EVen as the river that watered Paradise was divided into four heads; so in like man­ner is the doctrine of the Church: to wit, The Apostles Creed, the Decalogue, or ten Commandments, the Lords Prayer and the Sacraments.

First, we are to live in the Church by faith. Secondly, to come unto the rule of life by precepts. Thirdly, lest we faint, we are to take heed by prayer; and when notwithstanding all these, we are yet weak, we are to have recourse to the seals of grace; which are the Sa­craments.

First, faith is necessary. Without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6. For the sum of faith is contained in the Apostles Creed, or Symbol. It is called a Symbol, because it is a token or mark by which Christian Souldiers are dis­cerned [Page 2]from others: or [...], from contributing, as if it were compiled and composed by the Apo­stles. However it is said to be the Apo­stles, because it comprehends the sum of the faith which the Apostles preach'd. We are to search the Scriptures, and to beleeve those things which are contain­ed in them: but above all, the special and fundamental places which are sim­ply necessary. Lib. 6. confess. cap. 6. S. Austin writes, they are to be blamed, not to be listened to, if perhaps there be any such that should say, How knowest thou that those books which are ministred to us by men, are the minde of the onely true and uner­ring God: for that for it self it is chiefly to be beleeved. Notwithstanding there are enough [...], evidences, which evince and clear it, that the Scripture is inspired from God: whereof these are the most choice; The authority of the writers, who were in an extraordinary manner called and sent forth. The ma­jesty of the doctrine. The amplitude and clearness of the miracles. The truth of [Page 3]the prophesies. The sanctity of the Bi­ble: nothing is here to be found dis­sonant to piety and truth, nothing of contradiction. And to add to this, the sublimity of the mean style, and the sublime humility. To conclude, the har­monious truth of either Testament: that which lieth hid in the Old, is manifest in the New.

But the Symbol or Creed it self, which is taken out of the Scriptures, contain­eth in it twelve Articles, and is as it were the a A cir­cle in heaven wherein the twelve Signs are. zodiack of a Christian. But these may be reduced to four parts: The first concerning God the Father, who hath made all things. The second con­cerning God the Son, who hath re­deemed mankinde. The third, concern­ing the H. Ghost, who hath sanctified the faithful. The fourth, concerning the Church and its priviledges, which the Lord hath communicated to it.

But some one may say, Object. The works of the Trinity which have a reference to the creatures are undivided, common to all the three Persons, how cometh it [Page 4]then to pass, that creation is attributed to the Father, redemption to the Son, sanctification to the H. Ghost?

This cometh to pass, Answ. not to exclude, but to distinguish between the Persons, and the order of their acting. Omitting these, let us come to the Articles them­selves.

The first is, I beleeve in God the Fa­ther Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. It is said I beleeve, not we be­leeve; because every one ought to have a special faith of his own, explicit not implicit, or taken upon trust. We can­not see well with other mens eyes, nei­ther is it sufficient to have an opinion in divine matters.

The disputation of Gregory de Valen­tia is of no force; Lib. 6. Analys. fidei cap. 13. in which he thus as­serts concerning a man that is not Theo­logically learned: That if he prefer the Romish Church for its outward autho­rity before the Reformed, then God shall have nothing to object against this illiterate man in that most dreadful Tri­bunal: for God doth not require of him [Page 5]this, that he should come to the know­ledge of the truth by searching into the doctrine, since that he understands not Theological controversies. These things saith he. But let him say what he will, every one certainly ought to hold the substance and saving sense of the Arti­cles, although not all the most difficult circumstances of questions from thence arising. But now to beleeve, is not onely to know and give assent to those things which are propounded in the Gospel, but also to acquiesce and rest satisfied in them. It is not all one to beleeve a God, and to beleeve God, and to beleeve in God. In the two first senses sinners and devils do agree, the third sense none attain to, unless they be such who have faith formed in them: in this manner to beleeve is to go into God by good works, 3 Sent. Dist. 23. saith the Master of the Sen­tences.

To beleeve a God, is to know there is such a God. To beleeve God, is to confess that he is true: but to beleeve in God requires application, that he is my [Page 6]God. There is a faith found that is not right. There is a faith that is feigned, and it is of the hypocrites; the Apostle saith, that the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and faith un­feigned, 1 Tim. 1.5. There is a kinde of dead faith, and it is that of sinners, or of those that are still in their sins; Faith without works is dead, Jam. 2.26. There is a kinde of weak faith, and it is of the luke-warm, Receive you him that is weak in the faith, Rom. 14.1. There is like­wise a little faith, and it is of the fearful, therefore Christ said, O thou of little faith why doubtest thou? Matth. 14.31.

Hitherto we have treated concerning faith it self, now concerning the objects of faith, of which God is the principal, whom not to know is death, and whom to know is life. And first, it is to be de­monstrated, that God is. This may be proved out of the book of Nature, inas­much as he is the Creator, and out of the book of Scripture, in that he is Creator Conserver and Redeemer. Sum part. 1 quaest. 12. Art 7 God may be known, although not comprehended, as Aquinas saith.

These arguments that are drawn from nature do prove that there is a God, which notwithstanding are common to Scripture also; to wit the most beautiful order of the creatures, as, the heavens de­clare the glory of God, Psal. 19.1. the un­derstanding of man, the knowledges of principles, and the knowledge of this principle, That God is, Rom. 1.19. the tremblings of consciences in sinners, the rewards of good men, the punishments of the wicked, the political order, the heroick vertues, the invention of arts, the prediction of future events, the end and profit of all things, the impossibility of the progress of causes without end. It may be proved likewise out of Scri­pture, well-nigh by infinite testimonies, by divers apparitions, by stupendious miracles, by the writings of the Pro­phets, and by the admirable event of things. He therefore that denies that there is a God, is not void onely of rea­son, but sense also, as Avicēna is reported to have said. It is manifest therefore that there is a God; now let us see what he is.

God cannot be defined because he is immense; he may be described Philo­sophically and Theologically.

Philosophically, God is a Spirit, suf­ficient of himself, and the cause of all good.

Theologically, God is the most per­fect being, one in essence, three in Persons.

The Theological description differs from the Philosophical, first in perfe­ction; for it adds something unknown to nature concerning the Trinity, and unfolds or explains that which is known to nature. Secondly, in effect, natural knowledge renders men onely inexcu­sable, Rom. 1.20. but supernatural knowledge is saving: hence then the true God differs from the gods of the Gentiles, in Attributes, Persons, Works. In Attributes, because they are not rightly and entirely understood by them that are without the pale of the Church. In Persons, because the Gentiles are ignorant of the Trinity. In Works, because the wonderful works of God, [Page 9]and especially that of the Redemption, are not perceived by them who are out of the Church.

But now omitting other proprieties, which amongst Schoolmen are handled at large, I will first shew, that God is one: the Lord he is God; there is none else besides him, Deut. 4.35. Further­more, chief Majesty is competent to no more but one. None can be the most perfect, unless he be but one: but God contains in him all possible perfection by reason of the latitude of his essence. Yea there can be but one onely Omni­potent. And if there should be more Gods, they are all imperfect, or the rest are superfluous, both (which to say) is absurd. Besides, that which is Infinite can be but one onely; neither can there be but one first cause of all things: and to conclude, it is most necessary that the onely chief good be but one. God there­fore is one, and the onely one, as Saint Bernard saith.

Object. Yet there are many that are called Gods. Answ. But this is done improperly either [Page 10]by reason of a certain similitude or like­ness, or according to the opinion of vain man. First, by a certain similitude, as either for eminency of nature and wis­dom, as Angels; or for excellency of office, as Magistrates; or for exceeding great power, as the Devil; or for the [...]oo too much indulging of it, as the belly.

Secondly, out of a false opinion of men, Idols are called Gods.

It appears therefore that God is one, now we are to shew that he is three in Persons. Tho. Par. 1. q. 32. art. 1. [...]. Sent. dist. 3. The Trinity cannot be proved by the light of nature, as Thomas teach­eth against Scotus. Yet Lumbard fetch­eth some footsteps of the Trinity from the creatures; especially from the three faculties of the soul, the understanding, memory, and will. But these do onely produce a confused knowledge, not a distinct. God is three but not threefold, for he is a most simple being of himself: and we use the name of Trinity, not because the Scripture saith so, but be­cause it doth not contradict it, and for [Page 11]the thing it self it is in the Scriptures, though not the very word, that being implied, this not expressed; and you may interpret Scripture in convenient words; especially by reason of the de­ceit of Hereticks, concealing their here­sies for the most part under Scripture expressions.

In many places of Holy Writ, it doth evidently appear, that there are three Persons, Matth. 3.16. The Father proclaims it This is my beloved Son, The Son is baptized, and the Holy Ghost descendeth in the likeness of a dove, 1 Joh. 5.7. There are three that bear witness in heaven, The Father is of himself, the Son from the Father be­gotten from eternity, The Holy Ghost proceedeth from both. The Father is distinguished from the Son, but not an­other essence, and so of the rest. But in this matter better is a faithful igno­rance, then a rash knowledge. I con­clude therefore with Robert Holcot, Quaest. 10. a most famous Professor in our Uni­versity of Oxford; who, as Gabriel [Page 12]Biel relates it, Quaest. 10. De­term 1. sent. dist. 13. qu. 11. saith thus modestly.

Some one perhaps may say, Obser. that the three Persons are not essence. Answ. But this is true of a finite essence onely. Object. More­over, that where there are three and one, there are four; but in God there are three Persons and one essence, Answ. yet they are not really distinct. Object. But it may be ob­jected, that their essences are distinct whose operations are distinct. Answ. We an­swer, that this is to be affirmed onely of persons that have a finite being. The first Person then of the Trinity is called the Father. The name of the Father [Page 13]is taken sometimes personally by way of distinction from the Son, and sometimes essentially in reference to the creatures, for the whole Divine essence.

The first Person is called Father, either in respect of Christ, or in respect of us. Or like as Durandus sheweth, he is the Father of all generally, the Father of Christ singularly, and the Father of the elect especially.

Credo in Deum, I beleeve in God:

It refers not onely to the Father, but also to the Son and Holy Ghost: and the Father is called omnipotent, not excluding the other Persons.

God is omnipotent, because he can do all things, what he pleaseth; all things that do not imply a contradiction, and which are not repugnant to his nature: and because he doth all things without difficulty, or by his beck onely, because he alone hath power of doing all things, and for that he is the Author of all crea­ted power.

If it be said, that God cannot die, sin, Object. lye. We answer, Answ. God can do those [Page 14]things which imply power, but nothing that argues impotency or weakness: for this would not stand with his perfection. And if it be said, that he cannot do those things which are contradictory. We answer, that this would be inconsistent with his immutability.

I pass by niceties. This is the most principal thing, seeing that God is om­nipotent; he that feareth God hath not any thing beyond that he need to fear; and if God be with us who can be a­gainst us.

It follows in the Creed, that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, that is of the whole world.

Creation is the producing of some­thing out of nothing; it is either imme­diate, of the first lump; or mediate, of things produced out of that lump. This power of creating belongs to God alone, it appertains not to the creatures: be­cause there is nothing presupposed in that work, part. 1. quaest. 45 art. 5. which is capable of disposi­tion by the action of the instrumental agent; as Thomas sheweth touching [Page 15]the manner of the emanation or pro­ceeding of things from their first prin­ciple. And assuredly Suarez in his Me­taphysical disputations, and Pererius in his book of Natural Philosophie, prove this thing very notably. It may be de­monstrated out of Scripture, that the world was created by God, and by natu­ral reasons also: for there is no infinite progress of causes and effects in nature, and the world is the first and most excellent effect; therefore it is from the first and most excellent cause. The Philosophers err therefore, who either with Aristotle dream of the worlds eter­nity, or suppose with Plato an uncreated matter; or with Democritus, Leucippus, Epicurus, bring in atoms, and a con­curring of them by chance. Hermogenes errs, who affirmed the world to be co­eternal with God, and the Stoicks who feigned two beginnings.

But the Philosophers object, Object. if the world be not eternal, God did not always govern it: therefore he was sometimes idle. We answer, Answ. He was not therefore [Page 16]idle. But what then did he do? It may be said, that he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1.4. or as S. Austin answereth:

But every thing that hath a beginning hath his end; the world hath no end: ergó. Here is a distinction to be made between things that have their begin­nings by a natural generation, and such as have them by creation, both which, those as well as these, God may either preserve, or reduce them into nothing. But it may be said again, that he who is lord and governour actually, is more happy then he who is such an one po­tentially: therefore, either the world was from eternity, or God is made more happy by the creation.

We answer, that no felicity can ac­crue to God from the creature, who is most perfect and happy in himself.

The world was created of God the [Page 17]Father, by the Son, and the H. Ghost.

All things are created out of nothing, not out of the substance of God, nor out of any preexistent matter.

But out of nothing comes nothing. Object.

This is true in a natural way or course, Answ. or as proceeding from men.

But man is not created out of nothing.

It is true in respect of the next matter, but not in respect of the first.

He created all things most wisely, and very good.

But the Prophet saith, Object. There is no evil in a city that God hath not done, Amos 3.6. Answ. This is to be understood of the evil of punishment, not of the evil of sin.

Besides, the world was created, not of a sudden, but in the space of six days. In the beginning, Gen. 1. In the begin­ning of the universe, or generality of things, so Basil and Ambrose. Hom. 1. Hexam. l. 1. de gen. ad literam c. 1. Before all created things, saith S. Austin. And it was created for the glory of God, and the profit of men.

Under creation the providence of [Page 18]God is comprehended; God doth still work by preserving, but not by creating things.

As there is nothing made but by his creating essence, so nothing thrives without the power thereof keeping and preserving it, In Mo­nol. c. 12. Tom. 3. as Anselm saith.

For providence is Gods action or working, whereby he doth liberally, wisely, well and powerfully preserve and govern all things for the glory of his Name, and the salvation of the godly.

It is the action of God, for it is not an idle intuition or looking on, but an effectual administration of things. The most minute or least things are subject to Gods providence; as sparrows, hairs, worms. God is all eye, because he seeth all things, yea the most abject of them. And excellently saith S. 1 Offic. cap. 13. Ambrose. If it be not an injury and disparagement to God to have made the most small things, much less disparagement is it to him to govern them being made. God doth act most freely. God is not sub­jected to necessity, but necessity to him. [Page 19]The Stoicks err, who tie God to a fatal necessity of causes: God doth all things wisely, to certain ends, contrary to that of the Epicureans, who affirm that all things come to pass by fortune: Chance and fortune are words used by the un­learned, saith S. Basil, Conc. 8. in Psal 32. Lib, 1. Retr. c. 1. nothing comes by chance in respect of God, but in regard of us: and S. Austin doth acknowledge, that he did ill to use the name of fortune so often in his writings: God worketh powerfully, and cannot be hindred by any might, bound by any law, wearied by any impotency or weakness: God doth all things well, because he is the best; out of the most evil things he bringeth good, and maketh use of evil things to a good end: But the provi­dence of God is either universal or par­ticular. That of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9.9. Doth God take care for oxen? is not spoken absolutely, but comparatively; that God hath not the like care of beasts that he hath of men; his care towards men is greater.

Object. Neither is it any obstacle that many [Page 20]things are so confused, Answ. Confused things are governed by God, but not con­fusedly; and in the seeming confu­sion there is some order. Neither doth the inconstancy of weather hinder any whit; for snow, hail, ice, they do his will. It becometh us to admire the works of God, but not to search too curiously into them. Neither do mon­sters and natural defects hinder. These are [...], the transgressions of nature, according to Aristotle his fourth book of the generation of animals, They forsake not the order of the universal cause, but of the particular onely; or according to Thomas, they fall short of the ultimate or last end, which is the perfection of the thing generated, but not of their nearest end: for nature still worketh and formeth somewhat at the least.

And if any one doth speak concern­ing sins. We answer, that sins are not actions, but are accidental to actions; which are good of themselves and from God likewise. But some one may say, [Page 21]sins happen by the providence of God. It is true, by the providence of God per­mitting, determining, directing them to the best ends, but not effecting, or being the procuring cause of them. Let them be confounded, who do think or imagine God to be the Author of evils or wic­kedness: Lib 4. de Orthod [...] ­xa fide, c. 20. this is the vote or wish of Da­mascen. And if it be said, that the same evil work is attributed both to God and the sinner; as the selling of Joseph, or the crucifying of Christ. We answer, that this is done in a diverse respect; it is attributed to the sinner, as it is an evil work, but to God as it is a good one. This is the reason of that common simile of a hors-man riding on a lame horse, its halting or lameness proceeds not from the hors-man, but from the horse it self; Joseph's brethren sold him out of malice: God permitted this out of mer­cy, lest he should have been slain; for his own glory, and for the great advan­tage and profit of his servant. The Jews crucified Christ out of ill-will, God the Father permitted this out of his greatest [Page 22]good will towards men. Judas betrayed Christ out of covetousness, our heavenly Father out of love.

They err, who affirm that God doth incline and force the will of the wicked to commit great and grievous sins; to have formed man in his mothers womb with a perversness of nature, and a ne­cessity of sinning; or to this end to have created Esau to lead a wicked life, or to move a thief to kill the innocent, and him that is not prepared to die. This is most certain, that God doth not ap­prove of wickedness, neither is he the cause of it: yet all things subject them­selves to his providence; all his creatures, rational or irrational; all events, good or evil. But his principal care is of his elect: His providence in respect of them is most special. We should do well there­fore to be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and hope for the future. For our God is omnipotent good and true.

Hitherto of the first part of the Creed, the second follows, which is con­cerning [Page 23]faith in Christ in these words:

And in Jesus Christ his onely Son our Lord, &c.

The second Person is true God, not mere man, otherwise he were not the object of our faith. He is called Jesus in the Hebrew [...] or [...] that is a Saviour, because he saveth his people, Jeschuah, Jeho­scuah. Matth. 1.21. This name JESUS is honey in the mouth, melody in the ear, a jubile or rejoycing in the heart. Others have had this name Joshua, a Captain or Leader, and Joshua the High Priest: But they by the imposition of men, Je­sus by the denunciation of an Angel. Those were saviours by a figure and ty­pically; but Jesus truly and in his own nature. They brought corporal good things, and Jesus spiritual. They were ministers or servants, He the Master. Jesus is a Saviour [...], or super­latively, He alone saveth excluding the creatures. There is no other name given under heaven, whereby they may be saved, Acts 4.12. He saveth from the evil of sin, and from the evil of punishment: [Page 24]the cause being taken away the effect ceaseth: let therefore every faithful soul rejoyce and say, O Jesu be thou to me a Jesus, or Saviour.

Secondly, our Mediator is called [...], unctus, anointed, à [...] ungo, to anoint; but in Hebrew he is called [...] And as he hath his Hebrew name Jeschuah, Maschi­ach. because he was to be the Saviour of the Jews; so he hath his Greek name Christ, because he was to be the Saviour of the Greeks, that is of the Gentiles and other nations: for all the Gentiles were called Grecians as S. Epist. 200. Austin saith, because from the time of Alexander the Great, the Greeks ha­ving the rule almost over all nations, did propagate their tongue together with their Empire. As the Prophets, Priests and Kings were wont to be anointed; so likewise Christ was anointed, although not in regard of the signe outwardly, and ceremonially, yet in respect of the thing signified, inwardly and really. He was anointed, because he was or­dained to the office of a Mediator, and [Page 25]endued with gifts for the accomplishing of the same work of this duty. The be­stowing of gifts was in reference to his humane nature, the ordination to his office was according to either nature. Christ was anointed to be a Prophet and a Teacher, who should make known the will of his Father: to be a High Priest and a Priest, that by the sacrifice of his body he might redeem us, and that he might always intercede for us: to be a King, that he might guide us by his word and Spirit. This is our duty then that by the odour of his ointments we should run after him. Draw thou us O Lord Jesus, and we shall run after thee. From Christ we are called Chri­stians, and this name was first given them at Antioch, Act. 11.26. Of his fulness we have all received, and he hath made us kings and priests to God our Father. We are kings that we should fight against Satan, the world, yea and against our selves.

We are Priests, that we may sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise, prayer, con­trition, alms, righteousness, and in fine, serve him in all things appertaining to a Christian life.

We are Prophets, that we may know God, and knowing him we may truly profess him: that we may be Christians not onely in outward profession, but also by inward communion; that we may be members of the Church, not onely in appearance, but also in reality and truth. As for the remaining titles of our Medi­ator, He is next of all called the Son of God.

He was his Son according to the Di­vine nature, being light of light, and God of God. And according to the hu­mane nature after the common manner in respect of creation, and after a special manner in respect of conception. The Son is the onely begotten, for he hath [Page 27]no brethren according to eternal genera­tion, nor according to his extraordinary conception; yet the elect are called Christs brethren by reason of the Fa­thers adoption, and likeness of humane nature; for their liberality, charity, and for some kinde of conformity they have with Christ.

Besides, our Mediator is called Lord. Lord was a title of the Emperours, so high, that Cesar Augustus would not be so called, as Dio and Tertullian testifie; deeming himself to be unworthy of so great a name. It seems he did this by Divine instinct, that that glorious Title being untouch'd, might remain to the onely Son of God, The King of kings, and Lord of lords; who straight after came into the world. But at this time the Turks call their Emperour the great Lord, and the Tartarians, Persians, and others of the East countrey, Sultan, that is Lord.

Jesus is our Lord by right of creation, because all things were made by him, Col. 1.16. by right of redemption, which [Page 28]we have through his bloud, Col. 1.14. By right of principality; for he is the head of all principality and power, Col. 2.10.

By right of preserving his unto salva­tion; for he giveth life eternal to his sheep, Joh. 10.28.

By right of the Fathers constitution, because the Father hath put all things un­der his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, Eph. 1.22. and hath made him heir of all things, Hebr. 1.2.

His Dominion therefore extends not onely unto us, but unto all creatures.

Seeing therefore Christ is the Lord of us all, we ought to be humble and meek one towards another; for we are fellow servants of the Lord. Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven, saith S. Paul, Col. 4.1. And seeing that Christ is the Lord, let us adhere to him alone, otherwise we shall have very many strange lords, whom to serve, it will be most miserable. [Page 29]Most truly said S. Ambrose, O how ma­ny lords hath he who hath not one? he hath so many lords or masters as he hath sins: yea holy father, he hath so many mistresses as lusts, and certainly, thou thy self being judge, lust is a most furi­ous mistress. Let us therefore serve the Lord Jesus onely. And if we be no­ble and generous Christians, let us not admit of any other government. As Thomas Aquinas observeth of horses, that a spirited and wel-mettled one will not admit of any other rider but his own master, and is moved onely at his beck.

Hitherto of the titles of the Media­tor; he is further to be described, accord­ing to the degrees both of his exinani­tion or humiliation, and likewise of his exaltation.

First, Christ did empty himself, and became very low. The word is made flesh, Joh. 1.14. The Son of God is made the Son of man, that the son of man might become the son of God. He is now who was, and what he is he was not, De Trin. lib. [...]0. saith S. Hilary. Our Mediator is become God [Page 30]and man, that he might conjoyn God and man together again, who were sepa­rated and disjoyned.

And if it be said, Object. that the flesh of Christ could not be united to our flesh, because our flesh is sinful. Answ. We answer, It doth not follow, for sinfulness is acci­dental to our flesh, not of the substance or essence of it; so that Christs flesh may be united to our flesh, but not as to the sinfulness of it.

If it be said that no accession can be made to God, we say That is true, if meant of perfection, but not of union. If further any object, Object. that the humane nature cannot come or be united to God. It is true, unless that God assume it. That it is most ignominious for God to be a creature. Answ. It is most ignominious for him to be changed into a creature, but not to be united with it, without the change of his essence.

But although there be in Christ two natures, yet there is onely one Person. Although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ, as S. Athana­sius [Page 31]professeth in his Creed. The hu­mane nature of Christ doth not consti­tute a person, because it subsists not of or by it self, but it is upheld or sustained in and by the Word.

If it be objected, Object. that God and man are two persons. We answer, Answ. That it is true, if they be not united.

If it be said, that dead and always li­ving, are not the same. It is true, that they are not the same, according to the same: But Christ was so according to his divers natures.

If it be enquired, How is the Incarna­tion attributed to the Son? We are to know, that the Incarnation is the work of the whole Trinity by inchoation, and of the Son alone by termination. He assumed our nature, which the Father formed in him, out of the substance of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost. This substantial knitting or joyning although produced by all the Persons, yet formal­ly it did not knit or conjoyn the humane nature with any, In 3. p. D. Thom. but with the Person of the Son: as Suarez copiously, and other [Page 32]Divines. And of the two natures there was an union made hypostatically, or personally: not physically as the form is united to the matter: nor spiritually, as the elect among themselves, and with God; nor by help and assistance, as the mariner to the ship; nor relatively, as a friend to a friend, nor mystically, as in the Sacrament; the two natures were united inconfusedly, unchangeably, not admitting of any division, inseparably. Inconfusedly, each nature having their properties remaining; but the proper­ties of one nature by communication of idioms is attributed in the concrete to the person denominated from either na­ture: as that God hath purchased his Church by his bloud, Acts 20.28. The Lord of glory was crucified, 1 Cor. 2.8. this is spoken according to his humane nature. This speech ought to be taken in the concrete, not in the abstract: and it fol­lows not, that because God is said to suffer, therefore the Deity suffered.

Secondly, the natures were united, inconvertibly, that is without the change [Page 33]of the Divine into the humane, or of the humane into the Divine.

Thirdly, individedly, without divi­sion of natures, although not without distinction: they are not two, but one Christ.

Fourthly, inseparably, this union re­mains for ever. At the death of Christ his soul was separated from his body, but the Divine nature remained united to both after its own manner; the natural union was dissolved, and not the per­sonal.

Thus far concerning the Incarnation in general. The parts thereof follow, the conception of Christ and his nativity.

Conceived by the Holy Ghost.

Not of the essence, but by the effici­ency of the Holy Ghost: This particle of, doth not denote the matter, as if that Christ was of the Holy Ghost, for he was of the fathers according to the flesh, Rom. 9.5.

God also is immutable, and the Word assumed our flesh, and is not changed into it: but of signifies the effi­cient [Page 34]cause; because by the vertue and power of the Holy Ghost Christ was conceived.

His conception by the Holy Ghost speaks the miraculous forming of the flesh, or body of Christ without the help of man: then, the sanctifying of it from original sin, and the hypostatical union of it with the Word.

The body of Christ is thought to have been made simul & semel, toge­ther and at once perfect, not successive­ly, as the bodies of men are in the space of fourty days; otherwise Christ should not have been conceived a man, but an embryo; yea he was inspired with a rea­sonable soul. Wickedly did Apollinaris say that the soul of Christ was his Di­vinity. His soul was heavy and sad, which is not competent to the Divinity; at his death his soul departed from his body; but his Divinity did not recede or depart.

He was conceived for us, behold his love! how can we conceive to express it?

He was conceived of the Holy Ghost, [Page 35]behold his wisdom! that he might be free from sin: let us mourn by reason of our impure conception. Let every one say with David, Behold, in iniquity was I conceived, Psal. 51.5. His pure con­ception will cover our impurity, if that hereafter we endeavour to be pure.

So was his conception, his nativity succeeds.

Christ was born, that he might signi­fie to us the truth of his humane nature. Born of Mary, to shew that he was of the fathers, to wit, David and Abraham, of whom Mary came. Born of the Virgin Mary, lest he should be defiled with ori­ginal sin, and that the Scripture should be fulfilled; this the Prophet foretold, Isai. 7.14. Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son.

Neither were the Sybils silent in this matter, if those things be true which are written of them. And truly Boetius in his Tractate of Scholastical discipline, re­ports a wonderful thing, to wit, that there was found in Plato's tomb a plate of gold, in which was written, I beleeve [Page 36]in the Son of God, that is to be born of the Virgin. And such a like story Nicepho­rus tells of a certain man, that in the time of Constantine and of his mother Irene, there was a stone chest found un­der the earth with this inscription, The Messias shall be born of a Virgin, and I be­leeve in him.

Out of all these ariseth the confirma­tion of our faith, and firm consolation, that a Saviour is born, and born to us, Isai. 9.6. When he was rich, he became poor for us. For our sakes he was disgra­ced of men, and contemned of the vul­gar; he was humble, because he would not have us to be proud; he was born of a poor Virgin, that he might shew to us, that we ought not to boast in riches and honour; and that he might teach us to be contented with the meanest condi­tion. The Virgin brought forth her Son, & she wrapped him in swadling clothes, having taken him first in her Virgin arms, into the which he being new born the Angels had laid him, as Suarez con­jectures. The Pastor of Israel manifested [Page 37]himself to be a good Shepherd to the shepherds. The Angels brought news of great joy that should be to all people, for that a Saviour was born, Christ the Lord, in the city of David, and suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God. Jesus the bread of life was born in Bethlehem the house of bread. He was born in a stable, that we should not so much care for sumptuous Palaces; in which place afterwards there was built by S. Beda de locis san­ctis & alii. Helen a most sumptuous Church to the honour of the Virgin the Mother of God.

Concerning the manner of his birth, it was wonderfully singular, and sin­gularly wonderful. Of this thing Saint Austin doth very admirably discourse, saying thus, Let the incredulous Jew tell me, how, or in what manner the dry rod (to wit Aarons) budded and blossomed, and brought forth almonds; then I will tell him how the Virgin con­ceived and brought forth. But truly nei­ther can the Jew explain the one, nor I the other. Divine mysteries are not to [Page 38]be discussed or searched out by the under­standing, but to be adored by faith, saith S. Gregory. I beleeve therefore that it is enough for us simply to beleeve, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. And certainly we ought piously to hold and maintain it, that the blessed Mo­ther of our Redeemer always remained a Virgin. She was a Virgin before, in, and after her bearing or bringing forth. The which S. Jerom at large proves a­gainst Helvidius. And that place, Mat. 1.25. He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son, notes that he knew her not at all. The like you have, 2 Sam. 6. and the last verse; where it is said, Michal the daughter of Saul had no childe until the day of her death, that is, she never had any.

But how is Christ said to be the first­born, if he had no brethren? We an­swer, that Christ is so called, not because there was not any son after him, but be­cause there was none before him.

And where in the Scripture there is mention made of the brethren of Christ, [Page 39]there cousin-germans and kinsmen are understood: so Abraham said unto Lot, We are brethren, Gen. 13.8.

Hitherto of the nativity of Christ, his passion followeth.

The whole life of Jesus was a passion, he suffered in his circumcision, in his flight into Egypt, in fasting fourty days, and in his temptation by the Devil, he suffered in the want of the chiefest feli­city, he suffered all kinde of evils, all humane infirmities, sin excepted: he endured poverty, injury, and the sense of the wrath of God, but without de­spair; and to conclude, he suffered death it self, according to his humane nature. To teach that Christ felt no pain in his flesh, nor true sorrow in his soul at the time of his passion, is contrary to truth and heretical; as if it should be said, he took not upon him to be true and real man, but onely his similitude: So truly saith the Master of the Senten­ces, The Divine nature did rest, 3 Sent. dist. 14. that the humane might suffer; but it upheld the hu­mane [Page 40]in its agonies, that it might over­come. The cause moving God to subject his Son to sufferings, was either inward, or outward. The inward was the love of his good pleasure. The outward three­fold: the misery of sin, from whence was mercy; sin it self, from whence ju­stice; and the tyranny of the Devil, from whence revenge: the end and fruit of Christs passion are the same in a di­verse respect; the end in respect of Christ, the fruit or benefit in respect of us; and they are two, the glory of God, and our salvation.

The Judge under whom he suffered was Pontius Pilate the Governour of all Judea for Tiberius the Emperour: that it might be evident that Jesus was the true Messias, who was not to come till the sceptre was wholly taken away from Judah, Gen. 49.10. which came now to pass, Judea being overcome of the Ro­mans. Then it is also said that he suf­fered under Pilate; that the truth of that which Christ spake concerning his being delivered up to the Gentiles might [Page 41]be manifest, Matth. 20.19. Besides, be­cause his sufferings under Pilate were most heavy and grievous. For Pilate scourged Christ, and with thongs, not by his own, but by the hands of the exe­cutioners, saith S. Jerom. Soon after, when his body throughout was torn with scourges, being crowned with thorns, adorned with a purple robe, and a sceptre of reed, by a new kinde of moc­kery, as it were to act in a theatre, Pi­late brings him in a King of misery to be beheld of the people, and saith, Be­hold the man. By which words he would have moved the Jews to pity. But they, O hard-hearted men as they were! used Christ very unmercifully: made choice of Barabbas, one notorious for lewd pranks, to be released from punishment, and were very instant requiring that the most innocent Jesus might be crucified. Pilate could have denied them, but he would not: and against his conscience he delivered Jesus into the hands of his enemies. Moreover, Pilates wife, In Chr. 10. An. Chr. 34. whom Lucius Dexter calls Claudia Procula, was [Page 42]earnest with her husband that he would give no rigid sentence against Christ: but the threats of the Jews did more sharply prick him then his wifes advice. Perhaps Pilates wife dream'd that he should smart for it, which afterwards fell out accordingly, when he was sent an Exile into Vienna in France: as Jose­phus, Ado, and others report: and we read that afterwards out of desperation he laid violent hands upon himself.

Furthermore Christ suffered under Pilate an ordinary Judge, that he might absolve us from the severe judgement of God; and to conclude, that his innocen­cy might be demonstrated: for Pilate gave him this testimony that he found no cause of death in him, Joh. 18.38. Therefore God would have him exami­ned, and so by consequence it was very clear, that Christ was delivered to death, not for his own, but for our sins.

Against this passion of Christ under Pilate it may be objected, Object. that he was slain from the beginning of the world, Rev. 13.8. how therefore could this be under Pilate?

To this we answer, Answ. that Christ was slain from the beginning of the world, by appointment, election, power, effica­cy, acceptation, but not by execution. He was slain from the beginning, in the minde and purpose of God, in an ideal passion but under Pilate in a real.

But Pilate seems to be absolved from the guilt, Object. because he did nothing but what God decreed beforehand to be done, Act. 4.28. Answ. To this likewise it may be said, that God did not preordain the hatred of the Jews towards Christ: but foreknowing it, did purpose to make good use of it, and by his precognition, or foreknowledge of the evil, determi­ned the redemption of mankinde by the death of Christ. The action displeased him, the passion was acceptable.

The shameful act of the Jews and Pi­late displeased God extremely; but the passion of Christ, and the redemption of mankinde from thence arising was ex­ceeding acceptable, Prosp. ad objecta Gallo­rum, resp. 13. decreed from eter­nity and preordained. Which is Prospers and other Doctors judgement in the [Page 44]point. From what hath been spoken it is manifest, how that the wicked do exe­cute the counsel of God although they purpose no such thing, and yet notwith­standing are not exempted from blame.

But some one may say, Object. Christ ought to suffer; and therefore neither Pilate nor the Jews may seem to have sinned. He ought indeed upon supposition, Answ. a necessity being derived from a voluntary decree of his dying: for Jesus suffered because he would, otherwise he could have escaped his enemies hands.

Ye have heard that Christ suffered and under whom. It follows in the Creed, that he was crucified, Mat. 27.23.

And they are urgent to have this pu­nishment of the cross inflicted on him before any other, as being the most cruel, lingring and shameful death of all. The offender was exposed alive to the view and mockery of all people: hanging on a tree he was accursed, Deut. 21.23. All kinde of hanging, not onely among the Jews, but among the Romans also, was of most extreme infamy and disgrace; [Page 45]as both Seneca and Livy testifie. Seneca e­pist. 101. Liv lib. 14. And this seems to be the reason, that he who is hang'd on high, is judged in a manner unworthy to tread on the earth with his feet: and therefore he is lifted up from it. Wherefore Christ that he might make himself of no account, did under­go this most vile and accursed kinde of death, and took that curse upon himself that was due to us, Gal. 3.13.

But wherefore would God have his Son rather to be crucified then other­wise punished; the reason was saith Ter­tullian, That he who overcame by the tree, to wit the Devil, by his envious working, might be overcome also by the tree. Se­condly, that by his suffering of the most cruel punishment, he might procure for us a most copious redemption, by satis­fying to the full the Divine justice: so o­thers, and from hence cometh our chief­est consolation. Thirdly to satisfie the figures and oracles of the Prophets, Ità S. August. lib 6. de Civ. Dei. c. 32. in the which it was fore-signified: For the brasen serpent being lifted up in the wil­derness, Num. 21. Joh. 3. & the sacrifices [Page 46]which were lifted up on high, Levit. 7. were the types of Christ crucified. And as Isaac bare the wood whereon he was afterwards laid, Gen. 22. so likewise did Christ the wood of the Cross. One part of the mount Moriah was without Jerusalem, wherein S. Jerom informs us out of a tradition of the Jews that Isaac and Christ likewise were offered up. This place was afterwards called the mount of Calvary: by reason of the sculls of the condemned that were there put to death. Here Adams scull as some think was found, whom Tertullian and other of the Ancients deemed to have been buried under the Cross; some also affirming, that the bloud of Christ hanging upon the Cross, ran down upon Adams scull, which manifests to us, that he and his posterity beleeving in Christ should be saved by his bloud: and this was beleeved by the godly, as S. Cypri­an averrs in a Discourse of the Resurre­ction. Which opinion is pious enough, but I know not how true. In general, it is evident that from the bloud of [Page 47]Christ there is a vertue derived most ef­ficacious unto salvation. Let us in the mean time bewail our sins, for the which Christ was pierced through with nails: and as the Israelites looked on the bra­zen serpent, let us in like manner, by the eyes of faith look upon Jesus, and we shall be healed; and as much as in us lies let us be crucified unto the world: for this cause let him be wholly fixed in our heart, who was wholly fastned upon the Cross for us.

And so pass we from his crucifixion to his death.

The Lamb of God expired on the Cross, at the same time that the even­ing lamb, or the daily sacrifice was offer­ed up in the Temple: to wit at the ninth hour with the Jews, which an­swers to our third hour in the afternoon. The death of Christ was voluntary, no man took his life from him; but he laid it down of himself, Joh. 10.18. which is certainly apparent from his strong cry on the Cross, when others being about to die, lose their speech, and do onely [Page 48]wheez in the throat. Not without cause said the Centurion greatly admiring: This is the Son of God, Mat. 27.54. The bowing of his head sheweth the same, whereas other men die before they bow their head. And because the death of Christ was voluntary, therefore merito­rious; otherwise he would not have been punished for our disobedience. Se­condly, his death was innocent, which the whole History proveth, and the con­fession of his enemies. Thirdly, his death was precious, the dignity whereof was from the dignity of the Person, and so equivalent to eternal death.

Christ ought to die by reason of the justice of God. Sin is an offence or inju­ring of him who is mans Summum bo­num, or highest good, and therefore to be expiated by the greatest punishment: he therefore that was our surety was to taste of death, by reason of the truth of God, who spake concerning the fruit of the forbidden tree, in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, Gen. 2.17.

It behoved Christ to die for the ful­filling of the prophesies, and by reason of the prediction of Christ himself con­cerning his death, Joh. 12.33.

For the confirmation of the Testa­ment of his grace, which was to be per­formed by the death of the Son of God, Heb. 9.6.

From the death of Christ, as it were out of a fountain floweth our redempti­on: hence primarily is justification, Rom. 8.34. hence regeneration, or the restau­ration of corrupt nature; our old man is destroyed by the power of Christs death, and sanctification is obtained: the death of Christ doth much weaken ori­ginal sin in a Christian, and although the death of Christ be past, yet to this present time it doth mortifie our sins: because its vertue and efficacy endureth for ever. If so be that we apply this uni­versal remedy of the heavenly chief Phy­sician to our hearts. Let us therefore with the Apostle exult for joy and say, a Mors mortis morti mortem, mors morte re­demit. O death where is thy sting, &c. 1 Cor. 15.55.

This bondage of death Jesus under­took that he might procure unto us the liberty of eternal life. True real death seiz'd upon him, that we might attain to true life, saith S. Ambrose.

But if Christ died for us, Object. why then must we die? Answ. We answer, Our death is no satisfaction for sins, but an admoni­tion to us of the reliques of sin inherent in us: a cleansing us from them, and a passage into eternal life. Holiness is the end of our redemption, let us not then indulge our selves in pleasures. The most sweet Jesus vouchsafed to die for our sins, and because of this his unspeak­able love, we should rather choose to die, then to rush into sin▪ But, oh the misery of it! most holy Jesu, how few mortals are so affected with sorrow for the do­lours of thy death, that they love holi­ness of life and piety.

Christ laid down his life for his friends, yea for his enemies: let us in like manner love others if occasion require; which thing the most holy Apostle S. John ur­geth in his 1 epist. ch. 3. v. 16. This love [Page 51]is heartily to be wished, but can hardly be expected from a sort of men too too cru­el. To conclude, death to beleevers is nothing but a disguised thing to scare them; let us therefore be faithful unto death and not afraid to die.

Hitherto of the death of Christ, his bu­rial follows.

The bodies of the dead ought to be decently buried. They are esteemed in­humane who neglect this. Amongst these were the Lotophagi, Historici & Geo­graphici passim. a people of A­frica, who cast the bodies of their friends into the sea. The Sabeans, who threw the carcases of kings amongst dung-hils. The Scythians, who to honour those whom they loved, did in their banquets devour their dead carcases. The Hyrca­nians, who gave them to dogs or wilde beasts. All these are detestable.

But although the death of Christ were ignominious, yet his burial was ve­ry honourable. For he was buried by men of quality; Nicodemus a great Lawyer, and Joseph a Counceller and Citizen of Jerusalem. These were disciples before [Page 52]but secretly, now they appear openly; so great was the vertue of his passion. Moreover, many noble and religious wo­men helped forward this work. The ho­nour of his burial is evident also by other circumstances: his body was embalmed with abundance of spices and wrapped in costly fine linen. Christ was buried in a new sepulchre, hewn out of a rock, lest that if another should have been buried there, another might have been said to have risen; as the Fathers note. The New man would be buried in a new se­pulchre, and in a garden, that his body might be sowen there, and bring forth the fruit of resurrection. That as in a garden Adams sin was committed, so in a garden it might be expiated and satis­fied for. As his nativity was from the unstained bed or chamber of a Virgin; so likewise his burial might not be defi­led by any dead body. He would be bu­ried in another mans sepulchre, that as he was born in another mans house, so being dead, he might lie in a grave that was another mans. And he would not [Page 53]have a proper burial place, or sepulchre of his own, who had no proper cause of death in himself. The sepulchre of Christ was a place of the chiefest devo­tion. S. Jerom speaking of Paula saith, That at her entrance into the sepulchre of the Lord, she kissed the stone and the very place where Christ had lien. The pilgrimage to this glorious sepulchre hath been most famous from all parts of the world. The Turk a most malicious enemy, getteth much profit by the visi­tation of the place; which for this cause, or for fear of punishment, he hath not yet destroyed. I think it not necessary for us to take so long a journey, we may meditate on this matter more safely at home. And although there is appointed a solemn procession at Lovain for the memory of Christs burial, where the blessed Virgin and other women sorrow­fully following the dead corps, are wont to be represented; yet we doubt not but that a pious soul may perform this with­out such pomp or ostentation.

Christ was buried, that the types of [Page 54]the Old Testament might be fulfilled; to wit that of Jonah and others. As Jo­nah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so Christ foretold concerning himself, Matth. 12.40. Be­sides, he was buried, that it might appear that he was truly dead: and that we might know that our sepulchres are sanctified by his being buried; no more to be horrid places, but sweet and quiet chambers, in which we may rest until we shall be raised up; hence our burying pla­ces are called [...], places for the dead to rest or sleep in.

We therefore being buried with Christ by baptism into his death, ought to walk in newness of life, Rom. 6. v. 4. where the Apostle alludes to a rite of baptism, which was by plunging: for his body who was baptized in this man­ner, was in a sort buried in the waters. And they that were baptized were wont to be thus plunged thrice in the waters, by an allegorical similitude to represent Christ dead, and three days immersed or drowned in the Sepulchre. But S. Chry­sostom [Page 55]saith, the tropological meaning of it was, to signifie that as Christ by his corporal death is dead unto this world, so we likewise by a spiritual death should die to the same world; and to sin its lord and king; and with a purpose to lead a new life, as Tertullian expounds it; Let not sin therefore reign in our mor­tal bodies, that we should obey it in the lusts thereof: let us not be buried as it were in sleep and wine, but let us reckon our selves dead unto sin, and alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The death of Christ is explained, pro­ceed we to his descension into hell.

Hell in the Scriptures is taken many ways: properly for the place of the dam­ned, metaphorically for the greatest sor­rows and infernal anguishes: moreover for the grave, and sometimes for extreme ignominy. Hence arise the diversities of opinions concerning this Article. Some interpret it of the grave, but if so, the same should be twice put in, and decla­red by a more obscure one, which in so perspicuous a Compendium it is not [Page 56]likely would be done. It matters not much that this Article was left out in the Nicene Creed; perchance the reason of it was because it never came into dis­putation. Howsoever Eusebius who was present at the Council, delivereth the same; as also S. Athanasius in his Creed, received by the Church, although he omits the burial. Others expound it of the torments of hell. Which if they un­derstand thus, that Christ before his death felt torments equal to the infer­nal, this opinion is pious enough; but if their meaning be, that after his death he did really feel the pains of hell, it is impious: for before this all things were finished. If we say as Durandus doth, that Christ descended into hell vertu­ally, or effectively, that is to destroy hell in the behalf of the faithful: or if with others, that Christ descended to the lowest degree of exinanition, or empty­ing himself: verily these opinions con­tain nothing in them of falshood: But some refer this descension to the soul of Christ. This opinion that you meet [Page 57]with in Noels Catechism, our Church seems to approve of; in this sense Christ is said to have descended into hell, that he might demonstrate himself to be Conquerer over the devil, and all the in­fernal host, that he might strike terrour into the devils, and triumph most pow­erfully over them. Many write many things concerning this matter. But my judgement is, that this Article ought not to be handled subtilly or scrupulous­ly, Our English Confession hath so ap­pointed it in the third Article. Even as Christ died for us and was buried, so also is it to be beleeved that he went down into hell. Here is nothing determined of the manner of his descension. Let idle wits by their curious speculations search out this, and here if I be not deceived they will finde somewhat to do. Let it suffice us to beleeve, that Christ de­scended into hell, and hath performed all things necessary to our salvation: but for the manner how, this hereafter will be better known.

The Papists who have been bold very [Page 58]accurately to describe the parts of hell, are not yet agreed, whether Christ de­scended onely into the limbo of the fa­thers, or into Purgatory also: whether he delivered any from thence out of his special grace and favour, as Thomas doth conjecture: or whether he delivered all, as Bonaventure and Gabriel: or whe­ther also he descended into the place of the damned, as Bellarmine affirms. They feign that he descended that he might deliver the Fathers out of limbo: but we say plainly that limbo is not known or mentioned in Scripture, that the souls of the godly were in the hand of God, not in hell; that the Fathers were re­deemed by vertue of the merit of Christ, the Lamb slain from the begin­ning of the world, and not at length freed by Christs descension.

Neither is it any obstacle, Object. that Christ did preach to the spirits in prison, 1 Pet. 3.19. Answ. That place is thus explained, Christ by the spirit, that is, by his divi­nity, went, that is, being sent to the Church by the Father from the begin­ning, [Page 59]and preached, not by himself, but by Noah to the spirits in prison, that is to men, whose souls are now in hell, who were in time past disobedient, that is be­fore the floud, while they then lived. But it may be objected out of the same Apostle, Object. that the Gospel was preached to them that were dead, 1 Pet. 4.6. Here lieth the fallacy in the words or sentence; Answ. The Gospel is preached to the dead, that is, to those who were dead, when Peter wrote these sayings: but it was preached to them when they were yet alive. Others with S. Austin interpret this verse of the Gentiles being spiritually dead before conversion.

I confess many places out of the Fa­thers are brought against the Prote­stants: but this consequence holds not good; some affirm it, therefore it is true.

We must know also, that the Fathers have uttered many things Rhetorically concerning the efficacy of Christs de­scension into hell, and have amplified them in lofty expressions: acting like Ecclesiastical Orators, and therefore ma­king [Page 60]use of Rhetorical figures, not onely to teach magisterially, but also to per­swade and move the affection. Let o­thers contend concerning this matter: but thou O. Christian soul, hold this faith, that thou hast faith sufficient to beleeve, that the descension of Christ is the cause of thy ascension on high.

And so from the degrees of Christs exinanition, and the state wherein he was, before he made it evident that he was alive, let us pass to the degrees of his exaltation, amongst which the first that offers it self is the resurrection from the dead.

The third day he rose again from the dead.

Christ is said to have risen again on the third day, not fully complete, but being begun: which is typified by Jo­nah, Matth. 12.40. It seemeth not­withstanding that Christ was not three nights in the Sepulchre, no not so much as by parts; but onely the night of the Sabbath, and of the Lords day. Here therefore it is to be noted that their days [Page 61]were reckoned from one mid-night [...] the other. Christ was in the Sepulchre part of Good Friday, all the Sabbath day, and part of the Lords day, on the which he rose early in the morning. And so the Romans who then ruled over the Jews, did compute their days and nights.

Christ rose on the third day: not sooner, that it might manifest him to be truly dead: not later, because he would not hold his disciples and others any longer comfortless.

He rose, that by his resurrection from the dead he might declare himself with power to be the Son of God. And this was merely an effect of his divinity, to quicken himself by his own vertue and power; wherewith, being the Son of God, he was invested.

That the Father is said to have raised the Son is no hinderance to this, Eph. 1.20. Object. This cometh to pass by reason of the unity of essence in both, Answ. which is so great, that whatsoever the Father doth, the same also is the Son said simply to do.

He rose that he might demonstrate himself to have satisfied for our sins, and to have purchased true righteous­ness for us. Unless he had risen, we had been yet in our sins, all our faith would have been in vain, 1 Cor. 15.17. He rose for his own and his Fathers glory, for the dignity and authority of his Person. Be­cause of his office, he ought to reign for ever, and always to intercede for us. He rose for our salvation, for our justificati­on, for our regeneration, for our resurre­ction and glorification. That he might raise up our bodies at the last day; the head being risen, the members cannot but rise: like as Adam brought death upon himself and his posterity, even so Christ life; the Lord makes the faithful coheirs of his glory; let us therefore rise again to the life of grace, and perse­vere in the same.

It is objected that these benefits flow from the death of Christ. Object. Answ. We answer, that Christ did merit them by his death: but they are declared and applyed by his resurrection. And if it be further said, [Page 63]that these benefits were given to the faithful beleevers under the Old Testa­ment; our answer is, This was done in respect of the resurrection to come.

But may some say, the ungodly also shall rise again. They shall rise again in­deed, but to the judgement of condem­nation, not of absolution. And these things out of many concerning the re­surrection of Christ.