Preface

It is a great promise concerning the person of Christ, as he was to be given unto the church, (for he was a Child born, a Son given unto us, Isa. ix. 6.) that God would lay him in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation, whereon he that believtth, shall not make haste, Isa. xxviii. 16. Yet it was also foretold concerning him, that this precious foundation should be for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of ofience, to both the houses of Israel; for a gin, and for a snare, unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem: bo as that many among them should stumble and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken, Isa. viii. 14, 15. According unto this promise and prediction, it hath fallen out in all ages of the church, as the Apostle Peter declares concerning the first of them: Wherefore (faith he) also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him, shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed, 1 Pet. ii. 6, 7, 8.

Unto them that believe unto the saving of the soul, he is, he always hath been, precious; the Sun, the Rock, the life, the bread of their souls, every thing that is good, useful, amiable, desirable here, or unto eternity. In, from, and by him, is all their spiritual and eternal life, light, power, growth, consolation and joy here, with everlasting salvation hereafter. By him alone do they desire, expect and obtain deliverance from that woful apostacy from God, which is accompanied withal, which containeth in it virtually and meritoriously, whatever is evil, noxious and destructive to our nature, and which, without relief, will issue in eternal misery. By him are they brought into the nearest cognation, alliance, and frendship with God, the firmest union unto him, and the most holy communion with him, that our finite natures are capable of, and so conducted unto the eternal enjoyment of him. For in him shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory, Isa. xlv. 25. For Israel shall be saved in the Lord, with an everlasting salvation, they shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end, ver. 17.

On these and the like accounts, the principal design of their whole lives, unto whom he is thus precious, is to acquaint themselves with him, the mystery of the wisdom, grace and love of God, in his person and mediation, as revealed unto us in the Scripture, which is “life eternal,” John xvii. 3. to trust in him, and unto him, as unto all the everlasting concernments of their souls, to love and honour him with all their hearts, to endeavour after conformity unto him, in all those characters of divine goodness and holiness, which are represented unto them in him. In these things consist the soul, life, power, beauty and efficacy of Christian religion, without which, whatever outward ornaments may be put upon its exercise, it is but an useless, lifeless carcase. The whole of this design is expressed in those heavenly words of the apostle, Phil. iii. 8 — 12. “Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith; that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead: not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.” This is a divine expression of that frame of heart, of that design which is predominant and efficacious in them unto whom Christ is precious.

But, on the other hand, according unto the forementioned prediction, as he hath been a sure foundation unto all that believe; so he hath in like manner been a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, unto them that stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereuntothey also were appointed. There is nothing in him, nothing wherein he is concerned, nothing of him, his person, his natures, his office, his grace, his love, his power, his authority, his relation unto the church, but it hath been unto many a stone of stumbling and rock of offence. Concerning these things have been all the woful contests, which have fallen out, and been managed among those that outwardly have made profession of the Christian religion. And the contentions about them do rather increase than abate, unto this very day; the dismal fruits whereof the world groaneth under, and is no longer able to bear. For as the opposition unto the Lord Christ in these things by men of perverse minds, hath ruined their own souls, as having dashed themselves in pieces against this everlasting Rock; so, in conjunction with other lusts and interests of the carnal minds of mer, it hath filled the world itself with blood and confusion.

The re-enthroning of the person, spirit, grace, and authority of Christ in the hearts and consciences of men, is the only way whereby an end may be put unto these woful conflicts. But this is not to be expected in any degree of perfection, amongst them who stumble at this stone of offence, whereunto they are appointed, though in the issue he will herein also send forth judgment unto victory, and all the meek of the earth shall follow after it. In the mean time, as those unto whom he is thus a rock of offence, in his person, his spirit, his grace, his office and authority, are diligent and restless, (in their various ways and forms, in lesser or higher degrees, in secret artifices, or open contradictions unto any or all of them, under various pretences, and for divers ends, even secular advantages some of them, which the craft of Satan hath prepared for the ensnaring of them) in all the ways of opposition unto his glory; so it is the highest duty of them unto whom he is precious, whose principal design is to be found built on him as the sure foundation; as to hold the truth concerning him, (his person, spirit, grace, office, and authority) and to abound in all duties of faith, love, trust, honour and delight in him; so also to declare his excellency, to plead the cause of his glory, to vindicate his honour, and to witness him as the only rest and reward of the souls of men, as they are called and have opportunity.

This and no other is the design of the ensuing treatise, wherein as all things fall unspeakably short of the glory, excellency, and sublimity of the subjects treated of, (for no mind can conceive, no tongue can express the real substantial glory of them), so there is no doubt but that in all the parts of it, there is a reflection of failings and imperfections from the weakness of its author. But yet I must say with confidence, that in the whole, that eternal truth of God concerning the mystery of his wisdom, love, grace, and power, in the person and mediation of Christ, with our duties towards himself therein, even the Father, Son, and eternal Spirit, is pleaded and vindicated, which shall never be shaken by the utmost endeavours and oppositions of the gates of hell.

And in the acknowledgment of the truth concerning these things consists that faith, in an especial manner, which was the life and glory of the primitive church, which they earnestly contended for, wherein and whereby they were victorious against all the troops of stumbling adversaries, by whom it was assaulted. In giving testimony hereunto, they loved not their lives unto death, but poured out their blood like water, under all the Pagan persecutions, which had no other design but to cast them down and separate them from this impregnable rock, this precious foundation. In the defence of these truths did they conflict in prayers, studies, travels, and waitings, against the swarms of seducers, by whom they were opposed. And for this cause I thought to have confirmed the principal passages of the ensuing discourse with some testimonies from the most ancient writers of the first ages of the church; but I omitted that course, as fearing that the interposition of such passages might obstruct instead of promoting the edification of the common sort of readers, which I principally intended. Yet withal I thought not good utterly to neglect that design, but to give at least a specimen of their sentiments about the principal truths pleaded for, in this preface to the whole. But herein also I met with a disappointment: for the bookseller having, unexpectedly to me, finished the printing of the discourse itself, I must be contented to make use of what lieth already collected under my hand, not having leisure or time to make any farther inquiry.

I shall do something of this nature the rather, because I shall have occa-. sion thereby to give a summary account of some of the principal parts of the discourse itself, and to clear some passages in it, which by some may be apprehended obscure.

Chap. I. The foundation of the whole is laid in the vindication of those words of our blessed Saviour, wherein he declares himself to be the Rock whereon the church is built, Matt. xvi. 18. “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The pretended ambiguity of these words hath been wrested by the secular interests of men to give occasion unto that prodigious controversy among Christians, namely, Whether Jesus Christ or the Pope of Rome be the rock whereon the church is built 1 Those holy men of old unto whom Christ was precious, being untainted with the desires of secular grandeur and power, knew nothing hereof. Testimonies may be, they have been by others multiplied unto this purpose; I shall mention some few of them. Ovros l?iv h ttPos t” iraripaayvaa bSdi, v Tri’rpa, i) kAcI;, b rroi/u>, &c. saith Ignatius Epist. ad Philadelph. “He (that is, Christ) is the way leading unto the Father the Rock, the Key, the Shepherd,”* wherein he hath respect unto this testimony. And Origen expressly denies the words to be spoken of Peter, in Matth. xvi. Tract, i. Quod si super unum ilium Petrum tantum e.vistimes totam ecclesiam cedijicari, quid diclurus es de Johanne, el apostolorum unoquoque? num audebimus dicer e quod adversus Petrum unum non prevaliturcc sunt portce inferorum? “If you shall think that the whole church was built on Peter alone, what shall we say of John, and each of the apostles 1 What! shall we dare to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter only?” So he, according unto the common opinion of the ancients, that there was nothing peculiar in the confession of Peter, and the answer made thereunto, as unto himself, but that he spake and was spoken unto in the name of all the rest of the apostles. Euseb.

Prseparat. Evangel, lib. I. Cap. 3. r’,TS dvoas-l vpoScairtaBliaa CKK^cia dvr3 isnut Kara 0d8ov$ tppigwjiivr), koX fiexfs ovpavioiv axpiSwv ivxais boiuiv Ka Otocpiliiv avbptbv fitTitopigoy.hr] — 8ia piav iichvriv pyi, avrog dTrefii/aro AeJ’j’, intuv, inl rrjv itirpav oiko8o- [ifico us riw hKKliloiav, Kal iroXai aSu ov KaTLo-X’oo-«o-tp dvrrjs.” This his church that

was foretold by name, stood rooted upon the foundation, and hitherto exalted

* The publisher, to do justice to the Author, and those who are acquainted with the languages, has continued all the Greek and Latin sentences which were inserted by the author; but, at the same time, has added, for the benefit of the readers who are not acquainted with these languages, a translation of them, in turned commas, especially in the preface, where most of them are to be found.

to the poles of heaven, by the prayers of holy men, and lovers of God. — Concerning this same one word which he declareth, saying, Upon this Rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He proves the verity of divine predictions from the glorious accomplishment of that word and promise of our Saviour, that he would build his church on the Rock, (that is, himself,) so as that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. For Unutn hoc est immobile fundamentum, una hcec est fcclix fidei Petra, Petri ore confessa, tu es jilius Dei vivi. saith Hilar, de Trin. lib. 2. “This is the only immovable foundation; this is the blessed iock of faith, confessed by Peter — Thou art the Son of the living God.” And Epiphanus Hser. 39. i-l rn niroa ravrr, rns aa<pa»s xt?tm olKo&otfau )tS tUv iKtXiiaCd*; “Upon this rock of assured faith I will build my church.” For many thought that faith itself was metonymically called the rock, because of its object, of the person of Christ which is so. One or two more out of Austin shall close these testimonies. Super hanc petram, quam confessus es, super meipsum filium Dei vivi, cedifxabo ecclesiam meam. Super me cedijicabo te, non me super te; De verbis Dom. Ser. 13. “Upon this rock which thou hast confessed, upon myself the Son of the living God, I will build my church. I will build thee upon myself, and not myself on thee.” And he more fully declareth his mind, Tract. 124. In Johan. Ecclesia in hoc seculo diversis lentationibus, velut imbribus, fiuminibus, tempestatibusque quatitur, et non cadit; quoniam fundata est supra petram; unde at petrus nomen accepit. Non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra; sicut non Christus a Christiano, sed Christianus a Christo vocatur. Idea quippe ait Dominies super hanc petram mdificabo ecclesiam meam,, quia dixerat Petrus, tu es Christus Jilius Dei vivi; super hanc ergo (inquit) petram quam confessus es, atdiftcabo ecclesiam meam. Petra emim erat Christus, supra quod fundamentum etiam ipse adificalus est Petrus; fundamentum quippe aliud nemo potest ponere, propter id quodpositum est, quodest Jesus Christus. “The church in this world is shaken with divers temptations, as with showers, floods and tempests, yet falleth not, because it is built on the rock {Petra) from whence Peter took his name. For the rock is not called Petra from Peter, but Peter is so called from Petra the rock; as Christ is not so called from Christian, but Christian from Christ. Therefore, said the Lord, Upon this rock I will build my church, because Peter hath said, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. Upon this Rock, which thou hast confessed, will I build my church. For Christ himself was the rock on which foundation Peter himself was built. For no other foundation can no man lay, save that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Chap. II. Against this rock, this foundation of the church the person of Christ, and the faith of the church concerning it, great opposition hath been made by the gates of hell, not to mention the rage of the Pagan world endeavouring by all effects of violence and cruelty to cast the church from this foundation; all the heresies “wherewith, from the beginning, and for some centuries of years ensuing, it was pestered, consisted in direct and immediate oppositions unto the eternal truth concerning the person of Christ. Some that are so esteemed indeed, never pretended unto any sobriety, but were mere effects of delirant imaginations; yet did even they also one way or other derive from an hatred unto the person of Christ, and centered therein. Their beginning was early in the church, even before the writing of the gospel by John or his Revelations, and indeed before some of Paul’s epistles. And although their beginning was but small, and seemingly contemptible, yet being full of the poison of the old serpent, they diffused themselves in various shapes and forms, until there was nothing left of Christ, nothing that related unto him, not his natures, divine or human, not their properties nor actings, not his person, nor the union of his natures therein that was not opposed and assaulted by them. Especially so soon as the gospel had subdued the Roman empire unto Christ, and was owned by the rulers of it, the whole world was for some ages filled with uproars, confusion, and scandalous disorders about the person of Christ through the cursed oppositions made thereunto by the gates of hell. Neither had the church any rest from these conflicts for about five hundred years. But near that period of time, the power of truth and religion beginning universally to decay among the outward professors of them, Satan took advantage to make that havock and destruction of the church by superstition, false worship, and profaneness of life, which he failed of in his attempt against the person of Christ, or the doctrine of truth concerning it.

It would be a tedious work, and it may not be of much profit unto them who are utterly unacquainted with things so long past and gone, wherein they seem to have no concernment, to give a specimen of the several heresies whereby attempts were made against this rock and foundation of the church; unto those who have inquired into the records of antiquity, it would be altogether useless. For almost every page of them, at first view, presents the readers with an account of some one or more of them. Yet do I esteem it useful that the very ordinary sort of Christians should? at least in general, be acquainted with what hath passed in this great contest about the person of Christ from the. beginning. For there are two things relating thereunto, wherein their faith is greatly concerned. For, first, There is evidence given therein unto the truth of those predictions of the Scripture wherein this fatal apostacy from the truth, and opposition unto the Lord Christ, are foretold: And, secondly, An eminent instance of his power and faithfulness in the disappointment and conquest of the gates of hell, in the management of this opposition. But they have been all reckoned up, and digested into methods of time and matter, by many learned men of old, and of late, so that I shall not in this occasional discourse, represent them unto the reader again. Only I shall give a brief account of the ways and means whereby they who retained the profession of the truth, contended for it unto a conquest over the pernicious heresies wherewith it was opposed.

The defence of the truth from the beginning, was left in charge unto, and managed by the guides and rulers of the church in their several capacities. And by the Scripture it was that they discharged their duty, confirmed with apostolical tradition consonant thereunto. This was left in charge unto them by the great Apostle, Acts xx. 28 — 31. 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14. 2 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 15, 23, 24. chap. iv. 1, 2, 3, 4. And wherein any of them failed in this duty, they were reproved by Christ himself, Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. Nor were private believers in their places and capacities, either unable for this duty or exempt from it, but discharged themselves faithfully therein, according unto commandment given unto them, 1 John ii. 20, 27. chap. iv. 1. 2, 3. 2 John viii. 9. All true believers, in their several stations, by mutual watchfulness, preaching or writing, according unto their calls and abilities, effectually used the outward means for the preservation and propagation of the faith of the church. And the same means are still sufficient unto the same ends, were they attended unto with conscience and diligence. The pretended defence of truth, with arts and arms of another kind, hath been the bane of religion, and lost the peace of Christians beyond recovery. And it may be observed, that whilst this way alone for the preservation of the truth was insisted on and pursued, that although innumerable heresies arose one after another, and sometimes many together, yet they never made any great progress, nor arrived unto any such consistency, as to make a stated opposition unto the truth, but the errors themselves, and their authors, were as vagrant meteors, which appeared for a little while, and vanished away. Afterwards it was not so, when other ways and means for the suppression of heresies were judged convenient and needful.

For, in process of time, when the power of the Roman empire gave countenance and protection unto Christian religion, another way was fixed on for this end, namely, the use of such assemblies of bishops and others as they called general councils, armed with a mixed power, partly civil, and partly ecclesiastical, with respect unto the authority of the emperors, and that jurisdiction in the church which began then to be first talked of. This way was begun in the Council of Nice, wherein, although there was a determination of the doctrine concerning the person of Christ then in agitation, and opposed, as unto his divine nature therein, according unto the truth, yet sundry evils and inconveniences ensued thereon. For thenceforth the faith of Christians began greatly to be resolved into the authority of men, and as much, if not more weight, to be laid on what was decreed by the fathers there assembled, than on what was clearly taught in the Scriptures. Besides, being necessitated, as they thought, to explain their conceptions of the divine nature of Christ, in words either not used in the Scripture, or whose signification unto that purpose was not determined therein, occasion was given unto endless

XXXll PREFACE.

contentions about them. The Grecians themselves could not for a long season agree among themselves whether Ma essence, and Mricois substance, were of the same signification or no, both of them denoting essence and substance; or whether they differed in their signification, or if they did, wherein that difference lay. Athanasius at first affirmed them to be the same, (Drat. 5. con. Avian and Epist. ad African. Basil denied them so to be, or that they were used unto the same purpose, in the Council of Nice, Epist. 78. The like difference immediately fell out between the Grecians and Latins about hypostasis and persona. For the Latins rendered hypostasis by substantia, and persona by *pd<ra>Troy the face. Hereof Jerom complains in his epistle to Damascus, that they required of him in the east to confess tres Hypostases, three substances, and he would only acknowledge tres Personas, three persons, Epist. 71. And Austin gives an account of the same difference, de Trinitate, lib. 5. cap. 8, 9. Athanasius endeavoured the composing of this difference, and in a good measure effected it, as Gregory of Nazianzen affirms, in his oration concerning his praise. It was done by him in a Synod at Alexandria in the first year of Julian’s reign. On this occasion many contests arose, even among them, who all pleaded their adherence unto the doctrine of the Council of Nice. And as the subtile Arians made incredible advantage hereof at first, pretending that they opposed not the Deity of Christ, but only the expression of it by buoboios, the same essence; so afterwards they countenanced themselves in coining words and terms to express their minds with, which utterly rejected it. Hence were their Apoiiiaios, trspSvios, i dvrav, and the like names of blasphemy, about which the contests were fierce and endless. And there were yet further evils that ensued hereon. For the curious and serpentine wits of men, finding themselves by this means 6et at liberty to think and discourse of those mysteries of the blessed Trinity, and the person of Christ, without much regard unto plain divine testimonies, in such ways wherein cunning and sophistry did much bear sway, began to multiply such new, curious and false notions about them, especially about the latter, as caused new disturbances, and those of large extent and long continuance. For their suppression, councils were called one on the back of another, whereon commonly new occasions of differences did arise, and most of them managed with great scandal unto Christian religion. For men began much to forego the primitive ways of opposing errors and extinguishing heresies, betaking themselves unto their interest, the number of their party, and prevalency with the present emperors. And although it so fell out, as in that at Constantinople, the first at Ephesus, and that at Chalcedon, that the truth for the substance of it did prevail, (for in many others it happened quite otherwise,) yet did they always sive occasions unto new divisions, animosities, and even mutual hatreds, among the principal leaders of the Christian people. And great contests there were among some of them who pretended to believe the same truth, whether such or such a council should be received; that is plainrREFACE. XXX11Ily, whether the church should resolve its faith into their authority. The strifes of this nature about the first Ephesian council, and that at Chalcedon; not to mention them wherein tlic Arians prevailed, take up a good part of the ecclesiastical story of those days. And it cannot be denied but that some of the principal persons and assemblies who adhered unto the truth, did, in the heat of opposition unto the heresies of other men, fall into unjustifiable excess themselves.

We may take an instance hereof with respect to the Nestorian heresy, condemned in the first Ephesian council, and afterwards in that at Chalcedon. Cyrillus of Alexandria, a man learned and vehement, designed by all means to be unto it what his predecessor Athanasius had been to the Ariau: but he fell into such excessesin his undertakings, as gave great occasion unto farther tumults; for it is evident that he distinguished not between viroraois and <piot;, and therefore affirms that the divine Word and humanity had hiav <pv<nv one nature only. So he doth plainly in Epist. ad Successum; they are ignorant, saith he, Sfi Kar d^Ociav c?t pia <pvci<; r«Xo>« acaapKwvri. u That according to truth one nature of the Word was incarnate.” Hence Eutyches, the Archimandrite, took occasion to run into a contrary extreme, being a no less fierce enemy to Nestorius than Cyrillus was. For to oppose him, who divided the person of Christ into two, he confounded his natures into one; hisdelirant folly being confirmed by that goodly assembly, the second at Ephesus. Besides, it is confessed that Cyrillus, through the vehemency of his spirit, hatred unto Nestorius, and following the conduct of his own mind in nice and subtile expressions of the great mystery of the person of Christ, did utter many things exceeding the bounds of sobriety prescribed unto us by the apostle, Rom. xii. 3. if not those of truth itself. Hence it is come to pass, that many learned men begin to think and write that Cyrillus was in the wrong, and Nestorius by his means condemned undeservedly. However, it is certain to me that the doctrine condemned at Ephesus and Chalcedon as the doctrine of Nestorius, was destructive of the true person of Christ; and that Cyril, though he missed it in sundry expressions, yet aimed at the declaration and confirmation of the truth; as he was long since vindicated by Theorianus, Dialog, con. Armenios.

However, such was the watchful care of Christ over the church as unto the preservation of the sacred fundamental truth, concerning his divine person, and the union of his natures therein, retaining their distinct properties and operations, that, notwithstanding all the faction and disorder that were in those primitive councils, and scandalous contests of many of the members of them; notwithstanding the determination contrary unto it in great and numerous councils, the faith of it was preserved entire in the hearts of all that truly believed, and triumphed over the gates of hell.

I have mentioned these few things which belong unto the promise and predictions of our blessed Saviour, Matth. xvi. 18. the place insisted on, to shew that the church, without any disadvantage to the truth, may be preserved without such general assemblies, which in the following ages proved the most pernicious engines for the corruption of the faith, worship and manners of it. Yea, from the beginning they were so far from being the only way of preserving truth, that it was almost constantly prejudiced by the addition of their authority unto the confirmation of it. Nor was there any one of them wherein the mystery of iniquity did not work unto the laying of some rubbish in the foundation of that fatal apostacy which afterwards openly ensued.

The Lord Christ himself hath taken it upon him to build his church on this rock of his person, by true faith of it and in it. He sends his holy Spirit to bear testimony unto him, in all the blessed effects ol his power and grace. He continueth his word with the faithful ministry of it, to reveal, declare, make known, and vindicate this sacred tiuth, unto the conviction of gainsayers. He keeps up that faith in him, that love unto him, in the hearts of all his elect, as shall not be prevailed against. Wherefore, although the oppositions unto this sacred truth, this fundamental article of the church and Christian religion, concerning his divine person, its constitution and use, as the human nature conjoined substantially unto it, and subsistethin it, are in this last age increased; although they are managed under so great a variety of forms, as that they are notreduceable unto any heads of order, although they are promoted with more subtilty and specious pretences than in former ages; yet if we are not wanting unto our duty, with the aids of grace proposed unto us, Ave shall finally triumph in this cause, and transmit this sacred truth inviolate unto them that succeed us in the possession of it.

Chap. III. This person of Christ, which is the foundation whereon the church is built, whereunto all sorts of oppositions are endeavoured and designed, is the most ineffable effect of divine goodness and wisdom, whereof we treat in the next place. But herein when I speak of the constitution of the person of Christ, I intend not his person absolutely as he is the eternal Son of God. He was truly, really, completely a divine person from eternity, which is included in the notion of his being the Son, and so distinct from the Father, which is his complete personality. His being so was not a voluntary contrivance or effect of divine wisdom and goodness.; his eternal generation being a necessary internal act of the divine nature in the person of the Father.

Of the eternal generation of the divine person of the Son, the sober writers of the ancient church did constantly affirm that it was firmly to be believed, but as unto the manner of it not to be inquired into. Scrutator majesialis absorbetur a gloria, “the searcher into divine majesty is swallowed up by his glory,” was their rule. And the curious disputes of Alexander and Arius about it, gave occasion unto that many-headed monster of the Arian heresy which afterwards ensued. For when once men of subtile heads and unsanctified hearts gave up themselves to inquire into things infinitely above their understanding and capacity, being vainly puffed up in their fleshly minds, they fell into endless divisions among themselves, agreeing only in an opposition unto the truth. But those who contented themselves to be wise unto sobriety, repressed this impious boldness. To this purpose speaks Lactantius, lib. 4. de vera sapient. Quonwdo igiiwr procreavit 1 Nee sciri a quoquam possunt nee nurrari opera divina; sed tamensacrcelitercedocent ilium. Deifilium, Dei esse sermonem. “How therefore did the Father beget the Son 1 These divine works can be known of none, declared by none. But the holy writings teach wherein it is determined that he is the Son of God, that he is the Word of God.” And Ambrose defule ad Gralianum. Qucero abste, quando aid quomodo putes filium esse generaturum? mild enim impossibile est scire generationis secrelum. Mens deficit, voxsilet, nonmea tantum sed el angelorum, supra polestates, supra angelos, supra cherubim, supra sensum, supra omnem sensum. Tu quoque manum ori admove; scrutari non licet supernamysteria. Licet scire quod natus sit, non licet discutere quomodo natus sit; Mud negare mihi una licet, hoc qucerere metus est. Nam si Paulus ea qua; audivit, raptus in lertium cozlum, ineffabilia dicit, quomodo nos e.rprimcre possnmus paternce generationis arcanum, quod nee s entire potuimus nee audire? Quid te isla questionum tormenta delectant? “I inquire of you when and how the Son was begotten? Impossible it is to me to know the mys tery of this generation. My mind faileth, my voice is silent, and not only mine, but of the angels; it is above principalities, above angels, above the cherubims, above the seraphims, above all understanding. Lay thy hand on thy mouth; it is not lawful to search into these heavenly mysteries. It is lawful to know that he was born; it is not lawful to determine how he was born: that it is not lawful for me to deny; this I am afraid to inquire into. For if Paul, when he was taken into the third heaven, affirms that the things which he heard could not be uttered; how can we express the mystery of the divine generation, which Ave can neither apprehend nor hear. Why do such tormenting questions delight thee?”

EJphraim Syrus wrote a book to this purpose, against them who would search out the nature of the Son of God. Among many other things to the same purpose are his words, cap. 2. Injadix profecto, miser, atque impudent issimus est, qui scrutari cupit opificem suum. Millia millium, et centis millies millena millia angelorum et archangelorum, cum horrore glorificant, et tremcnles adorant; et homines Ixdei, plenipeccalis, de divinitate intrepide disserunt? Non illorum exhorescit corpus, non contremescit animus; sed securi et garridi, de Christo Dei filio, qui pro me indigno peccatore passus est, deque ipsius utraque generatione loquunturj nee saltern quod in luce ccecutiunt, sentiunt. “He is unhappy, miserable, and most impudent, who desires to examine or search out his Maker. Thousands of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of millions of angels and archangels, do glorify him with dread, and adore him with trembling; and shall dirty men, full of sins, dispute of the Deity without fear? Horror doth not shake their bodies, their minds do not tremble, but being secure and prating, they speak of the Son of God, who suffered for me unworthy sinner, and of both his generations; at least they are not sensible how blind they are in the light.” To the same purpose speaks Eusebius at large, Demon. Evan. lib. 5. cap. 2.

Leo well adds hereunto the consideration of his incarnation, in those excellent words, Serm. 9. de Nativitat. Quia in Christo Jesu filio Dei, non solum ad Divinam essentiam, sed etiam ad humanum spectat naturam, quod dictum est per prophetam; generationem ejus quis enarrabitl Utramque enim substantiam in unam convenisse personam, nisijides credat, sermo non explicat; et ideo materia numquam deficit laudis; quia nunquam svfficit copia laudatoris. Gaudiamus igitur quod ad cloquendumtanlum misericordiasacr amentum impares sumus: et cum salutus nostra altitudinem promere non valeamus, seniiamus nobis bonum essi quod vincimur. Nemo enim ad cognitionem veritatis magis propinquat, quam qui intelligit, in rebus divinis, etiamsi multum proficiat, semper sibi superesse quad qucerat. “Because in Christ Jesus the Son of God, that relates not only to his divine essence, but also to his human nature, which was spoken by the prophet; Who shall declare his generation? For the word does not explicate which substance is residing in one person, except faith believe it; and therefore matter of praise is never wanting, because the highest praise of the praiseris never sufficient. Let us rejoice, therefore, that we are unable to declare so great an oath of mercy; and seeing we cannot be able to understand the depth of salvation, let us understand that it is happiness that we are overcome. For none maketh a nearer approach unto the knowledge of the truth, than he who knows that, although he may profit much in divine matters, there is always something remaining for him to seek after.” See also Fidg. lib. 2. ad Thrasimund.

But I speak of the Person of Christ as unto the assumption of the substantial adjunct of the human nature, not to be a part, whereof his person is composed, but as unto its subsistence therein by virtue of a substantial union. Some of the ancients, I confess, speak freely of the composition of the person of Christ in and by the two natures, the divine and human. That the Son of God, after his incarnation, had one nature composed of the Deity and humanity, was the heresy of Apolinarius, Eutiches the Monothclites, or Monophysites, condemned by all. But that his most simple divine nature, and the human, composed properly of soul and body, did compose his own person, or that it was composed of them, they constantly affirmed: Tov Qc5 lktoiTrw K<xi dvQpuTT(ov, Kararas ypa<p5s avyKtXcOai <jpatjxtv e< to rfjs k<i&’ hjiai dvOponrdrriTos Ttlziu$, £%«<Taj Kara r” i’Jiov 6yov koi Ik tS m<privoTOS, ck

BtS Kara Qvaiv itS, “We say that the Mediator betwixt God and man was composed both of our human nature in perfection, on our account, according to the Scriptures; and also, of the Divine nature of the person of the Son of God, according to his own word,” saith Cyril of Alexandria. A

Sa7iclis Patribus adunatione ex divinitate et human ilale Christus Dominus noster compositus pr&dicatur. Pet. Diacon. lib. de Incarnat. et Grat. Christi ad Fulgentium. “Our Lord Christ was preached, by tinholy fathers, as composed of the divine and human nature.” And the union which they intended by this composition they called tvwaiv Qvotniiv, tp cause it was of divers natures; and ivuoiv Kara avvdeacv, an union of composition.

But because there neither was, nor can be any composition, properly so called, of the divine and human natures, and that the Son of God was a perfect person before his incarnation, wherein he remained what he was, and was made what he was not; the expression hath been forsaken and avoided; the union being better expressed by the assumption of a substantial adjunct, or the human nature into personal subsistence with the Son of God, as shall be afterwards explained. This they constantly admire as the most ineffable effect of Divine wisdom and grace; «o aaapxoi

aapKUTai, b loyos Traxvvcrai, b doparos bparai, b avails iprila<parai, S d%povos dpltrai, b

itos Ben ipio<; dvOpcom Xtvtrai, “He who is without flesh is incarnate, the Word is embodied, he who is invisible is seen, he who shines in heaven is throughly handled on earth, he who is from eternity begins, the Son of God is become the Son of man,” saith Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 12, in admiration of this mystery. Hereby God communicates all things unto us from his own glorious fulness, the near approaches whereof we are not able to bear. So is it illustrated by Eusebius, Demonst. Evang. lib. 4. cap.

with some that follow in the same place, is unto this purpose: “By the beams of the sun, light, and life, and heat, unto the procreation, sustentation, refreshment and cherishing of all things are communicated. But if the sun itself should come down unto the earth, nothing could bear its heat and lustre; our eyes would not be enlightened, but darkened by its glory, and all things be swallowed up and consumed by its greatness; whereas through the beams of it every thing is enlightened and kindly refreshed. So is it with this eternal beam or brightness of the Father’s glory. We cannot bear the immediate approach of the divine Being; but through him as incarnate are all things communicated unto us, in a way suited unto our reception and comprehension.”

So is it admired by Leo, Serm. 3. de Natixilat. Nalura humana in Crealoris societatem assitmpta est, non ut ille habitator, et Me esset habitaculum; sed ut naturce altera sic misceretur altera, tit quamvis alia sit qua suscipitur, alia vero qua suscepit, in tantam tamen unita-r tern conveniret utriusq; diversitas, et unus idemq: sitjilius, qui se, et secundum quod versus est homo, Patre dicit minorem, et secundum quod verus est Deus Patri seprofdelur aqualem, “Human nature is assumed into the society of the Creator, not that he should be the inhabitant, and that the habitation, (that is, by an inhabitation in the effects of his power and grace, for otherwise the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily) but that one nature should be so mingled (that is, conjoined) with the other; that although that be of one kind which assumeth, and that of another which is assumed; yet the diversity of them both should concur in such an unity or union, as that it is one and the same Son, who,, as he was a true man, said that he was less than the Father, or the Father was greater than he: so as he was true God, professed himself equal unto the Father.” See also August, de fide, ad Pet. Diacon.cap. 17. Justinianus Imperator. Epist. ad Hormisdam, Romai Episcopj.

And the mystery is well expressed by Maxientius, Biblioth. Patr. par. prima. Non confundimus naturarum diversitatem j veruntamen Christum non ut tu asserts Deum factum, sed Deum factum Christum confitemur. Quia non cum pauper esset, dives factus est, sed cum dives esset, pauper factus est, ut nos divites facer et; neq; enim cum esset in forma servi, formam Dei accepit; sed cum es set in j or ma Dei, formam servi accepit; similiter etiam nee, cum esset caro, Verbum est factum; sed cum esset verbum caro factum est. “We do not confound the diversity of the natures, howbeit we believe not what you affirm, that Christ was made God, but we believe that God was made Christ. For he was not made rich when he was poor; but being rich, he was made poor, that he might make us rich. He did not take the form of God, when he was in the form of a servant; but being in the form of God, he took on him the form of a servant. In like manner, he was not made the Word when he was flesh; but being the Word, he was made flesh.”

And Hierom, speaking of the effects of this mystery, Comment, in Ezekiel, cap. xlvi. Ne miretur Lector si idem et princeps est et Sacerdos, etvitulus, et aries, et agnus; cum in Scripturis Sanctis pro varietate causarum legamus eum Dominum, et Deum, et hominem, el Prophetam, et virgam, et radicem, et for em, et principem, et Regent justum, el Justitiam, Apostolum, et Episcopum, Brachium, Servum, Angelum, Pastor em, Filium, et Unigenilum, et Primogenitwn, Ostium, Viam, Sagittam, Sapientiam, etmidta alia. “Let not the reader wonder if he find one and the same to be the Prince and Priest, the Bullock, Ram, and Lamb; for in the Scripture, on variety of causes, we find him called Lord, God, and Man, the Prophet, a Rod, and the Root, the Flower, Prince, Judge, and righteous King; Righteousness, the Apostle and Bishop, the Arm and servant of God, the Angel, the Shepherd, the Son, the only Begotten, the first Begotten, the Door, the Way, the Arrow, Wisdom, and sundry other things.” And Ennodius hath, as it were, turned this passage of Hierom into verse.

Cordia domat, qui cuncta videt, quem cuncta trcmiscunt; Fons, via, dextra, lapis, vitulus, leo, lucifer, agnus; Janua, spes, virtus, verbum, sapientia, vates, Ostia, virgultum, pastor, mons, rete, columba, Flamrna, gigas, aquila, sponsus, patientia, nervus, Filius, excelsus, Dominus, Deus; omnia Christus. In natalem Papre Epiphanii.

Quod homo est, esse Christus voluit; ut et homo possit esse, quod Christus est, saith Cyprian, de Vanitat. Judse. And Quod, est Christus erimus Christiani, si Christumfuerimus secuti, ibid. And he explains his mind in this expression by way of admiration, Serm. de Eleomosyn. Christus homiiiis filius esse voluit, ut nos filios Dei facer et; humiliavit se,ut populum qui prius jacebat, erigeret; vulneratus cstut miner as nostra sanaret. “Christ would be the Son of man, that he might make us the sons of God; he humbled himself, that he might lift up his people, that formerly had fallen: he was wounded that he might heal our wounds.”

Chap. IV. That he was the foundation cf all the holy counsels of God, with respect unto the vocation, sanctification, justification, and eternal salvation of the church, is in the next place at large declared. And he was so on a threefold account. (1.) Of the ineffable mutual delight of the Father and the Son. in those counsels from all eternity. (2.) As the only way and means of the accomplishment of all those counsels, and the communication of their effects unto the eternal glory of God. (3.) As he was in his own person as incarnate, the idea and exemplar in the mind of God, of all that grace and glory in the church, which was designed unto it in those eternal counsels. As the cause of all good unto us, he is on this account acknowledged by the ancients.

~Nvv Si eiTKpavr) dvBptonoii, dvro; ovtos b Aoyoj, b jiovog djidiw 6to? r£ kox dvdpunrog, dnaptwv fipiv aiTios dyaQwv, saith Clemens, Adh. ad Gentes. “He therefore is the Word, the cause of old of our being, for he was in God, and the cause of our well-being. But now he hath appeared unto men, the same eternal Word, who alone is both God and man, and unto us the cause of all that is good.” As he was in God the cause of our being and well being from eternity; he was the foundation of the divine counsels in the way explained; and in his incarnation, the execution of them all was committed unto him, that through him all actual good, all the fruits of those counsels, might be communicated unto us.

Chap. V. He is also declared in the next place, as he is the image and great representative of God, even the Father, unto the church. On what various accounts he is so called is fully declared in the discourse itself. In his divine person, as he was the only begotten of the Father from eternity, he is the essential image of the Father, by the generation of his person, and the communication of the divine nature unto him therein. As he is incarnate,

Xl PREFACE.

he is both in his own entire person God and man, and in the administration of his office, the image or representative of the nature and will of God unto us, as is fully proved. So speaks Clem. Alexand. Admonit. ad

G elites J il nev yap tu &eu r.iKuiv b Aoyoj dvru, Kai vios tu vv yvriaos, b Qaos loyos, (jxiiroi dpxcTvvov 0toS, elmov <5t rap loyn b dvBpuiros. “The image of God is his own Word, the natural Son of the (eternal) mind, the divine word, the original light of light; and the image of the Word is man.” And the same author

again, PtedagOg. Upouuirov tu 6rs b loyos, w <f>UTtg£Tai b Qtoi Kai yyupigerai.

“The word is the face, the countenance, the representation of God, in whom he is brought to light and made known.” As he is in his divine person his eternal essential image, so in his incarnation, as the teacher of men, he is the representative image of God unto the Church, as is afterwards declared.

So also Hierom expresseth his mind herein, Comment, in Psal. 66. Illuminet vultum suum super nos; Dei fades que est? utique imago ejus. Dicit enim apostolus imaginem Patrisessefiliuni; ergo imagine sua nos illuminet; hoc est, imaginem suam Jilium illuminet super nos; ul ipse nos illuminet; lux enim Patris lux filii est. “Let him cause his face to shine upon us, or lift up the light of his countenance upon us. What is the face of God, even his image? For the Apostle says, that the Son is the image of the Father. Wherefore let him shine on us with his image; that is, cause his Son, who is his image, to shine upon us, that he may illuminate us; for the light of the Father and of the Son are the same.” Christ being the image of God, the face of God; in him is’God represented unto us, and through him are all saving benefits communicated unto them that believe.

Eusebius also speaks often unto this purpose: as Demon. Evangel.

lib. 4. Cap. 2. ‘Odev aVorws o’i xpTjcrot dcoloyuvTCs, dsov yivr)Tov dvTov dnoipatvovtrw, tb$ dv ra; dviK<ppas-u, Kai d-rtepivoriTU deorrjros ftovov iv dvru) iptpovra tt)v eUoiva, Si hv Kai 6tov tii/at r£ dvrov Kai ltyiQai tjjs irpos to Trpwtov clojxoiuincw; xaPlv-” Wherefore

the holy oracles, speaking theologically, or teaching divine things, do rightly call him God begotten (of the Father), as he who alone bears in himself the image of the ineffable and inconceivable Deity. Wherefore he both is, and is called God, because of his being the character, similitude, or image of him who is the first.” The divine personality of Christ consists in this, that the whole divine nature being communicated unto him by eternal generation, he is the image of God, even the Father, by whom he is represented unto us. See the same book, chap. 7, to the same purpose. Also De Ecclesiast. Theol. contra Marcell. lib. 2. cap. 17.

Clemens abounds much in the affirmation of this truth concerning the person of Christ, and we may yet add, from a multitude to the same purpose, one or more testimonies from him. Treating of Christ, as the teacher of all men (his iraiSaywyoS,~) he affirms that he is Qos ev dvdpu-u oxnuari; “God in the figure Or form of man;’’ axpavTOs TrarpiKco QtMjiaTi fiiaKovo;, Xoyos, 0£os, 6 tv narpi, b Ik faliuv tu naTpos, cvv Kai ;u nxi/ian Qeos, ’ impolluted,

PREFACE. xli

serving the will of the Father, the Word, God, who is in the Father, on the rihl hand of the Father, and in or with the form of God. Ovtos fipn*

sikosv h dxaXiShiTOS, tuto ttovti Ocvti ittiparcov co/iOtnv rr/v lpvxiv- “He is the image (of God) unto us, wherein there is no blemish, and with all our strength are we to endeavour to render ourselves like unto him;” this is the great end of his being the representative image of God unto us. And Slromat.

lib. 4. ‘O //Era ovv Qeo; dvanohiKTog itv, ovk i$-tv iiris-rinoviKos. ‘O Si itot ao<pia rij isri Kai crrim/tii, icai drjOeia, nai baa sXAa rurto cvyysvq. “As God (absolutely)

falls not under demonstration, (that is, cannot perfectly be declared) so he doth not (immediately) effect, or teach us knowledge. But the Son is wisdom and knowledge, and truth unto us, and every thing which is cognate hereunto. For in and by him doth God teach us, and represent himself unto us.”

Chap. VII. Upon the glory of this divine person of Christ depends the efficacy of all his offices; an especial demonstration whereof is given in his prophetical office. So it is well expressed by Irenseus: Qui nil molitur inepte, lib. 1. cap. 1. Nonenim aliter nos discere poteramus que sunt Dei, nisi Magister noster verbum e.vistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat ennarrare nobis quce sunt Patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum. Qitis enim alius cognovit sensum Domini? aut quis alius ejus consiliarius factus est? Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi Magistrum nostrum videntes, et per auditum nostrum vocem ejus precipientes, uti imitatores quid em operum, factores autem sermonum ejus facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso. “We could not otherwise have learned the things of God, unless our Master being and continuing the (eternal) Word, had been made man. For no other could declare unto us the things of God, but his own proper Word. For who else hath known the mind of the Lord? or who else hath been his counsellor’? Neither on the other side could we otherwise have learned, unless we had seen our Master, and heard his voice, (in his incarnation and ministry) whereby following his works, and yielding obedience unto his doctrine, we may have communion with himself.”

I do perceive, that if I should proceed with the same kind of attestations unto the doctrine of all the chapters in the ensuing discourse, this preface would be drawn forth unto a greater length than was ever designed unto it, or is convenient for it. I shall therefore choose out one or two instances more, to give a specimen of the concurrence of the ancient church in the doctrine declared in them, and so put a close unto it.

Chap. IX. In the ninth chapter, and those following, we treat of the divine honour that is due unto the person of Christ, expressed in adoration, invocation, and obedience, proceeding from faith and love. And the foundation of the whole is laid in the discovery of the true nature and causes of that honour: and three things are designed unto confirmation herein. (1.) That the divine nature, which is individually the same in each person of the holy Trinity, is the proper formal object of all divine

Xlii PREFACE.

worship, in adoralion and invocation. Wherefore no one person is or can he worshipped, but in the ssrae individual act of worship each person is equally worshipped and atlored. (2.) That it is lawful to direct divine honour, worship and invocation unto any person, in the use of his peculiar name, the Father, Son, or Spirit; or unto them altogether: but to make any request unto one person, and immediately the same unto another, is not exemplified in the Scripture; nor among the ancient writers of the church. (3.) That the person of Christ as God-man is the proper object of all divine honour and worship, on the account of his divine nature: and all that he did in his human nature, are motives thereunto.

The first of these is the constant doctrine of the whole ancient church, namely, That whether (for instance in our solemn prayers and invocations) we call expressly on the name of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit; whether we do it absolutely or relatively, that is, with respect unto the relation of one person to the other; as calling on God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; on Christ as the Son of his love; on the Holy Spirit as proceeding from them both, we do formally invocate and call on the divine nature, and consequently the whole Trinity, and each person therein. This truth they principally confirmed with the form of our initiation into Christ at baptism; I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For as there is contained therein the sum of all divine honour, so it is directed unto the same name, not the names of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which is the same deity or divine nature alone.

So speak the fathers of the second general council in their letters unto the bishops of the west, as they are expressed in Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 9. This form of baptism teacheth us, iit^Evsiv ei’s to dvopa ™ naipos, Kal t« im, ku.

TcXeias biros-ao-to-i. “To believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; seeing that the Deity, substance and power of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is one and the same, their dignity equal, their kingdom co-eternal in three perfect persons.” In nomini dixit, non nominibus, ergo non aliud nomen patris est, &c. quia unus Dcus, Ambros. De Spirit. Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 14. ‘Ovopa Si kuivov twv Tpuovlv, $0«3-ijS. “The one name common to three is the Deity.” Gregor. Nazianzen. Orat. 40. Hence Austin gives it as a rule in speaking of the Holy Trinity; Quandounus triwm in aliquo opera nominatur, universa operari Trinitas intelligitur, Enchired. cap. 28. “When one person ot three is named in any work, the whole Trinity is to be understood to effect it.” There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, according to the Scriptures. Wherefore as there is one faith in Christ, and one baptism of truth, although we are baptised, and believe in the Father, Son, and Spirit, KaTa r”

ai>Tiv, ot’/iai, Tpoitov Kal loyov, /na TpocKwriaei, r, narpos, Kal ivavQpwirriGavTOS im, Kal dyiu

^•vtaroj. “So plainly in my judgment there is one and the same adora-PREFACE. iHiition of the Father, the Son incarnate, and the Holy Spirit.” Cyril. Alex, de Recta Fide, cap. 32.

And this they professed themselves to hold and believe in that ancient doxolcry which was first invented to decry the Arian heresy: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.” The same glory in every individual act of its assignation or ascription, is directed unto each person jointly and distinctly, on the account of the same divine nature in each of them. I need not produce any testimonies in the farther confirmation hereof: for in all their writings against the Arians, they expressly and constantly contend that the holy Trinity, that is, the divine nature in three persons, is the individual object of all divine adoration, invocation, and all religious worship; and that by whatever personal name, as the Father, Son, or Spirit, we call on God, it is God absolutely who is adored, and each person participant of the same nature. See August, lib. con. Serm. Arian. cap. 35. and Epist. 66. ad Maximum.

For the second thing, or the invocation of God by any personal name, or by the conjunction of the distinct names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together, nothing occurs more frequently among them. Yea, it is common to find in their writings, prayers begun unto one person, and ended in the name of another; yea, begun unto Christ, and closed in the name of his only begotten Son: it being one and the same divine nature that is called on. Yea, the Schoolmen do generally deny that the persons of the holy Trinity, under the consideration of the formal reason which is constitutive of their personality, are the formal object and term of divine worship; but in the worship of one they are all worshipped as one God over all blessed for ever. See Aquin. 22. q. 81. a. 3. ad prima, and q. 84. a. 1. ad tertium. Alexand. Alens. p. 3. q. 30. m. 1. a. 3.

But yet, although we may call on God in and by the name of any divine person, or enumerate at once each person (<j Tpias dyia dpid/iu/ievr!, rpias lv ivi dvojian dpiQjxnevr,, Epiph. Ancorat. 8. 22.) “O holy Three enumerate, Three numbered in one name.” It doth not follow that we may make a request in our prayers unto one person, and then immediately repeat it unto another; for it would thence follow that the person unto whom we make that request in the second place was not invocated, nor called on, not equally adored with him who was so called on in the first place, although the divine nature is the object of all religious invocation, which is the same in each person. Wherefore in our divine invocation we name and fix our thoughts distinctly on any person, according as our souls are affected with the distinct operations of each person in grace towards us.

For what concerns, in the third place, the ascription of divine honour in adoration and invocation unto the person of Christ; it is that which they principally contended for, and argued for in all their writings against the Arians.

Evidences of infinite wisdom in the constitution of the person of Christ, and rational discoveries of the condecencies therein, unto the exaltation of

Xliv PREFACE.

all the other glorious properties of the divine nature, are also treated of. Herein we consider the incarnation of the Son of God with respect unto the recovery and salvation of the church alone. Some have contended that he should have been incarnate, had man never fallen or sinned. Of them are Rupertus, lib. 3. De gloria ei honore filii hominis. “Of the honour and glory of the Son of man.” .Albertus Magnus, in 3 distinct. 10. A. 4. Petrus Galatinus, lib. 3. cap. 4; as are Scotus, Halensis, and others, whom Osiander followed. The same is affirmed by Socinus concerning the birth of that man, which alone he fancied him to be, as I have elsewhere declared; but I have disproved this figment at large. Many of the ancients have laboured in this argument, of the necessity of the eternal Word, and the condecencies unto divine wisdom therein. See Irencbus, lib. 3. cap. 20, 21. Eusebius, Demonst. Evangel, lib. 4. cap. 1 — 4, <$-c. Cyril. Alexand. lib. 5. cap. 7. lib. 1. de fide ad Regin. Chrysostome, Homil. 19. in Johan. ei in. cap. 8. ad Rom. Serm. 18. Augustin, de Trinit. lib. 13. cap. 13 — 20. Leo, Epist. 13, 18. Sermo. de Nalivit. 1, 4, 10. Basil, in Psal. 48. Albinus, lib. 1. in Johan. cap. 11. Damascen. lib. 3. de fide, cap. 15, 19. Anselm, quod Deus homo, lib. duo. Guil. Parisiensis, lib. cur Deus homo. Some especial testimonies we may produce in confirmation of what we have discoursed in the places directed unto. There is one of them, one of the most ancient, the most learned, and most holy of them, who hath so fully delivered his thoughts concerning this mystery, as that I shall principally make use of his testimony herein.

It belonged unto the wisdom and righteousness of God, that Satan should be conquered and subdued in and by the same nature which he had prevailed against by his suggestion and temptation. To this purpose that holy writer speaks, lib. 3. cap. 20. which, because his words are cited by Theodoret, Dial. 2. I shall transcribe them from thence, as free from the injuries of his barbarous translator: ‘iivwoev iv Ka6ups TspoeQayev t” dvOpwirov

ltav Kal dpnvotav r«s dwrepm owvyayeiv. Words plainly divine, an illustrious testimony of the faith of the ancient church, and expressive of the principal mystery of the gospel. “Wherefore, as we said before, he united man unto God. For if man had not overcome the adversary of men, the enemy had not been justly conquered. And, on the other hand, if God had not given and granted salvation, we could never have a firm undefeasible possession of it. And if man had not been united unto God, he could not have been partaker of immortality. It behoved, therefore, the Mediator between God and man, by his own participation of the nature of each of them, to bring them both into friendship and agreement with each other.” And to the same purpose, speaking of the wisdom of God in our redemption by Christ,

PREFACE. Xlv

with respect unto the conquest of the devil, lib. 5. cap. 1. Putens in omnibus Dei Verbum, et non deficiens in sua justitia, juste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est, apostasiam, ea quce sunt redimens, ab eo, non cum vi, quemadmodum ille initio dominabitur nostri, ea quce non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens. Suo’igitur sanguine redimente nos Domino, et dante animam suampro anima nostra, et carnem suam pro carnibus nostris, &c. Again divinely: “The all-powerful Word of God, no way defective in righteousness, set himself against the apostacy justly also; redeeming from him, (Satan, the head of the apostacy), the things which were his own; not with force, as he bare rule over us, insatiably making rapine of what was not his own. But he the Lord redeeming us with his own blood, giving his soul for our souls, and his flesh for ours, wrought out our deliverance.” These things are at large insisted on in the ensuing discourse.

It belongs unto this great mystery, and is a fruit of divine wisdom, that our deliverance would be wrought in and by the same nature, wherein and whereby we were ruined. The reasons hereof, and the glory of God therein, are at large discoursed in the ensuing treatise. To the same purpose speaks the same holy writer, lib. 5. cap. 14. Non in semetipso recapitulasset hcec Dominus, nisi ipse caro et sanguis secundum principalem plasmationem j actus fuisset; salvans in semetipso in fine, illud quod perierat in principio in Adam. Si autem, ob alteram quondam dispositionem Dominus incarnatus est, et ex altera substantia carnem, attulit, non ergo in semitipso recapitulatus est hominem., adhuc etiam nee caro did potest — habuit ergo et ipse carnem et sanguinem, non alteram quandam, sed ipsamprincipalem Patris plasmalionam in se recapitulate, exquirens id quod perierat. And to the same purpose, lib. 5. cap. 1. Neque enim vere esset sanguinem et carnem habens, per quam nos redemit, nisi antiquam plasmationem adce in scipsum recapitulasset. That which these passages give testimony unto, is what we have discoursed concerning the necessity of our redemption in and by the nature that sinned; and yet withal that it should be free from all that contagion which invaded our nature by the fall. And these things are divinely expressed. “Our Lord (saith he) had not gathered up these things in himself, had not he been made flesh and blood, according unto its original creation.” (The reader may observe, that none of the ancient writers do so frequently express the fall of Adam, by our apostacy from God and our recovery by a recapitulation in Christ, as Irenaeus doth. His recapitulation being nothing but the hvaK£<palain, or gathering up in the head, mentioned by the Apostle, Eph. i. 10. And he here affirms, that unto this end the word was made flesh, secundum principalem plasmationem, as his words are rendered; that is, plainly the original creation of our nature, in innocency, uprightness, purity, and righteousness.)” So he saved himself in the end, what perished in Adam at the beginning. (The same

Xlvi PREFACE.

nature, in and by the same nature.) For if the Lord had been incarnate, for any other disposition, (that is, cause, reason, or end,) and had brought flesh from any other substance, (that is, ccelestial or a;therial, as the Gnostics imagined,) he had not recovered men, brought our nature into an head in himself, nor could he have been said to be flesh. He therefore himself had flesh and blood, not of any other kind; but he took to himself that which was originally created of the Father, seeking that which was lost.” The same is observed by Austin, lib. de fide, ad Pctrum Diaconum. Sic igitur Christum Dei Filium, id est, imam ex Trinitate personam, Deum verum crede, ut divinitatem ejus de natura Patris natam esse non dubites; et sic eum verum hominem crede, et ejus carnem, non caelestis, nonaerice, non alterius cujusquamputes esse natura, sed ejus cujus est omnium car o; id est, quam ipse Deus, homini primo de terra plasmavit, et ceteris hominibus plasmat. “So believe Christ the Son of God, that is, one person of the Trinity, to be the true God, that you doubt not but that his divinity was born (by eternal generation) of the nature of the Father; and so believe him to be a true man, that you suppose not his flesh to be aerial, or heavenly, or of any other nature, but of that which is the flesh of all men; that is, which God himself formed in the first man of the earth, and which he forms in all other men.” That which he speaks of one person of the Trinity, hath respect unto the heretical opinion of Hormisda the bishop of Rome, who contended that it was unlawful to say that one person of the Trinity was incarnate; and persecuted some Scythian monks, men not unlearned, about it, who were strenuously defended by Maxentius one of them.

It carrieth in it a great condecency unto divine wisdom, that man should be restored unto the image of God, by him who was the essential image of the Father, as it is declared in our discourse: and that he was made like unto us, that we might be made like unto him, and unto God through him. So speaks the same Irenseus, lib. 5. Prsefat. Verbum Dei Jesus Christus, qui propter immensam suam dilectionem, f actus est, quod sumus nos, ulnos perficeret quod est ipse. “Jesus Christ the word of God, who from his own infinite love, was made what we are, that he might make us what he is; that is, by the restoration of the image of God in us.” And again, lib. 3. cap. 20. Filius Dei existens apud Patrem, et homo factus, longam hominum expositionem in scipso, recapitulavit; in compendio nobis, salutem prcestans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id est, secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus, quia enim non erat possibile qtu semel victus fuerat et elifus per inobedientiam, replasmare et obtinere bravium victorias; iterum autem inipossibile erat ut salutem perciperet, qui sub peccato ceciderat, utraque operatus est jilius verbum Dei existens, a Patre descendens et incarnatus, usque ad mortem descendens, et dispensationem consummans salutis nostra.” Being the Son of God with the Father, and being made man, he reconciled or gathered up in himself, the

PREFACE. Xlvii

long continued exposing of men (unto sin and judgment,) bringing in salvation in this compendious way, in this summary of it, that what we had lost in Adam, that is, our being in the image and likeness of God; that we should recover in Christ. For it was not possible that man, that had been once conquered and broken by disobedience, should (by himself) be reformed, and obtain the crown of victory; nor was it again possible that he should recover salvation who had fallen under sin. Both were wrought by the Son, the Word of God, who, descending from the Father, and being incarnate, submitted himself to death, perfecting the dispensation of our salvation.”

And Clemens Alexandrinus to the same purpose, Adhort. ad. Gentes,

fiat <pri[ii b ~Soyos b tu Oca dvQpcjiros ytvoptvos, iva Si Kal av vapa dvdpaiirs nadrji, mj tzots

dpa avQpoi-Koi yevrjrai Qtos. “The Word of God was made man, that thou mightest learn of a man how man may become (as) God.” And Ambrose, in Psal. cxviii. Octon. S. Imago id est, verbum Dei, ad eum qui est ad imaginem hoc est, hominem venit, et quoerat imago eum qui est ad similitudinem, ut iterum signet, ut itentm conjirmet, qui amisit quod accepit. “The image of God, that is, the word of God, came into him who was after the image of God, that is man. And this image of God seeks him who is after the image of God, that he might seal him with it again, and confirm him, because he had lost that which he had received.” And Austin in one instance gives a rational account why it was condecent unto divine wisdom, that the Son, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, should be incarnate; which we also inquire into, lib. de Definition. Orthodoxis, cap. 2. Non Pater camera assumpsit, neque Spiritus Sanctus, sed Filius tantum; ut qui erat in divinitate Dei Patris Filius ipse Jieret in nomine, hominis matris Filius; ne Filii nomenad alterum transirit, qui non esset mterna nativitate Filius. “The Father did not assume flesh, nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son only; that he who in the Deity was the Son of the Father, should be made the Son of man, in his mother of human race; that the name of the Son should not pass unto any other, who was not the Son by an eternal nativity.”

I shall close with one meditation of the same author, concerning the wisdom and righteousness of God in this mystery. Enchirid. ad Laurent, cap. 99. Vide — universum genus humanum tarn justo judicio divino in apostatica radice damnatum, ut etiam si nullus inde liberaretur, nemo recte possit Dei vituperare justitiam; et qui liberantur, sic oportuisse liberari, ut ex pluribus non liberatis, atque damnations justissima derelictis, ostenderetur, quod meruisset universa conspersio, et quo etiam istos debitum judicium Dei duceret, nisi ejus indebita misericordia subveniret. ‘’Behold, the whole race of mankind by the just judgment of God so condemned in the apostatical root, that if no one were thence delivered, yet no man could rightly complain of the justice of God; and that those who were freed, ought so to be freed, that from the greater number who are not freed, but left under most righteous condemnation, it

Xlviii PREFACE.

might be manifest what the whole mass had deserved, and whether the judgment of God due unto them would lead them, if his mercy, which was not due, did not relieve them.” The reader may see what is discoursed unto these purposes: and because the great end of the description given of the person of Christ, is that we may love him, and thereby be transformed into his image. I shall close this preface with the words of Hieron, concerning that divine love unto Christ which is at large declared. Sive legas, saith he, sive scribas, sive vigiles, sive dormias, amor tibi semper buccina in auribus sonet; hie lituus excitet animam tuam, hoc amore jurebundus; qucere in lecto tuo, quern desiderat animo tuo. Epist. ad Pamach, cap. 4. “Whether thou read est or writest, whether thou watchest or sleepest, let the voice of love (to Christ) sound in thine ears; let this trumpet stir up thy soul; being overpowered, (brought into an ec-^ stacy) with this love, seek him on thy bed, whom thy soul desireth and longeth for,”

XP 12 T 0 AOTIA:

OR,

A DECLARATION

OF THE

GLORIOUS MYSTERY

OF THE

PERSON OF CHRIST, <fcc.