_________________________________________________________________

           Title: Christologia
      Creator(s): Owen, John (1616-1683)
     Print Basis: The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1965.
   CCEL Subjects: All; Theology;
      LC Call no: BT200
   LC Subjects:

   Doctrinal theology

   Christology
     _________________________________________________________________

                                 ChRISTOLOGIA:

    or,

  a Declaration of the Glorious Mystery

    of

the Person of Christ — God and Man:

    with

  the Infinite Wisdom, Love, and Power of God in the Contrivance and
  Constitution thereof;

    as also,

  of the Grounds and Reasons of His Incarnation;
  the Nature of His Ministry in Heaven;
  the Present State of the Church above thereon;
  and the Use of His Person in Religion:

    with

  an Account and Vindication of the Honour, Worship, Faith, Love, and Obedience
  due unto Him, in and from the Church.
     _________________________________________________________________

   “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.” — Phil. iii. 8.
     _________________________________________________________________

                                Prefatory Note.

   The object of Dr Owen in this treatise is to illustrate the mystery of
   divine grace in the person of Christ. It bears the title, “Christologia;”
   but it differs considerably from modern works of the same title or
   character. It is not occupied with a formal induction from Scripture in
   proof of the supreme Godhead of the Saviour. Owen assumes the truth of this
   doctrine, and applies all his powers and resources to expound its relations
   in the Christian system, and its bearings on Christian duty and experience.

   Chapter I. of the work is devoted to an exposition of Matt. xvi. 16, as a
   warrant and basis for his inquiry respecting the person of Christ. Chapter
   II. contains some historical references to the opposition encountered by
   this doctrine in past ages. From Chapter III. to VII. inclusive, the person
   of Christ is exhibited as the origin of all true religion, the foundation of
   the divine counsel, the representation of the divine nature and will, the
   embodiment and sum of divine truth, and the source of divine and gracious
   efficacy for the salvation of the church. The faith of the Old Testament
   Church respecting it is illustrated in Chapter VIII. Then follows the second
   leading division of the treatise, in which the divine honours and obedience
   due to Christ, and our obligation to seek conformity to him, are urged at
   some length, from Chapter IX. to XV. It is followed in Chapters XVI. and
   XVII. with an inquiry into the divine wisdom as manifested in the person of
   Christ. The hypostatical union is explained, Chapter XVIII. Two more
   Chapters, XIX. and XX., close the work, with a dissertation on the
   exaltation of Christ, and the mode in which he discharges his mediatorial
   functions in heaven.

   The treatise was first published in 1679. We are not informed under what
   particular circumstances Owen was led to prepare it. There is internal
   evidence in the work itself that he laboured under a strong impression of
   the peril in which evangelical religion would be involved, if views of the
   person of Christ, either positively unsound or simple vague and defective,
   obtained currency in the British churches. His acquaintance with the early
   history of the church taught him that against this doctrine the persevering
   assaults of Satan had been directed; and, with sagacious foresight, he
   anticipated the rise of heresy on this point in England. He speaks of
   “woeful contests” respecting it, — increasing rather than abating “unto this
   very day;” and intimates his conviction, in language which elucidates his
   main design in this work, that the only way by which they could be
   terminated was to enthrone Christ anew in the hearts and consciences of men.

   Events ensued which justified these apprehensions of Owen. A prolonged
   controversy on the subject of the Trinity arose, which drew forth the works
   of Bull (1686), Sherlock (1690), and South (1695). In 1710, Whiston was
   expelled from Oxford for his Arianism. Dr S. Clarke, in 1712, published
   Arian views, for which he was summoned before the Convocation. Among the
   Presbyterian Dissenters, Pierce and Hallet (1717) became openly committed to
   Arianism. Dr Isaac Watts who succeeded (1702) to the charge of the same
   congregation in London which had been under the care of Owen, broached the
   Indwelling Scheme; according to which the Father is so united to the man
   Christ Jesus, whose human soul pre-existed his coming in the flesh, that,
   through this indwelling of the Godhead, he became properly God.

   The Christology of Owen has always been highly valued, and will be of use to
   all ages of the church: — “A work,” says the late Dr M’Crie, “which,
   together with its continuation, the ‘Meditations on the Glory of Christ,’ of
   all the theological works published by individuals since the Reformation,
   next to ‘Calvin’s Institutions’, we would have deemed it our highest honour
   to have produced.” — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

                                 The 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 cornerstone, a sure foundation,” whereon “he that believeth shall
   not make haste:” Isa. xxviii. 16. Yet was it also foretold concerning him,
   that this precious foundation should be “for a stone of stumbling, and for a
   rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel; for a gin and for a snare to
   the inhabitants of Jerusalem;” so 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 also,” saith he, “it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay
   in Sion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him
   shall not be confounded. Unto ye 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. 6–8.

   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 woeful
   apostasy from God, which is accompanied with — which containeth in it
   virtually and meritoriously — whatever is evil, noxious, and destructive
   unto our nature, and which, without relief, will issue in eternal misery. By
   him are they brought into the nearest cognation, alliance, and friendship
   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:” verse 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 to all the everlasting concernments
   of their souls — to love and honour him with all their hearts — to endeavour
   after conformity to 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 the Christian religion; without
   which, whatever outward ornaments may be put upon its exercise, it is but a
   useless, lifeless carcass. The whole of this design is expressed in these
   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 fore-mentioned 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: whereunto also they 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 woeful 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 men, 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 woeful conflicts. But this is not to be expected in any degree of
   perfection amongst them who stumble at this stone of offence, whereunto they
   were 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
   meantime, 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 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 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
   subject 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, in
   an especial manner, that faith 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 the
   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 writings,
   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 cause, 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 unto 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
   occasion 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 indication 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 also 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, viz., whether
   Jesus Christ or the Pope of Rome be the rock whereon the church is built.
   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 — multiplied by others unto this purpose. I shall
   mention some few of them.

   Houtos estin hē pros ton Patera agousa hodos, hē petra, hē kleis, ho poimēn,
   &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 Matt. xvi.: (Tract. i.:) “Quod si super unum illum
   Petrum tantum existimes totam ecclesiam ædificari, quid dicturus es de
   Johanne, et apostolorum unoquoque? Num audebimus dicere quod adversus Petrum
   unum non prevalituræ sunt portæ 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? What! shall we dare to say that the gates of hell shall not
   prevail against Peter only?” So he [held,] 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. Præparat.
   Evang., lib. i. cap. 3: Hēte onomasti prothespistheisa ekklesia autou
   hestēke kata bathous errhizōmenē, kai mechris ouraniōn hapsidōn euchais
   hosiōn kai theophilōn andrōn meteōrizomenē — dia mian ekeinēn, hēn autos
   apephēnato lexin, eipōn, Epi tēn petran oikodomēsō mou tēn ekklesian, kai
   pulai hadou ou katischususin autēs. He proves the verity of divine
   predictions from the glorious accomplishment of that word, and the 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
   “Unum hoc est immobile fundamentum, una hæc est felix fidei Petra, Petri ore
   confessa, Tu es filius Dei vivi,” says Hilary de Trin., lib. ii. — “This is
   the only immovable foundation, this is the blessed rock of faith confessed
   by Peter, Thou art the Son of the living God.” And Epiphanius, Hær. xxxix.:
   Epi tē petra tautē tēs asphalous pisteōs oikodomēsō mou tēn ekklēsian. —
   “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,
   or the person of Christ, which is so.

   One or two more out of Augustine shall close these testimonies: “Super hanc
   Petram, quam confessus es, super meipsum filium Dei vivi, ædificabo
   ecclesiam meam. Super me ædificabo te, non me super te:” De Verbis Dom.,
   Serm. xiii. — “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. cxxiv., in Johan.:) “Universam significabat ecclesiam, quæ in hoc
   seculo diversis tentationibus, velut imbribus, fluminibus, tempestatibusque
   quatitur, et non cadit; quoniam fundata est supra Petram; unde et Petrus
   nomen accepit. Non enim a Petro Petra, sed Petrus a Petra; sicut non
   Christus a Christiano, sed Christianus a Christo vocatur. Ideo quippe ait
   Dominus, ‘Super hanc Petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam,’ quia dixerat Petrus,
   ‘Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi.’ ‘Super hanc ergo’ (inquit) ‘Petram quam
   confessus es, ædificabo eccleaism meam.’ Petra enim erat Christus, super
   quod fundamentum etiam ipse ædificatus est Petrus. Fundamentum quippe aliud
   nemo potest ponere, præter id quod positum est, quod est Jesus Christus.”
   — “He (Christ) meant the universal church, which 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 will I
   build my church;’ because Peter said, ‘Thou art the 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 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 [raving] imaginations; yet did
   even they also, one way or other, derive from an hatred unto the person of
   Christ, and centred therein. Their beginning was early in the church, even
   before the writing of the gospel by John, or of his Revelation, 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 acting, 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 havoc 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 be, not 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 reader 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. First, There is evidence
   given therein unto the truth of those predictions of the Scripture, wherein
   this fatal apostasy from the truth, and opposition unto the Lord Christ, are
   foretold: and, secondly, An eminent instance of his power and faithfulness,
   in the appointment 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, iv. 1–5,) 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, iv. 1–3; 2 John 8, 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, 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 the Christian religion, another way was fixed on for
   this end, viz., 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 contentions about them. The
   Grecians themselves could not for a long season agree among themselves
   whether ousia and hupostasis 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: Orat. v. con. Arian., 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. lxxviii. The like difference
   immediately fell out between the Grecians and Latins about “hypostasis” and
   “persona.” For the Latins rendered “hypostasis” by “substantia,” and
   prosōpon by “persona.” Hereof Jerome complains, in his Epistle to Damasus,
   that they required of him in the East to confess “tres hypostases,” and he
   would only acknowledge “tres personas:” Epist. lxxi. And Augustine gives an
   account of the same difference: De Trinitate, lib v. cap. 8, 9. Athanasius
   endeavoured the composing of this difference, and in a good measure effected
   it, as Gregory 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 subtle
   Arians made incredible advantage hereof at first, pretending that they
   opposed not the deity of Christ, but only the expression of it by of
   homoousios, so afterwards they countenanced themselves in coining words and
   terms, to express their minds with, which utterly rejected it. Hence were
   their homoiousios, heterousios, ex ouk ontōn, and the like names of
   blasphemy, about which the contests were fierce and endless. And there were
   yet farther evils that ensued hereon. For the curious and serpentine wits of
   men, finding themselves by this means set 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 on the neck of one another, whereon
   commonly new occasions of differences did arise, and most of them managed
   with great scandal unto the 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 their
   prevalence 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 give 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 those
   who pretended to believe the same truth, whether such or such a council
   should be received — that is, plainly, 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 those wherein the
   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 unto the Nestorian heresy,
   condemned in the first Ephesian Council, and afterwards in that at
   Chalcedon. Cyril of Alexandria, a man learned and vehement, designed by all
   means to be unto it what his predecessor Athanasius had been to the Arian;
   but he fell into such excesses in his undertakings, as gave great occasion
   unto farther tumults. For it is evident that he distinguisheth not between
   hupostasis and phusis, and therefore affirms, that the divine Word and
   humanity had mia phusin, one nature only. So he doth plainly in Epist. ad
   Successum: “They are ignorant,” saith he, hoti katʼ alētheian esti mia
   phusis tou logou sesarkōmenē. Hence Eutyches the Archimandrite took occasion
   to run into a contrary extreme, being a no less fierce enemy to Nestorius
   than Cyril was. For to oppose him who divided the person of Christ into two,
   he confounded his natures into one — his delirant folly being confirmed by
   that goodly assembly, the second at Ephesus. Besides, it is confessed that
   Cyril — through the vehemency of his spirit, hatred unto Nestorius, and
   following the conduct of his own mind in nice and subtle 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 Cyril 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 this 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 the 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
   prediction of our blessed Saviour in Matt. xvi. 18, (the place insisted on,)
   to show 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 apostasy 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 of his power and grace. He continueth his Word, with the faithful
   ministry of it, to reveal, declare, make known, and vindicate his sacred
   truth, 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 the Christian religion —
   concerning his divine person, its constitution, and use, as the human nature
   conjoined substantially unto it, and subsisting in it — are in this last age
   increased; although they are managed under so great a variety of forms, as
   that they are not reducible unto any heads of order; although they are
   promoted with more subtlety and specious pretences than in former ages; yet,
   if we are not wanting unto our duty, with the aids of grace proposed unto
   us, we shall finally triumph in this cause, and transmit this sacred truth
   inviolate unto them that succeed us in the profession 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
   majestatis absorbetur a gloria,” 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 themselves up 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. iv., De Verâ Sapient.:) “Quomodo igitur procreavit?
   Nec sciri a quoquam possunt, nec narrari, opera divina; sed tamen sacræ
   literæ docent illum Dei filium, Dei esse sermonem.” — “How, therefore, did
   the Father beget the Son? These divine works can be known of none, declared
   by none; but the holy writings” (wherein it is determined) “teach that he is
   the Son of God, that he is the Word of God.” And Ambrose: (De Fide, ad
   Gratianum:) “Quæro abs te, quando aut quomodo putes filium esse generatum?
   Mihi enim impossibile est scire generationis secretum. Mens deficit, vox
   silet, non mea tantum, sed et angelorum. Supra potestates, supra angelos,
   supra cherubim, supra seraphim, supra omnem sensum est. Tu quoque manum ori
   admove; scrutari non licet superna mysteria. Licet scire quod natus sit, non
   licet discutere quomodo natus sit; illud negare mihi non licet, hoc quærere
   metus est. Nam si Paulus ea quæ audivit, raptus in tertium cœlum,
   ineffabilia dicit, quomodo nos exprimere possumus paternæ generationis
   arcanum, quod nec sentire potuimus nec audire? Quid te ista questionum
   tormenta delectant?” — “I inquire of you when and how the Son was begotten?
   Impossible it is to me to know the mystery 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 cherubim, above the seraphim,
   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 discuss 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 we
   can neither apprehend nor hear? Why do such tormenting questions delight
   thee?”

   Ephraim Syrus wrote a book to this purpose, against those who would search
   out the nature of the Son of God. Among many other things to the same
   purpose are his words: (cap. ii.:) “Infelix profecto, miser, atque
   impudentissimus est, qui scrutari cupot Opificem suum. Millia millium, et
   centies millies millena millia angelorum et archangelorum, cum horrore
   glorificant, et trementes adorant; et homines lutei, pleni peccatis, de
   divinitate intrepide disserunt? Non illorum exhorrescit corpus, non
   contremescit animus; sed securi et garruli, de Christo Dei filio, qui pro me
   indigno peccatore passus est, deque ipsius utraque generatione loquuntur;
   nec saltem quod in luce cæcutiunt, 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 men of clay, 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 nativities or generations; at least they are not
   sensible how blind they are in the light.” To the same purpose speaks
   Eusebius at large: Demonstratio Evang., lib. v. cap. 2.

   Leo well adds hereunto the consideration of his incarnation, in these
   excellent words: (Serm. ix., De Nativit.:) “Quia in Christo Jesu Filio Dei
   non solum ad divinam essentiam, sed etiam ad humanam spectat naturam, quo
   dictum est per prophetam — ‘generationem ejus quis enarrabit?’ — (utramque
   enim substantiam in unam convenisse personam, nisi fides credat, sermo non
   explicat; et ideo materia nunquam deficit laudis; qui nunquam sufficit copia
   laudatoris) — gaudeamus igitur quod ad eloquendum tantum, misericordiæ
   sacramentum impares sumus; et cum salutis nostræ altitudinem promere non
   valeamus, sentiamus nobis bonum esse quod vincimur. Nemo enim ad cognitionem
   veritatis magis propinquat, quam qui intelligit, in rebus divinis, etiamsi
   multum proficiat, semper sibi superesse quod quærat.” See also Fulg., lib.
   ii. 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 Apollinarius, Eutyches, the Monothelites, or
   Monophysites, condemned by all. But that his most simple divine nature, and
   the human, composed properly of soul and body, did compose his one person,
   or that it was composed of them, they constantly affirmed. Ton Theou mesitēn
   kai anthrōpōn, kata tas graphas sunkeisthai phamen ek te tēs kathʼ hēmas
   anthrōpotētos teleiōs echousas kata ton idion logon, kai ek tou pephēnotos,
   ek Theou kata phusin huiou, saith Cyril of Alexandria. — “A sanctis patribus
   adunatione ex divinitate et humanitate Christus Dominus noster compositus
   prædicatur:” Pet. Diacon., Lib. De Incarnat. et Grat. Christi, ad
   Fulgentium. And the union which they intended by this composition they
   called henōsin phusikēn, because it was of diverse natures, and henōsin kata
   sunthesin, a union by composition.

   But because there neither was nor can be any composition, properly so
   called, of the divine and human natures, and because 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: Ho asarkos sarkoutai, ho logos
   pachunetai, ho aoratos horatai, ho anaphēs psēlaphatai, ho achronos
   archetai, ho huios Theou huios anthrōpou ginetai, saith Gregory Nazianzen,
   (Orat. xii.,) 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. iv. cap.5, &c.:) Ohutō de phōtos hēliou mia kai hē autē prosbolē homou
   kai kata to auto kataugazei men aera, phōtizei de ophthalmous, haphēn de
   thermainei, piainei de gēn, auxei de phuta, k. t. l. (cap. vi.) Ei goun hōs
   en hupothesei logou, katheis ouranothen autos heauton pamphaēs hēlios sun
   anthrōpois epi gēs politeuoito, oudena tōn epi tēs gēs meinai an adiaphoron,
   pantōn sullēbdēn empsuchōn homou kai apsuchōn athroa tē tou phōtos prosbolē
   diaphtharēsomenōn. The sense of which words, with some that follow in the
   same place, is unto this purpose: By the beams of the sunlight, 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 it is admired by Leo: (Serm. iii., De Nativit.:) “Natura humana in
   Creatoris societatem assumpta est, non ut ille habitator, et illa esset
   habitaculum; sed ut naturæ alteri sic misceretur altera, ut quamvis alia sit
   quæ suscipitur, alia vero quæ suscepit, in tantam tamen unitatem conveniret
   utriusque diversitas, ut unus idemque sit filius, qui se, et secundum quod
   verus est homo, Patre dicit minorem, et secundum quod verus est Deus Patri
   se profitetur æqualem.” — “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 a 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, professeth himself equal unto the Father.” See also
   Augustinus De Fide, ad Pet. Diacon., cap. xvii.; Justitianus Imperator
   Epist. ad Hormisdam, Romæ Episcop.

   And the mystery is well expressed by Maxentius: (Biblioth. Patr. pars
   prima:) “Non confundimus naturarum diversitatem; veruntamen Christum non ut
   tu asseris 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 faceret; neque enim cum esset in formâ servi, formam Dei
   accepit; sed cum esset in formâ Dei, formam servi accepit; similiter etiam
   nec, 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 Jerome, speaking of the effects of this mystery: (Comment. in Ezekiel,
   cap. xlvi.:) “Ne miretur lector si idem et Princeps est et Sacerdos, et
   Vitulus, et Aries, et Agnus; cum in Scripturis sanctis pro varietate
   causarum legamus eum Dominum, et Deum, et Hominem, et Prophetam, et Virgam,
   et Radicem, et Florem, et Principem, et Regem justum, et Justitiam,
   Apostolum, et Episcopum, Brachium, Servum, Angelum, Pastorem, Filium, et
   Unigenitum, et Promogenitum, Ostium, Viam, Sagittam, Sapientiam, et multa
   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 Jerome into verse:—


   “Corda domat, qui cuncta videt, quem cuncta tremiscunt;

   Fons, via, dextra, lapis, vitulus, leo, lucifer, agnus;

   Janua, spes, virtus, verbum, sapientia, vates.

   Ostia, virgultum, pastor, mons, rete, columba,

   Flama, gigas, aquila, sponsus, patientia, nervus,

   Filius, excelsus, Dominus, Deus; omnia Christus.”

   (In natalem Papæ Epiphanii.)

   “Quod homo est esse Christus voluit; ut et homo possit esse quod Christus
   est,” saith Cyprian: De Idolorum Vanitate, cap. iii. And, “Quod est Christus
   erimus Christiani, si Christum fuerimus imitati:” Ibid. And he explains his
   mind in this expression by way of admiration: (Lib. de Eleemosyn.:)
   “Christus hominis filius fieri voluit, ut nos Dei filios faceret; humiliavit
   se, ut populum qui prius jacebat, erigeret; vulneratus est, ut vulnera
   nostra curaret.”

   Chap. IV. That he was the foundation of 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. Houtos goun ho logos, ho Christos kai tou
   einai palai hēmas, ēn gar en Theō, kai tou eu einai aitios. Nun de etephanē
   anthrōpois, autos houtos ho logos, ho monos amphō Theos te kai anthrōpos,
   hapantōn hēmin aitios agathōn, saith Clemens, Adhort. ad Gentes. — “He,
   therefore, is the Word, the Christ, and the cause of old of our being; for
   he was in God, and the cause of our wellbeing. 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
   wellbeing 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,
   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. Alexandrin., Adhort. ad Gentes:
   Hē men gar tou Theou eikōn ho logos autou, kai huios tou nou gnēsios, ho
   theios logos, phōtos archetupon phōs, eikōn de tou logou ho anthpōpos. —
   “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, in his Pædagogus: Prosōpon tou Theou ho
   logos hō phōtizetai ho Theos kai gnōrizetai. — “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 Jerome expresseth his mind herein: (Comment. in Psal. lxvi.:)
   “Illuminet vultum suum super nos; Dei facies quæ est? utique imago ejus.
   Dicit enim apostolus imaginem Patris esse filium; ergo imagine sua nos
   illuminet; hoc est, imaginem suam filium illuminet super nos; ut 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, which 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: (Demonstratio Evangelica,
   lib. iv. cap. 2:) Hothen eikotōs hoi chrēsmoi theologounted, Theon geneton
   auton apophainousin, hōs an tēs anekphrastou kai aperinoētou theotētos monon
   en autō pheronta tēn eikona, diʼ hēn kai Theon einai te auton kai legesthai
   tēs pros to prōton exomoiōseōs charin. — “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, who by him is represented unto us. See
   the same book, chap. vii., to the same purpose; also, De Ecclesiast. Theol.
   contra Marcell., lib. ii. 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
   paidagōgos, he affirms that he is Theos en anthrōpou schēmati, “God in the
   figure or form of man;” achrantos, patrikō thelēmati diakonos, logos, Theos,
   ho en patri ho ek dexiōn tou patros, sun kai tō schēmati Theou, “impolluted,
   serving the will of the Father, the Word, God, who is in the Father, on the
   right hand of the Father, and in or with the form of God.” Outos hēmin eikōn
   hē akēlidōtos, toutō panti sthenei peirateon exomoioun tēn psuchēn. — “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:
   (Stromat., lib. iv.:) Ho men oun Theos anapodeiktos ōn, ouk estin
   epistēmonikos. Ho de huios sophia te esti kai epistēmē, kai alētheia, kai,
   hosa alla toutō sungenē. — “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 Irenæus, “qui nil molitur
   ineptè:” Lib. i. cap. 1. “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt
   Dei, nisi magister noster verbum existens, homo ffactus fuisset. Neque enim
   alius poterat enarrare nobis quæ sunt Patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum.
   Quis 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 percipientes, uti
   imitatores quidem 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
   worship, in adoration and invocation; wherefore, no one person is or can be
   worshipped, but in the same individual act of worship each person is equally
   worshipped and adored. 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,
   viz, 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. v. cap. 9.
   This form of baptism teacheth us, say they, Pisteuein eis to onoma tou
   patros, kai tou huiou, kai tou hagiou pneumatos, dēladē, theotētos te kai
   dunameōs kai ousias mias tou patros, kai tou huiou, kai tou hagiou pneumatos
   pisteuomenēs, homotimou tēs axias, kai sunaidiou tēs basileias, en trisi
   teleiais hupostasesi. — “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 nomine dixit, non
   nominibus, ergo non aliud nomen Patris est,” &c., “quia unus Deus:” Ambrose,
   De Spirit. Sanct., lib. i. cap. 14. Onoma de koinon tōn triōn hen, hē
   theotēs. — “The one name common to the three is the Deity:” Gregor.
   Nazianzen, Orat. xl. Hence Augustine gives it as a rule, in speaking of the
   Holy Trinity: “Quando unus trium in aliquo opere nominatur, universa operari
   trinitas intelligitur:” Enchirid., cap. xxxviii. — “When one person of the
   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 baptized and believe in the Father, Son, and Spirit,
   kata ton auton, oimai, tropon kai logon, mia proskunēsis hē patros, kai
   enanthrōpēsantos huiou, kai hagiou pneumatos; — “so plainly, in my judgment,
   there is one and the same adoration, of the Father, the Son incarnate, and
   the Holy Spirit:” Cyril. Alex. De Recta Fide, cap. xxxii.

   And this they professed themselves to hold and believe, in that ancient
   doxology 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. xxxv., and Epist. lxvi. 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. xxii. q. 81, a. 3, ad prim., 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, (ō trias hagia arithmoumenē, trias
   en heni onomati arithmoumenē,Epiphan. Ancorat., viii. 22,) 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, not 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 may 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 from, 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
   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 these are
   Rupertus, lib. iii., De Gloriâ et Honore Filii Hominis; Albertus Magnus, in
   iii. distinct. 10, a 4; Petrus Galatinus, lib. iii. 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
   incarnation of the eternal Word, and the condecencies unto divine wisdom
   therein. See Irenæus, lib iii., cap. 20, 21; Eusebius, Demonst. Evangel.,
   lib iv. cap. 1–4, &c.; Cyril Alexand., lib. v. cap. 7, lib i. De Fide ad
   Regin.; Chrysostom, Homil. x. in Johan., et in cap.8, ad Rom. Serm. 18;
   Augustine, De Trinit., lib. xiii. cap. 13–20; Leo, Epist. 13, 18, Sermo. de
   Nativit. 1, 4, 10; Basil, in Psal. xlviii.; Albinus, lib i. in Johan. cap.
   11; Damascen., lib. iii., 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. iii. cap. 20,) which, because his words are cited by
   Theodoret, (Dial. ii.,) I shall transcribe them from thence, as free from
   the injuries of his barbarous translator: Hēnōsen oun kathōs proephamen ton
   anthrōpon tō Theō, ei gar mē anthrōpos enikēsen ton antipalon tou anthrōpou,
   ouk an dikaiōs enikēthē ho echthros, palin te, ei mē ho Theos edōrēsato tēn
   sōtērian, ouk an bebaiōs echoimen autēn, kai ei mē sunēnōthē ho anthrōpos
   tō Theō ouk an ēdunēthē metaschein tēs aphtharsias. Edei gar ton mesitēn tou
   Theou te kai anthrōpōn, dia tēs idias pros hekaterous oikeiotētos eis
   philian kai homonoian tous anphoterous sunagagein. 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, indefeasible
   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,
   with respect unto the conquest of the devil: (lib v. cap. 1:) “Potens in
   omnibus Dei Verbum, et non deficiens in suâ justitiâ, juste etiam adversus
   ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens, ab eo, non cum vi,
   quemadmodum ille initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua
   insatiabiliter rapiens…. Suo igitur sanguine redimente nos Domino, et dante
   animam suam pro 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 apostasy justly also; redeeming from
   him (Satan, the head of the apostasy) 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 soul, and his flesh for ours, wrought out our deliverance.”
   These things are at large insisted on in the ending discourse.

   It belongs unto this great mystery, and is a fruit of divine wisdom, that
   our deliverance should 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 v. cap. 14:) “Non in semetipso recapitulasset hæc
   Dominus, nisi ipse caro et sanguis secundum principalem plasmationem factus
   fuisset; salvans in semetipso in fine illud quod perierat in principio in
   Adam. Si autem ob aliam quandam dispositionem Dominus incarnatus est, et ex
   alterâ substantiâ carnem attulit, non ergo in semetipso recapitulatus est
   hominem, adhuc etiam nec caro quidem dici potest…. Habuit ergo et ipse
   carnem et sanguinem, non alteram quandam, sed ipsam principalem Patris
   plasmationem in se recapitulans, exquirens id quod perierat.” And to the
   same purpose: (lib. v. cap. 1:) “Neque enim vere esset sanguinem et carnem
   habens, per quam nos redemit, nisi antiquam plasmationem Adæ in seipsum
   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 apostasy from God,
   and our recovery by a recapitulation in Christ, as Irenæus — his
   recapitulation being nothing but the anakephalaiōsis mentioned by the
   apostle, Eph. i. 10 — and he here affirms, that, unto this end, the Lord was
   made flesh; “secundum principalem plasmationem,” as his words are rendered;
   that is plainly, the original creation of our nature in innocence,
   uprightness, purity, and righteousness.) “So he saved in himself in the end,
   what perished in Adam at the beginning.” (The same nature, in and by the
   same nature.) “For if the Lord had been incarnate for any other
   disposition,” (i.e., cause, reason, or end,) “and had brought flesh from any
   other substance,” (i.e., celestial or ethereal, as the Gnostics imagined,)
   “he had not recovered men, brought our nature unto a 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 Augustine: (Lib. de Fide, ad Petrum Diaconum:) “Sic igitur
   Christum Dei Filium, id est, unam ex Trinitate personam, Deum verum crede,
   ut divinitatem ejus de naturâ Patris natam esse non dubites; et sic eum
   verum hominem crede, et ejus carnem, non cœlestis, non aeriæ, non alterius
   cujusquam putes esse naturæ, sed ejus cujus est omnium caro; id est, quam
   ipse Deus, homini primo de terra plasmavit, et cæteris 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 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 Hormisdas, 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 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 Irenæus: (lib. v. Præfat:) “Verbum Dei Jesus Christus, qui propter
   immensam suam dilectionem, factus est quod sumus nos, ut nos 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. iii. cap. 20:)
   “Filius Dei existens semper apud Patrem, et homo factus, longam hominum
   expositionem in seipso recapitulavit; in compendio nobis salutem præstans,
   ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id est, secundum imaginem et similitudinem
   esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesus reciperemus. Quia enim non erat possibile,
   eum hominem, qui semel victus fuerat et elisus per inobedientiam, replasmare
   et obtinere brabium (brabeion) victoriæ; iterum autem impossibile erat ut
   salutem perciperet, qui sub peccato ceciderat. Utraque operatus est filius
   Verbum Dei existens, a Patre descendens et incarnatus, et usque ad mortem
   descendens, et dispensationem consummans salutis nostræ.” — “Being the Son
   of God always with the Father, and being made man, he reconciled or gathered
   up in himself the 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 — 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, again, was it 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.) Nai phēmi
   ho logos ho tou Theou anthrōpos genomenos, hina de kai su para anthrōpou
   mathēs, tē pote ara anthrōpos genetai Theos. — “The Word of God was made
   man, that thou mightest learn of a man how man may become” (as) “God.” And
   Ambrose, in Ps. cxviii. Octonar. decim.: [of the authorized English version,
   Ps. cxix. 73:] “Imago, [id est, Verbum Dei,] ad eum qui est ad imaginem,
   [hoc est, hominem,] venit, et quærit imago eum qui est ad similitudinem sui,
   ut iterum signet, ut iterum confirmet, quia amiseras quod accepisti.” — “The
   image of God, that is, the Word of God, came unto him who was after the
   image of God, that is man. And this image of God seeks him who was after the
   image of God, that he might seal him with it again, and confirm him, because
   thou hadst lost that which thou hadst received.” And Augustine 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 Definitionibus Orthodoxæ Fidei sive de
   Ecclesiastica Dogmatibus, cap. ii.:) “Non Pater carnem assumpsit, neque
   Spiritus Sanctus, set Filius tantum; ut qui erat in divinitate Dei Patris
   Filius, ipse fieret in homine hominis matris Filius; ne Filii nomen ad
   alterum transiret, qui non esset æternâ 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.
   xcix.:) “Vide — universum genus humanum tam justo judicio Divino in
   apostaticâ 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 in damnatione justissimâ derelictis,
   ostenderetur, quod meruisset universa conspersio, et quò 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 are
   freed, ought so to be freed, that, from the greater number who are not
   freed, but left under most righteous condemnation, it might be manifest what
   the whole mass had deserved, and whither 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 Jerome, 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, hic lituus excitet
   animam tuam, hoc amore furibundus; quære in lectulo tuo, quem desiderat
   anima tua:” Epist. lxvi. ad Pammach., cap. 10. — “Whether thou readest 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 ecstasy) with this love, seek Him on thy bed
   whom thy soul desireth and longeth for.”
     _________________________________________________________________

         A Declaration of the Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ
     _________________________________________________________________

                                  Chapter I.

   Peter’s Confession; Matt. xvi. 16 — Conceits of the Papists thereon — The
   Substance and Excellency of that Confession.

   Our blessed Saviour, inquiring of his disciples their apprehensions
   concerning his person, and their faith in him, Simon Peter — as he was
   usually the forwardest on all such occasions, through his peculiar
   endowments of faith and zeal — returns an answer in the name of them all,
   Matt. xvi. 16: “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the
   Son of the living God.”

   Baronius, and sundry others of the Roman Church, do all affirm that the Lord
   Christ did herein prescribe the form of a general council. “For here,” say
   they, “the principal article of our Christian faith was declared and
   determined by Peter, whereunto all the rest of the apostles, as in duty they
   were obliged, did give their consent and suffrage.” This was done, as they
   suppose, that a rule and law might be given unto future ages, how to enact
   and determine articles of faith. For it is to be done by the successors of
   Peter presiding in councils, as it was now done by Peter in this assembly of
   Christ and his apostles.

   But they seem to forget that Christ himself was now present, and therefore
   could have no vicar, seeing he presided in his own person. All the claim
   they lay unto the necessity of such a visible head of the church on the
   earth, as may determine articles of faith, is from the absence of Christ
   since his ascension into heaven. But that he should also have a substitute
   whilst he was present, is somewhat uncouth; and whilst they live, they shall
   never make the pope president where Christ is present. The truth is, he doth
   not propose unto his disciples the framing of an article of truth, [1] but
   inquires after their own faith, which they expressed in this confession.
   Such things as these will prejudice, carnal interest, and the prepossession
   of the minds of men with corrupt imaginations, cause them to adventure on,
   to the scandal, yea, ruin of religion!

   This short but illustrious confession of Peter, compriseth eminently the
   whole truth concerning the person and office of Christ:— of his person, in
   that although he was the Son of man, (under which appellation he made his
   inquiry, “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?”) yet was he not only
   so, but the eternal Son of the living God:— of his office, that he was the
   Christ, he whom God had anointed to be the Saviour of the church, in the
   discharge of his kingly, priestly, and prophetical power. Instances of the
   like brief confessions we have elsewhere in the Scripture. Rom. x. 9: “If
   thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
   heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” 1 John
   iv. 2, 3: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the
   flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is
   come in the flesh is not of God.” And it is manifest, that all divine truths
   have such a concatenation among themselves, and do all of them so centre in
   the person of Christ — as vested with his offices towards the church — that
   they are all virtually comprised in this confession, and they will be so as
   counted by all who destroy them not by contrary errors and imaginations
   inconsistent with them, though it be the duty of all men to obtain the
   express knowledge of them in particular, according unto the means thereof
   which they do enjoy. The danger of men’s souls lieth not in a disability to
   attain a comprehension of longer or more subtile confessions of faith, but
   in embracing things contrary unto, or inconsistent with, this foundation
   thereof. Whatever it be whereby men cease to hold the Head, how small soever
   it seem, that alone is pernicious: Col. ii. 18, 19.

   This confession, therefore, — as containing the sum and substance of that
   faith which they were called to give testimony unto, and concerning which
   their trial was approaching — is approved by our Saviour. And not only so,
   but eminent privileges are granted unto him that made it, and in him unto
   the whole church, that should live in the same faith and confession: (verses
   17, 18:) “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
   Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father
   which is in heaven. And I say also 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.”

   Two things doth our Saviour consider in the answer returned unto his
   inquiry. 1. The faith of Peter in this confession — the faith of him that
   made it; 2. The nature and truth of the confession: both which are required
   in all the disciples of Christ — “For with the heart man believeth unto
   righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation:” Rom.
   x. 10.

   1. The first thing which he speaks unto is the faith of Peter, who made this
   confession. Without this no outward confession is of any use or advantage.
   For even the devils knew him to be the Holy One of God; (Luke iv. 34;) yet
   would he not permit them to speak it: Mark i. 34. That which gives glory
   unto God in any confession, and which gives us an interest in the truth
   confessed, is the believing of the heart, which is unto righteousness. With
   respect hereunto the Lord Christ speaks: (verse 17:) “And Jesus answered and
   said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath
   not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

   He commends and sets forth the faith of Peter — (1.) From its effect; (2.)
   From its cause. Its effect was, that it made him blessed in whom it was. For
   it is not only a blessed thing to believe and know Jesus Christ, as it is
   called life eternal; (John xvii. 3;) but it is that which gives an immediate
   interest in the blessed state of adoption, justification, and acceptance
   with God: John i. 12. (2.) The immediate cause of this faith is divine
   revelation. It is not the effect or product of our own abilities, the best
   of which are but flesh and blood. That faith which renders them blessed in
   whom it is, is wrought in them by the power of God revealing Christ unto
   their souls. Those who have more abilities of their own unto this end than
   Peter had, we are not concerned in.

   2. He speaks unto the confession itself, acquainting his disciples with the
   nature and use of it, which, from the beginning, he principally designed:
   (verse 18:) “And I say also 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.”

   From the speaking of these words unto Peter, there is a controversy raised
   in the world, whether the Lord Christ himself, or the pope of Rome, be the
   rock whereon the church is built. And unto that state are things come in
   religion, among them that are called Christians, that the greatest number
   are for the pope and against Christ in this matter. And they have good
   reason for their choice. For if Christ be the rock whereon the church is
   built, whereas he is a living stone, those that are laid and built on him
   must be lively stones also, as this apostle assures us, 1 Epist. ii. 4, 5;
   they must be like unto Christ himself, partaking of his nature, quickened by
   his Spirit, so, as it were, to be bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh:
   Eph. v. 30. Nor can any be built on him but by a living faith, effectual in
   universal obedience. These things the generality of men like not at all;
   and, therefore, the fabric of the living temple on this foundation is
   usually but small, seldom conspicuous or outwardly glorious. But if the pope
   be this rock, all the Papists in the world, or all that have a mind so to be
   — be they ever so wicked and ungodly — may be built upon him, and be made
   partakers of all that deliverance from the powers of hell which that rock
   can afford them. And all this may be obtained at a very easy rate; for the
   acknowledgment of the pope’s sovereign authority in the church is all that
   is required thereunto. How they bring in the claim of their pope by Peter,
   his being at Rome, being bishop of Rome, dying at Rome, fixing his chair at
   Rome, devoting and transmitting all his right, title, power, and authority,
   every thing but his faith, holiness, and labour in the ministry, unto the
   pope, I shall not here inquire; I have done it elsewhere. Here is fixed the
   root of the tree, which is grown great, like that in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream,
   until it is become a receptacle for the beasts of the field and fowls of the
   air — sensual men and unclean spirits. I shall, therefore, briefly lay an
   axe unto the root of it, by evidencing that it is not the person of Peter
   who confessed Christ, but the person of Christ whom Peter confessed, that is
   the rock on which the church is built.

   1. The variation of the expressions proves undeniably that our Saviour
   intended we should not understand the person of Peter to be the rock. He
   takes occasion from his name to declare what he designed, but no more: “And
   I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter.” He had given him this name before, at
   his first calling; (John i. 42;) now he gives the reason of his so doing;
   viz., because of the illustrious confession that he should make of the rock
   of the church; as the name of God under the Old Testament was called on
   persons, and things, and places, because of some especial relation unto him.
   Wherefore, the expression is varied on purpose to declare, that whatever be
   the signification of the name Peter, yet the person so called was not the
   rock intended. The words are, Su ei Petros, kai epi tautē tē petra. Had he
   intended the person of Peter, he would have expressed it plainly, Su ei
   petros, kai epi soi, k. t. l. — “Thou art a rock, and on thee will I
   build.” At least the gender had not been altered, but he would have said,
   Epi toutō tō petrō, which would have given some colour to this imagination.
   The exception which they lay hereunto, from the use of Cephas in the Syriac,
   which was the name of Peter, and signified a rock or a stone, lies not only
   against the authentic authority of the Greek original, but of their own
   translation of it, which reads the words, “Tu es Petrus, et super hanc
   petram.”

   2. If the church was built on the person of Peter, then when he died the
   church must utterly fail. For no building can possibly abide when its
   foundation is removed and taken away. Wherefore they tell us they do not
   intend by the person of Peter, that singular and individual person alone to
   be this rock; but that he and his successors the bishops of Rome are so. But
   this story of his successors at Rome is a shameful fable. If the pope of
   Rome be a true believer, he succeeds, in common with all other believers,
   unto the privileges which belong unto this confession; if he be not, he hath
   neither lot nor portion in this matter. But the pretence is utterly vain on
   another account also. The apostle, showing the insufficiency of the
   Aaronical priesthood — wherein there was a succession of God’s own
   appointment — affirms, that it could not bring the church unto a perfect
   state, because the high priests died one after another, and so were many:
   Heb. vii. 8, 23, 24. And thereon he shows that the church cannot be
   consummated or perfected, unless it rest wholly in and on him who lives
   forever, and was made a priest “after the power of an endless life.” And if
   the Holy Ghost judged the state of the Jewish Church to be weak and
   imperfect — because it rested on high priests that died one after another,
   although their succession was expressly ordained of God himself — shall we
   suppose that the Lord Christ, who came to consummate the church, and to
   bring it unto the most perfect estate whereof in this world it is capable,
   should build it on a succession of dying men, concerning which succession
   there is not the least intimation that it is appointed of God? And as unto
   the matter of fact, we know both what interruptions it hath received, and
   what monsters it hath produced — both sufficiently manifesting that it is
   not of God.

   3. There is but one rock, but one foundation. There is no mention in the
   Scripture of two rocks of the church. In what others invent to this purpose
   we are not concerned. And the rock and the foundation are the same; for the
   rock is that whereon the church is built, that is the foundation. But that
   the Lord Christ is this single rock and foundation of the church, we shall
   prove immediately. Wherefore, neither Peter himself, nor his pretended
   successors, can be this rock. As for any other rock, it belongs not unto our
   religion; they that have framed it may use it as they please. For they that
   make such things are like unto the things they make; so is every one that
   trusteth in them: Ps. cxv. 8. “But their rock is not as our rock, themselves
   being judges;” unless they will absolutely equal the pope unto Jesus Christ.

   4. Immediately after this declaration of our Saviour’s purpose to build his
   church on the rock, he reveals unto his disciples the way and manner how he
   would lay its foundation, viz., in his death and sufferings: verse 21. And
   thereon this supposed rock, being a little left unto his own stability,
   showed himself to be but a “reed shaken with the wind.” For he is so far
   from putting himself under the weight of the building, that he attempts an
   obstruction of its foundation. He began to rebuke Christ himself for
   mentioning his sufferings, wherein alone the foundation of the Gospel Church
   was to be laid; (verse 22;) and hereon he received the severest rebuke that
   ever the Lord Jesus gave unto any of his disciples: verse 23. And so it is
   known that afterward — through surprisal and temptation — he did what lay in
   him to recall that confession which here he made, and whereon the church was
   to be built. For, that no flesh might glory in itself, he that was singular
   in this confession of Christ, was so also in the denial of him. And if he in
   his own person manifested how unmeet he was to be the foundation of the
   church, they must be strangely infatuated who can suppose his pretended
   successors so to be. But some men will rather have the church to be utterly
   without any foundation, than that it should not be the pope.

   The vanity of this pretence being removed, the substance of the great
   mystery contained in the attestation given by our Saviour unto the
   confession of Peter, and the promise whereunto annexed, may be comprised in
   the ensuing assertions:—

   1. The person of Christ, the Son of the living God, as vested with his
   offices, whereunto he was called and anointed, is the foundation of the
   church, the rock whereon it is built.

   2. The power and policy of hell will be always engaged in opposition unto
   the relation of the church unto this foundation, or the building of it on
   this rock.

   3. The church that is built on this rock shall never be disjoined from it,
   or prevailed against by the opposition of the gates of hell.

   The two former of these I shall speak briefly unto, my principal design
   being the demonstration of a truth that ariseth from the consideration of
   them all.

   The foundation of the church is twofold: (1.) Real; (2.) Doctrinal. And in
   both ways, Christ alone is the foundation. The real foundation of the church
   he is, by virtue of the mystical union of it unto him, with all the benefits
   whereof, from thence and thereby, it is made partaker. For thence alone hath
   it spiritual life, grace, mercy, perfection, and glory: Eph. iv. 15, 16;
   Col. ii. 19. And he is the doctrinal foundation of it, in that the faith or
   doctrine concerning him and his offices is that divine truth which in a
   peculiar manner animates and constitutes the church of the New Testament:
   Eph. ii. 19–22. Without the faith and confession hereof, no one person
   belongs unto that church. I know not what is now believed, but I judge it
   will not yet be denied, that the external formal cause of the Church of the
   New Testament, is the confession of the faith concerning the person,
   offices, and grace of Christ, with what is of us required thereon. In what
   sense we assert these things will be afterwards fully cleared.

   That the Lord Christ is thus the foundation of the church, is testified
   unto, Isa. xxviii. 16: “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a
   foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure
   foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” It is among the bold
   inroads that in this late age have been made on the vitals of religion, that
   some, in compliance with the Jews, have attempted the application of this
   promise unto Hezekiah. The violence they have offered herein to the mind of
   the Holy Ghost, might be evidenced from every word of the context. But the
   interpretation and application of the last words of this promise by the
   apostles, leaves no pretence unto this insinuation. “He that believes on him
   shall not be ashamed” or “confounded,” Rom. ix. 33; x. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 6;
   that is, he shall be eternally saved — which it is the highest blasphemy to
   apply unto any other but Jesus Christ alone. He, therefore, is alone that
   foundation which God hath laid in and of the church. See Ps. cxviii. 22;
   Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke xx. 17; Acts iv. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 4; Eph.
   ii. 20–22; Zech. iii. 9. But this fundamental truth — of Christ being the
   only foundation of the church — is so expressly determined by the apostle
   Paul, as not to need any farther confirmation, 1 Cor. iii. 11: “For other
   foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
     _________________________________________________________________

   [1] [Faith?]
     _________________________________________________________________

                                  Chapter II.

   Opposition made unto the Church as built upon the Person of Christ.

   There are in the words of our Saviour unto Peter concerning the foundation
   of the church, a promise of its preservation, and a prediction of the
   opposition that should be made thereunto. And, accordingly, all things are
   come to pass, and carrying on towards a complete accomplishment. For (that
   we may begin with the opposition foretold) the power and policy of hell ever
   were, and ever will be, engaged in opposition unto the church built on this
   foundation — that is, the faith of it concerning his person, office, and
   grace, whereby it is built on him. This, as unto what is past, concerneth
   matter of fact, whereof, therefore, I must give a brief account; and then we
   shall examine what evidences we have of the same endeavour at present.

   The gates of hell, as all agree, are the power and policy of it, or the
   actings of Satan, both as a lion and as a serpent, by rage and by subtlety.
   But whereas in these things he acts not visibly in his own person, but by
   his agents, he hath always had two sorts of them employed in his service. By
   the one he executes his rage, and by the other his craft; he animates the
   one as a lion, the other as a serpent. In the one he acts as the dragon, in
   the other as the beast that had two horns like the lamb, but spake like the
   dragon. The first is the unbelieving world; the other, apostates and
   seducers of all sorts. Wherefore, this work is this kind is of a double
   nature; — the one, an effect of his power and rage, acted by the world in
   persecution — the other, of his policy and craft, acted by heretics in
   seduction. In both he designs to separate the church from its foundation.

   The opposition of the first sort he began against the person of Christ
   immediately in his human nature. Fraud first he once attempted in his
   temptation, (Matt. iv.,) but quickly found that that way he could make no
   approach unto him. The prince of this world came, but had nothing in him.
   Wherefore he betook himself unto open force, and, by all means possible,
   sought his destruction. So also the more at any time the church is by faith
   and watchfulness secured against seduction, the more doth he rage against it
   in open persecution. And (for the example and comfort of the church in its
   conformity unto Christ) no means were left unattempted that might instigate
   and prepare the world for his ruin. Reproaches, contempt, scorn, false and
   lying accusations — by his suggestions — were heaped on him on every hand.
   Hereby, in the whole course of his ministry, he “endured the contradiction
   of sinners against himself:” Heb. xii. 3. And there is herein blessed
   provision made of inestimable consolation, for all those who are
   “predestinated to be conformed unto his image,” when God shall help them by
   faith to make use of his example. He calls them to take up his cross and
   follow him; and he hath showed them what is in it, by his own bearing of it.
   Contempt, reproach, despiteful usage, calumnies, false accusations,
   wrestings of his words, blaspheming of his doctrine, reviling of his person,
   all that he said and did as to his principles about human government and
   moral conversation, encompassed him all his days. And he hath assured his
   followers, that such, and no other, (at least for the most part,) shall be
   their lot in this world. And some in all ages have an experience of it in an
   eminent manner. But have they any reason to complain? Why should the servant
   look for better measure than the Master met withal? To be made like unto him
   in the worst of evils, for his sake, is the best and most honourable
   condition in this world. God help some to believe it! Hereby was way made
   for his death. But, in the whole, it was manifested how infinitely, in all
   his subtlety and malice, Satan falls short of the contrivances of divine
   wisdom and power. For all that he attained by effecting his death, in the
   hour of darkness, was but the breaking of his own head, the destruction of
   his works, with the ruin of his kingdom; and what yet remains to consummate
   his eternal misery, he shall himself work out in his opposition unto the
   church. His restless malice and darkness will not suffer him to give over
   the pursuit of his rage, until nothing remains to give him a full entrance
   into endless torments — which he hasteneth every day. For when he shall have
   filled up the measure of his sins, and of the sins of the world in being
   instrumental unto his rage, eternal judgment shall put all things unto their
   issue. Through that shall he, with the world, enter into everlasting flames
   — and the whole church, built on the rock, into rest and glory.

   No sooner did the Church of the New Testament begin to arise on this
   foundation, but the whole world of Jews and Gentiles set themselves with
   open force to destroy it. And all that they contended with the church about,
   was their faith and confession of it, that “Jesus was the Christ, the Son of
   the living God.” This foundation they would cast it from, or exterminate it
   out of the earth. What were the endeavours of the gates of hell in this kind
   — with what height of rage, with what bloody and inhuman cruelties they were
   exercised and executed — we have some obscure remembrance, in the stories
   that remain from the martyrdom of Stephen unto the days of Constantine. But
   although there be enough remaining on record, to give us a view of the
   insatiable malice of the old murderer, and an astonishing representation of
   human nature degenerating into his image in the perpetration of all horrid,
   inhuman cruelties — yet is it all as nothing in comparison of that prospect
   which the last day will give of them, when the earth shall disclose all the
   blood that it hath received, and the righteous Judge shall lay open all the
   contrivances for its effusion, with the rage and malice wherewith they were
   attended. The same rage continueth yet unallayed in its principles. And
   although God in many places restrain and shut it up in his providence, by
   the circumstances of human affairs, yet — as it hath the least advantage, as
   it finds any door open unto it — it endeavours to act itself in lesser or
   higher degrees. But whatever dismal appearance of things there may be in the
   world, we need not fear the ruin of the church by the most bloody
   oppositions. Former experiences will give security against future events. It
   is built on the rock, and those gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

   The second way whereby Satan attempted the same end, and yet continueth so
   to do, was by pernicious errors and heresies. For all the heresies wherewith
   the church was assaulted and pestered for some centuries of years, were
   oppositions unto their faith in the person of Christ. I shall briefly
   reflect on the heads of this opposition, because they are now, after a
   revolution of so many ages, lifting up themselves again, though under new
   vizards and pretences. And they were of three sorts:—

   1. That which introduced other doctrines and notions of divine things,
   absolutely exclusive of the person and mediation of Christ. Such was that of
   the Gnostic, begun as it is supposed by Simon the magician. A sort of people
   they were, with whom the first churches, after the decease of the apostles,
   were exceedingly pestered, and the faith of many was overthrown. For instead
   of Christ and God in him reconciling the world unto himself, and the
   obedience of faith thereon according unto the Gospel, they introduced
   endless fables, genealogies, and conjugations of deities, or divine powers;
   which practically issued in this, that Christ was such an emanation of light
   and knowledge in them as made them perfect — that is, it took away all
   differences of good and evil, and gave them liberty to do what they pleased,
   without sense of sin, or danger of punishment. This was the first way that
   Satan attempted the faith of the church, viz., by substituting a perfecting
   light and knowledge in the room of the person of Christ. And, for aught I
   know, it may be one of the last ways whereby he will endeavour the
   accomplishment of the same design. Nor had I made mention of these
   pernicious imaginations which have lain rotting in oblivion for so many
   generations, but that some again endeavour to revive them, at least so far
   as they were advanced and directed against the faith and knowledge of the
   person of Christ.

   2. Satan attempted the same work by them who denied his divine nature — that
   is, in effect, denied him to be the Son of the living God, on the faith
   whereof the church is built. And these were of two sorts:—

   (1.) Such as plainly and openly denied him to have any pre-existence unto
   his conception and birth of the holy Virgin. Such were the Ebionites,
   Samosatanians, and Photinians. For they all affirmed him to be a mere man,
   and no more, though miraculously conceived and born of the Virgin, as some
   of them granted; (though denied, as it is said, by the Ebionites;) on which
   account he was called the Son of God. This attempt lay directly against the
   everlasting rock, and would have substituted sand in the room of it. For no
   better is the best of human nature to make a foundation for the church, if
   not united unto the divine. Many in those days followed those pernicious
   ways; yet the foundation of God stood sure, nor was the church moved from
   it. But yet, after a revolution of so many ages, is the same endeavour again
   engaged in. The old enemy, taking advantage of the prevalence of Atheism and
   profaneness among those that are called Christians, doth again employ the
   same engine to overthrow the faith of the church — and that with more
   subtlety than formerly — in the Socinians. For their faith, or rather
   unbelief, concerning the person of Christ, is the same with those before
   mentioned. And what a vain, wanton generation admire and applaud in their
   sophistical reasonings, is no more but what the primitive church triumphed
   over through faith, in the most subtle management of the Samosatanians,
   Photinians, and others. An evidence it is that Satan is not unknowing unto
   the workings of that vanity and darkness, of those corrupt affections in the
   minds of men, whereby they are disposed unto a contempt of the mystery of
   the Gospel. Who would have thought that the old exploded pernicious errors
   of the Samosatanians, Photinians, and Pelagians, against the power and grace
   of Christ, should enter on the world again with so much ostentation and
   triumph as they do at this day? But many men, so far as I can observe, are
   fallen into such a dislike of the Christ of God, that every thing concerning
   his person, Spirit, and grace, is an abomination unto them. It is not want
   of understanding to comprehend doctrines, but hatred unto the things
   themselves, whereby such persons are seduced. And there is nothing of this
   nature whereunto nature, as corrupted, doth not contribute its utmost
   assistance.

   (2.) There were such as opposed his divine nature, under pretence of
   declaring it another way than the faith of the church did rest in. So was it
   with the Arians, in whom the gates of hell seemed once to be near a
   prevalency. For the whole professing world almost was once surprised into
   that heresy. In words they acknowledged his divine person; but added, as a
   limitation of that acknowledgment, that the divine nature which he had was
   originally created of God, and produced out of nothing; with a double
   blasphemy, denying him to be the true God, and making a god of a mere
   creature. But in all these attempts, the opposition of the gates of hell
   unto the church respected faith in the person of Christ as the Son of the
   living God.

   (3.) By some his human nature was opposed — for no stone did Satan leave
   unturned in the pursuit of his great design. And that which in all these
   things he aimed at, was the substitution of a false Christ in the room of
   Him who, in one person, was both the Son of man and the Son of the living
   God. And herein he infected the minds of men with endless imaginations. Some
   denied him to have any real human nature, but [alleged him] to have been a
   phantasm, an appearance, a dispensation, a mere cloud acted by divine power;
   some, that he was made of heavenly flesh, brought from above, and which (as
   some also affirmed) was a parcel of the divine nature. Some affirmed that
   his body was not animated, as ours are, by a rational soul, but was
   immediately acted by the power of the Divine Being, which was unto it in the
   room of a living soul; some, that his body was of an ethereal nature, and
   was at length turned into the sun; with many such diabolical delusions. And
   there yet want not attempts, in these days, of various sorts, to destroy the
   verity of his human nature; and I know not what some late fantastical
   opinions about the nature of glorified bodies may tend unto. The design of
   Satan, in all these pernicious imaginations, is to break the cognation and
   alliance between Christ in his human nature and the church, whereon the
   salvation of it doth absolutely depend.

   3. He raised a vehement opposition against the hypostatical union, or the
   union of these two natures in one person. This he did in the Nestorian
   heresy, which greatly, and for a long time, pestered the church. The authors
   and promoters of this opinion granted the Lord Christ to have a divine
   nature, to be the Son of the living God. They also acknowledged the truth of
   his human nature, that he was truly a man, even as we are. But the personal
   union between these two natures they denied. A union, they said, there was
   between them, but such as consisted only in love, power, and care. God did,
   as they imagined, eminently and powerfully manifest himself in the man
   Christ Jesus — had him in an especial regard and love, and did act in him
   more than in any other. But that the Son of God assumed our nature into
   personal subsistence with himself — whereby whole Christ was one person, and
   all his mediatory acts were the acts of that one person, of him who was both
   God and man — this they would not acknowledge. And this pernicious
   imagination, though it seem to make great concessions of truth, doth no less
   effectually evert the foundation of the church than the former. For, if the
   divine and human nature of Christ do not constitute one individual person,
   all that he did for us was only as a man — which would have been altogether
   insufficient for the salvation of the church, nor had God redeemed it with
   his own blood. This seems to be the opinion of some amongst us, at this day,
   about the person of Christ. They acknowledge the being of the eternal Word,
   the Son of God; and they allow in the like manner the verity of his human
   nature, or own that man Christ Jesus. Only they say, that the eternal Word
   was in him and with him, in the same kind as it is with other believers, but
   in a supreme degree of manifestation and power. But, though in these things
   there is a great endeavour to put a new colour and appearance on old
   imaginations, the design of Satan is one and the same in them all, viz., to
   oppose the building of the church upon its proper, sole foundation. And
   these things shall be afterwards expressly spoken unto.

   I intend no more in these instances but briefly to demonstrate, that the
   principal opposition of the gates of hell unto the church lay always unto
   the building of it, by faith, on the person of Christ.

   It were easy also to demonstrate that Mohammedanism, which hath been so sore
   a stroke unto the Christian profession, is nothing but a concurrence and
   combination of these two ways, of force and fraud, in opposition unto the
   person of Christ.

   It is true that Satan, after all this, by another way, attempted the
   doctrine of the offices and grace of Christ, with the worship of God in him.
   And this he hath carried so far, as that it issued in a fatal antichristian
   apostasy; which is not of my present consideration.

   But we may proceed to what is of our own immediate concernment. And the one
   work with that before described is still carried on. The person of Christ,
   the faith of the church concerning it, the relation of the church unto it,
   the building of the church on it, the life and preservation of the church
   thereby, are the things that the gates of hell are engaged in opposition
   unto. For,

   1. It is known with what subtlety and urgency his divine nature and person
   are opposed by the Socinians. What an accession is made daily unto their
   incredulity, what inclination of mind multitudes do manifest towards their
   pernicious ways, are also evident unto all who have any concernment in or
   for religion. But this argument I have laboured in on other occasions.

   2. Many, who expressly deny not his divine person, yet seem to grow weary of
   any concernment therein. A natural religion, or none at all, pleaseth them
   better than faith in God by Jesus Christ. That any thing more is necessary
   in religion, but what natural light will discover and conduct us in, with
   the moral duties of righteousness and honesty which it directs unto, there
   are too many that will not acknowledge. What is beyond the line of nature
   and reason is rejected as unintelligible mysteries or follies. The person
   and grace of Christ are supposed to breed all the disturbance in religion.
   Without them, the common notions of the Divine Being and goodness will guide
   men sufficiently unto eternal blessedness. They did so before the coming of
   Christ in the flesh, and may do so now he is gone to heaven.

   3. There are some who have so ordered the frame of objective religion, as
   that it is very uncertain whether they leave any place for the person of
   Christ in it or no. For, besides their denial of the hypostatical union of
   his natures, they ascribe all that unto a light within them which God will
   effect only by Christ as a mediator. What are the internal actings of their
   minds, as unto faith and trust towards him, I know not; but, from their
   outward profession, he seems to be almost excluded.

   4. There are not a few who pretend high unto religion and devotion, who
   declare no erroneous conceptions about the doctrine of the person of Christ,
   who yet manifest themselves not to have that regard unto him which the
   Gospel prescribes and requires. Hence have we so many discourses published
   about religion, the practical holiness and duties of obedience, written with
   great elegance of style, and seriousness in argument, wherein we can meet
   with little or nothing wherein Jesus Christ, his office, or his grace, are
   concerned. Yea, it is odds but in them all we shall meet with some
   reflections on those who judge them to be the life and centre of our
   religion. The things of Christ, beyond the example of his conversation on
   the earth, are of no use with such persons, unto the promotion of piety and
   gospel obedience. Concerning many books of this nature, we may say what a
   learned person did of one of old: “There were in it many things laudable and
   delectable, sed nomen Jesu non erat ibi.”

   5. Suited unto these manifest inclinations of the minds of men unto a
   neglect of Christ, in the religion they frame unto themselves — dangerous
   and noxious insinuations concerning what our thoughts ought to be of him,
   are made and tendered. As, (1.) It is scandalously proposed and answered,
   “Of what use is the consideration of the person of Christ in our
   religion?” Such are the novel inquiries of men who suppose there is any
   thing in Christian religion wherein the person of Christ is of no
   consideration — as though it were not the life and soul that animates the
   whole of it, that which gives it its especial form as Christian — as though
   by virtue of our religion we received any thing from God, any benefit in
   mercy, grace, privilege, or glory, and not through the person of Christ — as
   though any one duty or act of religion towards God could be acceptably
   performed by us, without a respect unto, or a consideration of, the person
   of Christ — or that there were any lines of truth in religion as it is
   Christian, that did not relate thereunto. Such bold inquiries, with futilous
   answers annexed unto them, sufficiently manifest what acquaintance their
   authors have either with Christ himself, which in others they despise, or
   with his Gospel, which they pretend to embrace. (2.) A mock scheme of
   religion is framed, to represent the folly of them who design to learn the
   mind and will of God in and by him. (3.) Reproachful reflections are made on
   such as plead the necessity of acquaintance with him, or the knowledge of
   him, as though thereby they rejected the use of the gospel. (4.) Professed
   love unto the person of Christ is traduced, as a mere fancy and vapour of
   distempered minds or weak imaginations. (5.) The union of the Lord Christ
   and his church is asserted to be political only, with respect unto laws and
   rules of government. And many other things of an alike nature are asserted,
   derogatory unto his glory, and repugnant unto the faith of the church; such
   as, from the foundation of Christian religion, were never vented by any
   persons before, who did not openly avow some impious heresy concerning his
   person. And I no way doubt but that men may, with less guilt and scandal,
   fall under sundry doctrinal misapprehensions concerning it — than, by crying
   hail thereunto, to despoil it of all its glory, as unto our concernment
   therein, in our practical obedience unto God. Such things have we deserved
   to see and hear.

   6. The very name or expression of “preaching Christ” is become a term of
   reproach and contempt; nor can some, as they say, understand what is meant
   thereby, unless it be an engine to drive all rational preaching, and so all
   morality and honesty, out of the world.

   7. That which all these things tend unto and centre in, is that horrible
   profaneness of life — that neglect of all gospel duties — that contempt of
   all spiritual graces and their effects, which the generality of them that
   are called Christians, in many places, are given up unto. I know not whether
   it were not more for the honour of Christ, that such persons would publicly
   renounce the profession of his name, rather than practically manifest their
   inward disregard unto him.

   That by these and the like means Satan doth yet attempt the ruin of the
   church, as unto its building on the everlasting rock, falls under the
   observation of all who are concerned in its welfare. And (whatever others
   may apprehend concerning this state of things in the world) how any that
   love the Lord Jesus in sincerity — especially such as are called to declare
   and represent him unto men in the office of the ministry — can acquit
   themselves to be faithful unto him, without giving their testimony against,
   and endeavouring to stop what lies in them, the progress of this prevailing
   declension from the only foundation of the church, I know not; nor will it
   be easy for themselves to declare. And in that variety of conceptions which
   are about him, and the opposition that is made unto him, there is nothing
   more necessary than that we should renew and attest our confession of him
   — as the Son of the living God — the only rock whereon the church of them
   that shall be saved is founded and built.

   “Pauca ideo de Christo,” as Tertullian speaks; some few things concerning
   the person of Christ, with respect unto the confession of Peter, and the
   promise thereunto annexed — wherein he is declared the sole foundation of
   the church — will be comprised in the ensuing discourse. And He who hath
   ordained strength out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, as he hath given
   ability to express these poor, mean contemplations of his glory, can raise
   by them a revenue of honour unto himself in the hearts of them that do
   believe. And some few things I must premise, in general, unto what I do
   design. As,

   1. The instances which I shall give concerning the use and consideration of
   the person of Christ in Christian religion, or of him as he is the
   foundation whereon the church is built, are but few — and those perhaps not
   the most signal or eminent which the greater spiritual wisdom and
   understanding of others might propose. And, indeed, who shall undertake to
   declare what are the chief instances of this incomprehensible effect of
   divine wisdom? “What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst
   tell?” Prov. xxx. 4. See Isa. ix. 6. It is enough for us to stand in a holy
   admiration, at the shore of this unsearchable ocean, and to gather up some
   parcels of that divine treasure wherewith the Scripture of truth is
   enriched.

   2. I make no pretence of searching into the bottom or depths of any part of
   this “great mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh.” They are
   altogether unsearchable, unto the line of the most enlightened minds, in
   this life. What we shall farther comprehend of them in the other world, God
   only knows. We cannot in these things, by our utmost diligent search, “find
   out the Almighty unto perfection.” The prophets could not do so of old, nor
   can the angels themselves at present, who “desire to look into these
   things:” 1 Pet. i. 10–12. Only I shall endeavour to represent unto the faith
   of them that do believe, somewhat of what the Scripture doth plainly reveal
   — evidencing in what sense the person of Christ is the sole foundation of
   the church.

   3. I shall not, herein, respect them immediately by whom the divine person
   of Christ is denied and opposed. I have formerly treated thereof, beyond
   their contradiction in way of reply. But it is their conviction which I
   shall respect herein, who, under an outward confession of the truth, do —
   either notionally or practically, either ignorantly or designedly, God
   knows, I know not — endeavour to weaken the faith of the church in its
   adherence unto this foundation. Howbeit, neither the one sort nor the other
   hath any place in my thoughts, in comparison of the instruction and
   edification of others, who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.
     _________________________________________________________________

                                 Chapter III.

   The Person of Christ the most ineffable Effect of Divine Wisdom and Goodness
   — Thence the next Cause of all True Religion — In what sense it is so.

   The person of Christ is the most glorious and ineffable effect of divine
   wisdom, grace, and power; and therefore is the next foundation of all
   acceptable religion and worship. The Divine Being itself is the first formal
   reason, foundation, and object of all religion. It all depends on taking God
   to be our God; which is the first of his commands. For religion, and the
   worship performed in it, is nothing but the due respect of rational
   creatures unto the divine nature, and its infinite excellencies. It is the
   glorifying of God as God; the way of expressing that respect being regulated
   by the revelation of his will. Yet the divine essence is not, in itself, the
   next and immediate cause of religious worship. But it is the manifestation
   of this Being and its excellencies, wherewith the mind of rational creatures
   is immediately affected, and whereby it is obliged to give that religious
   honour and worship which is due unto that Being, and necessary from our
   relation thereunto. Upon this manifestation, all creatures capable by an
   intelligent nature of a sense thereof, are indispensably obliged to give all
   divine honour and glory to God.

   The way alone whereby this manifestation may be made, is by outward acts and
   effects. For, in itself, the divine nature is hid from all living, and
   dwelleth in that light whereunto no creature can approach. This, therefore,
   God first made, by the creation of all things out of nothing. The creation
   of man himself — with the principles of a rational, intelligent nature, a
   conscience attesting his subordination unto God — and the creation of all
   other things, declaring the glory of his wisdom, goodness, and power, was
   the immediate ground of all natural religion, and yet continues so to be.
   And the glory of it answers the means and ways of the manifestation of the
   Divine Being, existence, excellencies, and properties. And where this
   manifestation is despised or neglected, there God himself is so; as the
   apostle discourseth at large, Rom. i. 18–22.

   But of all the effects of the divine excellencies, the constitution of the
   person of Christ as the foundation of the new creation, as “the mystery of
   Godliness,” was the most ineffable and glorious. I speak not of his divine
   person absolutely; for his distinct personality and subsistence was by an
   internal and eternal act of the Divine Being in the person of the Father, or
   eternal generation — which is essential unto the divine essence — whereby
   nothing anew was outwardly wrought or did exist. He was not, he is not, in
   that sense, the effect of the divine wisdom and power of God, but the
   essential wisdom and power of God himself. But we speak of him only as
   incarnate, as he assumed our nature into personal subsistence with himself.
   His conception in the womb of the Virgin, as unto the integrity of human
   nature, was a miraculous operation of the divine power. But the prevention
   of that nature from any subsistence of its own — by its assumption into
   personal union with the Son of God, in the first instance of its conception
   — is that which is above all miracles, nor can be designed by that name.