubſtantiall and eternall, ſeeing the generation is according to the immutable being and eternall working of the Father, and his ſpirituall perfection onelyonly. So they object from Heb. 3.2. That hee was faithfull to him that made him, and Ioh. 14.28. My father is greater than I, ſo 1 Cor. 15.28. when all things are ſubdued unto Him, then alſo ſhall the Sonne himſelfe be ſubject unto him, that did put all things under him; and many other which you may finde cited and anſwered by Athanaſius, and eſpecially by Epiphanius in the places quoted before. Wherein obſerve diligently the differences betweene thoſe termes, p. 180which ſignifie his nature, and thoſe which have reference to the office of his Mediatorſhip, as in the firſt place of Heb. 3. Conſider what he was made. It is plaine by the verſes before, hee was made the Apoſtle and high Prieſt of our profeſſion, in which office he was faithfull to him that made him, or appointed him thereunto; ſo in the ſecond place, to that, The Father is greater than I; note the difference betweene the Divine and humane nature: for the Sonne is inferiour to the Father, by nature, as man; and ſo as he is the Mediatour in the diſpenſation of his offices, as with us he makes up the body of his Church: nay, even in the Divine nature the Father is that eternall fountaine whence the Sonne hath his eternall originall, although the honour of ſending takes not away the equalitie of power, nor the excellencie of nature from him that is ſent; ſo the greatneſſe there ſpoken of, is with reſpect of the office of the Sonne ſent into the world, that the world by him might be ſaved. In the third place of delivering the kingdome to God the Father, note the communication of idiomes or proprieties of ſpeech according to the rules of Theodoret. That the words proper to either nature, become common and indifferent to the Perſon, as the God of glory was crucified, 1 Cor. 2.8. that is, that Perſon which is the God of glorie, was crucified concerning his humane nature. Secondly, that the communitie of names makes no confuſion in natures: now the word Sonne belongs to Chriſt indifferently, either as he is the Sonne of God, and ſo ſhall hee raigne with the Father, and the holy Ghoſt eternally, and of his kingdome there ſhall be no end, Dan. 6.36. Luk. 1.33. And ſeeing that he as the Son of man, hath received all power, Mat. 28.18. John 3.35. and 13 3. as to governe his Church Pſal. 45. ſo to raiſe the dead, and to execute judgement, Iohn 5.26, 27. Acts 17.31. Hee ſhall raigne till all things bee ſubdued unto him, and that he hath utterlie deſtroyed all the workes of the devill, ſinne, ignorance and death, Iohn 1.3.8. that as God the Father doth now raigne by him; ſo he having performed all things which belong to him as the Mediatour, may thereafter as God raigne with the Father eternally, our everlaſting king of glory, when God ſhall be all in all his children, as he is in him.

I am the more briefe in this argument; becauſe their arguments are anſwered in part before. § 4. And becauſe this queſtion is neere to that which followes immediately, and againe becauſe it is the principall ſubject of that treatiſe by me ſo often mentioned: therefore for concluſion, firſt conſider the danger of this venome which at once poyſons all our hopes of that full ſatisfaction which is made unto the juſtice of God by the death of Chriſt: for if he be a creature only, then can he not be infinite, and if not infinite, then cannot the infinite juſtice that is offended by our ſinnes, receive a full and ſufficient ſatisfaction by him, as you might ſee it proved in the 21 Chapter before. And beſide theſe reaſons you may take with you theſe remembrances againſt all Arians, Turkes, Iewes, Socinians, and other hereticks whatſoever, and give honour and glory unto Ieſus our Lord and God. Eſay 9.6. VntoUnto us a childe is borne, unto us a Sonne is given, and his name ſhall be called, The Mightie God, the Everlaſting Father, the prince of peace. Ier. 33.15, 16. In thoſe dayes the branch of righteouſneſſe ſhall grow up unto David, and Ieruſalem ſhall dwell ſafely; and he that ſhall call her. See Mat. 11.28. is Iehovah our righteouſneſſe. Micah 5.2. Out of Bethlehem ſhall hee come forth unto mee that ſhall be ruler in Iſrael, whoſe goings forth are from everlaſting. Rom. 9.5. Chriſt is over all, God bleſſed for ever and ever, Amen. and 1 Iohn 5.20. We are in him that is true, even in his Sonne Ieſus Chriſt. This is the true God and eternall life.

§. 10. Thus then our Lord Ieſus being declared mightily to be Sonne of God, by the teſtimony of the Father from heaven, by his owne profeſſion of himſelfe, confirmed by his glorious miracles, Iohn 5.36.37. by his reſurrection from the dead, Rom. 1.4. by the conſent of the Apoſtles and Prophets, and by the teſtimony of the holy Ghoſt in the hearts of all his Children, and being truly man by the teſtimony of his very enemies; the onelyonly queſtion remaining concerning his p. 181beeing is, that ſeeing all fulneſſe muſt dwell in him, Col. 1.19. whether he be not alſo that firſt created being, in and by whom all other things were created and are governed and preſerved. This Poſtellus in his booke De nativitate Mediatoris, doth firmly hold: And although it be plaine by Athanaſius, Epiſt 1. contra Arianos, that Arius held one Word in the Father, as we ſpeak of the Trinity, and another Word created, which he held to be Chriſt: and in his Thaleia, mentioned Epiſt. 2. contra Arianos, affirmes to the ſame purpoſe, a Wiſdome increated, and a Wiſedome created: and although Arius affirmed as Poſtellus, That Chriſt was a creature, but not as one of the creatures; made, but not as one of other things that were made, &c. and therefore concluded that he held the ſame faith with the Church, and detracted nothing from the glory of Chriſt, when hee called him the firſt and chiefe creature, Epiph. haereſ. 69. yet Poſtellus, whether he were indeed ignorant of it, or whether he diſſembled his knowledge, makes no mention thereof, leſt the name Arius might diſcredit the poſition, although the difference betweene Arius and Poſtellus, be as much as from the Eaſt to the Weſt. For though Arius held the increaſed Wiſdome or Word to be in the Trinity, yet he could not yeeld to this, that that Wiſdome tooke fleſh, and became that Saviour to whom we confeſſe. And this was the buſineſſe betweene him and the right meaning Fathers. But Poſtellus held that the created Wiſdome, that firſt borne of every creature, which in the fulneſſe of time tooke fleſh of the Virgin Mary, and in that fleſh made ſatisfaction for the ſinnes of the world, wa… hee in whom all the fulneſſe of the Godhead did dwell. Now by the rule of our faith both the extremities are yeelded unto, that Chriſt is God, bleſſed above all; and that he is man, as hath beene proved. But this is now to be examined, whether it be neceſſary, to the beeing of our Mediatour, that hee be that firſt creature of God, created before all times and ages of the world, by whom all other things were afterwards made in th…i… due times, and are governed, as Poſtellus affirmed. The Authorities which Poſtellus brings, are either forraine, or elſe out of the holy Scripture; you ſhall firſt ſee them of the firſt kind, with their exceptions, then his reaſons with their anſwers, and laſtly thoſe enforcements which are by him, and may beſide bee brought from the Word of truth.

1. Firſt, he ſaith he is urged to the declaration of this truth by the Spirit of Chriſt, pag. 1, 3, 7, &c. but I ſay, theſe enthuſiaſmes and revelations are a common claime, not onelyonly to them that ſpeake the truth from God, as the holy Prophets ſay, Thus ſaith the Lord; but alſo to them that vent their owne fantaſies and hereſies, in ſtead of the truth. The ſecond au…hority is that of the Abiſine Church, which commonly they call of Presbyter Iohn, out of whoſe Creed he cites for his purpoſe thus much, Pag. 24. & 25. We beleeve in the name of the holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghoſt, who is one Lord: three names, one Deity; three Faces, one Similitude: the conjunction of the three perſons is equall in their God head; one Kingdome, one Throne, one Iudge, one Love, one Word, one Spirit. But there is a Word of the Father, a Word of the Sonne, and a Word of the Holy Ghoſt: and the Son is the ſame Word: And the Word was with God, and with the Holy Ghoſt, and with himſelfe, without any defect or diviſion; the Sonne of the Father, the Sonne of himſelfe, and the beginning of himſelfe. Where in the firſt Article (you ſee) that Church acknowledges the Trinitie of Perſons, in the unitie of the Deity, according to that faith which wee beleeve. The ſecond Article, But there is a Word of the Father, &c. is altogether a declaration of this created Word, or Sonne of God, by whom all the holy Scriptures were given, and inſpired, as Poſtel ſpeakes. But concerning that Church, though Poſtel to make the authority thereof without exception, ſay, it was never troubled with any hereſie; yet it is not unlikely to have nurſed that archheretick Arius, whom all writers account to be a Lybian. Beſides, it is manifeſt, that they are all Monothelites, and ſo farre forth Iacobites or Eutychians, that p. 182they condemne the fourth generall Councell of Chalcedon, for determining two natures to be in Chriſt. Moreover, what their learning is like to be, you may judge by this; that their inferiour Church Miniſters and Monkes muſt live by their labor, having no other maintenance, not being ſuffered to crave almes; ſee M^t Brerewoods Enquiry, Chap. 23. & 21. a ſtate of the Miniſtery, whereto our ſacrilegious patrons, and detainers of thoſe livings, rightly called Impropriations, becauſe they belong moſt improperly to them that unjuſtly withhold them from the Church, would bring our Church unto. But ſee whereto this want of maintenance hath brought that Church, which in the time of the Nicene Councell was of ſo great regard, that their Patriarch had the ſeventh place in all generall Councels; yet now (as I have read) have they of late yeares beene compelled to ſend to Rome to beg a religion, and teachers from them. And this is the Authority of that Church. But you will ſay, their Creed is ancient, and of authority: I ſay, though it be as ancient as Arius, yet what wit or judgement was in th…s, to put ſuch a point into their Creed, which they themſelves by Poſtels owne confeſſion, doe not underſtand? If it were neceſſary to beleeve it, other Churches would not have omitted it, if not neceſſary, why was it brought into their Creed?

But the ancient Paraphraſts, Anchelus and Ionathan are without exception, and where the Text is, And the Lord ſpake unto Moſes, they explaine it thus, And the Lord ſpake unto Moſes by his word; which all the old Interpreters, and eſpecially Rambam underſtand to be ſpoken of the created Word of God; that Word of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghoſt, or the Divinitie which is appliable to the created beeings. Pag. 24. The Cabaliſts alſo concurie with this interpretation, and therefore call him the inferiour VViſdome, the Throne of Glory, the houſe of the Sanctuary, the heaven of heavens united to eternity; the ſuperiour habitation, in which God dwels for ever, as his body is the inferiour habitation, after he was incarnate; the great Steward of the houſe of God, who, according to the eternall decree, brings forth every thing in d…e time. And theſe, as I remember, are all …he authorities which Poſtellus cites ex…ept you will add this, that whereas he writes to the Councell of Trent, they of the Councell being called for other purpoſes, did not at all paſſe any cenſure of the booke, or this poſition, which is the maine point therein.

You may add to theſe authorities many other, and fi…ſt out of Ieſus the Sonne of Sirach, Chap. 1. verſ. 4, 5. Wiſdome hath beene created before all things, and the underſtanding of Prudence from everlaſting. The VVord of God moſt high is the fountaine of wiſdome, &c. which agrees with that in the Creed before, that hee is the VVord of the Sonne, and the beginning of himſelfe. And againe, verſe 9. The Lord created her, and ſaw her, and numbred her: And Chap. 24.8, 9. He that made me cauſed me to reſts he created me from the beginning before the world, and I ſhall never faile. And this authority may ſeem to ſtand well with the fourth reaſon for the worlds eternity, brought in Chap. 13. if by the world you underſtand the created wiſdome, ſpoken of by theſe Authours. The Hebrew foreign Ben, a ſonne of foreign banah, to build according to the Idea, or repreſentation which is in the minde, may bring ſome proofe hereto: but eſpecially the word foreign bar, of foreign bara, to create: wherefore the Chaldean Paraphraſt, in Pſal. 2. verſ. 7. for foreign yelidricha, I have begotten thee; hath foreign berichach, I have created thee. And Prov. 8.22. for foreign Kanani, he poſſeſſed me, foreign barani, He created me. VVhere the Greeks tranſlated, ſome according to the paraphraſe, ſome according to the Text. Among the Fathers alſo ſome conſented to this opinion, as Theophilus Biſhop of Antioch, about the yeare 180. ad Antolicum lib. 2. God, ſaith he, having eternally the Word in himſelfe, as it is ſaid, Iohn 1.1. The Word was with God; did then at laſt bring him forth, the firſt begotten of every creature, when he determined to make the world, as it is written, Pſal. 2.7. This day have I begotten thee: But Origen is flandered to have ſpoken more meanely p. 183of Chriſt, as of a ſmall thing in compariſon of the Father, as that hee was indeed of the eſſence of the Father, but created; ſee Su…das, and Epip. haereſ. 64. But can theſe things ſtand together, that Hee ſhould be of one being with the Father and yet created? Or can it ſticke to Origen who writ according to the right faith, as you may read In Exod. Hom. 8. But Lactantius without wavering conſented to The…philus, Inſt. lib. 2. cap. 8. & lib. 4. cap. 6. The Nativitarii alſo though Auguſtine lib. 15. de Trin cap. 20. make Enomius a follower of Arius their Authour held this ſame opinion with Theophilus, and Lactantius. Aug. de haereſ. cap. 80. But that place of Pſ. 2. doth not prove that Chriſt was not brought forth till then that the world ſhould be created. For the word this day hath not any reſpect to time, but to the perennity or continuance of the action. For Chriſt is no otherwiſe brought out this day, than he was eternally, as it is ſaid Iohn 17.5. and Hebr. 13.8. Ieſus Chriſt yeſterday, and to day, and the ſame for ever. Some of the latter Presbyters of learning alſo conſent to this concluſion. See Leo Hebr. Dial. 3 pag. 510. So Raimund Lully A…tis Magnae part… 9. cap. 8. hath this. By this meanes mans underſtanding knowes, that there is one great created being, which is greater than all the creature beſide; which I dare neither name nor declare in this place becauſe this Art is generall. Alſo Iohn Picus makes it the firſt of his concluſions, according to the Chaldees. That the firſt order of ſeparate or created beings, is that of the fountaine, which by the meanes of viſion is ſuperexalted above all the reſt: as I even now explaned the ſuperiour Shekinah, or habitation of the Cabaliſts. But this concluſion of Picus, is after the later interpreters of the Chaldaean Theology. For if you looke unto the oracle foreign, &c. You ſhall ſee that both Plethon and Pſellus interpret it thus. That the being of the Father is utterly incomprehenſible, and beyond the underſtanding not only of men and Angels, but alſo of the Sonne himſelfe: and this not out of any envie, but onelyonly by the impoſſibility of the thing: that that which is infinite ſhould be apprehended by a finite and created being. The Arians follow this,See Aug. de Civ. lib. 10. cap. 2 but Pſellus rejects it, as contrary to our Chriſtian doctrine. Alſo * Plotinus, Iamblicus, Porphyrie, Proclus, and their ſchollers, (though they no Chriſtian yet hold that for truth, which Picus from the Caldeans hath delivered. And although Steuchus De perenni philoſophia lib. 1. & 2. hath cited many authorities from them, as meeting with that truth which wee defend concerning the Trinity; yet if you examine them well, you ſhall finde that moſt of them agree with this concluſion of Poſtellus. For if they allow all the concluſions of the Chaldeans intire, as Pſellusin ſumma affirmes; they muſt of neceſſitie hold the created being of this ſecond wiſdome, with Poſtellus. And although Plato holds but what hee likes of theſe concluſions, yet in this point (as his commentator Ficinus gathers out of his Timaeus and Epinomis) he is directly for this created divinity. See the argument on the ſixt Epiſtle.

But to all theſe authorities, firſt and laſt, I anſwere thus much, that although it be plaine, that theſe authors were of this minde: yet that binds not, that the truth doth ſtand with them. OnelyOnly it ſeemes that ſeeing a famous Chriſtian Church, and ſo many great Doctors, and expoſitors beſide (though the Chaldaean and Platonicks be ſet at naught) were of this Iudgement, ſeeing no Synod either oecumenicall or nationall (for ought that I know) did ever condemne it, it may be held as an opinion not utterly hereticall; eſpecially ſeeing the booke of Eccleſiaſticus, both by the warrant of ſome fathers, and other Churches, and eſpecially of our owne, hath been commended as profitable to the advancement of Chriſtian vertue, though not for the eſtabliſhment of doctrine Art. 6. And many choice Chapters from thence appointed to bee read in our publique Liturgie, even that twentie fourth, where this point both of the eternall v. 18. and ſucceeding generation. v. 8.9. is plainly taught. See November 7. Morning prayer.

1. But Poſtellus to aſcertaine this matier to the underſtanding, brings theſe p. 184reaſons following. Firſt, God is altogether unmoveable, as in place, becauſe he fills all; ſo likewiſe in wiſedome and in will, becauſe hee is every way infinite. And therefore it was neceſſary in the creation (which was not but with a moſt particular diſpenſation or providence, by which all cauſes and effects are ordered) that there ſhould be an agent which gave to every thing a being, and that a ſeverall, and diſtinct individuall being, which cannot bee, but by thoſe ſpecificall formes or proprieties by which every thing doth worke according to kinde; which could not bee but by ſuch an agent as hath both an infinite activity of being, by which he is one with God, and likewiſe an infinite poſſibility of working, or not working, according to the particular poſſibilities in nature, by which hee muſt of neceſſitie communicate with the Creature. And this is that Wiſedome created and increate, without which nothing was made. This both the Creator and the Creature, that forme of formes, in whom, by whom, and for whom are all things: pag. 21. 103, &c.

I anſwer. That if it muſt of neceſſitie be put, that God cannot worke without Himſelfe, becauſe He is infinite, and therefore immoveable; then for the ſame reaſon it muſt follow, that no ſuch great created being can at all be, except you will ſay that hee created himſelfe, and ſo was when He was not, or that hee had his creation from ſome other originall than God, which muſt likewiſe bee infinite, in being able to create ſo excellent a being, and yet finite, that hee might move or not move himſelfe thereto when he would. But firſt this progreſſe would be infinite, and beſide that impoſſible. For if neither God could move becauſe Hee is infinite, nor much leſſe the creature when it was not, how was it poſſible that any thing at all ſhould be created? Secondly, Moreover it would follow hereupon, that that were poſſible to the ſecond cauſe, which was not poſſible to the firſt: but it is manifeſt, that all ſecond cauſes worke onelyonly by the activity of the firſt, ſo that if the firſt cauſe ceaſe to worke, much more the ſecond. Thirdly, beſide this, the power of God ſhould not be infinite, if it could not worke according to his pleaſure in things without.

But you ſay, as Himſelfe, ſo His action is infinite, and it is impoſſible that a finite being ſhould be the ſubject of an infinite action. I ſay though Sampſon were able to breake a Cable, yet might he ſtraine one haire of Dalilah to ſtraightnes, not to lengthen it; to lengthen it, not to breake it. This is true (ſay you) becauſe he was as every creature, partaker of being, and not being; of act or perfection, and of poſſibilities, or imperfection, whereby he might move, or not move at his pleaſure. But God is not ſo; but alwaies actually, whatſoever Hee may be. But (ſay I) it is one thing to ſpeake of the infinite action of God in himſelfe; and another, of his action in the creature, limited according to his Wiſdome and His Will in reſpect of the outward object, as I have ſhewed at large in anſwer to the objections for the worlds eternity chap. 13. note (b) ob. 2. 3. 4. Neither is the will of God without an infinite Wiſedome to diſpoſe of all things in their times, nor yet without an infinite power, to cauſe every thing to bee actually according to His Wiſdome and His will, and the application of his will, wiſdome and power, is ſufficient to move all inferiour cauſes to give all manner of beeing to the Creature.

2. But ſeeing the matier, and forme of all things, are after a ſort contrary; and that the bodily compoſition likewiſe of things below is of elements contrary in their qualities: it is impoſſible that theſe repugnances ſhould be brought together into one, nat. Med. pag. 21.

Anſw. The Philoſophers tell us of a certaine quinteſſence in which the different qualities of all the elements are brought to agreement, and give us reaſon to beleeve it: by which quinteſſence dwelling in every thing, the contrarieties of the elements are accorded in every compound, Raim. Lulli. and Ioh. de Rupeſc de 5. eſſentia lib. 1. cap. 2. But ſeeing they keepe the experiment with themſelves, p. 185neither their reaſon, nor their authority ſhall bee of any force with us. But this is without all doubt, that hee that had power to create all things, had likewiſe power out of that created maſſe, fruitfull with the ſeed of all things, to bring out every thing in due time according to the kindes that were by him foreſeene and determined. And becauſe wee have hitherto maintayned that God alone by his eternall wiſdome, Our Lord Ieſus Chriſt was the Creator, it muſt follow of neceſſity, that the creature was alſo ordered and guided by Him. For that infinite power which could doe the more, and cauſe that to bee which was not, might alſo doe the leſſe, and order it at his will. So that for this objection wee are not compelled to acknowledge any ſuch created being, the Creator and diſpoſer of all the reſt. And concerning that ſuppoſed repugnancy betweene the matier and forme of every thing, it is but the begging of the queſtion, for all formes are produced out of poſſibilities of their matier, excepting onelyonly the ſoule of man, and the divine endowments thereof, as I ſhewed at large, chap. 17. §. 4. n. 2.

3. The third argument of Poſtellus pag. 28. is not much unlike the former, drawne from the perpetuall change of things, ſubject to generation and corruption. For nature brings out nothing violently or in an inſtant: therefore as the things that are; began by little and little to bee, by the power of the Spirit of God, which moved upon the waters: ſo by the power of the ſame Spirit, are they ſtill preſerved in their order of being, and by it they are changed from ſtate to ſtate. And this ſpirit of God is that firſt created being, that Mediator betweene God and the creature: the ſpirit of the Vniverſe actually moveable, and applying it ſelfe to every thing, and working in every thing by the power of the Trinity which dwelleth in Him. For nothing which proceedes from the power of the matier, is able to move it ſelfe, no more than the matier was, no not the ſoule of man, but onelyonly by His ſtrength and activity by whoſe power it is.

Anſwer. Concerning the progreſſe of things naturall, from the evening of their beginning, to the morning of their perfection, I have ſpoken before. But for anſwer to this, I ſay that it is not neceſſary to put any ſuch ſpirit of the univerſe, ſuch an applyable divinity, as the Platonicks call Animam Mundi, becauſe things are changed from one ſtate of being to another; ſeeing the Holy Scripture tels us. Pſal. 148.5. that all the armies of the creature were made, becauſe God commanded. And for their changes in corruption and generation it is plaine, it muſt be according to that degree which they cannot paſſe, verſ. 6. which is the law of nature. And moreover concerning the providence of God on every particular thing, our Lord hath taught us, Math. 10.29. that not a Sparrow fals to the ground without the will of our heavenly Father; except Poſtellus will here except that that heavenly Father muſt ſignifie that firſt begotten of the creature, which he doth meane. Which interpretation would directly croſſe that text, Act. 15.18. That all the workes of God were knowne to Him from everlaſting. And nothing can bee in the ſecond cauſe which was not in the firſt. Therefore ſeeing the infinite power of God is that by which every thing is powerfull, to worke unto that end, whereto it was deſtinate: we muſt needs confeſſe, that Hee by His power workes what He will both in Heaven and in earth; and yet becauſe all the orders of cauſes are appointed by him, wee may ſafely ſay as our Lord hath taught us, Mark. 4.28. That the earth of her owne accord bringeth forth fruit, and as the Prophet, Hoſ. 1.21.22. I will heare the heavens, and the heavens ſhall heare the earth, and the earth ſhall heare the corne and the wine; and the corne and the wine ſhall heare Iſrael. Which order of cauſes being put, we ſhall not need to apply the immediate power of that applyable divinity of the Mediator to every effect, as Poſtellus holds it neceſſary. For the whole creature by the power of that bleſſing which it received at the creation is able to worke according p. 186to the end appointed. And if it were neceſſary to put any common agent in the Creature, by which every inferiour Agent were to bee moved, which wee cannot doe except we hold that Gods decree the law of nature is too weake, or may be broken; yet I thinke that the dominion of the heavens ſet in the earth, I…b. 38.33. or that ſame anima mundi here below mentioned may better ſtand with the Scripture, than the perpetuall imployment of this ſuppoſed mediator. That I ſay nothing of thoſe p…rticular intelligences which ſome Philoſophers, & Poſtel himſelfe pag. 63. have appropriated to every thing, beſide the ſpecificall vertue of the ſeed. Neither is it cleare that this ſpirit which moved upon the waters, Gen. 1.2. was any ſuch being as Poſtellus ſuppoſes, a created divinity, or the mediator betweene God and his creature; but rather that vigor, life, or heat concreated with the Chaos that foreign nepheſh, anima mundi, or ſpirit whereby every thing is enlivened or made able to worke to the deſtinate end, which ever dwels in the watry part of the compound, as the ſoule in the bloud, or if this interpretation be not admitted, yet that of Saint Ambroſe may ſtand, Hexam. lib. 2. that Moſes in theſe words, In the beginning God created heaven and earth, having made mention of the Father, and the Sonne, doth rightly adde that clauſe, And the ſpirit of God moved upon the waters, that he might ſhew, that the creation of the world was the worke of the whole Trinity, yet may you not hereby ſuppoſe, that that Spirit of God which fils the whole world, ſap. 1. was carried upon the waters by any locall poſition, but rather as an artificer whoſe will and underſtanding is buſied in his worke, ſo the holy Spirit diſpoſed the whole creature, to naturall action according to his will and power, Rab. Maur. Enar. in Gen. If you love to conferre opinions, you may read, Ioh. Pici Heptaplum, D. Willet and other expoſitors.

4. To theſe reaſons of Poſtellus you may adde a fourth, every action is limited by the object, ſo the eternall and infinite action of God the Father underſtanding himſelfe, doth thereby produce the eternal Sonne as hath beene further ſaid chap. 11. But becauſe the Father doth alſo view all the poſſibilities of being in the creature, and that the creature muſt needes ſtand in cleare diſtinction from the Creator, therefore as the eternall Sonne is the image of the Father, ſo that idea or image of the creature muſt needes bee a different being from that image of the Father, which wee call the eternall Sonne, and ſo of neceſſity muſt come into the reckoning of the creature. For the true image of every thing, muſt be like to that whoſe image it is.

Anſwer. If the image of the things created, were repreſented to the divine underſtanding from any thing which is without himſelfe, the reaſon were of force But ſeeing that God knowes all things, only in and by his owne being, by which being of his only, as the cauſe of all things, all things have their poſſibilitie of being; ſo that his being is the foundation of all beings; it followes that the repreſentation of the divine being, which wee call the Sonne, is alſo the ſimilitude or repreſentation of all thoſe poſſibilities of being which are in him, ſo that the creature is in God the Father as the firſt cauſe of all equivalently; fith his being is equivalent to all being, and the poſſibilities thereof. In the Sonne, the idea of all being it is as repreſented or characterized eminently, or viſibly, to the divine underſtanding, and by Him all naturall cauſes and poſſibilities are ordered, to the bringing of all things into their actuall being. And therefore as Chriſt our Lord, Heb. 1.3. is called the expreſſe image of the Perſon of the Father, ſo likewiſe, Col. 1.15. is hee the firſt begotten of every creature. For ſeeing the underſtanding of God is not by diſcourſe, nor habituall, as gotten by experience, but that it is His owne very being unto the perfection whereof all the termes of Action muſt of neceſſity concurre, that is, both of Him that underſtands, and of the obiect underſtood, and of the action of underſtanding, as was ſhewed, chapter. 11. Rea. 8. it is not poſſible, but that ſeeing they are all infinite, they muſt p. 187alſo bee c…eſſ…tiall and one; and if one, then the action of underſtanding whereby God vieweth himſelfe, muſt alſo bee that whereby hee vieweth the creature, for otherwiſe it were not infinite, if it comprehended not all beings at once. So then in this action of Gods underſtanding, there cannot bee a prioritie of an infinite being underſtood, that is, God the Sonne, and a poſterioritie of a finite, that is, the creature.

By this … (you ſay) I make the Creature to be coeſſentiall with God, in which inco…venience, the ſtrength of the former objection doth ſtand.

Anſw. If you meane the Creature, according to the actuall being, I put it naturally in the pre…ent cauſes, and poſſibilities of nature; but as concerning the firſt and pri…e cauſe, it is ſo farre from any inconvenience: that it is moſt neceſſarie, that …, and the firſt cauſe of all being beſide Himſelfe, be termes convertible eſſentially: And thus the Creature is in God as in the cauſe. But ſeeing nothing can be in another, but according to the manner of that being wherein it is; and ſ…ing th… being of God is his moſt Pure underſtanding, the Creature is no otherwiſe in him, but is underſtood or foreſeene, and willed eternally.

And if you will ſtay to ſee, you may in the Perſons of the holy Trinity view a wonderfull preſentation of the perfections of the Creature. The Father is the foundation that ſuſtaines all: The Sonne or Mediator that power or efficacie which perfecteth all. The Holy Ghoſt that infinite activity in the ſtrength of which every thing doth worke. The number three, ſuppoſes two: and becauſe neither to worke outwardly, nor to will within, can bee where there is not a power thereto; therefore our Lord ſaith Iohn 15.5. Without mee yee can doe nothing. And ſecondly ſuppoſes, firſt ſo, that power cannot bee without a being wherein it dwels. And thus you ſee the Father the foundation of all being, is more inward to every thing than the matier thereof, the Sonne more eſſentiall than the forme, and the holy Ghoſt more proper than any working: for of his activitie it is, that we will or doe, Philip. 2.13. and thus is that Scripture verefied which is in Acts 17. In him, firſt we are, ſecondly live, thirdly move.

5. A fifth reaſon of Poſtellus which I ſet over of purpoſe is pag. 74. and this it is. Seeing that God in his infinitie is utterly incomprehenſible of the creature, if ſuch a created Mediator were not, in whom the infinite Majeſtie dwelling might be apprehended, the Angels had beene created in vaine: for neither had they enjoyed happineſſe, when they could have no ſight of God in whom alone bleſſedneſſe is; nor yet God had perfected his praiſe in them, when they could not ſee and praiſe the Divine Majeſtie. And againe to the ſame purpoſe pag. 118. Seeing mans underſtanding above all other things deſires and ſearches the knowledge of the truth; and that not onelyonly in things below during this life, but moſt of all being ſeparate in the eternall and infinite goodneſſe, wiſdome, and other dignities of God, wherein above all other things it takes moſt joy: it is neceſſarie that it may come unto the knowledge of that truth by ſuch a mean as is proportionable and fit thereto: for otherwiſe the deſire were in vaine if it could never bee brought to effect. Therefore ſeeing our underſtanding cannot behold the infinite being it ſelfe, it is neceſſarie that it behold it in the Mediatour, a created being, and proportionable to our underſtanding, and this may ſeeme to bee that which our Lord ſaith of himſelfe, Iohn 14.6. No man commeth to the Father but by me, See Iohn 1.18. and againe Luke 10.22. No man knoweth the Father but the Sonne, and he to whom the Sonne will reveale him.

For anſwer to this doubt, you muſt remember that which was ſaid to the laſt objection concerning the being of things equivalently, and eminently; for your eaſier underſtanding I will cleere it further. Things, be they naturall or artificiall, are either actually in that being which they have, whether it be ſubſtantiall or accidentall, as Plato to bee a man, to bee a Philoſopher; this ſword to bee of Steele, well tempered, two foot and nine inches long; or elſe potentially, and p. 188ſo they are in their proper principles and cauſes, before they come to actuall being: and theſe cauſes are either next, as the Steele out of which the ſword was forged, the Smith that made it, the fire that ſoftned it, the hammer, the grindſtone, and ſuch like inſtruments; or elſe the cauſes are further and further off from the effect; as iron which was fined to ſteele, the ſtone out of which the yron was molten, the quickſilver and Sulphure which were congealed into that ſtone, the earth and water of which they had their beginning. Poſtel put things potentially in the Angels, but ill; for they can be but in the order of efficients at moſt. Thirdly, things are ſaid to be in their ideas or ſeparate formes eminently, as the model of a houſe in the minde of the builder; or as the forme of the ſword was in the minde or underſtanding of the Smith, when he firſt purpoſed to make it. Fourthly, things are equivalently in that common cauſe wherein all other things of the ſame kinde may be, as in an Organ or Virginall, all manner of tunes, all concords, and diſcords are, which are poſſible to bee made or conceived by any Muſician; ſo in the minde of the Smith, all the objects of Smi…hery, locks, guns, ſwords, and the like are equivalently, though as yet hee hath not thought or purpoſed any one in particular. Now from theſe common things enlarge your underſtanding to thoſe reſpects that are fit to be betweene things ſenſible and the unſearchable Trinity. All things are in God the Father equivalently, becauſe in that infinite being of his all the poſſibility of being is founded: of all things (I ſay) that have beene or ſhall be eternally. But becauſe his being is actuall, with all the dignities of being actually: for otherwiſe it were not infinite; if it might be more excellent than it is: therefore doth hee in his glorious Sonne underſtand both himſelfe in his actuall being, and actually all things that are by his being poſſible to bee; ſo that the ideas or formes of all things are actually preſent with him eternally, and actually underſtood, as it is ſaid, Pſal. 139.16. In thy booke all my members were written, when as yet there was none of them. Wherefore it muſt follow that that Word which is the character or expreſſe image of the Father, bee alſo the image of all other things whatſoever; ſo that all the ideas of all things poſſible to be, muſt bee in the Sonne eminently, that is, according to their ideas or particular formes underſtood, and determined, as the idea or imagination of the ſword is in the minde of the Smith actually, aſſoone as the Smith hath reſolved to make it thus, although the ſword it ſelfe be not actually till it bee made. And as theſe ideas are the firſt cauſes of things; ſo by reaſon of the concurrence of the will with the underſtanding, are they the moſt powerfull for the bringing of thoſe things whoſe Ideas they are, into effect: for from that idea of the ſword in the Smith it is, that he kindles the fire, ſoftens his ſteele, forges it, grindes it, forbuſhes it, and makes it at laſt a perfect ſword. And therefore though it bee true, That the Sonne doth nothing of himſelfe, ſaving what hee hath ſeem with the Father. Iohn 5.19. Yet becauſe the ideas of all things are actually in him, it is as true that in him, through him, for him, and by him, are all things; and in him all things conſiſt. See Chap. 13. § 9. eminently, or in the cleere diſtinction of their ſeverall formes: for otherwiſe the wiſdome were not infinite, if the formes were in confuſion, and not eminent and apparent in their moſt cleare differences and determinations of the times, and limits, when, and how, the things themſelves whoſe formes they are, ſhould actually be. If then the ideas of all things be in the Sonne actually; what neceſſitie is there of any created Mediatour, when the Son of God might by any of theſe Ideas which are actually in him, manifeſt himſelfe either to Angels, or to men? was not then that image of the manly being in him, in which he did delight to dwell with the ſonnes of men, Prov. 8.31. according to which he created Adam? in which hee manifeſted himſelfe to the Fathers, to Abraham, to Moſes, to the Prophets? And although for ſundrie purpoſes knowne to his wiſdome, he manifeſted himſelfe in other formes: p. 189of a ſmoking furnace, when hee entred into covenant with Abraham his friend, Gen. 15.17. of a living fire that conſumed not the buſh, to Moſes, Ex. 3.2.6. of a ſtill ſoft voice to Eliah, 1 King. 19.12. or the like: yet none of theſe formes were uncouth, or forreine to him. So that in what forme ſoever he vouchſafed to ſhew himſelfe to the Angels, in that might they behold the inviſible God, and be abundantly bleſſed thereby; but ſince the time that the faithfull have beheld him with that Crowne, wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his eſpouſals, the day of the joy and gladneſſe of his heart, Cant. 3.11. He is to be ſeene both of Angels and men eternally, and onelyonly in the Tabernacle of our fleſh; and the glory of God is manifeſt onelyonly in the face of Ieſus Chriſt. And as this (I thinke) is a full anſwer to the argument of Poſtellus; ſo had you need to remember it, becauſe it may helpe to the underſtanding of ſome places of Scripture, which may ſeeme to make for this concluſion.

6. But if ſuch a created Mediatour be, as had power to execute the eternall decree, and to create the reſt of the creature, the Angels, and man, and all this viſible world from him; it may ſtand well with the juſtice and honour of God, and the love of that Mediatour toward man, to offer himſelfe for man when hee had ſinned: whereas otherwiſe if no ſuch created Mediatour bee, then God the party offended, muſt firſt ſeeke the attonement: and ſeeing man was not able, muſt likewiſe make ſatisfaction to himſelfe, for the ſinne of another againſt himſelfe: But this ſtands neither with the honour of God, nor the rule of Iuſtice.

Anſw. Intire aff ction hates all …icity: And ſo God loved the world, that he gave his onelyonly begotten Son, that the world through him might be ſaved. And if the onelyonly begotten Sonne, be onelyonly that ſecond perſon of the Trinity, what Son is that created Mediatour? And ſo farre is it from diſhonour to God to ſeeke and ſave that which was loſt, as that without his mercy and pitie on man in his miſery, the worke of God in the creature had beene in vaine. But concerning that ſatisfaction which was made for ſinne, although it had appeared that it was utterly impoſſible to bee made by one that was onelyonly man, Chap. 19. yet was the ſatisfaction made onelyonly in the manhood of our Saviour, dignified and ſuſtained by his divinity, unto the endurance of all that puniſhment which was due to our ſinne, as it is manifeſt by the Prophet Eſay, chap. 53. Col. 1.22. 1 Pet. 2.24. and yet for all that, is our Saviour the Lambe ſlaine from the beginning of the world, Re. 13.8. yet is the blood of his ſacrifice upon the Croſſe, called the blood of the everlaſting Teſtament, Heb. 13.20. becauſe that by the eternall ſpirit, he offered himſelfe for us unto God, Heb. 9.14. That he in his manhood might preſent his Church unto himſelfe, God bleſſed for ever, holy and without blemiſh, Eph. 5.27. So that the redemption of man is the worke of the whole Trinitie, the Sonne by the holy Spirit offering himſelfe unto the Father, accepting this obedience a ranſome for the world. And becauſe the Sonne offered himſelfe by the eternall Spirit; therefore is not our Saviour a created Mediatour, as Poſtellus ſuppoſed, for no creature can be eternall. And malgre all the power of hell, it was an eternall Goſpell, Revel. 14.6. Written in the Volume of the Booke of the eternall Decree, Pſal. 40.7. Heb. 10.7. to the everlaſting comfort of the faithfull; That the ſacrifice for ſinne was appointed before there was a ſinner.

7. Now before I come to thoſe Texts of Scripture which Poſtel urges directly hereto; it will not bee unfit to let you ſee how he favours his owne opinion, by thoſe Scriptures which he interprets unfaithfully; as where it is ſaid, Deut. 32.39. There is no God with me; as Eſay interprets it, I am God, and there is none elſe; he makes the ſenſe, pag. 104. he is the created wiſdome, before which there was no other God created: for he is worthily called God (ſaith he) for his union with the Deitie. And againe, pag. 115. for that which is Prov. 8.23. I was ſet up from everlaſting; he will have it, that this divine wiſdome was created not from everlaſting, for then it could not be a creature; but before any ages were numbred by p. 190men. So to that of Saint Iohn, Cap. 1. The Word was with God; he addes as it followes, in the Abiſime Creed, and with the Holy Ghoſt, and with himſelf, & argues that whoſoever is with another, muſt be different therfrom, & (for the moſt part) inferiour indignity. I have anſwered concerning the authority of that Church, the collection of inferiority in dignity followes not; neither doth this text prove the unity of any ſuch creature with the Creator, as hee inferres, but rather the difference of perſons in the unity of the God head: for ſo it followes in the Text; And that Word was God. I ſay nothing of other Texts which by allegoricall and forraine interpretations he would bring to his purpoſe, ſuch as that, pag. 93. where by the firmament, Gen. 1.6. he will underſtand this Mediator, who parted the hidden waters of the Deitie, from the manifeſt waters of the creature: whereby it would follow, that the Chaos or waters, the light and darkneſſe, were created before this Mediator, ſee Gen. 1.13. His argument from that Spirit which moved upon the waters, Gen. 1. brought pag. 29. is anſwered before, Reaſon 3.

I impute it no fault to him, that he pag. 62. confounds thoſe Texts of Iohn, 12.28. and chap. 17.5. Charity ſees no miſtakings, where they make not againſt the truth. But his collection is ill from that text, Glorifie me with that glory which I had with thee before the world was; to conclude, either that the creatures were diſtinct in him whom he cals God man, meaning the created Media…our, or for any other to ſuppoſe that the glory of God the Sonne was any whit leſſened by the taking of our fleſh; onelyonly it was ſhadowed for a time under the Cloud of his humanity, except that at ſome times a glimpſe therof appeared in his glorious miracles. For firſt, if that eminent being of the creatures in the diſtinction of their ſeverall beings, were not in God the Sonne, that ſecond Perſon of the Trinity, but in this created Mediator, it would follow, that the wiſdome of God were not infinite, nor yet eſſentiall unto him, when the knowledge of the creature in that manner of being, muſt come unto him by a creature, contrary to that which hath been proved (Chap. 5. & 8. And therefore to avoid this inconvenience, hee is compelled to ſay, pag. 74. that that ſecond being of all things (taking the equivalent being which they have in the Father, for the firſt) is not onelyonly in the eternall wiſedome, but alſo in the wiſdome created. Whence it followes, that the Creature by the ſame manner of being, ſhall bee both in the Creator, and in the created Mediator. But the reaſon: for otherwiſe the Angels could no ſee God. The poſition is falſe, the reaſon inſufficient, and anſwered before; then to thinke that the Sonne had loſt or abated any thing of his infinite glory, becauſe he prayes, that he may be glorified as before the world was, ſtands neither with the truth. For ſo neither had the glory beene infinite, if once ended, nor he coeſſentiall with the Father: neither yet accords it with the circumſtance of the Text. Therefore underſtand it according to the truth: That Chriſt the Sonne of God in his manly being having glorified the Father on earth, and finiſhed that worke which he had given him to doe, Verſe 4. prayeth verſ. 5. that the infinite glory, which was darkned under the forme of a ſervant, Phil. 2.27. might be manifeſt in the manhood, that hee in that manly being might be glorified, with the glorie which is infinitely ſufficient to glorifie him the head, and all the members of his myſticall body, as it is manifeſt in that 17. chap. of Iohn, verſ. 22, 23, 24.

8. Mal. 3.1. Chriſt is called the Angel or Meſſenger of the Covenant; therefore he is a creature, ſo united to the Divinity, that God cannot worke without him, for that reaſon which is the firſt before. The reaſon is not of force to the authority. I anſwer. The firſt covenant or promiſe which God made to mankinde was that in Paradiſe, Gen. 3. The ſeed of the woman ſhall bruiſe the head of the Serpent. This ſeed of the woman is Chriſt our Lord, which according to the Prophet ſhould come in that Temple, which was built by the Iewes after their returne from Babylon: So the Sonne of God in our fleſh, is that Angel of the Covenant of our deliverance from the power of the Devill, which came according p. 191to the time appointed. So he hath the name of an Angel from his office, not from his nature.

9. The holy Ghoſt ſhall come upon thee, and the power of the higheſt ſhall overſhadow thee, Luk. 1 35. This holy Ghoſt is that created Spirit of the Trinity, locally moving from place to place, which actually performed all thoſe things which hitherto have beene ignorantly attributed to the third Perſon of the Trinity: who being infi…ite, and filling all places, cannot be moved from place to place, no more than the Father or the Sonne. But this created Spirit might take on him the ſhape of a Dove, Luke 3.22. of a Voice Luke 9.35. and may alſo change places, as he ſaith, Iohn 3.13. No man aſcended up into heaven, but the Sonne of man which is in heaven, pag, 75. 75 113. 116, &c.

Anſw. I have given the meaning of that text, Iohn 3 13. before in the 23. chapter: And as the i…fi…ite wiſdome of God foreſaw, what diverſitie of opinions would come into mens minds, (for hee underſtands their thoughts long before Pſal. 1…9.2) ſo hath hee left us the rule of his holy word whereby to guide us in the truth. Now the writings of Saint Iohn do ſo cleare this queſtion, as if they had beene written in oppoſition to theſe opinions of Arius Poſtellus, and thoſe that are like minded. I cite ſome few texts out of his firſt Epiſtle chap. 4 v. 10 God hath loved us, and ſent his Sonne to bee a reconciliation. But the queſtion is, whether a created Sonne or no? Saint Iohn tels us no, not a created Sonne, but his onelyonly begotten Sonne hath hee ſent into the world, that wee might be ſaved by him verſ. 9. That Sonne or Word, who is one with the Father and the Holy Ghoſt, chap. 5. verſ. 7. That Sonne to whom the Father Himſelfe bare witneſſe, verſe 9.10 11. See 2 Peter 1.16 17. That Son who is very God and eternall life, verſ. 20. what can bee more plaine, or particularly deſcribed, or more fully proved? If Hee bee begotten, then coeſſentiall with the Father, Ergo, not created. If begotten, then eternall (for the actions of God in Himſelfe are infinite and eternall) See chapter 10 Ergo, not created. If one with the Father, then alſo infinite. Ergo, not crea…ed. If v…ry God, Ergo, not a Creature. But this ſpirit of the Trinity, which tooke fleſh of the Virgin, and ſo became our Mediatour, moved from place to place, which no Perſon of the Trinitie could doe, becauſe they are i…finite, and fill all places. Had this eye of the Sorbon L. Dan: in Haer. Aug. cap. 85. which knew ſo well that God is in all places repletivè (as they ſpeake) never read that Moſes ſaith, Deut. 33.26. That God rides on the Heavens for the helpe of Iſrael, and on the Clouds in his glory? And although David knew that God did continually, beſet him round about, and that there was no place either in Heaven or in hell, in the earth, or Sea: where he was not Pſal. 139. from v. 5. to 11. yet as a ſtag emboſſed takes the ſoyle, ſo did his heart in his flight from Saul thirſt for God; ſaying, when ſhall I come and appeare before God. Pſal. 42.2. Therefore although God fill heaven and earth, yet is he ſaid to be in any place more particularly where he gives more evident proofe of his preſence, as at Bethel, Gen. 28.16. in the Tabernacle by the Oracle and thoſe manifeſt ſignes which I remembred above note (d.) Thus God deſcended on Mount Sinai, when the Mountaine did ſmoke and tremble, and thus the holy Ghoſt is ſaid to have come upon the Virgin Mary, when by that wonderful work of his in her body, that ſeed of mankind was taken of her, that it might become a tabernacle for the King of glory to dwel in eternally: Thus alſo our Lord ſaith of himſelf Ioh. 6.38. I came downe from Heaven, not to do mine own wil, but, &c. not but that he was ſtil in heaven c. 3.13 but becauſe his preſence in earth was now manifeſt in the fleſh, as it had not bin before.

10. And theſe reaſons are, if not all, yet the moſt, I am ſure the beſt, which Poſtellus brings for his poſition. It may ſeeme fit moreover in this place to give anſwer to thoſe texts which beſide theſe already cited, may be br…ught for this opinion. And firſt to that which is Gen. 3.2, &c. Y…a, hath God ſaid yee ſhall not eat of p. 192every tree of the Garden, &c. yee ſhall not dye the death. But God doth know that In the day ye eate thereof your Eyes ſhall be opened. The word Elohim, God, here uſed, is of the plurall number, but God is one. And beſide it may bee thought that the d vill durſt not have ſpoken thus of Chriſt his creator, if H…e had beene God …leſſ d above all.

Anſw. The reaſon why Chriſt is every where in the Scripture called Elohim …s, becauſe that being eternally the Sonne of God He alſo received of the Father power over all things, and was appointed to bee that man by wh…m the world ſhould be redeemed and judged. So the word Elohim though ſometimes given to Angels, ſometime to men, yet it abates nothing of the excellency of his being. To the reaſon I anſwer, that the devill never perſwades a man to ſinne, but firſt he corrupts his opinion concerning God. For hee that hath true and beſeeming thoughts of God, is not eaſily drawne to a wilfull ſinne. Therefore the devill doth here firſt perſwade the woman to diſtruſt the truth and goodneſſe of God, as being an enemy to him and his creature, man, as was ſaid before. chap. 22. But if the devill had in ſo many words affirmed that which Poſtellus doth, yet we know he is a lyar from the beginning and abode not in the truth.

11 Gen. 19.24. it is ſaid that the Lord rayned upon Sodome fire and brimſtone from the Lord: by which place though it may appeare that the Sonne is coeſſentiall with the Father, for both are named by the name of Iehova; yet the Father hath the excellency of honour before Him, and that he executes no Iudgement i… the creature but by his fathers beheaſt: which is yet more evident by that which is Zach. 3.2 And the Lord ſaid unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee O Satan; whereby it may ſeeme, either that there is not an equality of power in the Perſons of the Trinity, or elſe that there is a created Mediator, in whom the ſecond Perſon of the Trinity doth dwell.

A…ſ. If the dignities of the deity be eſſential as was proved, then if there be one nature of the Father and the Sonne, it followes that their power and all other dignities are coequall. OnelyOnly the Father hath the prerogative of originall in this, that the Son is of the Father, but the Father is not of the Sonne, though he never were without the Sonne. And therefore thoſe profeſſions of our Lord, all power is given unto me both in heaven and in earth, Math. 28 18. And the Father hath committed all judgement to the Sonne Ioh. 5.22. are firſt and above all to beare witneſſe to the truth, Ioh. 18.37. For if he received his being originally from the Father then of neceſſity that power alſo which is eſſentiall unto him. Secondly, that as a Sonne he might honour His Father in the diſpenſation of that power, and execution of his Mediatorſhip. And thus hee deſtroyed Sodome by the power of the Father, and thus he prayes that Satan may bee rebuked, and the faith of his diſciples confirmed, Luk. 22.32. Thirdly, foreign as ioying in the glory and excellency of the Father, as Ignatius ſpeakes Epiſt. ad Smy…enſes. Fourthly, that wee may know that we have one and the ſame gratious Mediator, which did evermore ſave and defend his church both before and after his incarnation.

12. But it is written, Exod 23.20. &c. Behold I ſend an Angel before thee, beware of him and obey his voice: provoke him not, for hee will not pardon your tranſgreſſions: for my name it in him. That this Speaker was Chriſt who had brought the Iſraelites out of Egypt it is manifeſt, 1 Cor. 10 9 That this Angel may meane Moſes, it ſorts not with ſome circumſtances, eſpecially that He will not pardon your tranſgreſſions. Therefore ſome Rabbines underſtand by this Angell, Michael, the Prince or Angel that ſtandeth for the nation of the Iewes, Dan. 10.13.21. but neither can an Angel forgive ſinnes. Therefore being compared with, Exod. 33. v. 2.3. I will ſend an Angell before thee, but I will not goe up with thee, leaſt I conſume thee in the way: it muſt follow of neceſſity, that this Angell is not the ſecond Perſon in p. 193the Trinity, but that created Mediator the Son of man, who had power in earth to forgive ſinnes, Math. 9.6.

Anſwer. That being granted which is Ioh. 10.38. & Ioh. 14.10. That Chriſt is in the Father, and the Father in Him, theſe words being ſpoken in the Perſon of the Father, wil prove that Chriſt is the worker of al deliverances for his Church, both tempor…ll, and eter…all, and that he hath power to forgive ſins, and that the name or being of God is truely in Him. So by this Angell no created Mediator can be underſtood, for every ſin is a breach of the law of God againſt an infinite Iuſtice, which God alone and no creature can forgiue. And therefore that ſonne of man which had power on earth to forgive ſinne, muſt of neceſſity bee God and not a created Mediator. And although Iſrael were here threatned, that God would depart from them for their Calfe; yet it is manifeſt. verſ. 17. that God at the prayer of Moſes pardoned their ſinne, and brought them into Canaan. But to take the objection as it may make moſt for this opinion, that God doth threaten to ſend a created Angel, yet theſe words My name is in him, cannot prove him to be this created Mediator, but rather that the Angell to be ſent, ſhould have a power delegate, whereby to puniſh the rebellions of the people without ſparing, and that power was the power or name of God in him.

13. I, but Pſal. 45 6. after the Prophet had confeſſed unto Chriſt, Thy throne O God is for ever and ever, thou haſt loved righteouſneſſe and hated iniquity: hee addes. verſe. 7. Therefore God even thy God hath annointed thee. By which it may ſeeme, that Chriſt though God, yet hath a God, and is God by grace and a created mediator, as Hermes Triſmeg. in Aſclep. cals the Father foreign the Creator of this God.

Anſwer. Chriſt though God eternall, yet as man, a created Mediator, hath a God, as he ſaith, Ioh. 20.17. I aſcend to my God, and your God, and in this ſence God is his God, which hath annointed Him with the oyle of gladneſſe, above all that are partakers with him of fleſh and bloud. For he received not the ſpirit by meaſure, but of his fulneſſe have we received grace.

14. Eſay ſaith, Chap. 43. v. 10. Before mee was no God formed, neither ſhall there bee after mee. Therefore the Mediatour that ſpake there muſt bee a created Mediatour.

Anſwer. It followes Eſay 44.6. I am the firſt, and I am the laſt, and beſide mee there is no God: therefore he is not a created Mediatour, but the Creator of all things. But that text of 43.10. (it ſeemes) did ſomewhat trouble the Greeke interpreters, who with one conſent tranſlated the word foreign was formed, by foreign was, to this ſence, there was no God before me, though ſome of them left out the word foreign God, and ſome kept it according to the Hebrew: but this text proves nothing to that purpoſe for which it is cited, but rather as it followeth on the verſe before, thus much. That if none of the Gods of the nations could bring forth their witneſſes that they had promiſed and performed; then the Iewes might witneſſe with him, and eſpecially his choſen ſervant Ieſus, in whom all his promiſes are yea and Amen, that hee was before all their formed Gods, and ſhould be after them. So that if hee were before and after all their formed Gods, whom yet they did confeſſe to bee immortall (for no man takes him for a god that muſt dye (Ioh. 12.34.) therefore againſt themſelves they muſt witneſſe that he was the true God.

15. It is ſaid, Rom. 8.26. That the Spirit maketh interceſſion for us wth gronings that cannot be uttered: which cannot be but with earneſtneſſe of deſire, and paine: but neither of theſe can befall unto God, yet is our Mediator one, yeſterday, and to day, and the ſame for ever. Therefore the Mediator is a created being, which continually hath made, and doth make interceſſion for the Saints, according to the will of God. verſ. 27.

Anſwer. Though Chriſt be our eternall Mediatour, as was ſaid above, Obiect. p. 1946. one, as the Sonne of God eternall, one Sonne of the Virgin, eternally ordayned in the counſell of God; yet this Spirit here meant is that Spirit of the humanity of Chriſt, as it appeares by the circumſtance of the text, For hee that ſearcheth the hearts, knoweth the meaning of the Spirit; ſo it is the Spirit of the heart of Chriſt our Mediatour, whereby he intreates for the Saints. For although our Lord Ieſus be glorified in body; yet is he the ſame body that he was before, and his heart is touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and even now ſorrowes with us for our ſorrowes, as when he wept Iohn 11.35. For as Poſtel truely ſaith pag. 33. The beginning of his ſufferings was in the body, and though his bodily ſorrow was ended in his death, yet his ſufferings in his ſoule and Spirit are not ended, till that which is remaining to the ſufferings of Chriſt be likewiſe fulfilled in the bodies of his Saints, as it is plaine Acts 9.4. Col. 1.24. And therefore it is ſaid of this Saviour or Angell of his preſence, in all their troubles he was troubled, Eſay 63.9. Heb. 2.17. & 4.15.

16. But Saint Paul Coloſ. 2.2.3. ſaith, That all the treaſures of wiſdome and knowledge are hid in that myſterie of God, and of the Father, and of Chriſt. Where the Father by a manifeſt diſtinction from God, and from Chriſt, muſt meane this meane being or created Mediatour which tooke fleſh of the Virgin.

Anſwer. Not ſo; for although the eternall power and Godhead were manifeſt to all men by the creature, that wicked men might bee without excuſe, Pſal. 19. and Rom 1.20. Yet none of the Princes of this world did underſtand that myſterie of the Goſpell of Chriſt. 1. Cor. 2.8. For that had beene kept ſecret ſince the world began, but was now manifeſt in the laſt times, Rom. 16.25. Col. 1.26. Therefore theſe treaſures of knowledge are firſt to know God one infinite and eternall being; then to know him the Father, that is, to confeſſe in the unitie of the Deitie the three perſons: 1. the Father eternall, which cannot be without an eternall 2. Son; neither can an eternall Sonne bee without an 3. eternall proceſſion or generation. Now to know this one God, and him the Father, and that one Mediatour betweene God and man, the eternall Sonne dwelling in the man Ieſus, the Sonne of the Virgin, is the height and perfection of all knowledge whereto man by all his ſearch could never attaine. Then ſo to acknowledge this truth, as to live in holineſſe as they ought that know it, is that perfection of wiſdome, that whole duty of man whereto hee is called: and this anſwer may ſerve for the like objection out of Epheſ. 1.3.

17. So Saint Paul alſo Heb. 1.3. ſeemes not to give unto Chriſt equall glorie with the Father: for he ſaith of him, that he is not foreign the beame which is of one nature with the fountaine of the light: nor yet foreign, the ſhine of that beame; but foreign a glimpſe, brightneſſe, or ſhine by reflection from that glory, whereby it followes, that he is not conſubſtantiall with the Father, and ſo of neceſſity a created mediator.

Anſwer. It is ſaid, 1 Tim. 6.16. that God dwelleth in the light which no man can approch unto, that is, that centrall or incommunicable light of the deity, which no man hath ſeene, or can ſee, for the creature cannot comprehend what God is, except it bee united unto him: but yet becauſe the creature cannot bee bleſſed but in God, therefore is that light ſpread abroad, or dilated from the centre into the infinite circumference of the divine dignitie, by the infinite obiect of that light, the Sonne our Lord Ieſus, by whom that light is participate unto men, and Angels, in that bleſſed viſion whereby they are bleſſed in him, and this is that foreign or brightneſſe of Saint Paul: the ſame glory of God made communicable unto us by our Mediator, not any ſhine or reflection of light in a forreigne obiect, as the wiſdome of God in the creature, or the light of the Sunne reflected in the Moone, or ſtarres; in which the light is made other then it was, as the obiection miſtakes it.

p. 19518. Revelation. 3.14. Chriſt is called the beginning of the creation of God therefore Hee was the firſt creature.

Anſwer. If he be the beginning of the creation, therefore he cannot be a creature. for ſo ſhould He be the beginning of himſelfe: ſo ſhould He be, when he was not; ſo ſhould he be a cauſe, and yet not be: but theſe are impoſſibilities. Compare herewith, Coloſ. 1.15. And ſee the reaſon of the ſpeech in anſwer to the fourth obiection.

§. 11. The hereſies concerning the proprieties of the Mediator, are principally three, of the 1. Acephali, the 2. Agn…etae, and the 3. Monothelites. The Acephali or headleſſe, becauſe they had neither biſhops, nor prieſts, nor ſet times, nor order for the ſervice of God; though that as the two natures in Chriſt were confuſed (for from the Timotheans they deſcended) ſo alſo the proprieties of theſe natur…s. But if the firſt befals, as was ſhewed, §. 1. 2, 3. before, then their confuſion, is alſo confounded. The author of this hereſie was one Severus a biſhop of Antioch, who dayly curſed the Councell of Chalcedon, for that by their decree which you heard before, §. 1. they had foreſtalled this hereſie. But his blaſphemous tongue cut out, and he baniſhed from his chayre, were worthy rewards of ſuch a Biſhop, Euag. lib. 4. c. 4.

2. From that hereſie of Apollinarius, came that of the Agnoetae; that the divine nature of Chriſt was ignorant of many things, as the day of judgement, the grave of Lazarus &c. For if the Godhead were changed into fleſh, as Apollinarius held; Themiſtius might well conclude, that both the being and alſo the proprieties of the Godhead muſt ſuffer loſſe thereby; and ſo falſly aſcribe unto the Godhead, that which was proper unto the manhood. But if the foundation were unſure, as it appeared. §. 2. their building muſt needs fall to the ground.

3. And becauſe the opinion of Eutyches concerning the only divine nature in Chriſt, began to be hated: therfore Cyrus byſhop of Alexandria upheld it by the opinion of one will in Chriſt, for (ſaid he) the humane will of Chriſt either is none, or not at all moved as the will of man, but onelyonly by God. But to take away thoſe proprieties which doe neceſſarily follow the nature and being of any thing, is to deſtroy the thing it ſelfe: ſo that to deny either the divine, or humane will of Chriſt, were to make him an unſufficient mediator; and is directly contrary to that ſcripture which is Luke. 22.42. Father, not my will, but thine be done.

4. From whence Iordanus Brunus a Neapolitan in my time in Oxford, would inforce a more wicked concluſion, That Chriſt was a ſinner, becauſe His will was not in every reſpect anſwerable to the will of God. And becauſe that which comes into the wicked imagination of one, may proove a ſtumbling blocke to another: I will by the way remove this out of the way. Therfore I anſwer. That becauſe man knowes not, nor may preſume to know what the ſecret will of God is, hee may in the freedome of his owne Will, will, deſire, pray for, and indeavor any thing which is not contrarie to the revealed will of God, and that without ſinne, eſpecially in ſuch things as ſtand with the naturall deſire of all the creature in the preſervation of it ſelfe in the preſent being which it hath. As a ſicke man without ſinne may uſe diet, medicine, and prayer for recovery; although God in His ſecret will have determined he ſhall dye. Davids purpoſe to build the Temple, though againſt the purpoſe of God, was ſo well accepted of God; as that he thereupon received the promiſe of a perpetuall ſucceſſion, even till Chriſt the eternall king to come of his ſeed, 2 Sam. 7.11. to 16. Nay, when Hezekiah had heard the ſentence of death from God Himſelfe, by the voice of his Prophet, Eſay 38. was his prayer, and his teares accounted ſinnefull, which God did ſo far accept, as that he confirmed his petition by a miracle? And although our Saviour knew himſelfe to have come into the world, that He ſhould dye for the ſinnes of the world: yet might he without ſinne pray unto His Father to ſave Him from p. 196that houre John 17.17. eſpecially divers figures affording that hope? was not Iſaak in the very ſtroake of death reſcued by the voice from heaven, when the Ram was offered up in his ſtead? Gen. 22. was not the ſcape goate Leu. 16.21.22. on which all the iniquities and ſinnes of the ſons of Iſrael were put, ſent away alive into the wilderneſſe?

But wherein was this repugnancy of his will to the will of God? Not my will, but thine be done. He denyed his owne will, he laid downe not onelyonly his life, but even the deſire of life, that he might performe the will of his Father; ſo that the true concluſions which ariſe from hence or the like places are theſe; firſt, ſeing all men naturally deſire to live, and would not bee unclothed, that is, would not die 2 Cor. 5.4. but rather that our mortality might be ſwallowed up of life, as it ſhall be with them who are found alive at the comming of the Lord 1 Cor. 15.51. and 1 Theſ. 4.15, 16, 17. Chriſt our Saviour was truly man both in the nature, and all the naturall properties of a man, contrarie to the hereſie of Eutyches, and the Monothelites, of which you may reade further (if you will) in Thom. Aquinas contra Gent. lib 4. Cap. 36. Secondly, and becauſe every pure and meerely naturall propertie is concreated with the thing whoſe property it is, and that the deſire of life, is naturally in every thing which hath life, and that without ſinne, leſt …e that put this deſire in the creature ſhould be ſuppoſed a cauſe of ſinne: it was …o ſinne i… our Saviour to deſire life upon that condition; contrary to the folly, and falſhood of Brunus. Thirdly, ſeeing that God the Father ſo loved the world, as that he refuſed to accept the prayer of his owne beloved Sonne, when hee beſought him with ſtrong crying and teares for life; but would give him to that moſt bitter death for us: what confidence and aſſurance of life may wee have, when the price of our redemption is paid, and hee our Redeemer reſtored unto life? for if while we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Sonne: how much more, being reconciled, ſhall we bee ſaved by his life? Rom. 5.10.