THE DIVINE TRINUNITY OF THE Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: OR, The blessed Doctrine of the three Coessentiall Subsistents in the eternall Godhead without any confu­sion or division of the distinct Subsistences, or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead, Acknowledged, beleeved, adored by Christians, in opposition to Pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, blas­phemous and Antichristian Hereticks, who say they are Christians, but are not. Declared and Published for the edification and satisfaction of all such as worship the only true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three as one and the self same God blessed for ever.

By FRANCIS CHEYNELL, Minister of that Gospel which is revealed from heaven by Father, Son, and holy Spirit in the holy Scriptures of truth.

LONDON, Printed by T. R. and E. M. for SAMUEL GELLIBRAND at the BALL in Pauls Church-yard. 1650.

Academiae OXONIENSI: Electorum Senatui Reverendo, D. Dri. Reynoldes [...] Procan­cellario exoptatissimo [...] vitam cùm omni bonorum copiâ sospitem.

SOlem non vidit (Reverendissimi) qui luce solis solem non aspex­it.Tertul. Quis Poetarum,Apolog▪ cap. 46. quis So­phistarum qui non omnino de Prophetarum fonte potaverit? Nulla sine sapientiâ suscipienda est Reli­gio, Lactant. nec ulla sine Religione sapientia pro­banda. Varii sunt disciplinarum sapores, in­geniorum gustus; tota autem Christiano­rum salus in credendo, colendo, nec non obediendo consistit. Doctrina nostra Chri­stum auctorem laudat, Christumque parat defensorem.Epiphan▪ Noluit magnus olim Epipha­nius, ut Christiani [...] gestarent, sed solo Christianorum nomine contenti satis [Page] gauderent. Valete flosculi, & quicquid est facundiorum deliciarum; nec medicamentis opus est, nec lenociniis ut benevolentiam masculam, virilem, Academicam aucupe­mur. Haud aliter de rebus Theologicis ju­dico, quàm de rebus Philosophicis judicabat Cicero. Cicero l. 3. de finibus. Istiusmodi res dicerè ornate pue­rile est, plane aurem & perspicuè expedire posse, docti & intelligentis viri. Deum te­stem laudo me illis nec conscribere nec vigila­re qui in Theologicis conjecturas venari mal­lent, quàm Scripturas amplecti. Nostrûm enim est Theologiam antiquam & penè anti­quatam antiquitati Primitivae restituere, & Doctrinae capitibus vetustis gratam quan­dam novitatem, obscuris lucem, dubiis fi­dem, vel quasi postliminio superaddere. In quo quidem opere quantopere desudandum sit, viri ut diffusissimae eruditionis, ita sapientiae prope incomparabilis satis norunt. Nec Ar­gumentum majus esse potest, nec Praelector minor: quis enim ego qui tot clarissimis viris de Academiâ nostrâ, imò de totâ literarum Republicâ optimè meritis succederem, vel munus in hoc incomposito rerum statu infir­mus obirem? Eheu nec fictis lachrymis do­lendum studiorum decus saeviente bello non mediocriter spretum jacuisse, Nec inficias ivero in tam occupato vitae genere meditati­ones nostras satis acerbas nec dum ad gustum Academicum satis maturuisse; & certè tantarum dimensionum opus si non immensum, [Page] non adeo tumultuariâ operâ deproperari de­bet, ut officio simul deesse (aliud quam hoc agens) & publico minus prodesse saltem pru­dentibus videar.

In cogitationem autem sensim deveni, quantum mihi honoris Electorum Senatus im­merenti habitum iverit, quem dignati est is (R [...]verendi) ad functionem non tantum in Academiâ, sed & in Ecclesiâ Dei tam cele­brem obeundam vocatione solenni honestare; quibus antem rationibus hanc difficilem scri­bendi provinciam imò necessitatem deprecatus sim, probè norunt quibus imbecillitas nostra satis not a est; At at de pudore nostro bene sub­rustico (unico tenuitatis meae praesidio) amici hac ex parte nimiùm diligentes cogentibus amoris nec non prudentiae machinis tandem triumpharunt. Omnibus itaque testatum volo quanti piorum doctorumque auctoritatem facio, cùm adversùs judicium meum, & ultra posse meum cum bono Deo hac in re Reveren­dorum decretis, amicorum monitis paruerim saltem, si non satisfecerim. Sed nihil uti spe­ro (Electores ornatissimi) splendori nominis vestri bene magni detrahet benevolentia ve­stra, vel tenuitas nostra; non enim Sol eò mi­nor est, quòd loca lustret humilia, & res exi­guas. Ex laboribus enim nostris fructum non contemnendum (ni fallor) funiores per­cipient. In capitibus quibusdam quae magna exercebant ingenia, virisque gravissimis con­tumax facessebant negotium, Textui certè lu­cem [Page] adferimus perquàm gratissimam. In Translatoribus infidelibus [...], exem­plum dabo, quaeso à vobis ut audiatis, infaeli­cissimum.

De authoritate verborum quae 1 Iohan. 5. 7. extant, De Autho­ritate ver­borum 1 Jo. 5. 7. non eadem sunt Doctorum judicia. Hieronymus in Prologo in Epistolas Catholi­cas ad Graecorum Codicum fidem provocat. Vterque Robertus Stephanus Pater filius­que manuscriptis quamplurimis optimae etiam fidei usi sunt,Rob. Ste­phanus Senior, & Iunior. MS opti­mae sidei. Hieron. Prob. in Epist. Ca­thol. & tamen nullam lectionis va­rietatem in hoc versu 7 indicant. Hierony­mum graviter tonantem audiamus; fulmen ausem Interpretes solos tangit. Si (Episto­lae) sicut ab iis digestae sunt: ita quoque ab Interpretibus fideliter in Latinum verte­rentur eloquium, neque ambiguitatem le­gentibus facerent; nec sermonum sese va­rietas impugnaret, illo praecipuè loco ubi de unitate Trinitatis in prima Johannis Epi­stolâ positum legimus: in quà etiam ab in­fidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse à fidei veritate, comperimus, trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est aquae, sangui­nis & spiritus, in ipsâ suâ editione ponenti­bus, & Patris, Verbique ac Spiritus testimo­nium omittentibus, in quo maximè & fides Catholica roboratur, & Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti una divinitatis essentia com­probatur.

Britannus Codex hunc versum habet, quan­quam sine Articulis, [...]. [Page] Pleraeque editiones Graecae ut Basiliensis, Oecolampadii, & altera Brittiingeri & Lip­sensis Vogelii hu nc versum retinent. Com­plutensis vocem [...] omittit, & pro [...] cor­ruptè legit [...]

Deinde Patrum Orthodoxorum testimonia adducimus; qui partim ita legerunt, partim etiam ita legendum asseruerunt. Athanasius lib. 1. ad Theophilum, & Cyprianus de uni­tate Ecclesiae, & de simplicitate Praelatorum, Hieronymus, Athanasius, Fulgentius, &c. vide Gomari Analys [...]in [...] Johan. Bellarmi­num de Trinitate. Stegman. Photin. D. Sal. Glassium de Consubstantialitate Christi &c. D. Alting. Loc. Com. part. 2. pag. 340, 341. & explicat. Catechet. part. 2. pag. 148. Inter tres Personas Coessentiales est [...] essentialis & proinde [...]. Citavit etiam hunc locum Athanasius in disputatione cum Ario habitâ in concilio Nicaeno, adversario nihil quicquā contra excipiente. Fulgentius lib. contra objectiones Arianorum. Insignis est magni Hyeronymi provocatio (cujus ante memini) ad Graeca exemplaria extra con­troversiam incorrupta, & doctis cognita. Hieronymus enim ait se Latinorum Codicum vitiositatem (quae ex diversitate librorum omnium comprobatur) ad Graecam ori­ginem, unde & ipsi translata non denegant, voluisse revocare. Hieron. Epist. ad Marcel. ult. Hieronymum liquet nihil queri de Codicibus Graecis, sed tantum de iis qui Graeca Latinè verterunt, & hoc magnum [Page] indicium est, etsi Graeci Codices nonnulli essent corrupti ab Arianis (qai Constantii tempore, pulsis Orthodoxis totum penè or­bem teste Hieronymo occuparant) incorrup­tos tamen reliquos [...] fuisse tem­pore Hieronymi. Translatores itaque Infi­deles vocat Hieronymus, qui hunc versum septimum omiserunt, & in fine subjicit, sed ego in tali opere nec aemulorum meorum invidentiam pertimesco, nec sanctae Eccle­siae veritatem poscentibus denegabo. Eras­mus vir (ne quid gravius dicam) suspectae fidei, Augustinum citat, Latinam versionem (quae tunc temporis obtinebat) vulgò vitiosè translatam proponentem,Bedae tran­slatio labo­rat. & Bedam Graecae linguae ignarum, vel sat superque ignavum. Augustino & Bedae Cyprianum opponimus linguae Graecae peritum,Cyprian. de unitate Ecclesiae. cujus haec sunt verba; Dicit Dominus, ego & Pater unum sumus, Johan. 10. 10. & iterum de Patre, Filio & Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, & hi tres unum sunt, 1 Joh. 5. 7.

Consulantur Eugenius Carthaginiensis in explicatione fidei Catholicae apud Victorem lib. 2. de persecutione Vandalica, Idacius li­bro adversus Varimadum, Higinus Epist. 1. Paxillus de monomachia, Calovius de fide Patrum ante concilium Nicaenum, D. Hein­sius in 1 Ioh. 5. 7. D. Altingius explicat. Catech. part. 2. Resp. ad 25. quaest. pag. 140. Locus 1 Joh. 5. 7. extat (inquit ille) in melioribus & antiquissimis exemplaribus, & in quibus [Page] desideratur, ex iis perfidiâ Arianorum erasus est. D. Gomarus in Analysi. Epist. 1. Iohan. cap. 5. 7.

Haec sunt (Domini Fratresque in Domino colendi) de quibus vos hujusce certaminis Arbitros praemonere visum.Tertul. Praescript. Haereticos de­tegere est refutare; Haereticorum Patriar­chas, qui veritatem adulterio stuprant hae­retico, detegimus certè & proinde refuta­mus. Factionem Antichristianam Racovien­sem, nec non Pontificiam satis Irreforma­bilem detegimus, damnamus.I

1. Antichristus Racoviensis divinam Chri­sti essentiam, Personam,Antichrist. satisfactionem ne­gat,Racoviens. objectum Fidei Christianae,Vide Cat. Racoviens. Scripta So­cini, Mosco­rovii, Crel­ [...]ii. Volklii, Smalcii, Goslavii. Cultusque Evangelici tollit, & proinde Christianis­mum evertit; ex verbo Dei persuasi sumus Anti-Trinitarios (sic stante ipsorum fide) non posse salvari. Mysterium Dei Trinunici est Fundamentum Fundamentorum, ita ut sublatâ Trinitate necesse sit omnia protinus Evangelica funditus corruere. Alcuinū de Trinitate in Praefati­one ad Ca­rolum mag­num.

Est enim Socinismus [...], 2 Pet. 2. 1. (haud secus quàm Iudas iste Proditorum perfidissimus [...], Joh. 17. 12. & Antichristus ille Romanus [...],Schlussel­bergium de Haeresibus, Stegman­num, Juni­um, Zan­chium, Go­marum, Vo­etium de Trinitate. 2 Thes. 2. 3.) haeresis omnium pestilentissima Divinitatem Christi, Spiritusque Coessenti­alis, ipsamque Patris Paternitatem aeternam abnegans, viamque per propriam vitae obe­dientiam ad coelum affectans.

Anres ingenuas violare nollē, nec modestiā [Page] Christianam onerare. Socinianas igitur bla­sphemias sapienter dissimulasse generosius ju­dico, quàm Magisterialiter, sed inutiliter not avisse. Parum certe Christiani sunt Fran­cisci-Davidici qui Christum adorandum ver­bis conceptis negant, nec pro fratribus haben­di sunt Socinani Idolatrae, qui Catechis­mum Racoviensem tuentur, Novum (que) Deum minimè Trinunicum, imò novum Christum [...] sine fide vel amore divino co­lunt, & Spiritum Sanctum impii adorandum negant. Libertatem Conventus suos agendi, atque adeo haereses nec non blasphemias exiti­ales spargendi desiderant. Antiqua autem Ecclesia Pacis repudium misit Anti-Trini­tariis universis, ut videre est in ActisAct. Con­cil. Nicen. Nicer. The saur. Orth. fid l. 4. & hae­res. 32. Epiph. hae­res. 65. Aug. de hae­res. c. 14. Con­cilii Niceni, Athanasii, Epiphanii, Hilarii, & aliorum Reverendissimorum Doctorum scrip­tis. Pacem profanam, haereticam, Syncre­tismum tremendum damnamus omnes; Soci­nianos nec Politicè nec Ecclesiasticè toleran­dos esse fortiter clamamus. Det seductis Deus ut resipiscant.

Observandum est ex sanâVide Da­masceni Epistolam de Trisa­gi [...] & l. 3. de Orthod. fide c. 1. Meursii Lexicon Graeco-Ba [...]barum: Baronii Annal. ad annum 446 §, 12. 13. Antiquitate usque in hunc diem celebre illud in Oriente & Occidente [...], quo perpetuam sa­cratissimae Trinitatis [...] & [...] in Ecclesiis suis sonare voluerunt. Suspectae autem fidei sunt, quae de Trinitatis mysterio ex quibusdam laciniis, Sibyllarum carmini­bus, Hydapsis, M. Trismegisti, Platonis, & aliorum Scriptis Doctores nominis bene [Page] magni collegerunt.Suspectae fidei est Trismegi­sti aucto­ritas. In Trismegisto qui Mose antiquior est (credite posteri) [...] oc­currit; narrantur in super nonnulla, quae post Christum acciderunt.

Multa denique fraude parum piâ confinxit non nemo, ut Religionis Christianae Gentili­bus sidem faceret, quorum apud curiosissimos disciplinarum, nec non Antiquitatum scru­tatores nec vola, nec vestigium extat. Om­nia autem adulterina & supposititia tanquam vana rejicimus, damnamus. Mysterium Tri­nitatis quantum ad [...] è Scripturâ de­monstrandum est; [...] ipsis etiam Ange­lis est [...]. Mysterium illud Dog­maticè ac Elencticè tractant saniores Eccle­siae Doctores, Athanasius, Cyrillus, Basilius, Hilarius, Nazianzenus, Augustinus▪ Ful­gentius, Alcuinus & alii, quorum nec no­mina recensere hic par est. Haec de factione Antichristianâ Racoviensi.

II 2. Quod ad Romanam attinet. Spiritum Iesuiticum nimis immundum loca arida per­ambulantem, Antichrist. à Scripturâ ad Traditiones,Romanus. ab Apostolis ad Patres, à Christo ad Ecclesiam, à Catholica ad Romanam: ab Ecclesiâ ad Episcopos, ab Episcopis ad Concilia, a Con­ciliis ad Papam, ab omnibus ad nihil discur­rentem digito demonstramus. De judice nec non normâ fidei hujusce Tractatus capite nono aliquam-multa protulimus. Judicium Discretionis non arguit officum Judicis. Legislator nec non Evangelii Dictator Spi­ritus [Page] Sanctus judicat, [...]: Mi­nister Publicus [...]. Christianus Privatus [...]. Coeli mysterium doceat me Deus ipse qui condidit, non homo qui seipsum ignovarit.

Iesuitae omnes Fidei Controversias ad tria Capita revocant.

  • 1. De Ecclesiâ Catholicâ.
  • 2. De Sanctorum Communione.
  • 3. De Peccatorum Remissione.

Evangelicorum nonnulli omnes Contro­versias quae Reformatis Ecclesiis cum Ponti­ficiis intercedunt, in quatuor partes tribuunt. 1. De Scriptura. 2. Ecclesiâ. 3. Sacramen­is. 4. Iustitiâ.

Noverint autem Catholici se cum Eccle­siâ fideles Doctores recipere debere, non cum Doctoribus Ecclesiae fidē deserere Vti graviter Vincentius Lirinensis. Fundamen­tum Theologiae unicum Sacram Scripturam statuimus. In omnibus Fidei controversiis Spiritus Sanctus judicium suum Absolutum, Supremum, universale, nec non Authenticum in cripturis consignatum [...] Eccle­siae promulgavit, omnes (que) errores Infallibi­liter condemnavit. De Papâ itaque & Pa­pismo non tantum conclamatum est, sed & actum. Vid Optat. adversus Parmen. lib. 5. Cùm in terris nullam poterit repe­riri Judicium, de coelo quaerendus est Judex; sed ut quid pulsamus ad coelum, cum habe­mus hic in Evangelio?

Frustra etiam Pontificii Iustitiam suam [Page] ostendunt imò ostentant injusti. Omnis enim humana justitia injustitia esse deprehendi­tur, si divinitùs districtè judicetur, si Gre­gorio fidem adhibeant. Moral. l. 21. cap. 15.

Partes Theologiae sunt Agnitio Cultusque Patris aeterri, Filii Naturalis, & Spiritus Coessentialis, Dei veri, nec non Trinnici. Deum enim rectè agnoscimus ut sincerè co­lamus.

Tractatio Theologiae est vel Didactica, vel Practisa, vel Problematica, vel Mixta.

Didactica quae ad fidem facit, est vel [...] vel [...].

Practica ad Pietatis, Iustitiae, nec non Charitatis officia conducit.

Theologia autem Problematica sive Elenctica problemata selectiora proponit. [...] damnat. Opor­tet enim Episcopum esse [...], qui possit [...]. Tit. 1. 9.

Theologia autem Mixta est Catechetica, Scholastica, Moralis sive Practica.

Theologia haec Mixta

1. Locos Communes sive [...] (uti Theodorus apud Quintilianum) colligit.

2. Controversias emergentes feliciter diri­mit, ne quid aut vafrè dissimulatum, aut callidè delumbatum, aut perfidè inversum sit aut esse videatur. In ipsis principiis falli absurdum est, & prudentis est omnia quae à Principiis deducuntur, perspecta habere [Page] [...].Arist. Eth. l. 5. c. 7.

3. Casus Conscientiae perplexos fideliter enucleat: sapiens enim est qui omnia & sin­gula ad Normam Religionis aptare novit.

Theologia autem ista Questionaria à Scholasticis, Sententiariis, Summistis nec non Quodlibetariis venditata parum▪ Theologica est, imô Mataeologia est, doctrinae Lanfrancianae consentanea, decretis Pontificum munita, que ad Lombardi dictata, Thomae placita, vel Scoti [...] subtiliter absolvitur. Patrum Scripta, nec non Aristotelis Axiomata passim detorquent, Scripturas contemnunt; Et pro­inde Authoritatem eorum in divinis totam contemno, Vide Max. Tyrii Dis­sertat. 10. Alcin. de Doctrinâ Plat. cap. ultimo. Causaub. Proleg. in Baronium, D. Alting▪ Problem. tertium de Theologiâ Scholasti­câ ab A. C. 1020. ad 1516. à Lancfranco ad Here­num, ab Hereno ad Lutherum. nec prudentiam eorum valde praedico. Sophistas esse nullus dubito, Philo­sophos autem bene Christianos fuisse pertina­citer nego. Apud cautos enim obtinet illud Maximi Tyrii, [...]. Et si [...] istiusmodi Scholasticae Theo­logiae Patroni aliquem humanioris Musae sensum habeant, fateantur necesse est Magnis istis Doctoribus melius fuisse studia Theolo­gica nunquam attigisse, quàm adeo infaelici­ter tractasse. Dubitare soleo debeamne illa saecula [...], an [...]; nomi­nare.

Valete (Domini fratresque observandi) Academiam laborantem precibus vestris apud Deum Trinunicum adjuvate, Professori ve­stro [Page] nondum Praelectori ignoscite, qui si­lentii culpam hâc justâ nimis Apologiâ dele­turus est.

Professor vester Vixit, & proinde Praelec­tor non est; Professor autem vester vel mor­tuus & adhuc loquitur.

Frustra gratisque olim dictum fuit cura [...]. Pasto­rum, Professorum, Doctorum cura haud cura secura est. Sudoribus certè maximis terram subigimus Agricolae, fructûs autem quàm nil percipimus.

Vixisse nimio satius est, quâm vivere.

Obtrectatoribus respondebo [...]. Obtrectatio stultorum thesaurus est, quem in linguis gerunt. Invidia the saurum nutrit, malevolentia effundit, quae quidem vitia domicilium non in alio quàm jejuno a­nimo collocarunt.

Profesor vester vix usque ad invidiam faelix, sine invidiâ vel malevolentiâ jejunus, Exit Wigorniensi studiorum solatio denuda­tus, majoris iniquitatis [...]. auctoramentum, Culpaeque Suadelam nimis efficacem perti­mescens: Malletque insuper cum Cicero l. 16. ad. At­ticum. timore domi esse, quam sine timore Athenis. Scissae in partes Academiae valedixit magnus Ca­mero.

Vale Reverende Procancellarie, praestabilis eruditionis Respub. Dei munus, Academiae decus. Floreat Theologorum Senatus, pere­at sciolorum impudentia, ne politioris litera­turae [Page] atque adeo divinae cognitionis pars bene magna pulsa, heu pulsa tandem exulet. Va­lete omnes, qui musas colitis honestiores, & istiusmodi faeces sub acumen calami congerere sapienter timetis, quae aegri animi fastidia ad­augent potiùs, quàm detergunt.

Deus Veritatis & Pacis dirigat vos Spi­ritu suo Sancto, ut Academiae, Patriae, Ec­clesiae, diu multumque prodesse valeatis, prop­ter illum qui est via, veritas & vita.

Gratia Domini Iesu Christi, Charitas Dei, & communicatio Spiritus Sancti sit cum omnibus vobis. Amen.

Vestris D D. devotus Fr. Cheynell.

To the Worshipfull FRANCIS ROVS Esq The learned Provost of Eaton College.

SIR,

IT was the sad complaint of Hi­lary in his time, That there were as many Creeds as Wills, Periculo­sum nobis est tot nunc Fides existere, quot vo­luntates, dum aut ita Fides scribuntur ut volu­mus, aut ut volu­mus intelli­guntur. Hilarius. and every one presumed to al­ter the wholesome Forme of sound Words, or else wrest it to a corrupt sense. And you know the sense of a Creed is the Creed. In these dayes of Libertinisme, men ac­count it a kinde of bondage to confine them­selves to a wholesome Forme of sound words, though they areVerbis consecratis utendum Quintil. Consecrated words, and therefore such as cannot be condemned.

The Devil hath set good men at variance about saeculal affaires, Private interests and publique rights, and in the mean time robs or cheates us of what is spirituall and glorious, the purity of truth, the power and beauty of ho­linesse. We live in sad times, in which Athe­isme pleads for protection and intolerable er­rours contend for a toleration. They who [Page] blaspheme Christ and his Gospel in jeast, The judg­ment of God upon scoffing A­theists. are Atheists in good earnest (as Lucian and Rablais were) but God will plead his own cause, if we will not. Lucian (as Suidas re­lates) was torne to pieces with dogs, and Rablais died drunk with Wine and Athe­isme: We have good cause to suppresse and be­waile the very first risings of naturall Atheisme; we must not suffer any black suggestions or hovering thoughts which rellish of Athe­isme to roost and nestle in our hearts;In animâ dicuntur esse, quae sunt in eâ per mo­dum quie­tis; reliqua potius di­cuntur esse ab animâ, quàm in animâ, Vi­de Bona­vent. lib. 2. dist. 38. These extemporary thoughts, are sins which do pro­ceed from us; but O let them not be familiars, and inmates which lodge, and dwell within us. I fear that Atheisme may soon become a Na­tionall sin in England, if there be an indulgence (worse then any at Rome) vouchsafed to ir­regular phantasies, and appetites under pious pretences. They who deny the God head of Iesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, hope to e­scape censure in England, if they can have the favour to be called devout Familists, although their blasphemy and wantonnesse doth declare them to be sensuall Socinians, and beastly A­theists. The Socinians and Familists have e­ven already shamed the more modest Mahu­metans. D. Pococ­kii speci­me [...]n Hist. Arab. pag. 21. Annot. pag. 218. & 219. Mr. Pocock (the learned and ingenuous Professour of Hebrew and Ara­bick in this Vniversity, in his notes upon Gre­gory the Arabian Phaenix) assures me that the Al Hayetians acknowlege the incarnation of the Eternall Word, and that we shall all be [Page] judged by this Incarnate Word at the last day. The more moderate Turks would stop their ears at the hearing of such blasphemies agaist Christ, as hath poysoned this English air. Some Mahumetans hold that Christus est Deus de novo ortus, as the Socinians say, he is Deus fa­ctus, Subordinatus, &c. And the Mahumetan-Sectaries talk just like our Familists, D. Pocock [...] Annot. pag. 219. Anti­nomians: &c. as will be evident to any one that will persue M. Pococks choise and learned An­notations. Licitum pronuntiant vino & scor­tationi indulgere, & reliqua quae lege vetita sunt perpetrare; omittenda esse censent, quae lege mandata sunt, pag. 261. & orationē. I am ashamed to English that with my pen, which some Pro­fessours have translated in broad and foule English by their grosse neglect of duties, con­tempt of ordinances, and bold practice of a­bominable leudnesse; I will not mention their dreams of a Phantasticall Hell, and Heaven. But sure I am our Familists, Sunt ex Al [...]shiisqui hominum [...] statuerūt. vide D. Pocockii Annot. p. 264. and their Alshii speak the same Dialect, when they discourse of their being Godded with God, and salute one whom they reverence with this Atheistall complement, Tu est Tu, id est, Tu es Deus. Sir, you are what you are, you are God! Henry Nicholas, the Father of the Family of Love, said of himself, I am God. A man would think that our Familists had met with some Mahumetans at Poland, or Constanti­nople, and some of the worst of them also. For Al Gazalius a precise and learned Mahu­metan [Page] would teach them better langnage and behaviour also; He saith that cleanlynesse is a part of Faith, and the Key of Prayer, that we must have pure mindes, clean hearts and hands. But enough of that.

Sir, Being encouraged by the Committee, for regulating this Vniversity, to undertake a service which I even tremble to repeat, and you being Chaireman of that Committee, I conceived my self obliged to present you with this Treatise. When the Vniversity was plea­sed to elect me the L. Margarets Professour of Divinity, the revenue due to that Profes­sour by a grant made under the great Seale of England 3io. Caroli, Apr. 20. 1649. This Act shall not extend to the reve­nues of any publik pro­fessor or reader in either of the Vni­versities. Ad lau­dem & ho­norem san­ctae & in­dividuae Trinitatis, ac Fidei & Christia­norum augmen­tum. was setled by speciall Act. And the Vniversity did purchase the lease of the House and Meadowes in Wor­cester, which belong to the said Professour, and would (if they might have had the com­mon priviledge of leaseholders) have bought the inheritance of the premises outright for e­ver; but the Vniversity is denyed the benefit of the lease and the common priviledge aforesaid. The House and Meadowes are sold to others, and no revenue payed to the Professour. I de­sire that the Vniversity may be righted, and that my successour may not suffer as I have done. Sir, notwithstanding these discourage­ments, I conceived it my duty either to read or write for the propagation of the Christian Faith, and honour of the blessed Trinity ac­cording to the first Grant. I consulted the V­niversity [Page] and your self, and you both concur­red that rebus sic stantibus, it was better to write then read, and that it did most conduce to the propagation of the Christian Faith; Fi­nally, that it was most requisite that I should write in English, because since the beginning of the year 1645.1645 there have been many blas­phemous bookes to the great dishonour of the blessed Trinity printed in England. But I have found the task far more difficult, because there are many Socinian subtiltyes which will hardly bear English, and I could not but take some notice of them, either by a For­mall answer, or else by a confirmation of that deep truth which they do with no lesse blasphe­my, then subtilty reject, deny. I have been forced sometimes to expresse my minde in La­tine in the margine, merely upon that accompt; but the plainest reader may if he please to read the 4. 5. 8. and 9. Chapters, understand as much of this mystery as is necessary to bee known; and I am confident that the happy union between the Mystery of Faith, and the practicall Mystery of godlinesse is as plainly represented in this little Treatise, as in any of the ancient or moderne Divines; for I have faithfully endeavoured to give you the strength and Quintessence of both in a familiar way with many experimentall observations of mine own, which I shall now reveiw and pra­ctise in my most retired condition. But before I retire, give me leave to speak a word for my [Page] Brethren who are eminent for all manner of learning, sound in the Faith, holy in their life, and peaceable in their conversation; if men of such qualifications know not how to rest in the present unsetlednesse of publike affaires, and yet are ready to performe all lawfull things re­quired of them for the defence and preservati­on of the true Religion and publique Liber­ties; why may not such be still employed for the promoting of such a just Accommodation & Re­formation as may effectually advance the grand publike interest, the power, purity and growth of Religion in this land? you cannot look upon these men as enemies, and dare not deale with them as the worst of Infidels (whom Christian See Weemse vo. 3. Ex­pos. of the judiciall Law, cap. 15. Faithfull Presbyte­rians de­scribed and commen­ded.Princes have sometimes banished from their dominions) if you desire to have the same com­mon friends and enemies with Iesus Christ. Now which is the more tolerable penalty, to be out-lawed or banished, is not hard to determine. If you look upon them as Presbyterians, it is no dishonour to them to be true to their Prin­ciples in the midst of changes; it is a signe that they were never friends to the Fortune of the Cause, but to the Cause it selfe; forgive them if they know not how to pursue a new interest without new light or direction from the word of God. Besides they are such Pres­byterians as all godly and prudent Indepen­dents will close with in the highest and sweetest acts of Church-communion. For I am confi­dent that no wise and godly men will Practi­cally [Page] separate from us in those very things in which they do Doctrinally agree with us,Grounds of an happy union be­tween god­ly men of both per­swasions. be­cause that Text which they do so often cite, Philip 3. 15, 16. is Demonstratively clear in this very point, and doth manifestly condemne all causelesse Separation from lawfull Com­munion with the godly members of Reforming Churches.Si vultis vi­vere de Spiritu Sancto, te­nete chari­tatem, a­mate veri­tatem, desi­derate uni­tatem, ut perveniatis ad aeterni­tatem. Godly Presbyterians and Inde­pendents do. 1. Receive the same Offi­cers, Pastours, Teachers, Ruling Elders, and of the same qualification required in the Rule set forth by the Parliament. 2. Admit Members of the same qualification held forth by the Assembly, namely visible Saints, who being of age, do professe Faith in, and obe­dience to the Lord Jesus Christ according to the Rules of Faith and Life delivered in the Word. Aug. 3. Desire that the above mentio­ned Officers should be incorporated in one El­dership,1 and joyn in all acts of Government of 2 the Church. 4. Hold the same censures 3 of Admonition and Excommunication, and do 4 likewise receive such as have been censured into communion again, as soon as they give testimony of their repentance to them.Godly In­dependents do acknow­ledge Paro­chiall Chur­ches to be true Chur­ches of Christ.

Godly Independents doe acknowledg that Parochial Churches (wherein Ministers and others endeavor to remove all things just­ly offensive, that so all ordinances may be ad­ministred in purity) are true Churches of Christ. 2. They retaine Communion with these Parochicall Churches by baptizing their 2 [Page] Children, and receiving the Lords Supper there, as occasion serves. And if occasionall Communion with us be lawfull, constant Communion with us would not be sinfull. 3 3. They receive the members of such parishes as aforesaid unto Communion with themselves in their own Congregations also occasionally. 4 4. They professe that they are ready to give an account to such Parochiall Congregations, as to Sister-Churches, whensoever they are offended at any irregular administrations in 5 Independent Churches. 5. They esteem a sentence of Non-Communion passed by such Parochicall Congregations, is Churches a­gainst them, upon any scandall wherein they are unsatisfied, as a means to humble them, and as an ordinance of God to reduce them. Much more might be added: But it is clear from these premises, that prudent and godly Independents cannot conceive themselves ob­liged

I 1. To set up other Churches with dif­fering rules of Constitution or Worship; For Presbyterians and Independents did both agree in the same Confession of Faith and Directo­ry for Worship, and resolved to practice most of the same things, and those the most substantiall in respect of Government al­so, as doth appeare by those few tran­sactions in the Assembly, and Commit­tee for Accommodation, which have been Printed.

[Page] 2. Nor can they say, that they are enfor­ced to gather new Churches out of true Re­formed Churches; for a circumstantiall dif­ference cannot be a sufficient ground for lea­ving of all ordinary Communion with true reforming Churches. The prudent and god­ly Presbyterians have set no bounds to themselves in their Reformation but the Word of God; and therefore if the Indepen­dents will set forth a compleat Modell of their whole Church-way, and Church-order, ful­ly, freely, and clearely, and prove it by plaine Texts out of the holy Scriptures, we shall thankfully receive whatsoever they shall convincingly impart. And I shall be bold to say,Statesmen and Sword-men have kept godly Presbyteri­ans and In­dependents at too great a distance upon rea­sons of State. that there had been a judicious, affec­tionate and practicall Accommodation be­tween us (notwithstanding some speculative differences in notionall Ideas) if there had been no interposition of Statesmen, or Sword-men, when the Committee of Ac­commodation had sadly considered and re­viewed all materiall Arguments on this side, and on that; And if you set aside all rea­sons of State and saecular considerations, I do not see why men who agree in the substance of the Service and Worship of God, in the Direc­tory according to the Preface, in the Confes­sion of Faith set forth by the Assembly, and in the Doctrine contained in the Confessions and Writings of the reformed Churches, should not mind the same thing, and walk by [Page] the same Rule, that there might be a Prac­ticall Communion between us in all points wherein there is a Doctrinal Agreement, and we might go hand in hand to heaven to­gether, with meeknesse of wisdome, and sin­cerity of love.Caveats for men of both perswasions Let men of both perswasi­ons beware of such a superstitious tender­nesse as doth usually arise from some un­conscionable errour, and unmortified lust, because it is no priviledge, but a judgement to be given up to errour or lust; and from such ensnaring liberty, which is indeed perfect bon­dage, good Lord deliver us. No man is ob­liged to follow the Positive Praescript of an erroneous conscience in any point or case whatsoever: Differences of Iudgment did not extinguish the relation of member­ship amongst the Romans and Corinthians. And it is certaine that the Substantials of Church-Government must not be changed in every age acording to the graduall differences of light in severall persons and Congregations.An expe­dient desi­red for an happy uni­on between Presbyteri­ans and In­dependents Dum pro­pter haec alter alteri Anathema esse caepit, nemo penè Christi est. Hilarius.

We humbly desire that there may be a strict and mutuall obligation condescended to in some expedient by all godly men of both per­swasions for mutuall edification, and for the preservation of all the Churches in these Do­minions in truth, godlinesse, and peace, that we may not passe unchristian censures upon our Christian Brethren.

Let all private quarrels then fall to the ground, and let us mind the common interest [Page] of the Lord Iesus,Caveats for Statesmen and seriously promote it in our respective places in faith and love. And let all Statesmen beware 1

1. That they do not fall into the same spi­rituall or civill evils which they themselves have condemned in the King and Prelates. Remonstr. Decem. 15. 1641.

2. Beware of ERASTIANISME which doth overthrow all Church-government,2 both Presbyterian and Independent.3

3. Take heed of CIVILL SCEPTI­CISME which doth overthrow the Fun­damentals of publike Faith, and publike rights, and plucks up all Civill Government, by the roots.

4. Beware of Familisticall Polytheisme; 4 for the Familists affirme that there are as many Christs, as many Gods manifested in the flesh, as there are Saints on earth. But to us there is but one God,Jer. 2. 11, 12, 28. and one Lord Ie­sus Christ; it is enough for blind Pagans to talk of many Gods, and many Mediatours.

5. Beware of Atheisme, the great Mon­ster 5 of this Age, compounded of Socinianisme, Familisme, Libertinisme, and Antinomi­anisme. The Ephesians complaine of none but robbers of Churches, and blasphemers, Acts 19. 37. But we have cause to complaine of them, and Apostates, Idolaters, Atheists, and what not?

6 6. Beware of a Toleration of intolerable errours. Reverend Mr Cotton is afraid that the Antichristian Whore will steale in at [Page] the Back-doore of a Toleration. The Magi­strates of England are engaged by the Oath of God to root out whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine, and the Power of Godlinesse. That man is seduced by a private Spirit (as you observe well in your Orthodox Book) who lusteth after envy, after Sects and Di­visions; Catholike Charity, C. 1. p. 11, 12. but the holy Spirit is a Catholike Spirit, a Spirit of Catholike Faith, and Catholike love, an unreserved and univer­sall Love to all that beleeve and love the Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us then all hold fast the wholesome forme of sound words in faith and love. For they who waver against the credit of their own testimony, L. in Test. Dig. de Testibus. are not (as the Civilians say) to be heard or regarded, because they have lost their credit. We are reserved for some service in this declining Age; and there­fore it doth become us to be Orthodox Saints, steady Christians, that our Posterity may imitate us, and see those glorious daies, which some conceive are come already, be­cause they have attained a little vainglory in this Age of vanity. The Writers of this pre­sent time, who seeme to contradict one ano­ther concerning the light and glory of these unhappy daies, may as easily be reconciled as Sophocles and Euripides were concerning the goodnesse of women. Sophocles being asked the reason why he did alwaies represent wo­men in his Tragedies as very good, whereas [Page] Euripides did ever represent them as very bad? answered, that be and Euripides did not at all contradict one another; for saith he, I do ever represent women just as they should be, and Euripides just as they are. In like manner some Writers represent these times just as they should be, and others represent them just as they are. But I must needs condemn those, who draw a croo­ked conclusion from the corrupt doctrine and manners of this untoward and crooked gene­ration, and infer that there is no Church of God in England, because Antichristian and blasphemous Seducers are multiplyed without number, and favoured in the Land, though all the Magistrates and godly of the Nation are by one confederate Body, obliged by solemn Oath to root out Idolatry, Blasphemy, He­resie, Schisme, Profanenesse, and whatsoe­ver else is contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of Godlinesse.

1. It is not denyed that there is a fry of 1 Achans in the Land. 2. The sins condemned 2 are inexcusable, and so are all the Foster-fa­thers of them. 3. We pray that they who have 3 given their power to the Beast, may give it to the Lamb. 4. All faithfull Ministers do open 4 heaven to the faithfull, and shut it against un­beleevers, as our Master enjoynes us, Mark. 16. 15. Luk. 24. 47. and therefore we are true and faithful to the King of Saints, and Com­monwealth of Israel. 5. There are thou­sands 5 [Page] in England whose hearts bleed at their eyes for the abominations of the Land; men that do seriously endeavour to save them­selves & others from this untoward gene­ration, according to Peters direction, Act. 6 2. 40. 6. The house of Jacob was the Church of God, and yet there were foule faults, Incest, and murder found amongst his Sons. The Lord perswade and encourage the Fathers of this Nation to be as zealous against the sins of the Nation, as Jacob was against the sins of Reuben, Simeon and Levi. I must go back­wards here, Gen. 9. 23. as Shem and Japhet did. I have not time to mention other things, but let all such as have the power and bowels of Fa­thers, take heed that they do not persecute or offend one of those little ones who be­leeve in Christ, Mat. 18. 6. much less undo one of those great ones, who have much of Christ, and his Spirit reigning in them. Beleeve it Sir, there are a company (I put my self out of the number) of Select men in Oxford; I know not whether there be, all things considered, the like in the World againe, men able and wil­ling to promote the Common-wealth of true Religion, publike Liberty, and ingenuous learning for the Common-weale and good of mankind in all Nations; for they are acquain­ted with all necessary Arts, Sciences, and Lan­guages, and dare throw the Gauntlet to the proudest Champions in the Antichristian World. Some few of these may perhaps be [Page] complained of by some Weathercockes, who can rather turn then crow, some froward children who bite their mothers breasts, or vipers who would eate a way to their own preferment thorow their mothers Bowels. It is not for want of pride or ignorance that these afflict your doores and eares with unnecessary com­plaints, which they prove just as Erucius did his against Roscius, who when he was asked who told him so, he answered, No body; and when it was demanded how the accusation would be proved, answered, In truth I know not. What is this (saith Tully pro Sexto Roscio) but to abuse the Laws and Judges, to object what you cannot prove, nay, do not so much as endeavour to prove? It may be you will reply as Hazael did, Am I a dog that I should be accessary to any grievous or unrighteous Decree? You know what Hazael did; and you know that Asa was a good man, and yet a Persecutor. But I hope that as you have been zealous for the Refor­mation, so you will be zealous for the preser­vation of the Vniversity, which is the earnest desire and prayer of

Sir, Your thankfull Servant Fr. Cheynell.

To the Reader.

I must entreat you not to mistake the Prin­ters oversights for my dictates. I was sel­dome here to overlook the Presse, and can only glance over the Book now with a running eye. I leave it to your candor and judgement to correct ordinary slips, but before you set your self to read, be pleased to correct these 3. places.

In page 35. line 22. Not is left out, and for in line 23. read both thus, [Not as the spirit of disobe­bedience acts in children of wrath, for we, &c.]

In the Margin, page 28. b read thus, Actus divini considerati secundumid quod sunt.

In the Margin, pag. 370. For Pultum ocera read cultum opera.

The God of wisdome blesse our endeavours. The grace of Christ, the love of the Father, and Communion of the holy Spirit is the best portion; let us all beg it for our selves, our friends, and our posterity in these evill daies, and the Lord send us a gratious returne of all our Prayers at the Throne of grace, that we may all find grace and mercy in this time of need.

CHAP. I.
The Godhead is Spiritual, In­finite, Incomprehensible.

WE read of the eternal God­head in the Book of the Creature, Rom. 1. 20. and therefore I prize Philosophy because it is subservient to Divinity; nay that Philosophy which ma­nifests the Eternal Power and God-head of our great Creator is indeed and Truth, nothing else but Natural Divinity: This Na­tural Divinity is called The truth, Rom. 1. 18. and it is a Divine Truth, because it doth declare [...], all that can be known of God by the light of nature, Rom. 1. 19, 20. I subscribe to that of Cle­mens Alexandrinus: We ought not to swear allegiance to any sect of Philoso­phers, whether Stoicks, Epicures, Plato­nists or Peripatetiques, but we must select and embrace whatsoever is true and faith­fully delivered concerning God by any SectProver­bia etiam non Chri­stianis fa­miliaria apud Ter­tullianum, Deus videt Deus red­det, si De­us volue­rit, quod Deus de­derit, Deo commendo, Deus inter nos judicabit, &c. id ipsum de mon­strant. Summum illud & aeternum neque mutabile neque in­teriturum. Tacitus, [...]. Thales [...]. Philemon. Nec vero Deus qui intelligitur a nobis alio modo intelligi potest quàm mens soluta quaedam & libera segregata ab omni concretione mortali, omnia sentiens & movens. Cicero. Plato in Phaedro & lib. 10. de legibus. Vide Clem. Alexand. lib. 1. Stro­mat. Gen. 9 6. Jam. 3. 9. Rom. 2. 14, 15. Vide sis dicta Poetarum apud Stobaeum ab. H. Grotio emen­data. Aquin. Contra Gent. R. de Sabunde de Theologia Na­turali. A. S. Eugubinus de perenni Philosophiâ. G. Pacardum de Theolog. Naturali. P. Mornaeum. Aug. de Civit. Dei. Theo­doret. de curand. Graec. affectibus Clem. Alexand. Basilium, &c.; and the Truth selected out of all Sects is not vaine Philosophy, but Natural [Page 2] Divinity. There is something of the I­mage of God & Law of Nature written in our hearts and consciences, as is evident by common experience and plain testimonies of the world of God, and therefore the Scripture doth not condemn all Philoso­phy, but vain Philosophy, Colos. 2.

These natural notions of the eternal Godhead should excite us to enquire far­ther after God as the Apostle shewes in Acts 17. ver. 27. because though our na­tural notions concerning God are true, yet they are such imperfect and obscure noti­ons, or rather hints, that we are by reason of the corruption of our nature, very apt to abuse them, and therefore we must regulate them by the Word of God.

The [...], uti Antiphanes So­craticus. [...] Xenophon. Godhead is Spiritual, and therefore invisible; the Professors of Wisdome be­came [Page 3] fools, when upon a clear sight of some invisible things of God they changed the glory of God into a visible Image made like unto corruptible man, and unreasona­ble creatures; such Images are both Arti­ficial and Real lyes; for by making Images of God, these learned Fools changed the truth of God into a Lye, and then adored and worshipped their own lyes, Rom. 1. 20, 23, 25.

The Godhead is Infinite, and the Im­mensity of Gods perfection cannot be mea­sured by any created understanding. God is great, and his greatnesse is unsearchable Tunc dignè De­um aesti­mamus cùm inae­stimabilē dicimus. Haebreo­rum Deum [...] vocat Lu­cianus. Di­on Cassius [...] in­effabilem & incon­spicuum. Theologia notitias naturales excolit, & confirmat. Deus ele­git stulta mundi ad confusio­nem Philo­sophiae. Tertul. Praescript. adversus Haereticos Theologia non sub­jicitur Phi­losophiae sed praefi­citur. Catechis­mus negat Philoso­phi [...]m non Philoso­phia Cate­chismum, Lu [...]her. Vera Philosophia est naturalis Theologia; concurrit gemina patefactio, naturalis & supernaturalis, gemina au­thoritas, gemina lux. Haec itaque loquendicausâ de ineffabili­bus diximus ut fari aliquo modo possemus quod effari nullo modo possumus. Vide Aug. de Trinitate lib. 7. c. 4. Qui vult sapiens fieri in Aristotele, stultificetur ante in Christo. Luthe­rus. Tunc stultus Plato cum suis discipulis, &c. Tertul., Psal. 145. 3. The greatnesse of God is not a greatnesse of Bulk and Quantity, but of Perfection and Excellencie; he is great in Power, and his understanding is Infinite, Ps. 147. 5. and therefore his understanding is unsearchable, Isa. 40. 28 when men and An­gels search farthest into Gods perfection, they do most of all discover their own im­perfection, for God will make them know that the secrets of his wisdome are double to that which they behold, and that it is impos­sible by our most accurate disquisition to finde out the Almighty unto perfection, Job 11. 6, 7. but we may find him out unto sal­vation in the holy Scriptures.

[Page 4] If we sum up all that the Philosophers and Schoolmen can attain to in their dis­courses of this first Principle, it will amount to no more then this; Men and Angels can never comprehend that perfection which dwels in God; for the perfection of God is Infinite, and therefore [...]ncomprehensible.

Let Schoolers examine t [...]is brief account, Deus est [...]ns, Ens entium, Essentia Essenti­arum, Ens purum, Ens Simplex, Ens simpli­citer Simplex, Ens Absolutum, Ens Neces­sarium, Ens Absolutè necessarium. Ens Pri­mum, aeternum, independens, perfectum infini­tum, infinitè perfectum, & proinde immen­sum. Let us therefore study, beleeve and embrace the holy Scriptures, which may satisfie and save us.

I confesse I have been very much taken with some discourses in Aristotle's [...]. Nihil praestantius Deo; ab eo igitur Mundum regi ne­cesse est. Cicero. Vi­de que Operum initio ex­tant apud Hesiodum. Si Deus est animus nobis ut ca [...]mina [...]cunt, &c. Meta­physicks concerning the spiritual and eter­nal efficacy of the first Principle, first mover or prime understanding, whose very Es­sence, Substance, Nature and Being is a spi­ritual [Page 5] and Eternal Self-efficacy, from whence it was easie to demonstrate the Self-sufficiency and All-sufficiency of this Eternal understanding, and from thence to inferre that this Eternal Spirit, whose very Being is Efficacy (or as we say a pure Act) should be effectually obeyed and sincerely worshipped with pure and spiritual wor­ship.

I shall not examine those passages which are usually cited out of Plato, Iamblichus Trismegistus and others upon this subject, because it is clear to me that those glorious mysteries which they did either discourse or treat of were discovered to them by an Hebrew light.Vide Just. Mar. Pro­trep. La­ctan. Eu­seb. de praeparat. Evan. Aug. de Civit. D [...]i, de doct Chri­stiana Hi­era [...]ym. E­pistola ad magnum oratorem Mar [...]il. F [...]cinum. Alcin. de doctrina Plato­nis. B [...]ssarion. Va [...]es. de Phil [...]. Sacr. l. S. Fugubinum, Lem­nium, Al [...]iedium, Philonem Iudaeum l [...]actan ium, Isidorum, Aug. contra Academ. Cor. Ag [...]ip. de Van. Scien [...]. D. Alting. Pro­blem. Vo [...]tium Select. Di [...]p. p. 1. Videlium R [...]t. Theol. Rice­tum in Exod. p 94. Gat [...]k. lib. p. 262. Amel. Pl [...]ton, Iustin. Martyr. Apol. 2. Tertu [...]. Apol. c. 44. Plato was not called the Atticising Moses in vaine, Clemens Alex­andrinus and divers others have said enough of that, and saved me the labour of a lear­ned Digression upon that subject; and it is conceived that Christians have inserted such passages into the works of Heathens.

The Platonists say Lumen est umbra Dei, Deus est lumen luminis. The Aposile saith God is light, and in him is no darknesse at all: [Page 6] That is, God is perfection it self without any imperfection at all, 1 John 1. 5. God is a pure Act, God is one Single Infinite Per­fection. And therefore asVid. Se­nec. l. 7. Natural. Qu. De Deo etiam vera dicere pe­riculosum est. Seneca said, we had need compose our whole man into an Argument of Modesty when we discourse of the nature of God, lest we speak any thing rashly, or affirme any thing that is untrue.

The works of God are great, and his thoughts (Decrees and Counsels) very deep, Psal. 92. 5. Who then is able to sound the depth of his natural perfection, whose immense perfection is like a Sea (if there were any such) which hath neither banks nor bottome; who can sound a bot­tomlesse depth, or define an infinite perfe­ction? God is near us, nay in us, and yet farre off from us; there is an infinite di­stance between his excellency and our in­firmity Excedit superemi­nentia Deitatis humani e­loquii fa­cultatem. Veri [...]s e­nim cogi­tatur De­us quàm dicitur: Et veriùs est quàm cogitatur. August. de Trinit. lib 7.: he is far off from our senses and from our understanding; and therefore in­stead of begging longer time as the Philo­sopher did, I will conclude as the wise man doth, Eccl. 7. 23, 24. All this have I proved by Wisdom: I said I will be wise, but it was farre from me; That which is farre off and exceeding deep, who can finde it out? Hera­clitus put forth a pretty Riddle. If [...]. Heraclitus [...], &c. Philemen. you do not hope for something above hope, you shall never finde out that which can never be found. It is safer as the Poet said, to beleeve [Page 7] and worship God then to pry into him. Nam praeter ipsum quaerere acquires nihil. How much Raymundus de Sabunde, A. Steuchus Eugubinus, Pacardus and others would have found without the help of the Scri­pture, let such as are spiritually judicious judge.

CHAP. II.
GOD is the First, Eternal and In­dependent Being, the Fountaine of all Being and Well-Being, & therefore cannot but Be, Exist, and persist in Being.

IT is a Rule generally received in the Schooles, that all creaturesOmnes creaturae plus ha­bent non-Entis. quā Entis. have more of imperfection and nothingnes, then they have of Being or Perfection. But all Being, the whole of being is in God. God is princi­pium totius esse, the fountain of all Being, and wel-being, the only self-being.

God is theDeus so­lus est [...], quia se, & per se est, a quo, in quo, per quem & propter quem sunt quaecunque sunt; omnia quippe Deus aut in tempore sustentat in ipsis, aut aeternùm in se. First, Eternal and Indepen­dent Being, and therefore can have no Cause of his Being without himself, or above him­self, because he was before, and is above all [Page 8] Causes, [...]. Isa. 44. 6. God is the First and the Last; he is everlasting, and therefore can have no Efficient or Final Cause; and it is utterly impossible that God should have a­ny Matter or Form, or any thing answera­ble to either, because it is impossible that any thing should set bounds to his Bound­lesse Being, [...]. and infinite perfection.

God is [...] saith the Philosopher, and [...] saith the Divine, but we must (as the Schools state the point) understand both Sensu Negativo, because God hath his Being not from any other, but from him­self; and God is said to have his Being from himself, because his very nature and Essence are necessaryQui v [...] ­rè, neces­sariò & absolutè est essentia primò & per se est, imò a se­ipso, & per seipsum existit, & proinde non po­test non existere. [...]. Rev. 1. 4 Vide Hie­ronym. E­pist. ad Marcel. de X. Dei no­minibus., and therefore we cannot conceive the Divine Essence to be void of existence; it is utterly impossible that God should not exist, because the Di­vine Nature is a pure Act, an absolute, necessary, eternall, infinite, independent, single Being. We must not conceive that God was first in a naked Power of Being, and was afterwards reduced unto actuall Being by his own effectuall Power, as if his Existence were really distinct from his Es­sence, or did virtually flow from, and con­sequently depend upon his Essence, as its proper cause. For it is manifestly absurd to conceive this pure, infinite and eternall Being not to be in Act, since it is a pure Act. God doth declare the incomprehen­sible [Page 9] purity of his infinite and single Being in that amazing and yet edifying text, I am that I am, [...]. Sept. Exod. 3. 14. as if he had said there is nothing in your God which is not God; my Attributes do not differ from my self, my Being is absolutely necessary, eve­ry way perfect, altogether pure, single and infinite. I do therefore conclude as Hierome, Vid. He­ronym. ad Eph. c. 3. That the very nature of God is being it selfe, and therefore he ever was and cannot cease to be; he cannot borrow his Being from any thing, who gives Being and wel-being to all things. The absolute and independent necessity of the Divine-Being doth demonstrate its eternity, and there­fore Omnia tempo [...]a conjun­cti de Deo dicta aeter­nitatem conno­tant. Rev. 1. 8. all the differences of time are untied by the Talmudists, to connote the Eternity of God in that text, Exod. 3. 14. according to that excellent Commentary made by the Apostle, Rev. 1. 8. God is the Almighty, which is, and which was, and which is to come. Hence it is that some have thought fit to translate that text, Exod. 3. 14. ac­cording to the full scope of the Future a­mongst the Hebrews, I am that I am that I was, and that I will be. For the FutureFuturum trium tem­porum dif­ferentias [...]n se con­tinet. [...]. Qui erat, qui est, & semper est, uti Epi­phanius contra Ar­chonticos. Futurum perseve­rantiam essendi de­notat & in­dependen­tiam. a­mongst the Hebrews, points at all diffe­rences of time past, present and to come; but others observing the strict and proper signification of the Future, translate it thus, I will be that I will be. The Angel of the waters doth unite all differences of time in [Page 10] that gratefull acknowledgement, Rev. 16. 5. Thou art righteous O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. And Iesus Christ, (who is one and the same God with his father,) is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever, Heb. 3. 8. The Rabbines upon Exod. 3. 14. Ainsw. on Exod. 3. 14. D. Riv. on the same place expresse themselves after this man­ner, The blessed God said unto Moses, say un­to them, I that have been, and I the same now, and I the same for time to come, &c. or as others more agreeable to the Chaldee Paraphrase, I, he that is, and was, and here­after will be, hath sent me unto you. But e­nough of that; it is now time to conclude that this first and independent Being can­not be measured in it self, because it is infi­nite, nor in its causes, for it hath [...]. Rom. 11. 36. no cau­ses, but is from it self, of it self, by it self and for it self; for as the Apostle saith, All things are of him, and through him, and to him; to him be glory for ever. Amen.

CHAP. III.
God hath sufficiently and graci­ously revealed himself in his ho­ly word for our edification and salvation.

THis incomprensible God, who is of himself and for himself, cannot be made known to his creatures but by him­selfe: Men and Angels cannot know him any further then he is pleased to reveale himself unto them.

The word of God is pure and perfect, it doth fully discover Gods mind and our duty. The ScripturesDogma­ta Theo­logica non sunt vera quia Ecclesia ita testa­tur, sed quia Deus ita testa­tur in Scripturis aeternae veritatis. direct us in all points of faith, in all parts of worship, and in all passages of our life and conversation; there is the whole body of Religion, and the on­ly right way to salvation sufficiently and graciously revealed unto us by God himself; for God is the Author, Object, End of true Religion, and is the only happinesse and salvation of his chosen People, and there­fore God alone can direct us how to serve and enjoy his own blessed self, in an accep­table and comfortable way, for his glory and our own everlasting satisfaction.

The Jesuites tell us that the Scriptures are but a partiall Rule, and that we must [Page 12] be beholding to some unwritten word or tradition for the proofe of some points, which are necessary to be known and be­leeved for our everlasting salvation. Some instance in the Doctrine of the Trinity, o­thers in the Worship of the Holy Ghost. The Papists do generally acknowledge that it is necessary for the attainment o [...] salvati­on to beleeve the number of the Persons of the Trinity, and their consubstantiality, because no man can be saved who doth not believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in all three as in the only true God, one and the self same God blessed for ever; but some of them deny that this mystery is suf­ficiently revealed in the written word, and therefore I shall make it my businesse to confute them, and all that adhere unto them in the following Treatise. The sa­ving knowledge of God in Christ is reveal­ed by the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures of truth; nay Father, Son and Holy Ghost do all joyne in revealing to us the saving mystery of faith and godlinesse, that by the grace of Christ, the love of God, and Communion of the Holy Ghost, we may have a glorious fellowship with all three as one God, the only true God, whom to know is life eternall, John 17. 3. we are taught by the father to come to Christ for sal­vation, John 6. 45. we are taught by the son, Iohn 1. 18. Heb. 1. 2. we are taught by the [Page 13] Spirit, Heb. 3. 7. Rev. 2. 29. and 1 Iohn 5. 6. the Spirit doth beare witnesse after an especiall manner to this saving truth: it is the spirit that beareth witnesse, because the Spirit is truth: yet all three (and there­fore the whole Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,) do joyn in bearing record, and their record is written, for it stands upon Record in the Gospel, and their Record is a saving Record, and there can be no other Record produced to prove that Christ is our Saviour, 1 Iohn 5. 7, 11, 12, 13, 20. Iohn 20 31. if we study the ScripturesVide Na­zian [...]. lib. 5. de The­ologiâ. Epiphani­um Apo­stolicos redar­guentem. Chrysost. in 1 Cor. cap. 2. Basilium in Ethicis., beleeve, apply them, wor­ship and act according to them, we shall be saved by our faith in the written Trini­ty; in Father, Son and Holy Ghost, with­out the help of any unwritten tradition whatsoever; for the holy Scriptures are able to furnish the Man of God unto Perfection, and make the simple wise unto salvation, 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17.Cyrillus lib. de Tri­nit. & per­sonâ Chri­sti. a We­gel. edit. Cyrill in his Book of the Trinity and Per­son of Christ, put forth not long since by Wegeline, saith that he would not speak or think any thing of God, but what is written in his Word. Clemens AlexandrinusVide Clem. A­lex. stro­mat. lib. 7. [...]. saith that we ought to make good every point in question by the Word of God, because that is the surest, nay that's the only Demonstration; he speaks of Theologicall Demonstration, nothing can be embraced with a divine faith, [Page 14] but that which is delivered to us upon Divine Testimony; and we are to seek for the Te­stimony of God, nowhere but in the writ­ten Word of God, and therefore Basil dis­putes after this manner, Whatsoever is not in the written Word of God is not of faith, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and there­fore it is a sin to obtrude any Doctrine up­on the conscience as an Article of faith, which is not written in theVide Ba­sil. Ascet. Reg. 80. [...]. Nihil est de fide nisi quod Deus per Apo­stolos & Prophetas revelavit, aut quod inde evi­denter de­ducitur. Bellarm. l 4. de ver­bo Dei c. 9. Word of God, Putean is bold to say, that if Basil his meaning was according to his words, he was a Hugonot, that is as we use to say, a Puritane.

When I read what the Papists write on this Argument, I stand amazed at their blasphemies, and am unwilling to stain my paper with the repetition of them; they who have read Canus, Hosius, Costerus, Eckius, Gautierus, Charronaeus, Stapleton, and the rest of that rabble, will not wonder that the Socinians call the Doctrine of 3. Persons and one God into question, when the Papists who were baptized in the name of the Trinity, & professe that they beleeve the equality of three distinct Subsistences in the same divine Essence, do yet notwith­standing in their writings grant as much as the Socinians need prove, namely that the Doctrine of the distinction and equality of Persons in the same Divine Essence cannot be proved but by unwritten Traditions, by [Page 15] the testimony of the Church of Rome, &c. and yet diverse Papists undertake to de­fend the doctrine of the Trinity against the Socinians, though they know that the Socinians do not at all value traditions or the testimony of the Church of Rome; and therefore though divers Papists write a­gainst the Socinians, yet they do promote Socinianisme by their vaine doctrine of un­written traditions. Stapleton is not asha­med to deny that it can be proved out of Scripture that the Holy Ghost is God, or that he is to be worshipped.

But SalmeronVide Salmer. in 2 Epist. ad Timoth. Disput. 4. deserves commendation in this point; The Scriptures saith he, are therefore said to be written by divine inspi­ration, because they instruct us in divine my­steries, concerning the Vnity of God, and Trinity of Persons.

Photius Phot. Biblioth. [...] in his Bibliotheca shews, that Ephraeni did not dispute of the consubstan­tiall Trinity out of the Testimonies of Fa­thers, but out of the Holy Scriptures; Iu­stin Martyr, Athanasius, Basil, Irenaeus, Cyrill, Cyprian, Tertullian, Epiphanius, The­odoret, and many other of the Fathers did assert the doctrine of the Trinity, and some of them did confute the Valentinians, Eu­nomians, Sabellians, Photinians, Arrians, Macedonians. Samosatenians, &c. out of the Holy Scriptures. The Nicene Synod did urge Scripture for the maintenance of the [Page 16] truth, which they declared in the Confessi­on of their Faith; and the Synod which met at Constantinople did the like, as is most evident to such as have perused those learned and ancientVide Cyrill. de Trinit. & pers. Chri­sti c. 10. Theodoret. Epit. di­vin. dogm. c. de Spi­ritu San­cto. Da­masc. orth. fid. l. 3. Naz. O­rat. 23. in laudem Heronis. Athan. de Decret. Synod. Ni­cen. Eun­dem E­pist. ad Serapion. & de sen­tent. Greg. Nyssen. Dyons. contra Eunom. Tertul. adversus Pra­xaean. Theodoret. Dialog. 2. cap. 4. Nazianzen. orat. 37. de Spiritu Sancto. Epiphan. contra Sabel. Basilium contra Eu­nomium, Sabellium, Arium. Cyprian. lib. 2. adversus Judae­os ad Quinirum, cap. 6. August. contra Maximin. Bellarm. de verbo dei l. 4. c. 11. Records. Athana­sius confounded the Arians by cleare Te­stimonies of Scripture, and in his Book of the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, he saith that the true disciples of Christ, do clearly understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity preached by divine Scripture. I shall not trouble or amuse the Reader by quotati­ons out of Cyrill, Ambrose, Hilary, Augu­stine, Nyssen, Nazianzen, or any of those Worthies but now mentioned, whose la­bours have been ever famous in the Church of God; yet I must not omit one pregnant proofe out of Augustine, who appealed from the Nicene and Ariminensian Synods, and challenged Maximinus to dispute with him about the great point of consubstanti­ality out of the Scriptures. Bellarmine him­self is forced to confesse that Augustine had good reason to do so, because that point is cleare by Scripture; but then we [Page 17] must likewise consider what Augustine saith upon this Argument, thatQuod expresse non habe­tur in Scri­pturis, po­test tamen inde evi­denter de­duci. Vocabu­lum in Scripturis non legi­mus; rem cui hoc vocabulum recte adhibitum est, fideique sensum inve­nimus. Vide Augustinum Epist. 174. ubi contra Pascentium A­rianum dispurat. Eundem insuper in Ioannem Tract. 97. Am­brosium lib. de fide contra, Aria nos cap. 5. Augustinum contra Maximinum Arian. Theod. Hist. lib. 1. c. 8. Basil. contra Eunom. c. 4. Tractat. Definit. Tom. 2. Athanas. the thing (or sense of any word) may be in Scripture though the word it self be not to be found there, though the words Trinity Trin-uni­ty, Consubstantial, are not found in Scri­pture, yet that which is signified by those words may be clearly proved by the holy Scriptures. These three are one; I and my Father are one; Behold a Trinity Trin-uni­ty, Consubstantiality, and all quickly pro­ved.

That Rule is of great concernment and very pertinent to the point in hand, which Augustine delivers in his third Book and third Chapter against Maximinus the A­rian. Out of those things which we read in Scripture we may collect some things which we do not read, and so both understand and beleeve the thing which is delivered in o­ther words in Scripture, then those which we are now forced to use, that we may confirme the Orthodox Christians, and re­fute the gain-sayers. But I am weary of this task, and therefore call upon my Reader to joyne with me in searching the Scriptures [Page 18] that we may find out the truth; for reason cannot demonstrate or comprehend these mysteries of faith; and the Rule is, Ratio­num fulcro dissoluto humana concidit autho­ritas.

CHAP. IV.
This single and Eternall Godhead doth subsist in Father, Son, and holy Ghost, without any multipli­cation of the Godhead.

WHenGreg. Nyssen. contra Eu­nom. lib. 1. [...], &c. Gregory Nyssen undertook to confute the artificiall blasphemy of Eunomius, he desired that the true God, the Son of the true God, and the Holy Spirit would direct him into all truth. I have likewise implored the Divine assi­stance of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that I may open this Mystery of the single Godhead in three distinct Subsistences, with faith and prudence, perspicuity and reve­rence. I consider that the Godhead is Spi­ritual, and therefore I desire to avoid all carnal expressions in a Treatise of this nature.

There is a twofold knowledge of God, Absolute, and Relative; the Absolute know­ledge [Page 19] of the Eternal Power and Godhead is in part discovered by the works of God, as hath been shewen in the first chapter; but the Relative knowledge of God (I speak of inward relations between the three Subsistences) is not, nay cannot be at­tained unto by the light of nature; no ex­ample can illustrate, no reason Angelical or humane comprehend the hidden excel­lency of this glorious Mystery, but it is dis­covered to us by a Divine Revelation in the written word, and therefore our faith must receive, and our piety admire what our reason cannot comprehend. It is fit therefore that this Grand Mystery of the Divine Trinunity should be soberly explained, that it may be stedfastly beleeved, and reverent­ly applyed in all Evangelical administra­tions.

We read of the Godhead, the Nature and Subsistence of God in the holyJob 12. 16. Pro. 8. 14. Isa. 28. 29. Gal. 4. 8. Phil. 2. 6. Col. 2. 9. Scri­ptures. 1. The Godhead, [...] Rom. 1. 20. [...] Coloss. 2. 9. [...] Acts 17. 29 I am not at leasure to play the Critique upon the words, it is enough for my pur­pose simply to declare the truth in the most plaine and simple manner.

2. The Nature of God is held forth to us in the holy Scriptures, which forbid us to give Divine honour to any of those things which are not Gods by Nature, Gal. 4. 8 For the Apostle in that place reproves their I­dolatry, [Page 20] and tels them, that when they knew not God (that is the only true God who is God by Nature, because truly God) they did service to them which by Nature are no Gods; from whence it is easie to conclude that the only true God whom we ought to serve, is God by nature: and we read of the Divine Nature, 2 Pet. 1. 4. of which all that are regenerate are said to be parta­kers, because they bear his Image; for else it is evident that there is an infinite distance between God, & grace, which is not only finite, but imperfect also, and if it were perfected is but an accident; Nay, there is an infinite distance between the Nature of God, and nature of man in respect of Excellency, e­ven then when the two natures are most intimately united as they are by an Hypo­statical union in the person of the Lord Jesus.

3. This only true God,The Subsi­stence of the God­head. [...]. who is God by nature, doth subsist. And if we will seek after him, we shall finde that he doth not subsist very far from any of us, Act. 17. 27. But the Godhead doth not subsist out of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost. For all the fulnesse of the self-same Godhead is in every one of the three: and therefore the name of God is attributed to every one of the three, in holy Writ. The three divine Subsi­stences.

1. To the Father. Rom. 7. 25. Rom 8. 3.

2. To the Sonne. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 2. 13. [Page 21] 1 Tim. 3. 16. 1 Tim. 6, 15, 16.

3. To the Holy Ghost. Act. 5. 3, 4. Ps. 95. 3. 8, 9 compared with Heb. 3. 1 Cor. 3. 16, 17, Heb. 1. 1. compared with 2 Pet. 1. 21. 1 Cor. 12. 5, 6. And when the name of God is specially attributed to the Father (in regard of order, and that gracious dis­pensation which is by consent of all three vouchsafed for our salvation) the Son and Spirit are not excluded, as we shall prove at large in this very Chapter.

1. The eternal Godhead doth subsist in the Father;1. The Subsi­stence of the Fa­ther. for we read of his subsistence, Heb. 1. 3. Christ is the expresse image of his Fathers subsistence or person, as we do commonly translate the word: but I do not hear that any but grosse Atheists have been so bold as to deny the subsistence of God the Father; and therefore I need not superadde any thing to so plaine a Text.

2. The same Godhead doth subsist in the Lord Jesus,2. The Subsi­stence of the Son. who is equall to the Father, because he doth subsist in the nature of God, Phil. 2. 6. The word [...] is best ren­dred subsisting, in that place; because there is a comparison there between two sub­sistences or persons, the Father and the Son; and therefore the Son counts it no robbery to be equal with the Father, [...]. because he subsists in the nature of God. He hath the same Divine nature, the same Godhead [Page 22] with the Father & all the fulnes of the God­head dwells truly,Vide D. Davenant. in Coloss. 2. 9. really, bodily in the Son; for Body is opposed to shadow. Nay it may be rendred thus: The Godhead dwels personally in the Son: for [...] doth many times sig­nifie a person; and therefore some learned men take [...] to be as much as [...]: All the fulnesse of the Godhead dwells really in the subsistence or person of the Son, Col. [...]. 9. Christ is the illustrious brightnesse of his Fathers glory, the lively character of his Fathers subsistence or person, Heb. 1. 3. Christ is not the character of his own subsistence, but of his Fathers sub­sistence; and therefore the Sonne hath a peculiar subsistence distinct from the sub­sistence of his Father. Christ is the ex­presse image of his Fathers person, and therefore the person of the Son is distinct from the person of the Father; for no per­son is the image or character of it self. Con­cerning the word Subsistence or Person, I shall speak fully in the two next Chapters, and make it evident that the Divine sub­sistences or Persons do infinitely excell the subsistences or persons of Men and Angels. In the mean time I shall clearly prove, that the Godhead doth subsist in the Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Godhead doth subsist in Jesus Christ, who was before the beginning,Iesus Christ is truly God. Ioh. 1. 1. [Was] doth note what is past; & therefore [Page 23] had his being before the begining of time: And that his eternall being is a divine being, is clear, because eternal, and because it is not only said, that he was with God before the beginning, but he was God; and therefore it doth clearly follow, that Iesus Christ is the same eternall God with his Father; for it is impossible that there should be more then one God, as I shall clearly demon­strate before I conclude this Chapter.

I wonder at the impudent blasphemy of some who pretend to be Saints, in these dayes of errour and vanity; and yet are bold to affirm, that they themselves are as well, and as truly God, as Jesus Christ; because it is said that they have their being in God, Act. 17. 28. are partakers of the Di­vine nature, 2 Pet. 1. 4. and are one with Christ, Joh. 17. 21, 22, 23, 26.

I shall intreat the men of this perswasion 1 to consider that Jesus Christ is over all God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. God mani­fest in the flesh,The Di­vine titles of Jesus Christ, prove his Person to be divine, and one of the na­tures uni­ted in his person to be divine. 1 Tim. 3. 16. The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, who only hath immortality, &c. to whom honour and power everlasting is ascri­bed, 1 Tim. 6. 16. He is the great God, Tit. 2. 13. The true God, 1 Joh. 5. 20. Dares any mortall man lay claime to these titles and this honour? To which of the Saints or Angels did God say at any time, Thou art my sonne, the heire of all things, the illustrious [Page 24] brightnesse of my glory, and lively character of my person Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and all the Angels of God shall worship thee, Heb. 1. These things are so cleare and plain, that I am even almost ashamed to write more upon this Argu­ment; and yet I am encouraged and even provoked to proceed. Jesus Christ was the Wonderfull Child; a Child, and yet a Father, the Father of EternityIsa. 9. 6. En infan­tem aeter­nitatis Pa­trem, En parvulum optimum maximum, Deum ma­ximum.; a Child, and yet a Councellour, the wisest of all Counsellours, for he is Wisedome it self; a Child, and yet a God, a mighty God. Isa. 9. 6. Certainly this one Text is sufficient to put them to the blush who presume to compare them­selves with the Lord Jesus, the mighty God.

IehovahChrist is Iehovah and ther­fore he is God. Ehié Je­hovâ & quod ex eo contractum est I [...]h ab Hajâ vel havâ (Esse) derivantur, Es­sentiam infinitam notant. Nomen itaque Jehovae (cui reliqua duo sunt aequalia) Deo proprium est. Gomarus oper. par. 3. disp. 2. de Deo vero. is a Title proper and peculiar unto God, Isa. 43. 11, 12. Jehovah is the only Saviour, the only God & Psal. 83. 18. That men may know that thou whose name alone is Iehovah, art the most High over all the earth.

But the Lord Christ is Jehovah; and therefore the Lord Christ is God. Jeho­vah sits on a Throne in majesty and glory, Isa. 6. 1, 3, 5, 8. but the Lord Christ is this [Page 25] Iehovah, as the Apostle assures us. Ioh. 12. 41, 42 The Lord Christ is that Iehovah to whom every knee must bow; as appears by comparing Isa. 45. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. with Rom. 14. 9 10, 11, 12. and Phil. 2. 6, 9, 10, 11. The like is cleare by comparing Psal. 102. 19. 22, 25, 26. with Heb. 1. 10, 11, 12. Once more, compare Num. 14. 26, 27. with 1 Cor. 10. 9, 10. & Num. 21. 6. And hence it is that Christ is so gloriously described, Rev. 1. 5, 6, 7, 8. He is Alpha and Omega, the be­ginning and the ending, which is which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. And therefore he is Jehovah. For the Apostle doth in that place, and so to the end of that Chapter, insist upon these and the like ex­pressions which do comprise in them the sense and meaning of that divine and glo­rious Title of Iehovah. I might farther in­sist upon this argument, and shew that the Title of Lord so often given to Christ in the New Testament, doth answer to the Title of Jehovah in the Old Testament. And as some Reverend Divines conceive, the Apostles did purposely use the title of Lord, that they might not offend the Jewes with the frequent pronouncing of the word Jeho­vah. Thou shalt feare Iehovah thy God, Deut. 6. 13. Deut. 10. 20. is rendred by the Apostle, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, Mat. 4. 10. And so Deut. 6. 5. Thou shalt love Iehovah thy God, is rendred [Page 26] Matth. 22. 37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. I hope no Saint will presume to arrogate the Title of Iehovah to himself; for he whose Name alone is Iehovah is the migh­ty God, the most High over all the earth.

Jesus Christ is Immanuel,Iesus Christ is Immanuel God with us, Matth. 1. 23. that God who took flesh and blood, 1 Tim. 3. 16. and that God who re­deemed the Church with his own blood, Acts 20. 28.

The Ancients insist much upon that proof Iohn 16. 15. All things that the Fa­ther hath are mine, compared with Iohn 10. 30. I and my Father are one, and Iohn 10. 37. If I do not the works of my Father, be­leeve me not; for from hence they do con­clude, that Christ hath the same divine na­ture and Godhead with the Father; they both have the same divine and essentiall Titles & Attributes, and perform the same inward operations in reference to all Creatures what­soever; and thereforeEpiphan. contra A­postolicos. Vide Cyril. lum in Ioh. cap. 3. & 8. Hiuro. in Zach. 2. Ambr. l. 5. de fide cap. 4. Aug. con­tra Pascen tium; nemo igitur jam calumnia­turde ver­bo; et si enim ver­bum ipsum in Lege scriptum non reperi­tur, res ta­men reperi­tur, ego et Pater u­num sumus Epist. 174. they did farther in­ferre, that they had reason to use the word Consubstantiall; for though the word is not in Scripture, yet the sense and meaning of it is Orthodox and Canonicall, because evi­dently deduced from these Texts and some other Scriptures which we have insisted on before. I shall adde one Scripture more, to make it yet more clear; compare Iohn 17. 10. with Iohn 16. 15. All [...]. John 16. 15. [...]. John 17. 10. Vi­de D. Glas­sium in Ex­plic orat. Christi. [...]. things that the Fa­ther hath are mine. Iohn 16. 15. Father, all [Page 27] mine are thine, and thine are mine. Iohn 17. 10. that is, Whatsoever doth belong to the Father as God, doth belong to Christ; for we speak not of Personall, but Essentiall pro­perties, Christ doth lay claim to all that is naturall, to all that belongs to the Father as God, not to any thing which belongs to him as the Father, as the first Person of the bles­sed Trinity. In the 17 of Iohn Christ proves that the Apostles were his Apostles because they were his Fathers Apostles, and given by the Father to him ver. 9. but he gives a more generall reason for it ver. 10. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine: It is a generall rule expressed in the Neuter gen­der, and therefore cannot be restrained to the Apostles, as the Socinians would limit the speech of Christ; but it must be taken in its full extent; but that I may give full weight and measure pressed down and running over, consider that the other text Iohn 16. 15. hath a double note of universali­ty, and therefore is very Emphaticall for the proof of the point, All things whatsoever thut the Father hath (as God) are mine [...], &c. Epiph. Contra Sabellium, But the Father hath an eternall Godhead, infinite power and Majesty; and therefore saith Christ, they are mine. Epiphanius di­sputing against the heresie of Sabellius ex­pounds this Rule thus, All that the Father hath is mine; the Father is God and I am God; the Father is Life and I am Life; for what­ever [Page 28] the Father hath is mine. For the clea­rer demonstration of this truth, let us now descend to particulars. 1 The Attributes of God. 2 The works of God. 3 The worship of God, are all ascribed & given to Jesus Christ, that we may confesse and ac­knowledge him to be God, the true God, the mighty God, the self same onely God with the Father and the holy Spirit.

1 The Attributes of God are ascribed II to the Lord Jesus. 1 The Eternity of God, Iohn. 1. 1.Divine At­tributes are ascri­bed to Christ. 1 Eter­nity. In the beginning was the Word; [was] notes some former duration, and therefore we conclude that he was be­fore the beginning, before any Cre­ation or Creature; for it is said that he was God in the beginning, and his divine na­ture whereby he works is Eternall. Heb. 9. 14. He is the First and Last, Revel. 1. 17. hence it is that he is called the First-born of every Creature, because he who created all, and upholds all, hath power to command and dispose of all,Micah 5. 2. from the dayes of Eternity. Iohn 17. 5. as the First-born had power to command the family or king­dom, Coloss. 1. 15, 16, 17. Compare Isa. 44. 6. with Revel. 22. 13. and Prov. 8. 22, 23. and with my margin.

2. Jesus Christ is omnipotent, 2 Omni­potence. Phil. 3. 21. he is called by a Metonymy the Power of God, 1 Cor. 1. 24. He is the Almighty, Revel. 1. 8. He made all things, John 1. 3. Coloss. 1. 16, 17. Psal. 102. 26. compared [Page 29] with Hebr. 1. 8. 10 John 1. 10. He upholds all things, Heb. 1 3. Coloss 1. 17.

3. Jesus Christ is unchangeable, 3 Immu­tability. Hebr. 1. 12. cited out of Psal. 102. 26, 27.

4. Christ is Omniscient John 2. 25.4 Omni­science. He is the Searcher of hearts, Rev. 2. 23. He knows all things, Iohn 21. 17. He is the wisedome of the Father, 1 Cor. 1. 24. He doth of himselfe know the Father, Mat. 11. 27. and doth according to his own Will re­veal the secrets of his Fathers bosome, and therefore is called The Word, all the treasures of wisedome are in him, Colos. 2. 3.

5 The Immensity of God belongs to Christ;5 Immen­sity. for he is not contained in any Place, who was before there was any Place, Prov. 8. 22. and did create all Places by his own Power, Ioh. 1. 1. 3. Iohn 1. 1, 3. whilst he was on earth in respect of his bodily Presence, he was in the bosome of the Father, which must be understood of his Divine Nature and Person,Matth. 18 20. Iohn 1. 18. He did come down from Heaven, and yet re­mained in Heaven, Matth. 28. 20. Iohn 3. 13.

II. Christ doth performe the Works of God,3 Divine works. such proper and peculiar, such divine and supernaturall works as none but God can perform;Iohn 2. 19 21. he did raise the dead by his own power at his own pleasure. John 5. 21, 28, 29. John 11. 25. He is called the resurrection and the life, because he is the authour of both: whatsoever the Father doth, the [Page 30] Son doth likewise.Horsum profuit per­sonae digni­tas, ut irae infinitae onus susti­neret, & sufficiens [...] esset. Ioh. 5. 17, 19. He wrought miracles, he hath the same Nature and power with the Father, and therefore doth the same works: He doth regenerate our Souls, par­don our sins, save our souls; he hath appea­sed the wrath, and satisfied the justice of God, by his divine Mediation; he gives Tem­porall, Spirituall, Eternall life. 2 Cor. 5. 17. Iohn 6. 38. 40.Isa. 53. 4.

III. Divine Honour is due to Jesus Christ For,Act. 20 28. 1. All the glorious Angels are IV commanded to worship him,Heb. 9. 12. 14. 26. Heb. 1. 6. 2. All true Christians are described by their calling on and believing in the name of Christ,Divine Ho­nour due to Christ. Act. 9. 14. Iohn 1. 12. 3. All are ob­liged to give the same honour to Christ,Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1, 2. which they are required to give to God the Father,Joh. 14. 1. Ioh. 5. 23. 4. Examples every way warrantable,Psal. 2. 12. because agreeable to these precepts,Ro. 10. 11. are frequent in the Word, Act. 7. 59. 60. 1 Cor. 1. 2. Rev. 22. 20.

5. Baptisme is administred in the name and to the honour of Christ, Mat. 28. 17. 18, 19, 20.

6. At the day of Judgement every knee must bow to him, and acknowledge him to be equall to his Father, Isa. 45, 21, 22, 23, 24. 25. compared with Rom. 14. 10, 11, 12. Phil. 2. 6, 9, 10, 11.

7. All that are justified do believe in him; and they who do believe in him shall not be ashamed, Rom. 3. 25, 26. 1 Pet. 2, 6, 7.

[Page 31] 8. The Apostolicall benediction so of­ten repeated in the Epistles.

From whence I argue, since God will not give his glory to another, because he is true, Isa. 48. 11. and cannot because he is just; it followes, that though Christ be a distinct person, yet he is not a distinct God from his Father, but one and the same God with him, God blessed for ever. Much more might be produced upon this argument: That which hath been said, is abundantly sufficient, if God set it home upon our spi­rits by his own Spirit: but if men will not be perswaded by these Scriptures, neither would they be perswaded though one should rise from the dead. In the next place I am to demonstrate the Divine Nature, Person, Titles, Attributes, Works, Worship of the Holy Ghost.

3. The same eternall Godhead doth subsist in the Holy Ghost, who is God blessed for ever. The Holy Ghost is a spirituall and infinite substance, subsisting with peculiar properties, and acting accor­ding to the counsel of his divine will. The Apostle having distinguished betweene the Spirit, [...]. 1 Cor. 12. v. 4. 11. [...]. Rom. 8. 6. and the gifts of the Spirit, shews that the Spirit it selfe, That one Spirisl, That one and self-same Spirit, doth work and distribute all those excellent gifts ac­cording as he pleases, 1 Cor. 12. 4. Now, 1. these particularising and indigitating [Page 32] terms, That one, that same Spirit. 2. The wi [...] of the Spirit. 3. The discriminating energ [...] or efficacy of the Spirit, do all demonstrat [...] the subsistence of the Spirit, & peculiarity [...] his Subsistence. When the Spirit of truth [...] come, He will guide Iohn 16. 13. he saith no [...] It, but He, and therefore doth not speak [...] an Attribute, but a Person, He &c. which is the more to be observed, because th [...] word in the originall which signifies Spirit [...] is of the Neuter gender, and yet our Sa­vior speaking of the Spirit, saith He, to point out the peculiar subsistence or person of the Spirit, When He the Spirit of Truth, &c. Iohn 16. 13. [...]. Joh. 16. 13 and therefore we ought to take speciall notice of that expression; and all those notes of particularity, 1 Cor. 12. applyed to the Spirit, do shew that he is a particular, and undivided substance, one Spi­rit, the same Spirit, the self same Spirit, one and the self same Spirit, 1 Cor. 12. form the 4. v. to the 12.1. The Di­vine Na­ture and Person of the holy Ghost. And that this spirituall parti­cular undivided substance is a divine sub­stance is evident, because it is said that the same Spirit who doth work all in all is the same Lord, and the same God. 1 Cor. 12. 5, 6. and Lord in the new Testament doth an­swer to Iehovah in the old,2. Divine Titles. as hath been pro­ved above in this very Chapter: when Peter drew up a charge against Ananias, he puts this question to him, Why hath Sathan filled thy heart to lie to the holy Ghost? thou [Page 33] hast not lyed unto men, but unto God, Act. 5. 3, 4. The black and unpardonable sin is after a more speciall manner com­mitted against the Godhead subsisting in the Holy Ghost, and the peculiar office and dispensation of the Holy Ghost, then against the Father or the Son; and that sin is in some respects pronounced the most grievous sin, Mat. 12. 32. If the Holy Ghost were only the Power of God, as Socinians love to dream, that sin would not be so highly aggravated; for it is not the highest and foulest aggravation of sin, to say it is committed against the Power of God. The Father, Son and Spirit have but one Power, as they have one and the same nature; and therefore the Father is said to work in the Son, and by the Spirit; and hence it is that Christ is called the Power of God,Chri­stus est Potentia Dei [...]. Spiritus Sanctus est poten­tia Dei [...] vide Goma­rum Disp. de Trinit. Tom. 3. Disp. 7. & 8. 1 Cor. 1. 24. and the Holy Ghost is called the Power of the most High, Luk. 1. 35. because the Power of the Father, (who is called the most High in opposition to the highest of crea­tures,) doth reside in, is exercised and made manifest by the Holy Ghost, and especial­ly manifested in that Omnipotent Work of the Conception of our Lord and Savi­our; the very shadow of the Holy Ghost makes a Virgin to conceive; this miracle speaks him God.

The Holy Ghost is Jehovah,Divine Ti­tles which prove the Nature & person of the Spirit to be Di­vine. the [Page 34] great God, and King above all Gods, as is evident by comparing, Psal. 95. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9. with Heb. 3. 7, 9. The Spirit of Iehovah is the God of Israel, 2 Sam. 23. 2, 3. The People rebelled a­gainst Jehovah, and tempted him in the Wildernesse, Deut. 6. 16. Numb. 14. 26, 27. Deut. 9. 7, 24. now that is meant of tempting and rebelling against the Holy Ghost, as well as against God the Father and Jesus Christ, as is cleare, if you com­pare Isa. 63. 10. Heb. 3. 7, 9. with the places alledged. The Holy Ghost is that Jehovah who made the New Covenant with his chosen People,Num. 12. 6 Heb. 1. 1. 2 Pet. 1. 21. 1 Cor. 3. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 6. 19. com­pared to­gether 1 Cor. 12. 5, 6. Ierem. 31. 31. com­pared with Heb. 10. 15, 16. The Holy Ghost is that Jehovah who spake by I­saiah the Prophet; compare Isa. 6. 8, 9. with Acts 28. 25, 26. we might argue in like manner, from Levit. 19. 2. &c. com­pared with Heb. 9. 7, 8. and severall o­ther places, Num, 12. 6. Heb. 1. 1, 2 Pet. 1. 21. 1 Cor. 12. 5, 6.

The Omnipotence of the Spirit is clear­ly proved,3. Divine Attri­butes. The Om­nipotence of the Spirit. because he worketh all in all, according to the counsell of his Will, and worketh miracles, which transcend not only the common course and order, but the whole power of nature, 1 Cor. 12. 6, 9, 10, 11. such are the raising of the dead, Rom. 8. 11. the regeneration and sanctification of our souls, Tit. 3. 5. 1 Cor. [Page 35] 6. 11. and therefore he is called the Holy Ghost,4. Divine works of the Spi­rit. because the Father and the Son do according to Divine dispensation sanctify us by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Moreover the Holy Ghost did teach the Prophets and Apostles, and lead them into all truth, he overshadowed the Virgin, &c. Iohn 16. 13. Acts 2. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 11. and 2 Pet 1. 21. The holy Ghost is the great God and Creatour of all things Psal. 93. 3. 5. Heb. 3.

The Holy Ghost is Omniscient;The Omni­science of the Spirit. [...] Rom. 9. 1. 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. Joh. 16. 13. for he knowes the deep things of God, and the secrets of men; he inspired the Prophets and Apostles, and moved them to reveale the mysteries of faith and godlines, 1 Cor. 2. 10. 11. and 1 Pet. 1. 11. 2 Pet. 1. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Rev. 2. 23.

The Holy Ghost is Omnipresent,The Omni­presence of the Spirit. he dwels in all Saints as in a Temple, he re­paires, adornes, beautifies his Temple, and acts in every single Saint,Rom. 8 9. 2 Tim. 1. 14. as the spirit of dis­obedience acts in Children of wrath: we cannot flie from the presence of the spirit because he is Omnipresent,1 Cor. 3. 16 Rom. 8. 26 27. Psal. 139. 7.

By what hath been already written, it is evident that the Holy Ghost hath the ti­tles and attributes of God,1 Cor. 12. [...] he doth per­forme works proper to God;1 Thes 2. 13 Vide Basi­lium. lib. de Spiritu Sancto. and that de­vine Honour is due unto him, I shall clear­ly prove because it is denyed by the bla­sphemous wits of this discoursing age.Vide Na­zianzen.

[Page 36] The Holy Ghost who spake by Isaiah the Prophet,Orat. 37 & testimoni­orum exa­mē de De­ita [...]e Spiritus Sancti inventes. is worshipped by the Angels of God, as is most evident by comparing Isa. 6. 3. 9. with Acts 28. 25. 26 The whole Church of God is exhorted to worship the Holy Ghost as the Great God,Petrum Damianū lib. 3. Epi 1 as Jehovah, as our Make; to how down and kneel before him, that is, to give him divine worship both inward and outward, because he is our God, as appears by comparing, Psa. 95. 3. 6. 7. with Heb. 3. 7, 8. 9. The Apostle gives di­vine Honour to the Holy Ghost when he appeals to him as to the searcher of hearts, Rom. 9. 1. and the Holy Ghost who speaks to the Churches, joynes with the son of God (who speaks to them also) in searching of the heart and reines, Revel. 2. 17. 18. 23. and all the Churches are commanded to hearken to both as unto God blessed for ever. Our soules and bodies are said to be the Temples of God because they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost; and therefore we are commanded to worship and glori­fy the holy Ghost with our souls and bodies; for the spirit doth dwell in his Temple that he may be worshiped in his Temple. The Temple is a profane place, if there be no worship there; and it is, must be, pure, holy and spirituall worship, and sacrifice, such as the holy spirit delights in; else the Temple will be defiled, destroyed. Compare, 1 Cor. 3. 15. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 6, 19, 20. 2 Cor. [Page 37] 6. 16. 18. and 2 Cor. 7. 1. The Church is blessed in the name of the Holy Ghost as in the name of God,1 Cor. 6. 19, 20. and the communion of the holy spirit is spirituall and saving as well as the speciall grace of Christ,Rom. 12. 1. 2. and love of the Father,1 Pe [...]. 2. 5. as appeares by that solemn Apostolicall benediction,1 Cor. 3. 16, 17. 2 Cor. 13. 14. and the beloved Disciple proclames the spirit to be the fountaine of grace and peace as well as the Father of Jesus Christ,Eph. 2. 18. 22. and ther­fore doth beg grace and peace of the Spirit of grace (who doth purify and pacify our hearts) for all the Churches, Revel. 1. 4. The holy Ghost doth regulate all Churches and Church-affaires. Acts 13. 2. 4 Acts 15. 28. Acts 20 28. Baptisme is administred in the name and for the Honour of the ho­ly Ghost. Matth. 8 19 The holy Ghost doth bestow upon us, and work in us those spirituall and glorious blessings which are sealed in or conveyed by Baptisme, and therefore we are more especially Baptized by the holy Ghost. Matth. 3. 11. Iohn 3. [...]. 6, for we are born of the spirit, regenerated, washed, renewed by the spirit, who purifies the soule as water doth the body, Titus 3. 5, 6.

The violation of the Honour and wor­ship of the Holy Ghost is most severely pu­nished,Vide Aug. cont. Ma­ximinum. Mark 3. 29. Hebr. 6. 4 Hebr. 1 [...]. 28. 29. and therefore there is speciall care ta­ken in the holy Scriptures both for the pre­servation [Page 38] and vindication of the honour of the Holy Ghost;Acts 7 51. Isai 63. 10. Ephe. 4 30 Heb 3 7, 8 Galath. 5. 18. 25. Rom 8. 12 13. 14. 1 Thess. 5. 19. we must not grieve, vex, resist quench the Holy Ghost, that is, we must not displease him, we must not dis­obey him, we must obey his dictates, his mo­tions, we must be quickened, taught, led, ruled, governed by him: we must attri­bute all the glorious Titles to the Holy Ghost given him in Scripture, of which we have so largely discoursed; we must ac­knowledge him to be the Spirit of Truth, and therefore must beleeve in him; the spirit of supplication, the spirit of grace and holinesse, and therefore love him and pray to him: we must either renounce our Baptisme in his Name,1 Cor. 12. 13. Matth. 3. 11. John 3 5. or else we must confesse that we are obliged to beleeve in him, reverence, love, obey, glorifie him with all inward and outward worship: for we are debtours to the Spirit▪ to live to the Spirit, and glorifie the Spirit of rege­neration who works in us the instrument of Justification, that there may be an effe­ctuall application of Christ to our souls; though Christ make the purchase, the Spirit of adoption makes the assurance, he seals us up to the day of redemption, and therefore good reason have we to offer up our souls and bodies in a spirituall sacrifice to him; for these temples were made for sa­crifice; Rom. 12. 1, 2. 1 Pet. 2. 5, Now if God who will not give his glory to ano­ther, [Page 39] because he is true and just, gives all this glory to the Holy Ghost, it concerns us to glorifie him.

If there were not all this and a great deal more to be said for the honour of the Holy Ghost, yet it were an invincible argu­ment to me if I could only say that the Holy Ghost is God, and therefore to be worshipped as God with Divine worship; The Holy Ghost is one with the Father and the Son, one God, and therefore all three are to be wor­shipped with the same Divine worship. It were enough for such men as have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost, or no, Acts 19. 2. to talk as the filthy dreamers and blasphemous Hereticks of this rotten age usually doe, who belch out the language of Hell against the Spirit of Grace; and I cannot but wonder that sub­tile Iesuites, Arminians and Socinians who pretend to study and search the Scriptures, should say that there is nothing to be found in Scripture concerning the worshipping of the Holy Ghost.

That the Spirit acts according to the Counsell of his Divine will, hath been suffi­ciently proved; only it must be considered that as Father, Son and Spirit have but one Nature, so they have but one Will.

Concerning the Peculiar and Personall properties of the Holy Ghost, I shall treat when I come to speak of the distinction of these subsistences.

[Page 40] For conclusion of this chapter I am to prove that the Godhead doth subsist in Father, Son, and Spirit, all three without any multiplication of the Godhead.

The Father and the Son are but one God, Iohn. 10. 30.The uni­ty of the Godhead. I and my Father are one. The FatherDeus unus, t [...] in­u [...]us, so­lus, uni­cus, sim­plicissime unús, uni­cissime unicus. The Father Son and Holy Spirit all three are but one one­ly God. 1 John 5. 7 John 10. 30 Unita­tem essen­tiae contra Arianos, Trinita­tem perso­narum contra Sa­bellianos tuemur. Tres substantias esse dixerunt, Subsistentium per­sonas per Substantias edocentes, non Substantiam Patris et Filije [...] Spiritus Sancti diversitate dissimilis essentiae separan­tes ex c [...]n [...]il. Anti [...]chen. Hilar. de Synodo adversus Arianos., Son and Spirit, all three are but one God. 1 John 5. 7. There is but one God. Ephes. 4. 6. Deut. 6. 4. Isa. 44. 6. 8. Isa. 45. 21. 22. Nay there can be but one God; there can be but one most Perfect being, one in­finite Perfection; the most perfect being is the most single being, and therefore Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all three but one onely God; they are Consubstantiall, Coe­quall, Coeternall, they have one Nature, Minde, Will, Power, Godhead: Some b of the Ancients who meant well, said there were three Substances, but they meant three Sub­sistences or Persons, as Hilary expounds them; for, saith he, They did not intend to as­sert three different essences.

Hence it is, that such as were more wary in their expressions, did use the word Sub­sistence, and said that there were three sub­sistences, but one substance or essence in this divine Trinunity. This is the first of all the Commandements, to acknowledge one [Page 41] only God, Mark 12. 29. As there is but one Mediatour to intercede, so there is but one God to justifie, and intercede unto for justification. 1 Tim. 2. 5. Rom 3. 30. Gal. 3. 20. It is one and the same God who com­mands heaven and earth, Deut. 4. 35 39. Isa. 37. 16. The gods of the heathens were false gods, dunghill-gods, or devill-gods: Magistrates are but mortall gods; they must die, and rise to judgment, and hold up their hand at the tribunal of Jehovah, Psal. 86. 8, 9. 10. Psal. 82 6, 7. 1 Cor. 8. 6. I prove this point at large, because I per­ceive by Mr. Fry his sad account, we are much misconstrued in this weighty point, as if by acknowledging three distinct sub­sistences, we did create two new Gods, and affirmed Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost to be two distinct Gods both from the Father and from one another. But we are noWe do not only acknow­ledge a Trinity, but a Trin­unity in opposition to the er­rour of the Tritheites. Vnum & Trinum de monstrant trinunum Deum sim­plicissimè unicum. 1 I [...]h. 5. 7. Hi tres sunt unus ille Deus, trin­unus Deus, Infinitum, hoc est, summe & absolutè perfectum, non potest esse nisi u­num. Si [...]nus potest emnia, quid opus est plu­ribus diis? omnia au­tem potest Deus trinunus. Deus est trinunus, est unus absolute, trinus relate; unus quoad essentiam, trinus quoad subsistentiam. Tritheites: We acknowledge a Trinunity, as well as a Trinity in opposition to the errour of the Tritheites; we believe the Unity of the Godhead; and I never read of the Trinity of the Godhead in Eng­lish, untill I read it in the Title of Mr.See Mr. Fry his Answer to the Charge of Blasphemy and Errour &c. p. 20▪ 22. Fry his Opinion, which he delivered to the House, and hath since printed and published to the world.

[Page 42] Deus ita est unus, ut etiam [...]it solus, & ita solus ut non possit esse alius. En natu­ram infini­tam sum­mē unam, & unicissi­mè unicā.We do believe that God is one, most singly and singularly one, and an only one: The unity of the Godhead is not a gene­rical, or a specifical unity, but a most singu­lar unity, which I need not call aDeus non tam unus nu­mero di­cendus est, quàm uni­cus. Pater & filius sunt unum po­tius, quàm unus. Ioh. 10. 30. Sunt in­quies u­nus Deus, imò potius sunt idem unicusque Deus. numerical unity, as some do; I had rather call it the most single singular and perfect unity, as some profound Divines do, who have told me what I have read in others, that I had need be very curious in the delivery of this weighty point. All the three Persons have one and the same single and infinite God­head, and therefore must needs mutually subsist in one another, because they are all three one and the same infinite God. Three consubstantial, coessential, coeternal, coequal Persons, are distinguished, but not divided, are united, Personae coessenti­iales & in se m [...]tuò subsistentes inconfusè uniuntur, & indivisè discer­nuntur. but not confounded; united in their [...]. one nature, not confounded in their distinct subsistences; nay though their subsistence is in one another, yet their sub­sistences are distinct, but their nature most Natura divina est singularissima, & simplicissimè uni [...]a.singularly the same; nay the divine natur [...] is as Non minus individuum est essentia divina quàm persona. D. Al [...]ing. Problem. singular as any one of the single subsi­stences, and yet whatever is proper to the Divine nature isNatura divina est simplicissimè singularis, & tamen com­munis Patri, Filio & Spiritui Sancto. Nec mirum, cùm [...]it sim­plicissimè & perfectissimè infinita. common to all three of these Divine subsistences; and the Divine nature doth not subsist out of these three Divine subsistences.

[Page 43] But the more we deliver concerning the unity of the Godhead, the more advantage do the Socinians hope to gain for the ju­stifying of their blasphemous dreams: for [...]f this unity of the Godhead be not only [...]otionall but reall, and God is most singly and singularly one, and an onely one, as hath been proved; why then say they, We will be bold to urge an invincible argument to prove that God the Father alone is God, and therefore neither Jesus Christ nor the Holy Ghost is truly and properly God by nature. God the Father alone is the onely true God; but neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost is God the Father. Ergo, neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost is the only true God. For the proof of this Proposition, That the Father alone is the only true God, they cite some of those places which I have alleadged to prove the unity of the Godhead;1 Cor. 8. 5, 6. but they lay most weight upon Iohn 17. 3.1 Tim. 2. 5 Eph. 4 6. Behold, say they, a plain acknowledgment from the mouth ofChristus ipse dicit patrem suum esse illum unum solum ve­rum Deum eti [...]m respectu sui. Seipsum namque ibidem no­minat atque à Patre distinguit. So [...]inu [...] in tract. de Deo, Chri­sto, & Spiritu Sancto. Catechis. Racoviens. cap 1. p. 37. Socin. libro quod Evangelici &c. Jesus Christ:Joh. 17. 13. Christ [Page 44] doth acknowledge his Father to be the onely true God, and therefore doth ex­clude both himselfe and the Holy Ghost; for there is but one only God, and God the Father alone is that only true God.

These subtile Hereticks are guilty of a pitifull piece of Sophistry in the drawing up of this argument, which is more full of blasphemy then wit: for observe,

1. Our Saviour doth not say,John 17. 3. opened at large. [That we may knowEn stru­cturam Gramma­ticam [ut cogno­scant Te illum solū verum Deum] non autem [ut cogno­scant solū Te, illum veru [...] Deum.] Thee only to be the true God] but [That we may know Thee the only true God:] For as Athanasius said well, We must know Iesus Christ to be the onely true God also; because Christ, and so the Holy Ghost also, isEn structuram logicam, particula exclusiva Solum non co­haeret cum subjecto, sed cum praedicato, pater est ille Deus, qu [...] solus verus Deus est. one and the same God with the Father; all three Persons are the only true God; for though theyDistinctionem personalem concedimus, essentialem ne­gamus. Hi qui tres sunt personaliter, sunt unum essenti­aliter. differ in sub­sistence, they do not differ in nature, they have all of them one and the same singular Godhead, the self-same divine nature; the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are but one and the same infinite Spirit, one Jehovah, one God, who is the only true God, God blessed for ever.

[Page 45] Now it doth not follow that the Father, Son and Spirit do differ Essentially, because they differ personally: for these three are [...]ne, 1 John. 5. 7. One God, who is the onely [...]rue God. The Non e­nim sen­sus est, so­lus verus Pater est Deus, sed Pater est sol [...]s ve­ [...]us Deus praeter quem non est alius Deus. Father is the onely true God; behold, the praedicate in that pro­position is not personall, but essentiall, and [...]very Essentiall Predicate belongs to all and [...]very one of the three persons, because they have one and the same Divine Essence, and therefore the Apo [...]le saith these three are [...]ne. 2. Observe how the 17. of Iohn and [...]. verse is expounded by Iohn himself,Deus est unus et trinus, sed nonsecun­dum idem, est unus essentiali­ [...]er Trinus Persona­liter; con­tradictoria enim non affirm [...]n­tur de eo­dem, si ei tribuantur secundum idem. In essentia Divina est alius et alius, non aliud et aliud, alius enim est Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus, hi tres autem sunt potius Vnum, quam V [...]us. 1 I [...]han. 5 7. Unus verò Deus, non alius Pater est; alius non Essentialiter, sed Personaliter. vide Augustinum de side ad Petrum cap. 1. et de haeresibus. cap. 41. vide D. Salomon, Glassium in orat. Christ. [...] Iohan. 17. [...] Iohn 5. 20. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understand­ing that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Iesus Christ. This is the true God and Eternall life. Now adde, Iohn 17. This is life eter­nall to know thee the onely true God, &c. and then put all together thus, This is life E­ternall that they might know thee the onley true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast [...]sent. [The onely true God] for as Iohn himself expounds This Iesus Christ is the true God and Eternall life. 1 Iohn 5. 20.

[Page 46] 3 Observe that Iohn himself expound [...] this also of theSpiritus Sanctus est [...] non relate quá persona procedens, sed abso­lute quá Deus est per Essen­tiam per­fectissi­mam á se ipsâ exist­entem; est enim Spi­ritus Elo­him patri filioque coessenti­alis et co­aequalis. Gen. 1. 2. Holy Ghost; for, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one onely God, 1 Ioh. 5. 7. These three are one; and therefore i [...] doth not at all follow that the Son and Spi­rit are not the true God, because the Father is the onely God; for they are all three one and the same God, who is the onely God, the only true God.

4. Observe that I do not (as some lear­ned men do) onely affirm that the word [onely] is put there toParticu­la exclusi­va [Solum] [...] non reli­quarum Trinitatis personarum sed fictitiorum numinum usur­patur, ita ut excludat ea tantum quae extra naturam di­vinam sunt, et á Patre res essentiâ diversae sunt; eadem au­tem natura divina est in Patre, Filio et Spiritu Sancto. exclude false gods, but I say it doth also deny Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost to be different Gods, other gods from God the Father, because they are one and the same God with the Father, as is evi­dent in those two places 1 Iohn 5. 7. 20. ci­ted before.

Those learned men doe well to ex­clude false gods, the Socinians do ill to ex­clude the Son and Spirit who are the same God with the Father; [onely] doth exclude every false god; but the Son and Spirit, are (as the Father is) the onely true God, bles­sed for ever.

The term [onely] doth not exclude any Divine person, but it doth exclude all and [Page 47] every one of the creatures;Vt co­gnoscant Te, qui es ille Deus, qui solus verus est, quoniam illa est so­la Deitas vera, quae est in Pa­tre, & si [...] non excluditur Fili­us, qui est in Patre unus idem que Deus cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto. Ioh. 1. 1. 1 Io. 5, 7. because every Divine person hath the same Divine nature, but no creature is capable of the Divine na­ture, unlesse we do understand it as 2 Pet. 1. 4. is to be understood, of the image of God, or having such an interest in the Di­vine Attributes, that God will exercise and put forth his wisdome, power, and all, for their everlasting good, and be himself their all sufficient reward, portion, and objective happinesse. And it is to be observed that the termes Only and True, are both applied to the same part of the Proposition, name­ly to the Praedicate alone.

5. This is life eternall, to know thee: But the Text saith, This is life eternall to know Iesus Christ also; that is, this is the way and meanes for the obtaining of eternall life, and this is theVita ae­terna hi [...] inchoati [...] habetur cognoscen­do Deum per fidem, habetur autem in coelis per­fecte cog­noscendo Deum per visionem. Verba de [...] vitae intelligenda. vid. Cyril. lib. 2. in Johan. Hilar▪ lib. 9. de Tr [...]n. & lib. 5. contra Iulian. Ambr [...]s. lib. 5. de fide. beginning of eternal life, to know, believe, love and obey Jesus Christ. But eternall life is perfected by knowing of God in heaven, not by faith but by sight. NowVita aeterna est solummodo in vero & aeterno Deo, in summo bono, uti Ambrosius cont. Arianos. eternall life doth not consist in the knowledge, belief, or love of any meer creature; and therefore the Godhead of Jesus Christ is proved out of this very Text, which they urge (who deny his God­head) to justifie their blasphemy in the denial of it.

[Page 48] 6. Eternall life doth consist in knowing of Jesus Christ, whom God hath sent to be our Mediatour; and this eternall life will be perfected in heaven, when the mediati­on of Christ will have an end: and there­fore it is the knowing of and believing in this Mediatour as God satisfying for us, which makes us happy; for he doth per­fect the work of Mediatour as God by his eternall Spirit, that is his divine nature, Heb. 9. 14. and by the bloud of God, Act. 20. 28. By the sufferings of the Lord of glory, 1 Cor. 2. 8. for he obtained eternall re­demption for us by vertue of his eternall spirit, Heb. 9. 12. 14.

7. To know Jesus, that is, to know him as a Saviour, as one that saves us from our sins, is to know him as a God, as one God with his Father, as the true God & the only God; according to that which we read Isa. 43. 10, 11, 12, 25. that ye may know and be­lieve and understand that I am he; Isa. 43. 10, 11, 25. compared with Heb. 1, 2, 3. 1 Joh. 1. 7. Act. 4. 12. I even I am O Ieho­vah justitia nostra. Jer. 23. 6. Ps. 68. 18, 19, 20. compared with Ephes. 4. 8. Isa. 8. 14, 16. compared with Rom 9. 30, 33. Iehovah, and beside me there is no Saviour. And Isa. 45. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. There is no God else beside me. A just God & a Saviour, there is none beside me. Look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is none else.—to me every knee shall bow.—in Jehovah have I righteous­nesse. —In Iehovah shall the seed of Israel [Page 49] be justified. Compare this with Rom. 14. 10, 11 and the Socinians may as safely con­clude that the [...]e is no other God but Jesus Christ, as they ma [...] conclude that there is no God but God the Father, from the 17. of Iohn. But they and we ought to con­clude from these and the other Scriptures mentioned before, thatSecun­du [...] Phi­losophum lolus. dem est quod non cum alio, & i­deo tan­tummodo [...]xcludit [...] quod a [...]etatem d [...]cit; Fili­us auten [...] non est ali­us à P [...]re nessentia, sed tantu [...] in p [...]sona. Lyra us in lo [...]m. Iesus Christ is not a different God from his Father, but is one and the same God with him. These exclusive and restrictive Terms [One, and Alone, &c.] doe not then exclude any of those three who are one in nature and essence, though they differ in their manner of subsistence: for I cannot conclude from that [...]ext, 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God, the Father, &c. that the Father only is God; no more then I can conclude from the words following in the very sam [...] verse [and one Lord Jesus Christ] that Christ only is Lord, and so exclude the Father from Lordship as the Socimans would ex­clude the Son from the Godhead. 1 Tim 6. 14, 15, 16. is urged by some to prove, that Jesus Christ only hath immortality: but they dare not conclude from thence,Vide Aug. Traect. 105. in ohan. Athanas. d [...]sp [...]t. co [...]a Artum in Concil. Nicen. Nazianz. orat. 36. Ambros. lib 5 de fide. Basil. lib. 4. cont. Eunomium. Cyp [...]ian [...]. 2. advers. Iudaen sad Quriaum. that God the Father is not immortall. I read Mat 23. 10. One is your Master, even Christ: but I must not conclude that the Father is not our Master; for the Father teaches, [Page 50] Ioh. 6. 45. and the Holy Ghost was Doctor, Master, Teacher even to the Apostles them­selves, Ioh. 14. 26. Ioh 16. 13.

If that Text 1 Tim. 6. 15, 16. be meant, as some conceive it is, of God the Father; yet I find the same Titles given to Jesus Christ, Rev. 19. 16. and therefore I conclude, That both are one and the same immortall God and King, 1 [...]im. 1. 12, 16, 17. 1 Joh. 5. 20.

I read, 1 Cor. 12. 4. That the same God worketh all in all. & v. 11. that one and the self same Spirit worketh all: but I dare not conclude from thence, that the Spirit only is God, and that the Father and the Sonne work nothing at all.

From these and many other such like expressions, we may safely conclude—1. That these terms [one, and only] are not al­wayes universally exclusive in the Scripture sense, if all circumstances be duly considered and the Scriptures rightly compared, 1 Cor. 9. 6. I only and Barnabas; The word [only] doth not exclude Barnabas, but include him; Barnabas was joyned with Paul; but Jesus Christ is more nearly joyned with the Father.Vide D. Glassium in cap. 17. Iohan. Ioh 8. 9. Jesus was left alone; but the woman was with him, all that were for her condemnation are excluded. 1 King. 12. 20. There are two exclusive termes; [There was none followed the house of David but the Tribe of Iudah only] and yet the Tribe of Benjamin adhered to David, as [Page 51] you may read in the next verse But surely the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are more closely united then the Tribe of Iudah was with the Tribe of Benjamin. Deut. 1. 36. None should see the good Land save Caleb, but Iosuah is joyned with him v. 38. and therefore he was not excluded. You see here is some union or conjunction still be­tween the persons that are included; but there is the highest union, nay, unity between the Father, Sonne, and Spirit, because these three are one in nature, and that nature most simply single, and singularly one.

2. When the term Only, or any the like term is applied to the Divine nature, or to any Divinevid. Aug. de Prae l [...]st. [...]nct. cap 8. Q [...]icquid est ess [...]ntiae d [...]vine & d [...]nomi­n [...]ionis ab [...] a, non [...]nus de Filio & [...]piritu Sancto, quam de ipso [...]atre enuntiatur Title, Attribute, or WorkO [...]n a Trinitatis opera ad extra sunt insepara­bilia., the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one in nature, cannot be divided or separated by that exclusive terme, though there is a personal difference between them, and a speci­all order and dispensation to be observed amongst them, as we shall hereafter prove. But the intent of the Holy Ghost is to exclude all that are not Gods by nature, as the Apo­stle speaks, Gal. 4. 8. from the Godhead, and from laying any claim to the naturall Attri­butes of God, or pretending to do any work that is proper and peculiar to God. The true and living God is opposed to Idols, 1 Thes. 1, 9. But Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are to be acknowledged and served as one [...] rue and living God with the Father. The [Page 52] living God, the God of truth, and King of eternity, is opposed to those counterfeit Gods, Jer 10, 11, 12. And therefore when the Apostle saith There is no other God but one, 1 Cor. 8 4. He tells you whom he doth exclude, such as are but conceited gods, so call­ed and so reputed, equivocal gods, v. 5, 6. The Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God by nature, the same God with the Father, and therefore they are not excluded. In like manner, when it is said that Iehovah alone did lead the people in the wildernesse, and cond [...]ct them unto Canaan, that exclusive particle is put to exclude strange gods, such as were then idolized, but were indeed no Gods, as is most evident, Deut. 32. 12. So Iehovah alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him: but these strange gods who are here excluded, were no gods, as is cleare by comparing the 16. and 21. verses of the same Chapter.

I have already proved that the title of Iehovah is given both to Christ and the Holy Spirit, and therefore when it is said, Iehovah alone did lead them in the wilder­nesse, the Son and Spirit are not excluded; for the Spirit did instruct and guide them in the wildernese, Nehem. 9. 20. and the Spirit did instruct their teachers also; but they rebelled against the Spirit Isa. 63. 10. And Iesus Christ the Angel of Gods pre­sence was present with them to guide them [Page 53] Exod 23. 21.Ex. 23. 21. The Non en Dei pro­prium in medio ejus h. e. est propr [...] ­um ejus atqueinti­mum. D. Glassius de Trini­tate p. 193. Christus nondum carne ve­stitus no­men nge­li assump­si [...], p opter familiarem cùm popu­locō muni­cationem; [...]omen au­tem Jeho­vae retinu­it. Jud. 6. 11. 14, 16, 20, 21▪ 25. c. 2, 7, 4, 5. cap. 13. 5. 13. O [...]. 12, 5. Gen. 32 29, 30. Zach. 2▪ 3, 5, 10. 1 Cor. 10. 4. Calv. Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. Name of God, and the Na­ture of God is in him, for he is to pardon sin, or punish as [...]e pleases. Our Saviour is called The onely Lord, and, The onely wise God. Iude Epistle. in the 4, and 25. verses; but the Fa­ther is not thereby excluded from being God, for he is the onely wise God also: 1 [...]im 1. 17 and therefore by the same reason the Father is the onley true God and the Son and Spirit are the very same onely true God also. When our Saviour presses that Text Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; he doth not exclude himself, or the Holy Ghost; for both are to be worshipped with divine worship, as hath been already pro­ved at large in this very Chapter.Isa. 37. 16. Christus est deus in Propitia­torio super Cherubim manifestatus. Rom. 3. 25. Rex Regum Rev. 19. 16. qui fecit caelum, & terram. John 1. 3. Heb. 1. 2, 3. Coloss. 1 16. Ergo Christus etiam est Deus ille solus, i [...]em uni­cus que cum Pa [...]re Deus. Isa. 25. 8, 9. Mal. 3. 1. Jer. 33. 15, 16. & Jer. 23. 6. Rom. 14. 10, 11, 12. John 20. 28. Many other proofs might be produced from o­ther Scriptures, and divers other arguments colle [...]ed from the 17. of Iohn, to prove that Jesus Christ is not excluded from be­ing the same only God with his Father. To know Christ who is God, and annointed of God, Heb. 1 8, 9 Psal. 45. To know Christ whom thou hast sent; E [...]go he was a divine Person before he was sent to take the humane [Page 54] nature, and he had eternal glory with his Father before the world was, Iohn 17. 5. Na [...] his calling of God Father, makes him equall with God; nay, he is not only equall to, but one with his Father, Ioh. 5. 18. Ioh 10. 30. Moreover, if the Father have not a divine and eternal Son how is he a divine and eternal Father? Finally, if the Father Son, and Holy Ghost are not all three the same true God, there is no God, for these three are one, and therefore all three are one God, or else there is no God at all: from whence it will follow, that if we will be Socinians, we must be Atheists. The Son and Spirit have the same nature with the Father; and therefore if his nature be di­vine, so is theirs.

CHAP. V.
The Manner of GOD'S Being or Subsist­ing in the Father, Sonne and H. Ghost, is the best manner of Being that is or can be, and the single Godhead is thereby thrice illustrious throughout the wo [...]ld.

HItherto we have contended for the truth of this Divine Being or Sub­sisting: 2. The Ex­cellency of God the Father.Now [...]e shall demonstrate the excellency thereof. God is made known to us [Page 55] as the everlasting Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, and is to be adored & En cul­tum pro­priè Evan­gelicum, concord [...], Deum ac Patrem Domini nostri Je­su Christi concordi­ter coli­mus, uno ore uti Christia­nos decet glorifica­mus. worshipped as the Father of our Lord Iesus, Rom. 15. 6. Ephes. 1. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 3 If God had been the Father of men and Father of Angels only, and not the Father of our Lord Jesus, he would not have been so exceeding glorious as now he is: for Angles have but a sinite excellency; but when he begets a Son e­quall to himself, without any change in himself; and the begetting of this glorious Person, is as eternal as the divine nature it self; This mysterie is exceeding glorious and admirable, and like the Godhead in­comprehensible. Moreover, the Lord Iesus Christ his own Son,2 The Ex­cellency of God the Son. Rom. 8. 32. and his only Son begotten by eternal generation, Ioh. 1. 14. being the En Pa­tris Hypo­stasin in filio reful­gentem: En Filii Hypostasin eum à Pa­tre distin­guentem. illustrious brightnesse of the Fathers glory, and the expresse character of his subsistence, is so exceeding glorious, that the most glorious Angels above are com­manded to adore and worship him, Heb. 1. 3, 4, 5, 6. For to which of the Angels said God at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And therefore when he brings his first-begotten, and his only begotten Son into the world, he saith, And let all the An­gels of God worship him. Behold how the Godhead shines gloriously not only in one single Person, but in Father and Son both, by this manner of subsistence; that every tongue may confesse Iesus Christ to be God [Page 56] and Lord, to the glory of God the Father. And therefore the Father is not lessened or rob­bed of his glory, by the glory of his co­equal Son, Phil. 2. 6. 11. but there is a pious acknowledgment made of this glorious mysterie, which doth very much redound to the glory of God the Father. For by this meanes God the Father is acknow­ledged to be the First personall Principle subsisting of himself, and by himself; for he received not his subsistence from any other, and he gives subsistence unto two glorious Persons equall with him [...]elf. The Socinians seem to be very zealous for the glory of God the Father; and therefore they deny the Godhead of Christ and the Hol [...] Spi­rit, to the glory of God the Father, as they pretend: but the Scripture teaches us the contrary, namely to confesse the Godhead of Christ and the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father For it doth exceedingly redound to the glory of the Father, that he gives subsistence unto two glorious Per­sons who are equall to himself, and yet re­ceives no subsistence from them, or any other. For as the Father hath life in him­self, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself, Joh 5, 26. There is a subsisting life given to the Son by an eternal genera­tion; and theVitam d [...]d [...]t Pa­ter Filio ver▪ sub­sist [...]ntem non Alic­nat. one, sed Com­municati­one. Father hath life in himself, and self-subsistence also. And yet on the other side, it is no dishonour to the Son to [Page 57] be begotten of the Father, and to receive subsisting life from the Father;John 5. 21. for the Son hath life in himself also,John 5 18. and being God of himself, Joh. 10. 30. quickens whom he will by his divine power even as the Father doth; for he hath the very same power and will which the Father hath, because they have both one and the same divine nature; John 1. 33. 34. and therefore the Jewes did conclude a [...]ight, when they said, that our Lord Iesus made himself equall with God by saying he was the Son of God, Ioh 5. 18. It is no dishonour to Jesus Christ toQui ac­cipit vitā subsisten­tem, acci­pit vitam indepen­dentem: dare vi­tam non arguit ul­lam causa­litatem, accipere vitam non arguit ul­lam depen­dent an [...]; & pr [...]inde in Deo non [...]noris perfectionis est esse Fi­lium, quam esse Patrem. Pater enim necessitate naturali gene­rat filium, filius eandem naturam [...]abet cum Pat [...]e non ex gratiâ vel indolgentiâ Patris; non est enim precatio Deus; a­tura divina in filio est incausata, independens, & per [...] ea­dem natura divina quae est in Pa [...]re; ipsa etiam subsistentia quam accipit filius est sibi naturaliter de bita. receive subsisting life in such a glorious way from the [...]ather, as that he is equall with the Father, nay one with the Father, and therefore is to be worshipped with one and the same worship with the Father, with divine and spiritual worship, inward and outward worship the worship of our bodies and soules, of our whole man. For all men are bound to honour the Son, as they honour the Father, Joh. 5. 23. And let all Socinians take speciall notice of what followes: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him; Joh. 5. 23. [...]et them not then pretend, [Page 58] that they dishonour the Son (by denying his Godhead) to the glory of God the Fa­ther; for the Father will maintain and vindicate the honour of his first-begotten, and only begotten Sonne. And let them diligently consider that Text in the 2. Epist. of Iohn.2 Epist. Joh. ver. 9. Whosoever transgresseth and abi­deth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God; he who abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. It is for the honour of our great Ruler Iesus Christ, that he was begotten from the dayes of Eternity, Mic. 5. 2.

Finally,III. The Excellency of God the Holy Ghost. Deus est Personali­ter spiritus Sanctus. it doth much redound to the glory of the Father and the Son, that both do concur to give Subsisting life to the Coequal Spirit by Eternal Spiration. The Father and Son do both breathe forth this glorious Spirit. The Spirit of Elohim, of both Persons, Gen. 1, 2. The Spirit that pro­ceeds from the Father, Ioh. 15. 26. is sent by Christ from the Father, and the Spirit is given by Christ.Tempo­ralis ope­rationis Sigillum, aeternae spirationis fignum, Johan 20. 22. Christ breathed upon the Apostles, when he gave the Holy Ghost to them, to shew that the Spirit was breath­ed forth by himself as well as from the Father, Ioh. 20. 22. And he is often called the Spi­rit of the Son. The Holy Ghost doth re­ceive of that which is Christs, as well as the Fathers, Ioh. 16. 14, 15. and Christ is glori­fied by the Spirit, Ioh. 16. 14. as the Father is glorified by Christ. For Christ receives [Page 59] from the Father, & the Spirit from Christ, what they both reveale to the Church of Christ. Nor is it any dishonour to the Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son in such a glorious way as to be equall with them, nay one with them 1 Ioh. 5. 7. For all the Churches of Christ are obliged by the first Sacrament of Christianity, to honour the Holy Ghost with their bodies and souls, which are his Si ex li­gnis & la­pidibus templum Spiritui facete ju­beremur, quia cul­tus hic so­ [...] Deo de­betur, cla­rum esset divinitatis ejus argu­mentum▪ nunc ergo quanto clarius i­stad est, quod non Templum illi facere sed nos ipsi esse debemus? Augustin. ad Maximin. Epist. 66. holy temple as they honour the Fa­ther and the Son. The Spirit of [...]ehovah is the God of Israel. 2 Sam 23. 2, 3.Subtractâ subsistentia Spir [...]tus S [...]ncti De [...]s [...]esincret es­se Personal [...]ter Spiritus Sanctus; & proinde ista s [...]b [...]actio est impossibilis, imo ipsa etiam supposi [...]io su [...]ilis, quia tanta est tam essentiae divinae quàm personarum perfectio ut nec pauciores nec plures esse possint. The Holy Ghost, as he is one God with the Fa­ther and the Son, hath an infinite essence, which doth exist of it self▪ though as he is the third Person, he hath not subsistence from himself, but by Emanation, Procession, Spi­ration from the Father and the Son; and yet both concurre to build a Temple to the Holy Spirit that he may be worshipped as God. These three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do take mutual delight, content, and satis­faction in one another; The distinction be­tween them is not Tres personae divinae non disti [...]guuntur secundum esse Absolutum, sed per proprietates Relativas d [...]gno [...]untur; & proinde distinctio est tantum Respectiva, & Modalis. Absolute, but Relative [Page 60] only they do mutually subsist in one another, and all of them subsist in the same glorious Godhead, which Godhead dwells equally in its fulnesse in all three, and is as truly the nature of the Holy Ghost, as it is the na­ture of the Father and the Son. And this Divine nature is infinite, notDeus immensu est non vo­luntatis li­bertate sed naturae ne­cessitate; essentia divina est tota intra omnia, tota extra omnia, nusquam inclusa, nusquam exclusa, omnia continens, à nullo contenta. included in, or excluded from any place.

The DivineDeus in­genium nostr [...] ad [...] one suspē ­sam tenet & [...] nostra efficaci sen su penitus afficit, ut deficientes sub ejus magn [...]u dine ad o­pera inti­miora re [...]piciamus ejus (que) re ficiamur bonitate Aug. in Ps. 144. works, whereby the glory of the Godhead is so much manifested unto [...] are performed by the Godhead subsisting in the Holy Ghost as well as in the Father and the Son: For all the works of God up­on or about the Creature for their creati­on, sustentation or regulation are insepara­bly united; asAug. de Praedest. Sanct. c. 8. [...]ugustine often argues, and the schoolmen from him: All things are of the FatherActiones sunt suppositorum. by the Son and through the Spirit, 1 Cor. 8. 6. Iohn 5. 19. Iohn 1. 3. Gen. 1. 2. 1 Cor. 12. 11, 13. Ephes. 2. 18. so that by the majesty of all three shining in the Word and the joynt concurrence of all three in every work that is properly Divine, the Godhead is made thrice [...], Naz. orat [...] de Bapt. 4. illustrious tho­rowout the world, and yet the Godhead re­mains singly and singularly one in all three Subsistences.

[Page 61] Finally the [...]. Naturall and Infinite per­fection of the Godhead requires this won­derfull Communication of Subsistence by the Father as the First Personall principle to the Son, and by the [...]ather and the Son to the Holy Ghost. For it is most certain that God is not capable of any other being, or any other maner of being or subsisting then what he hath, for he hath theQuiquid De natu­rale est per­fectissimū est; aequè necessariū est esse tres personas Deitatis, quàm est, essentiam divinam esse unicā, & proinde aeque per­fectum est unum at (que) alterum, quia utrū ­que natu­rale & pro­inde sub­stantiale; ipse etiam respectus inter per­sonas divi­nasest sub­stantialis, naturalis, mutuus, si­multaneus, necessarius, aeternus, in singulis autem singularis. best being that is, nay the best that Can be, because the being of God and the manner of being or subsisting of the Godhead in these three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is infinitely perfect, and there can be no better being, or manner of be­ing or subsisting then that which is perfect, infinite, and infinitly perfect. The Father did not Arbitrarily beget his Sonne, nor did the Father and the Sonne Arbitrarily con­cur in breathing forth the Holy Ghost, but the Naturall and infinite perfection of the Godhead did require this wonderfull com­munication of it self, because such is the Na­turall perfection of the Divine Nature or Godhead, that it could not be fully communi­cated, unlesse subsistence were communica­ted by the Father to the Son, and by both to the Spirit for their mutuall, Eternall, Infi­nite satisfaction and delight; and therefore the Father did not beget his Son, nor did the Father and Son breath forth the Spirit Arbitrarily, but Naturally and Ne­cessarily, [Page 62] though Voluntarily for the Eter­nall satisfa [...]ion of all three Susistences, that the whole Godhead might be in every one of these three according to its infinite Divina essentia ad suam sum­mam per­fectionem sine perso­nisesse ne quit, nec personar [...] una sine alterâ obintimam relationē. Bisterfell contra Crellium lib. 2. Sect. 1. cap. 4.perfection, and all three subsist in the unity of the Godhead, and dwell in one another, mu­tually possess, love & glorifie one another from everlasting to everlasting, because all three are Coessential, Coequal, Coeternal▪ eve­ry one of the Persons, the third as well as the first, being God by Qui na­turá Deus est, verus Deus est: qui verus Deus est, naturá Deus est. Nature, Gal 4. 8. and not by the meere favour of any one or more of the Coessentiall persons. And therefore both the generation of the Son and breathing forth of the Spirit must needs beQ [...]ic­quid Deo naturale est aeter­num est. Eternall, because both are Na­turall: for whatsoever is Naturall unto God must needs be Eternall: but because the Fa­ther is the firstOmnia à Patre tan­quam primo princi­pio Perso­nali esse dicuntur, et proinde omnia ad ips [...]m ut primum principium Personale re [...]erunt [...]r. Personall Principle of sub­sisting life, all is from him by the Son. 1 Cor. 8. 6. and all is referred back again to him as the first Personall Principle, even by the Son, Iohn 5. 19. in regard of the Fathers Self subsistence, his order of subsisting, and his communicating f subsistence to the Son and Holy Ghost, though all things in the world are wrought by the Spirit also as hath been shewen: And hence it is that the Name of God is most Iohn 1. 1. John 17 3. Rom. 15. 6. John 14 1. 1 Pet. 1. 21. 2. Cor. 1. 3. Eph. 1. 3. Col. 2. 2. familiarly given to the fa [...]ther [Page 63] both in the Old and the New Testament, [...]hough Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all e­qually God, nay are Trinitas non est conjuncti­o Dei uni­us (scil. Dei Pa­tris) cum duabus re­bus creatis, Filio ni­mirum Spiritu (que) unus Deus est, unus est Baptis­mus, una fides in Patrem, Filium, Spiritum; Deum unum unicum unicis­simum. one and the same God, who is the only true God blessed for ever. We may then look upon the Son, admire and blesse the Father, look upon the Father and blesse the Son, look upon Father and Son and blesse the Spirit, look upon all three, admire and blesse, adore and love,Propius seipsum cognoscendum Deus exhibet, quando in unica essentia tres nobis personas considerandas proponit. Co­lonius. know, beleeve and obey all three coequal persons, subsisting in the same most single Godhead, and have accesse to the Father through the Son, and by the Spirit with reverence and confidence, zeal and love.

CHAP. VI.
The Divine Subsistence being the most excellent Subsistence that is or can be, the word Subsi­stence or Person cannot be at­tributed after the same manner to God, Angels and Men.

IT is not my businesse at this time to make any Metaphysicall distinction be­tween [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64] the Persons of Men and Angels; b [...] I desire to distinguish between created an [...] uncreated Persons▪ because uncreated Per­sons subsist in one single and infinite ess [...]nce▪ It may seem strange to some Metaphysical wits that one Person, and much more th [...] three distinct Persons should subsist in o [...] single and undivided essence; but these dis­coursing wits do not distinguish betwee [...] created and uncreated Persons. 2. [...] ground their faith on scholastical subtiltie [...] ▪ 3. Do not study the Holy Scriptures wi [...] humility and faith, and beg a blessing o [...] their studies by fervent Prayer▪ [...]. Phil. 2. v. 6. For they might read in the Scriptures of a divin [...] Person subsisting in the divine nature. Phil 2. 6. Being in the forme of God, &c. That is subsisting in the Nature of God, because it presently follows, that therefore he thought it no robbery to be equall with God; for Persons that are coessentiall [...] needs be coequall; Christ and his Father do both subsist in the same divine essence, for Christ is the expresse image of his Fathers subsistence, and he and his father are one, one in essence, Iohn 10. 30. Heb. 1. 3. We find this interpretation was received in the time ofJustini­an. Edict. de Fide. [...]. Iustinian the Emperour, and therefore it is not an interpretation lately [Page 65] coined. Because it is said [who being in the forme of God,] the Holy Ghost doth de­monstrate the Hypostasis or Subsistence of the Word in the Essence of God. And because it is said that he took upon him the forme of a servant, it signifies that God the Word, [that is God the Son,] is united with the Nature, not the Subsistence or Person of man. He did subsist in the nature of God, but he did assume the nature of man, and therefore Christ hath a divine subsistence, no humane Person; no humaneSolis personis divi­nis ob infi­nitam & simplicem Essentiam convenit in Essentiâ subsistere. Nulla e­nim perso­na Angeli­ca vel hu­mana sub­sistit in Na­tura vel essentiâ. Person subsists in the nature of man; nor doth the Person of an Angel subsist in the nature of an Angel; but the divine Person of Christ doth subsist in his Divine Nature, nay all the three Persons do subsist in the single and infinite nature of God. From whence I conclude that there is not onely a manifest, but an infinite difference be­tween created and uncreated Subsistences or Persons; And I speak ofPersona propriè est quid con­cretum ex essentiâ in­telligente & Persona­litate. Persons, ra­ther then Personalities, because those ab­stract notions are not very well under­stood by the most discoursing men; for even they acknowledge thatAbstra­cta faelici­us intelli­guntur mentione Subjecto­rum. Intellec­tus potiùs de Concre­tis omnia praedicit quàm de Abstractis▪ quia acti­ones sunt Supposi­torum. Abstracts are not well, or not happily understood, un­lesse you descend to the consideration of their subjects. My purpose therefore upon most mature deliberation, is, 1. To distinguish between created and uncreated Persons. 2. To treat of uncreated Persons rather [Page 66] then Personalities, that is to treat of the three Persons not abstracted from, but subsisting in the divine nature. I will not speak simply of the Son, as a Son in that ab­stract relation, or of the Son as a Person, or as the second Person, by abstracting his Personality from the Divine Nature in which he subsists; but I desire to speak of Iesus Christ, as subsisting in the nature of God, according to that expression of the Apostle, Phil. 2. 6. who subsisting in the nature of God. For I am resolved to follow the Scripture, and I do not think it safe to abstract the incommunicable Subsistence of Christ, from the Divine nature in which he subsists, least I fall into vain speculations, as many learned men have done. Now if you take in the Divine Nature of Christ, (and there is the same reason of all three Persons, because all have the same Divine Nature) there will be I say not only a mani­fest, but an infinite difference between the Person of Christ, and the Person of the most glorious Angel in Heaven. Created Persons. They who have long studied the most refined and curious part of Metaphysicks, when they come to discourse of the distinction between a sin­gular Nature and a Person, are forced to confesse that they do confine their speech to created Natures and Persons, because De Natu­râ & Per­sonis divi­nis ex lu­mine rati­onis fer [...] nihil dici potest; my­sterium de Deo Trin­uno uni­versam transcen­dit Philo­sophiam. there is even almost nothing evident to them by the light of reason, concerning the Divine [Page 67] nature and uncreated Persons. And there­fore on the other side, it well becomes me to confine my discourse to uncreated Per­sons, because there is so vast a difference be­tween them, and the most excellent of all created Persons; only something I must say of created Persons, that by comparing them with uncreated Persons, I may demon­strate wherein they agree, and wherein they differ.

Boetius relates, that when there was an Epistle of the Councell of Chalcedon read, in which there was this Orthodox Position, That Iesus Christ is a single Person, and yet there are two distinct natures in his single Person; Boethius desired the learned men then present, to assigne the difference be­tween a singular Nature, and a Person, and no man, saith he, was able to tell me the difference, or to declare what a Person was. But though Boethius smiled at the ig­norance of others, yet he was not wise Vide Ch [...] ̄niti­um [...]e Tri­nitate c. 4.enough to conceal his own; for he defines a Person thus; A Person Persona est naturae rationalis individua Substantia▪ Boehbius l. de duabus naturis & una perso­na Christi▪ is the undivided substance of a rationall nature. I am not at leasure to reckon up the defects of this im­perfect definitiō. Vasquez is bold to say that Aristotle knew not how to distinguish a Per­son from a singular nature. And there is no doubt but veryPhilos. distinctio­nem natu­rae & Per­sonae vix intellige­bant, quia nihil de mysterio Incarnati­onis au­diebant. wise men have erred grossely in this point for want of studying, [...] ▪ The state of the soule in its separation from [Page 68] the body. 2. The humane nature of Christ assumed without any humane person. 3. The difference between the Divine Nature, and Persons which subsist in it. I believe Ari­stotle did not study the first so exactly as he should have done; and I am sure he knew nothing of these two last most con­siderable points. I shall not stand to shew the vanity ofLaurenti­us Valla. lib. 6. Elegant. In Deo po­ni perso­nam, quod verè Deo sit triplex qualitas, tales qua­litates sta­tuo in Deo & has dico esse perso­nas. Laurentius Valla, who seems to forget all his Elegancies when he comes to discourse of a Person, and drawes his arguments from the flourishes of an Ora­tour, or the severall passions, humours, re­lations, conditions, or offices of men that are personated upon a Stage; and there­fore this Whiffler deserves to be hissed off from his stage, for he doth only make sport for Atheists and Familists by such ridicu­lous discourse. And he is sufficiently ab­surd, when he stoops so low as to say, that a Person is a Quality, and that there is a triple Quality in God. AndVide sis Soaligerum in oratio­ne de ver­bo Inepti satis inep­te disseren­tem. in E­pist. p. 374. Scaliger shewed his Critical skill in Divinity to pur­pose, when he was so foolish as to say that a Person doth not signifie a substance, but a quality. Bellarm. lib 2. de Christo. cap. 5. Bellarmine is Orthodoxe in this point, and proves at large that the word Person doth usually signifie a Substance, in very approved Authors both sacred and pro­fane. Well may we then say, that the Church of God hath not offended the curious eares of such as are the great Masters of language [Page 69] the Oratours,An uncre­ated Per­son. Civilians, Grammarians and others, when they say that a Divine Person doth at least connote the Substance or Nature of God; and the self-same substance being in all three persons, it doth not follow as Gostavius, or Mr. Fry would have it, that there are three Substances in the Godhead, because there are three Persons subsisting in the Godhead; for the substance or nature is the same in all three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And we speak of the substance of the Persons, when we describe them, not that we may shew wherein they differ, but that we may shew wherein all three Persons agree. And if we should ab­stract the Personality of these uncreated Persons from their Divine Substance or Nature, when we describe them, we should seem to rob them of their Divinity even in the very description of them. We must not say that a Divine Person is a meer Nulla persona est pu­rus [...] sive ex­istendimo­dus, & me­ra propri­etas, vel relatio; Triniratē impruden­ter tollunt qui Patrē Filium & Spiritū Sanctum tres exi­stendi mo­dos defini­unt; sunt enim Per­sonae Co­essentia [...]es relative Propriety, or a pure manner of being, existing, or subsisting: for every person is God, and all three Persons but one Jehovah, one God. They do imprudently destroy the divine and coessential Trinunity, who affirme the Holy Trinity to be nothing else but three Proprie­ties or three manners of subsisting. For what is that consubstantial Trinunity, of which the Ancients speak, but the single and infi­nite substance or essence of three Divine Subsistences or Persons? If you leave out [Page 70] the Divine Essence or Substance out of the definition, how is it a Consubstantial or Co­essential Trinunity? The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, all three doCa [...]olus Magnus apud Ge­nebrardū cap. 20. Liturgiae; Pa­ter prima, est divini­tatis persona in quâ▪ caeterae duae natu­raliter ma­nentes ex­istunt. naturally subsist in the same divine and undivided nature. I must therefore describe Divine persons as divine persons, when I am to put a difference between them & uncreated persons; and if I describe them as Divine persons, I must not abstract their personal proprieties frō their divine nature, though what isQuic­quid Patri proprium & peculi­are est, Pa­tri sano modo na­turale di­citur; est enim per­fectio Re­la [...]iva Pa­tri quà sic natur [...]li­ter debita, tanquam primo principio Perso [...]al [...]. Personal may in some sense be affirmed to be naturally due to that particular person. But besides those Personal [...]aivinus Personas divinas proprietates vocavit, sed nudas proprieta­tes esse negavit. Proprieties or Characters where­by the Father, Son and H. Ghost do appear even to our weak understanding, to be three distinct Subsistences; the whole and undivided [...], quicquid tribus commune est cum pr [...]prietate habet peculiari. Proprietatibus dignoscuntur personae, non constituuntur, Godhead dwells in every one of these three Subsistences, though it do subsist after a different manner in every one of the three. The Father is God subsisting after that peculiar manner, which is proper to the Father: Now that peculiar manner of sub­sisting superadded to the Divine nature, doth make a true distinction between the Father, and the other two Subsistences, but it makes no Composition at all, either in the Father, or in the Godhead. HenceVide Bisterf. de uno Deo, &c. lib. 2. §. 1. cap. 4. Essentia divina est modo substantiali modi­fica [...]a; Subsistentia enim est modus substantialis, qui ab ipsa essentia divina separari nequit, imò persona divina est ipsam et essentia divina certo modo se habens. Est enim persona divina ipsissima Essentia Modificata. Persona autem non est essentia Simpliciter, sed cum modo subsistendi considerata. Vide D. Alting. Loc. Com. Part. 1. & Problem. Calv. Inst. l. 1. c. 13. Bezam. part. 1. quaest. & Homil. prima adversus Sacramenta­rios. Zanchium de tribus Elohim. Melancton. Loc. Com. Po­lanum in Syntag. Chamierum de Trinitate. lib. 1. cap 3. it is [Page 71] that divers profound and Orthodox wri­ters maintain, that A divine Person is nothing else but the very Divine Essence it self modi­ficated. Give me leave to explain this ab­struse notion a little, by giving an instance in the 1. Personal Principle, God the Father.

God the Father is the first Person of the Godhead distinguished from the Son and Spirit (who are one and the same God with him) by his peculiar maner of subsistence, sin­gular relation, & incommunicable properties.

Here is, as they love to speak, the [...]. Persona divina est ipsamet natura di­vina pecu­liari modo se habens. Di­vine Essence modificated with a peculiar manner of subsistence, a singular relation and incommunicable properties. What this pe­culiar manner of Subsistence, singular Rela­tion, and incommunicable Properties are, I shal demonstrate when I come to treat of the distinction of these 3 Divine Subsisten­ces in the very next Chapter. I hope I need say no more to prove, that A Divine Person doth at least connote the Substance, Essence, Nature of God; and therefore it will not be [Page 72] safe to abstract the Personality of an uncrea­ted Subsistence, from that single and infinite Nature which is one and the same in all three Subsistences. I do not find the most raised Persona directè de­notat sub­sistentiam, consequenter conno­tatnaturā. Vasquèz. Persona est indivi­duum sub­sistens vi­vum, intel­ligens, in­communi­cabile, in­dependen­dens, non sustentatū ab alio nec pars alte­rius. [...]. Per­sona est suppositū intelligens Persona in Concreto naturam includit, quia Persona naturam participat, & perso­nalitas est substantiae sive naturae modus Substantialis & sepa­rabilis, rarissime autem separatus. Persona est substantia com­pleta intelligens, per se subsistens▪ incommunicabilis, & inde­pendens.Metaphysical wits very forward to define or describe a Personality; but they speak of a Person in concreto, of a Subsistent rather then a Subsistence; and of a Suppositum, ra­ther then an abstract Suppositality. The im­perfect Definition of Boethius is commonly too commonly received in the Schooles; and he saith, a Person is an undivided sub­stance. They who have studied the point more exactly, and correct his definition, do all agree that a Person is an undivided substance, an understanding substance, a com­plete, incommunicable, independent substance, which doth not depend upon any thing else by way of inhaesion, adhaesion, union, or any other way, for its sustentation. This is the general andPersona conficitur ex essentia & proprietatibus distincti­vis ita ut quaelibet persona in se sit perfecta substantia. vide Hilarii Sermon. in F [...]st. S. Trinitatis. common opinion. I know there are some private opinions, as I may call them, concerning the Formality of a Person; which I shall but point at, and easily confute with the light & gentle touch of a running [Page 73] pen. It is very absurd to say that a Person is made compleat in his subsistence by any Persona subsistit per se; ac­cidentia autem sunt in alio; ex natura Substanti­ali & acci­dentibus non potest fieri unum per se. Vi­de Ferrari­ens. con­tra. Gen. 4. c. 39. accidents or any formality arising from an heap of accidents, because a Person is the most perfect substance, and therefore can­not be made complete by any accidental sub­sistence; there is a manifest contradiction in that ridiculous expression.Aristot. Categor. cap. 5. Aristotle saith that singular substances do subsist [...] most properly, principally, perfectly; To subsist by its self, is the most perfect kind of subsistence; and that cannot be said to subsist by it self, which doth subsist by an heap of accidents. Others say that a person is completed by a meer Comple­mentum Personae dicit nega­tionem u­nionis cō ­municati­onis & de­pendentiae tum aptitudinalis tū actualis, ut omnes partes tam integrantes quàm essentiales ipsaque etiam anima separata à ratione Personae excludantur. Vide Joannem de Neapoli in Quodlibet.Negation, but Subsistence is positive, though Subsistence may be described by some ex­pressions that are negative. The second person of the Trinity doth supply and per­forme all that an humane person can per­forme to the humane nature of Christ. Now to say that the Divine person of Christ doth supply the room of aVide Suarez. Disp. 34. Sect. 2. n. 8. Negation, and do all that a Negation can do, is to say it doth very little or nothing at all. Finally, some say that a person is completed by the Exi­stentia communicabilis non potest este Subsistentia Personalis. Tria sunt in Supposito; Natura, Existentia, & Subsistentia, sive Personalitas. Pantusa. Natura humana existit in personâ di­vina sine propriâ personalitate, non sine propriâ existentiâ. Vasquez. Natura existens producitur non tantum in suppo­sito proprio sed & in alieno, uti patet de natura humana in Christo; non est enim in Christo duplex Suppositum. Caie [...]a­nus. Subsistentia est modus positivus & Substantialis incom­municabilis & Independens, naturae intellectivae, integrae, & completae conveniens. Anima rationalis separata habet Mo­dum per se, quem non habebat in corpore, sed est incompleta, & habet non tantum obedientialem sed & Aptitudinalem depen­dentiam, quia ex naturâ suâ est forma materiae, & proinde non habet perfectissimum modum subsistondi per se.Existence of its nature. But it is cleare that a soule in the state of separation doth [Page 74] exist, and yet that soule is not a Person, nay never was a Person at the first instant of its creation or union. And it will be most ab­surd to say, that the humane nature was assumed by Christ, and hypostatically united without or before the existence of that na­ture, because it was united before it had any humane subsistence, and consequently before it had any existence, if that subsist­ence be nothing else but existence, as these Discoursers suppose. But it is high time to leave pursuing of these wanderers; For it is cleare, that Subsistence is a Positive and Substantial Mode, because the most perfect manner of being, which we expresse as well as we can, when we say, A Person doth sub­sist by it self, without union unto, or depend­ance upon any thing else for its sustentation; nay, that it is uncapable of any such union, though it be for the present in a state of [Page 75] separation. And therefore the Schoolmen usually say, Quod subsistit per se, nec est nec esse potest in alio, ullo modo; quia subsistere per se sumitur pro perfectissimo modo subsi­stendi per se. It is evident by what hath been said, that even created persons are defined by their substance or nature which is in stead of a Genus when we define a Per­son in Concreto; and when we speak o [...] the Formality of a Person, we say it is a sub­stantial mode, and the most perfect manner of subsisting; and therefore a created per­son is not completed by any quality or acci­dent whatsoever. Now if a created per­son be a substance, and the Formality of a created person be substantial, I have no ground to abstract a Divine Person from the Divine Substance or Essence, because a Divine person cannot be separated from the Divine nature; as the humane nature may be from an humane person; and though a Praecisive abstraction doth not lay any ground either for a Rational negation, or a reall separation; yet if the Divine Na­ture be not considered and taken notice of in the description of every Divine Person, men will be apt to conceive that the Di­vine Nature and Persons may be separated. The Scripture doth not present any such abstract notion of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost unto us, but teaches us to consider them as Divine Persons, that is, Persons [Page 76] that have a Divine nature; for else we should make aNon est Trinitas modorum, sed perso­narum co­essentialiū trinū itas. Trinity of Modes, no Trin­unity; aQuod excipiunt Trinitatē igirur fore sine Deo, ex eadem insulsitate nascitur. Vide Calv. Instit. lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 25. Trinity without God or Godhead, and give our adversaries cause to say what they have said, without cause, contrary to their own principles as well as ours; E [...] Trinitatem sine Deo! for even they them­selves acknowledge the first Person of the blessed Trinity to be God. It is our wisest course therefore to describe every Person as a Divine Person, as God, and acknowledge all three Persons to be one and the same God, according to the Scriptures. For we must not only consider three Personalities, but threeNam De­us ita se praedicat unic [...] esse ut distin­ctè in tri­bus perso­nis consi­derandum proponat quas nisi tenemus, nudum & inane dun­taxat Dei nomen si­ne vero Deo in ce­rebro no­stro volitat. Calvin. Instit. lib. 1. cap. 13. §. 2. Persons, and the same single God­head in all three Persons, and all three Persons in the Godhead. I must not treat of the first Person simply as a Father, but as a Divine and Eternal Father, as God the Father, Rom. 15. 6. Ephes. 5. 20. Coloss. 2. 2. Joh. 17. 3. For God is to be so considered as he is to be worshipped by us, and we are not to worship an abstract Personality with­out reference to the Godhead. We must con­sider what is Common, as well as what is Incommunicable; we must treat of that which is Absolute, as well as of that which is Relative; and whilest we speak of a Trinity of Persons, we must not forget the Vnity of the Essence, that so we may not hold forth a Trinity of Modes without [Page 77] Vide Cal­vinum Me­lanct. Oeco­lampadiū, Bucanura, D. Altingi­um, D. Go­marum. Wendeli­num, Bi­slerfeldi­um. Perso­na divina est essenti. ae divinae subsisten­tia incom­municabi­lis. Perso­nam voco subsisten­tiam in Dei essen­tiâ, quae ad alios relata, pro­prietate incommu­nicabili distingui­tur. Calv. Instit. [...]. Vide Cyrillum Exposit. fi­dei Orthod. Anastasium Theopolit. Damascen. de Orth. fid. lib. 3. c. 4. 5, 6. Persona divina est substantia spiritualis ad alios sibi coestentiales relata, & tamen ab illis incommunicabili propri­etate distincta.the Godhead, or tempt weak heads to dream of a Trinity of Gods. Judicious Mr. Calvin did not think fit to discourse much of Created Persons, and therefore descri­bed none but a Divine Person; and he would not adventure to abstract an uncre­ated Personality from the Divine nature in which every of the three uncreated Persons doth subsist. In our most accurate definition of any created nature, which we are best acquainted with, we judge it reasonable to take in that which the nature defined hath common with other natures, as well as that which is proper to it alone. And certainly it is very fit, in our description of every Divine Person, to take in the Nature which is common to all three Persons, and not only what is proper and peculiar to any one. I call a Person (saith Calvin) a Sub­sistence in the Essence of God. And then he descends to take notice of the Relation of a Divine Person to the rest of the co-essential Persons, and his distinction from them by some incommunicable property. It will be a very dangerous attempt then to treat of the Divine Persons in such abstract expres­sions as do only hold forth some curious notions about the relation of these persons [Page 78] to,The God­head is not to be abstracted from the persons or the per­sons from it The God­head described, not ab­stracted. De omni­bus & sin­g [...]lis & so­lis his tri­bus perso­nis tota Deitas per­fecta & omnibus numeris una dici­tur. and distinction from one another, with­out taking notice that all three Persons [...] coeternall and coequall, because coessential▪ If we will discourse soberly of the God­head, we must speak of it as one single in­finite perfection common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to all three, and none other The single Godhead, the whole Godhead is i [...] every single person, and it is common to a [...] three in a singular and glorious way. For the divine nature is not communicated to these Three, as a Genus to its Species, for it i [...] undivided and indivisible; nor as a Speci [...] to its Individua, for it is not multiplicable nor as a Totum or whole to its parts, fo [...] the Godhead hath no parts, it is imparti­ble, and as hath been said, indivisible; nay the Godhead is not communicated so to any one Person, as a created nature to [...] created person, which may be separate [...] from a created subsistence; for the Divin [...] Nature cannot possibly be separated from all, or any one of the Divine Subsistence [...] or Persons. And therefore we must no [...] discourse of the Godhead in such a Notio­nal way, as if the Godhead did exist out o [...] the three Persons without any relative sub­sistence; for that is clearly to dream of som [...] strange Absolute God,The strange God idoli­zed by some▪ who is neither Fa­ther, Son, nor Holy Ghost. When we de­scribe the Godhead according to our be [...] understanding, we dare not abstract it from [Page 79] the three Persons; but say, that▪

The Godhead is one single,The single Godhead. spiritual, infinite Essence, in which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost do subsist.

And when we describe a Divine Person, it is absurd to abstract the Personality from the Divine Nature; for how can you de­scribe a Divine person, if you do abstract his Personality from his Divinity. Every single Person is God, nay every single Person is the Godhead, the Nature, the Essence of God, considered with that subsistence, relation, and propriety which is peculiar to that Person. Every single Person is God of him­self,How the three Per­sons are one God. Deus non est per alind Deus. Finally, [...]ake all the three Persons together, and [...]hey are nothing else but one God; and [...]hey are one God, not Absolutely consider­ [...]d in his abstract nature,How the Name God is used in Scripture. but Relatively considered with those peculiar relations, [...]nd incommunicable properties whereby [...]he three Persons are distinguished from one another. When theVox De­us de eo proprie di­citur qui naturâ De­ [...]s est, & de eo quidem vel [...] Communiter sine certae per­ [...]onae determinatione, vel, [...] de una aliquâ personâ [...]er Synecdochen. Nomen Deus sive Absolute dicatur de to­ [...]â simplicique Deitate, sive Relate de unâ aliquâ personâ u­ [...]am eandemque essentiam designat; quaelibet enim persona est [...], & in Deo non distinguuntur esse & essentia; tota De­ [...] as est ex se, & à se, & singulae personae sunt ipsissima essentia [...]um distinctis relationibus personalibus considerata. name of God is [...]aken Essentially or Commonly in Scrip­ [...]ure, we say it doth belong to all three [Page 80] Persons, because it is spoken without any determination or restriction to any one particular person, as Iohn 4. 24. God is a Spirit, Mat. 4. 10. Mat. 19. 17. There is none good but God. These places must needs be interpreted of all three Persons; for it is certain, that Christ did not by these speeches exclude himself or the Holy Spirit from be­ing good, or being worshipped. And when the Name of God is taken personally or singularly in Scripture, we say it is under­stood of one Person by a Synechdoche, because though the other Persons may be excluded from what is proper and peculiar to any one Person, because it is personal, and therefore incommunicable, yet they cannot be excluded from any thing that is essential, because the same Divine essence is common to all. Now the Title of God is essentiall; and what hath been said of that, is true of all Essen­tial Titles and Attributes: but Personal relations, properties, and actions, are all pe­culiar, as we shall shew at large in the next Chapter.

All that I need inferre from hence for the present is, That when we describe the Divine nature, we should not abstract it from the three Persons; and when we describe a Divine Person, Created Personali▪ t [...]es not ab­stracted. we should not abstract him from the Divine Nature. When the Scrip­ture speaks of Created persons, it doth not abstract the personality from the singular [Page 81] substance or nature. When the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 1. 11. that thanks shall be given by many persons, he doth not mean many personalities, but many humane singular substances; thanks should be given by a multitude of men, particular men. Actiones sunt suppositorum, non suppositalitatum. In like manner when we read that Christ is the Character of his Fathers person,How Christ is the Cha­racter of his Fathers Person. Heb. 1. 3. the word is Subsistence; the meaning is not, that the Son is the character or ex­presse image of the Fatherhood of the first Person; for Christ doth not beget a Son, as the Father doth; but Christ is the image of the Subsistent, (that is) of God the Father, and not of the mere Subsistence or Personality, as it is abstracted from the Divine Nature.

Jesus Christ hath two natures in one single person:The Person of Christ is single and Divine. now that person is a Divine person, the second person of the Godhead; and if I describe the person of Jesus Christ, I may abstract his person from his humane nature, and not mention that nature, which doth infinitely differ from his Divine per­son: but I must not abstract the person of Christ from his divine nature, Christus non solùm officio De­us est, ut blasphe­mant So­ciniani, sed Naturâ Deus est; coessētialis enim filius est. Con [...]e­quens est, si in Deum credius, & in me cre­d [...]re debe­atis, quod non esset consequēs si Christas non esset Deus. Io­han. 14 1. [...] non est Pa­tri peruli­aris, sed tribus per­sonis Cō ­munis. because he hath no other then a divine person, which cannot be separated from, (and should not be described without consideration, and mention of) the divine nature. For this Second Person is not barely considered as a [Page 82] person, or as a second person, but as a divine person, as the second person of the Godhead, as the naturall, coessential, coequal, coeternal Son of God as his own Son, his first begott [...] Son, his only begotten Son. Rom. 8. 32. Ioh. 1. 14. And therefore he must be considered as God, the true God. God blessed for ever, Ioh. 1. 1. 14. 18. Rom. 9. 5. 1 Ioh. 5. 20. and therefore he must be described as God [...] himself; for the Son is Iehovah, as hath been proved and we are obliged to believe in the Son as well as in the Father, Ioh. 4. [...]. Iesus Christ is one and the same God with the Father. Now Papists and Socinians wi [...] both confesse, that the Father is [...] God of himself; and therefore it will fol­low that the Son The unbe­gotten Na­ture of the only begot­ten Son. is God of himself. If the Godhead of the Son were begotten, and the Godhead of the Father unbegotten, there would be two distinct Godheads in the Father and the Son, the one begotten, and the other unbegotten. Take it thus the [...] in brief: The second Person The second Person of the God­head. of the Godhead is the only begotten Son of God subsisting i [...] the unbegotten nature of God▪ because he is the naturall and coessentiall Son of God the Father, and therefore hath one and the same unbegotten nature with the Father; the subsistence of the Son is begotten, but the divine nature of the Son is unbegotten. The Divine [...]erson of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost is an infinite Spirit, co­essential with the Father and the Son, and [Page 83] not a mere Subsistence proceeding from both; and yet he is distinguished from both by his personal relation and incom­municable property.

These grounds being laid for a founda­tion,Certaine Conclusion [...] concerning Divine Persons. it is easie to build on, and inferre— 1. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not mere Personalities, but Divine Persons. 2. A Divine Person is not a Qua­lity or any other Accident, but an infinite Substance subsisting after the most perfect, and glorious manner that is, or can be. 3. The Divine nature being infinite, doth contain all manner of perfection within it self, both Absolute and Relative; and therefore the relations which are between the Divine Persons, are naturall, perfect, divine. 4. The Divine Nature cannot be separated from all▪ or any one of the Di­vine Persons. 5. These three Divine Per­sons are one and the same God, one Infi­nite Spirit; and therefore they are Co­essential, Coequal, Coeternal. 6. These three Divine Persons are distinguished (as shall be shewen in the next Chapter) but cannot be divided or separated either from the Divine Nature, or from one another, because they do al [...] three subsist in the Di­vine nature, and in one another; for they have one and the same single and infinite nature, and are one infinite Spirit, the same omnipresent God. 7. TheThe Word Subsist­ence ex­plained. word [Page 84] [ [...] sumi­tur pro re per se Subsistente, pro suppo­sito intel­ligente, pro divinâ Dei Patris Subsisten­rià, Heb. 1. 3. F [...]lius est imago Personae Patris, est enim filius essentiae e­jusdem cū Patre, non imago essentiae. Subsistence] is a consecrated word, which as we find upon record in the holy Scrip­ture, is fit to be made use of when we speak of that Divine manner of being which the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have in the Godhead and in one another. The heathen Oratour could say, Verbis consecratis uten­dum; He meant words that were conse­crated by the use and approbation of Clas­sical Authors; but I mean, words conse­crated by the Holy Ghost. The word [...] which we render Subsistence, and by way of Analogie, PERSON; hath many [...] in Scripturis frequē ­ter sumi­tur proba­si, seu fun­damento quo ali­quid niti­tur, 2 Cor. 9. 4. 2 Cor. 11. 17. Heb. 3. 14. fundamentum in quo spes nostra & gloria ni­titur. Fides etiam [...] dicitur Heb. 11. 1. ut Hypostasis significat essentiam; haereticoru [...] est tres Hypostases as [...]erere in divinis. Vide Theodor. Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 8. Patrum consensum hac de re videas apo [...] Damascenum, Nazianz. &c.other significations; but when it is used on this occasion, upon this subject, we may after so many disputes about this Argu­ment, easily understand the proper, and consecrated importance of the word. We may take warning by the mistakes of o­thers, and avoid those rocks on which o­thers have suffered shipwrack. Some who understand that [...] did signifie essence, were offended with such as said there were three Hypostases in God; because accord­ing to that signification of the word, to say that there are three Hypostases in God, is to say that there are three Essences in God [Page 85] and consequently, that there are three Gods. It is readily acknowledged that the [...] significat naturam verè Sub­sistentem & per se subsisten­tem hoc est modo per­f [...]ctissimo subsisten­tem.word [...] doth sometimes signifie the nature or essence of a thing, not the generi­cal or specifical nature in their latitude and abstract universality, but the nature Hyposta­tica Em­phaticis opponun­tur, quia omnia Hy­postatica veram ha­bent essen­tiam. [...]. Aristot. truly existing, and subsisting in the world. This acception of the word may, all things duly considered and soberly expounded, be ad­mitted, with some grains of allowance for the infinite difference which is between created, and uncreated Subsistents. For if Hypostasis be described in concreto, for which we have with invincible reason con­tended all along this Chapter, then [...] est Essentia divina charactere hypo­statico insignita, sive proprio subsistendi modo distincta. Magnum discrimen est inter Personam & proprietatem Personae: proprietas Patris Absoluta, est esse [...], Respectiva esse Pa [...]rem; Persona autem Patris est Deus filium gignens in unitate essentiae ingenitae. Hypo­stasis doth connote the Divine Nature, and signifies not an Abstract Subsistence, but a Complete Subsistent. When I say that Jesus Christ is the Character of his Fathers Sub­sistence, I do not (as I have formerly shewn) understand it thus, that Jesus Christ is the Character of his Fathers Abstract Perso­nality, but he is the Character of God the Father; I take in the Divine Nature. But you must then consider that the glory of the Trinunity must be preserved in this ac­ception; [Page 86] for there is not a new nature in every one of the Three but the Divine na­ture which is connoted in these three Hy­postas [...]s is the very same; there is the glory of the Mysterie which dazles the eye of car­nal reason; And therefore whatever we say on this argument, must be taken cum granosalis and expounded [...], be­cause of the infinite difference between a fi­nite and infinite nature, and between created and uncreated persons, as I shall (God will­ing) shew at large before I conclude this Chapter. Three Persons may, and do sub­sist in one and the same Infinite Nature: and therefore though e [...]ery [...] sig­nificat naturam Absolutam Commu­nem: [...] sig­nificat Na­turam sub­sistentem cum pro­prietati­bu [...] Rela­tivis & di­stinctivis Hypostasis doth connote the Divine nature, yet all [...] here connote one and the same infinite Personae divinae sunt per se subsistentes; nihil autem per se subsistit sine subsi­stentiâ.nature in which all three Persons doSubsistentia divina est ipsamet essentia divina peculiari modo se habens; unius autem essentiae sunt plures modi, sive respectus diversi juxta nostrum concipiendi modû Scripturis conformem. Singull autem modi singulas essentias non postu­lant in rebus creatis, & proinde ejusdem essentiae infinitae plu­res modi & re [...]pectus diversi esse possunt. sub­sist. To subsist, is (as Aristotle the great Interpreter expounds it) to have the most perfect manner of Being by it self, that a Substance the best of Beings can attain to; and it is very proper to say, that the Father Son and Holy Ghost have the most perfect manner of Subsistence in the Divine nature [Page 87] that is or can be. The Divine [...] apud Craecos Lo­gicos Personam significat, & [...] non raro es­sentiam, sed vocum ea­rum in Theol. jam fixa est & limitata significatio, & proinde Logicos istos nobis [...] non licet.Nature considered with all Absolute & Relative Perfecti­on in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, doth most truly, pro­perly, and perfectly subsist; for there are three illustrious Subsistences in that one undivided infinite Na­ture; The Divine Persons do most perfe­ctly s [...]bsist. and therefore the Godhead thus considered, doth subsistAristot▪ Categor. [...]. Singular substances have the most perfect subsistence. A Spirit is the most perfect Substance; God is the most single and singular Substance, and he is the only Infinite [...]pirit, the best of Spirits, and there­fore he must needs have the most perfect Subsistence. Every single Person is [...] and therefore I will be bold to inferre, that these three Persons only do perfectly sub­sist by themselves, though in Clama­mus, siquis tres Hypo­stases, aut tria [...] hoc est tres subsisten­ [...]es perso­nas non confitetur, Anathenia [...]it. Hiero­nym. Epist 57. How there are three in on [...]. & one in three. one another; for they have one Independent, Spi [...]itual, Infinite Nature, which is of it self, and is complete in it self, because Infinite in Per­fection, and therefore contains all absolute and Relative perfection in it self: but when we speak of the Relative perfection, we speak of [...]. Athan [...]s. Symb. Naz. orat 37. So­phron. act. 11. Concil. Oecum. sexti. Damas. Anasta [...]. Syn. three in one, because the Relative properties are distinctive: and when we treat of the Absolute perfection, we speak of One in Three, one Essence in three Per­sons, [Page 88] who do all three subsist with their Relative and Incommunicable properties, in that most perfect and single Essence. This is that Divine Trinunity which contains all Absolute and Relative Perfection, And therefore hath the most perfect and ex­cellent Subsistence, that is, or can be, Finally, though these three Persons do mu­tually subsist in one another, yet they are said to subsist by themselves,

1. Because these Persons do not subsist in one another,How the divine Persons subsist by themselvs, and yet in one ano­ther. as Accidents do exist in a Subject; for Accidents exist in another, because of their imperfection; but these subsist in one another, because of their per­fection, because they have the same single infinite nature, and are one infinite and omnipresent Spirit.

2. They subsist mutually in one another; the Father subsists in the Son, Ioh. 14. 10, 11. as well as the Son in the Father; and there­fore this subsisting in one another doth not argue any imperfection, but doth demon­strate the infinite perfection of all Three Subsistents: but there is no mutuall in­existence of an accident in a subject, and a subject in that accident or any other.

3. These three Subsistents have one and the same spirituall, Hyposta­ses dicun­tur, nulla tamen est in divinis personis suppositio vel subje­ctio, sed coessenti­alis aequa­litas. Vide A­quin. p. 1. q. 39. art. 1. independent, infinite nature, which is complete of it self, and in it self; and the whole Creation doth not afford one Example to illustrate, much [Page 89] lesse to parallel these three illustrious Sub­sistences in one undivided Nature. And it is impossible it should: for, this one un­divided Nature in which these three glo­rious Persons do subsist, is an infinite na­ture, and there can be but one Infinite; and therefore the Socinians seem to have lost what they do so much idolize, their Rea­son, when they desire us to illustrate this My­sterie by an Example.

4. These three Subsistents are Coequal, because Coessential. The Fathers upon some of these considerations did agree to use the phrase of three Hypostases and one Essence, though the word Hypostasis was not so plain and familiar at first, espe­cially to Latine eares, and thereforeHierony­mus Epist. 57. Novel. lum a me homine Romano nomen ex­igitur—Interroga­mus quid per tres Hyposta­ses posse arbitren­tur intelli­gi. Tres Personas subsisten­tes aiunt. Responde­mus nos ita credere. Non suffi­cit sensus, expressum nomen ef­flagi [...]ant—& quia vo­cabulanon ediscimus haeretici judicamur Hieron. E­pist. 57. si quis tres subsisten­tes perso­nas non confitetur Anathema sit. Hie­rome complains that some were too rigo­rous in imposing that word without ex­pounding of it to such whose judgment was Orthodox, though their skill but small in the Greek.

To conclude my discourse upon this word Subsistence, be pleased to consider that we read of the Nature of God, we read of the Subsistence of the Father, and we read that these three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one; having these two words [Nature & Subsistence] in Scripture, we are prompted by the Spirit speaking in the word to explain this Mystery thus; The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three [Page 90] in Subsistence, but one in Nature. No My­stery can be explained with lesse Violence and more Sobriety; for we are precise in keeping to the very words of Scripture in explaining this grand Mystery to the plain­est of men; and therefore they were sen­tenced of old that did not beleeve this plain truth.

IX. We have no reason to be offended with the Vse of the word Person,Concerning the word Person. when we treat of this Argument, if we adde a fit Epithet, and say the Father is a divine Per­son, or an uncreated Person, and say the same of the Son and Holy Ghost▪ The word Person signifies the most excellent kind of Subsistent, an understanding Sub­sistent, as is acknowledged by all the Ma­sters of Language, sacred and prophane, as hath been proved; and that place 2 Cor. 1. 11. is very cleare; of all the derivations of Persona, that pleases mePersona quasi per se Sonan [...] fic non ne­mo. Perso­na quasi per se una; sic Criticorū facile principes Per­sona quasi à verbo [...] vel [...] qua­si cinctum quid, vel [...] quasi habens aliquid circa corpus. best, Persona quasi per se una; because it doth expresse the unity and excellency of a personall sub­sistence. Per se notes the excellency, be­cause subsistere per se notes the most ex­cellent kind of subsistence. Nay, the word [...] quamvis substantiam prim [...]m significat, tam animatam quàm inanimatam, P [...]sona verò, tantùm substantiam singu­larem intelligentem qualis Deus, Angelus, homo. Person doth expresse more excellency then the word subsistence alone, doth im­port, [Page 91] for it is proper to say that a Beast doth subsist,Vncreated Persons. but it is absurd to say that a Beast is a Person because a Person is an un­derstanding subsistent. But neither of these Magnâ prorsus [...]opiâ hu­manum laborat e­loquium. Dictum est tamen tres perso­nae, non ut illud dice­retur, sed ne tacere­tur omni­no. Non e­nim rei in, effabilis e­minentia hoc voca­bulo ex­plicari va­let. Aug. lib. 5 de Trinitate cap. 9.words doth expresse the excellency of that subsistence which the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have in the Godhead. And therefore we do not only say that these three are Persons or Subsistenc [...]s, but we say they are uncreated Persons, Divine Sub­sistences, Persons subsisting in the Divine Nature, Persons of the Godhead, that so we may take in all the excellency which these words Subsistence and Person do af­ford; and then by other Epithets superadd that excellency which is proper to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and leave out all that imperfection which is in created persons and subsistences. The word Subsistence is in the Scripture; Heb. 1. 3. The word Person is in Scripture applyed to men, 2 Cor. 1. 11. who have a more excellent subsistence then beasts▪ An understanding subsistence; and therefore both [...]. Damascen. in Dialog. cap. 43. Nazianzen. orat. 31. in laudem Athanasii. Greek and Latine Fathers did at last agree to use the word Person, because it signifies an understanding sub­sistent. And if you adde divine or uncreated Person, then there is no danger of any mi­stake; unlesse men will be so vain as to say [Page 92] the wordVocibus non sem­per cum respectu suae origi­nis, sed ex receptà consuetu­dine uten­dum. Anti-Tri­nitarians aequivo­cate in a­busing the various significati­ons of the word Per­son. Person doth sometimes signifie a visible shape, an outward form or appearance, the countenance or gesture of a man, or else some office, relation, or quality; and say that we do make three shapes, countenances, &c. in the Godhead; as Sabellius, Servetus, and such bold Atheists as have sucked in their poyson, are wont to say. We do therefore vindicate the Church of God from these insolent and groundlesse aspersions, and freely declare what we mean by Person, namely an understanding Subsistent. Every of the Three Divine Persons hath an office, and hath a relation; but no Divine person is an Office, or a mere Persona significat Relationē prout est Subsistens in naturâ divinâ. Aquin. p. 1. q 39. art. 1. In creaturis relationes sunt accidentales, & proinde accidentaliter insunt, relationes autem in Deo sunt subsistentes, & ipsamet essentia divina, Aquinas ibidem. Pater non genuit meram nudamque relati­onem, sed correlatum, Filium subsistentem, nec non coessenti­alem. Relation; but the Godhead doth contain all relative as well as absolute perfection within it self, as hath been said.How a divine Per­son is said to take up­on him two severall Persons. God, as represented to us in Scripture, doth as it were take upon him the person of a displeased Father, and some­times of a well-pleased Father; but we do not say there are three such Persons in the Godhead: for one Divine Person may su­stain the person of a well-pleased Father at one time, and the person of a displeased Father at another. And if any man will be [Page 93] so ridiculous us to conclude from thence, that then one person may be two persons; I hope he will see his own vanity, and be sensible of the equivocation, by considering what hath been said already in this very Chapter.

When we say, God doth take upon him the Person of a well-pleased Father, we speak [...] after the manner of men; just as when we speak of the eyes and hands of God, but we must be under­stood Locuti­ones Im­propriae Dei essen­tiam non exprimunt, sed ejus notitiam tenuitati nostrae accommodant. [...] after such a manner as becomes the infinite dignity and pure ma­jesty of God.

If men do not wilfully mistake,Vnwritten words hold forth the written truth. they may then know what we mean by Person, when we say there are three uncreated Per­sons in the Godhead. The word Person is in Scripture; and if it were not, yet as long as the thing signified by it is there, we have no reason to account thatVoces tanquam consecra­tas omni jure judi­camus, si earum conjugata, & Synonyma in Sacrâ paginâ reperiantur. Si enim talibus vocibus sensum mentemque Scripturae exprimentibus uti non liceret, nec explicare Scripturam pro concione lice­ret, neque in alias linguas vertere. word, or any other such like, an Exotick word, because we find it very proper and pertinent to the point in hand, in the sense which we have so often declared, that there might be [Page 94] no mistake, but a full agreement in such an high and weighty point.Temerè non sunt inventa nomina quae per evidentem conse­quentiam mentem Domini in Scripturis loquentis fideliter exprimūt; cavendum est ne vo­cabula re­pudiando, ipsam re­pudiemus veritatem, superbaeque temeritatis simul & haereseos arguamur. It is out of que­stion, that we may expound the Scripture by words and phrases which are not in those very letters and syllables to be found in Scripture, as long as we do not affect a needlesse curi­osity in inventing new and obscure phrases▪ & a rigid superstition in defending them; for that would not conduce to edification; but beget or foment an endlesse contention. Our expressions must be sober and plain; grave and usefull, such as may hold forth the godly and prudent simplicity of the Scripture. That is al that needs be said for the use of such words and phrases as are fit and necessary to be used in this and di­vers other obscure points.

There are some that mistake the Attri­butes of God for Persons, Persons are not At­tributes as Sabellius dr [...]am't. and they make more then three persons; and therefore I shall not go about to reckon up the innu­merable absurdities which follow upon that one mistake. Vno absurdo dato, mille se­quuntur. I read, indeed, that Sabellius conceived the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be different Attributes of God: But the Orthodoxe Christians desired him to re­member that there were more then three Divine [...]ttributes, and pressed him to ac­knowledge, [Page 95] that A Trinity of persons do subsist in the unity of the nature of God; Vnwritten words hold forth the written truth. and then they would close with him and give the right hand of fellowship unto him.

The fraud and subtilty of Arius, Sa­bellius, and the rest of the old Heretiques, gave the reverend Doctors of the Chu [...]ch cause to use the wordsCùm Scriptura testetur tres dici quorum quisque in solidum sit Deus, nec tamen plu­res esse De­os, nimis morosum est de voce contende­re, cùm res in aperto sit. Colon. Anal. Pa­raphrast. Calv. Inst. pag. 34. In Scriptu­ris occurrit vox Trini­tatis nu­mero na­merante. 1 Iohan 5. 7. & numero numerato passim, ut in Baptismo Christi. Matth. 3 & in Baptismo nostro Matth. 28. Trinity, Coessential, Consubstantial, and the like, that they might more clearly and fully manifest this pro­found and glorious mysterie: And they who did wrangle about these Words, did indeed deny the Mystery and thing it self; and therefore did but manifest their pride, fraud, obstinacy, for the maintenance of their damnable Heresie, when they quar­relled with those eminent Writers, for making use ofHi [...]ar. lib. de Synodis. Inane enim est calumniam verbi pe [...]timescere ubi res ipsa cujus verbum est non habeat diffi­cultatem—expertus pridem sum & quidem saepius quicun (que) de verbis pertinacius litigant fovere occultum virus, ut magis ex­pediat ultrò provocare, quàm in [...]orum gratiā obscuriùs loqui. unwritten words & phrases, upon so just and necessary occasion, that the written truth might be more clearly ex­plained and fully defended. It is not in the judgement of any man, any fault at all, to make truth plain; unlesse in the deluded judgement of such who are enemies to truth. Now we have removed the rubbish, we be­gin to build.

[Page 96] A Divine Person is a Spiritual and Infi­nit Subsistent, A Divine Person de­scribed. related indeed to those other uncreated Persons, which subsist in the same Divine Nature with it, but distinguished from those Coess [...]ntial persons by its pecu­liar manner of subsistence, order of subsist­ing singular relation▪ and incommunicable propertie. In these few line there is mat­ter enough to fill many sheets, and I am to treat of the distinction of persons at large in the next Chapter.

A Divine Person is Spiritual,The descri­ption of a Divine Person ex­plained and confir­med. for God is a Spirit, the Father of Spirits, the Spirit of Spirits, an infinite Spirit, and therefore hath life, the best of lives, nay is life it self in per­fection, and therefore we read of the un­derstanding and will of God; an under­standing life is the best life that we are ac­quainted with; and the life of God is a sub­sisting life, every one of the Divine persons is subsistent, and therefore, every one of them hath subsisting life. We may then safe­ly conclude, that every one of the Divine persons is a spiritual and infinite Subsistent: I say Subsistent, to shew that I do not ab­stract the Subsistence of the person from the Divine Nature in which the person doth subsist; herein all the three Persons do agree.

Moreover, every Divine Person hath some Relative perfection, for they are mutually related to one another.

[Page 97] Finally, every Divine Person hath some peculiar and incommunicable propertie. But if we come to treat of any peculiar manner of subsisting, or the Order of subsist­ing, or that singular relation which is proper [...]o every one of the three, or any certain [...]ncommunicable propertie, whereby any one person is distinguished from the rest, [...]hen we must leave treating of what is common to all three persons, and shew wherein these Coessential persons differ, or whereby it doth appear to us, that they are distinguished. We will therefore for Orders sake enquire,Three di­stinguish­ing questi­ons pro­pounded which are in their or­der to be stated and resolved.

1. What distinction there is between the Divine Nature, and the Divine Persons, Father, Son and holy Ghost.

2. What difference there is between [...]reated and uncreated persons.

3. How these three uncreated persons are distinguished from one another.

This question concerning the Distin­ction of the DivineVox Na­t [...]rae a [...]as­cendo de­rivatur, sed pro quavis essentiâ u­surpatur; vocibus e­nim non semper cū respectu suae origi­nis, sed ex receptâ cō ­suetudine utendum. Hyposta­ses in di­vinis non dicunt ali­quam sup­positionē vel subje­ctionē sed aequalita­tem coes­sen [...]ialem. Nature and these three most glorious persons which subsist in it, is the most difficult point in all Divinitie, [...]nd therefore I humbly beg the assistance of all these glorious persons, that I may conceive and write judiciously and reve­ [...]ently of this profound and glorious My­ [...]erie of Faith. I remember that excellent [...]peech of judicious Calvin; Non minori [...]eligione de Deo nobis loquendum quam co­gitandum [Page 98] sentio; quicquid autem de Deo a nobis cogitamus stultum est, & quicquid lo­quimur insulsum. What ever we think [...] or speak of our own heads concerning God, will be like our selves unsavourie, foolish and vain. No language is rich enough, no words are significant enough to declare this profound Mysterie, which the understand­ing of men and Angels cannot compre­hend, nor the tongue of men and Angels express; if all the Saints and Angels in heaven and earth should sit in Councel and communicate their notions to one ano­ther about this Argument, they would ac­knowledge this Mysterie to be not onely in­explicable and unspeakable, but unconceive­able and incomprehensible.

1. Concerning the Distinction which is between the Divine Nature,The diffe­rence be­tween the divine Na­ture▪ and Persons. and a Divine Person, it is to be considered that I have most studiously declined the describing of a Divine Person in abstracto for the rea­sons mentioned above, and I might add many others; but it is enough to say that the most cleanly Abstraction doth but suggest an inadaequate Conceit of a Divine Person;The Inac [...] ­quade con­ce [...]t of a di­vine Person and when you abstract the nature of God from the personalities, men are apt to dream of some strange God that is neither Father, Son nor holy Ghost, and so to create a new God, or to conceive that the Divine Nature may, as the humane na­ture [Page 99] of Christ doth subsist in alieno sup­posito.

2. They who denie the Trinitie, must if they be not worse then Turkes or Soci­nians acknowledge,The Soci­nians en­gaged to state the point in question. that God the Father doth subsist, and therefore they are enga­ged to shew the difference between the Essence and Subsistence of the Father, as well as we are, who believe the Trinitie. But there is no greater a distinction be­tween the Person of the Father, and the Nature of the holy Ghost, then there is between the Person of the Father, and the Nature of the Father; for the Nature of the Father and the holy Ghost is one, and the same Divine Nature, which is as im­possible to be divided, or multiplied in two or three Persons, as it is in one single and undivided person, because the Divine Na­ture is single and infinite, and the Divine Persons do mutually subsist in one another, and all three Persons subsist in this single and undivided Nature, which is indivisible, immultiplicable and most purely and sin­gularly one and the same infinite perfe­ction in all three Persons, and there can be but one most single absolute and infinite Perfection.

3. The Divine Nature is subsistent, neces­sarily and perfectly subsistent; the most per­fect manner of subsisting by and of it self is due to the most perfect Nature.

[Page 100] 4. The Divine Nature is not indifferent to subsist in the Father,Divina na­tura salvâ omnimodâ perfectio­ne Dei non potest ca­rere ali­quâ perso­narum di­vinarum. Son and holy Ghost, or out of them; for in regard of its infinite Perfection and actualitie it can nei­ther subsist without, or otherwise then in the Father, Son and holy Ghost; because the Divine Nature cannot subsist without all, or any of that Relative perfection, which shines in these three glorious persons, who do all subsist in the same Divine Nature, and yet mutually subsist in one another with all Relative Perfection. The reason is most clear, because the Divine Nature being infinite in perfection must needs con­tain and comprehend all Relative as well as all absolute Perfection.

5. God is not compounded (as Angels are) of Nature and Subsistence; for whatsoever doth belong to the Perfection of God, doth belong to the Nature of God, and therefore God doth not subsist by the su­peradding of any thing or manner of a thing, any. Modus that is (as the Schooles speak) Extraessential, or really distinct, and separable from the Essence and Nature of God. And we have formerly shewen, that the Essence of God is intrinsecally necessary, and infinitly perfect, and there­fore the most perfect manner of subsisting by, and of it sel [...] is due to the most perfect Nature.

6. Although Men and Angels are not [Page 101] able to comprehend,Deus est idem quod sua essen­tia vel na­tura; de Deo lo­quentes u­timur no­minibus concretis ut signifi­cemusejus subsisten­tiam, & u­timur no­minibus abstract is ut signifi­cemusejus simplicita­tem. Quod ergo [...]ici­tur Deitas vel vita, velaliquid hujusmodi esse in Deo referend [...] est ad di­versitatem quae est in acceptione intellectus nostri, & non ad aliquam diversitatem rei. Aqin. Sum. p. 1. q. 3. art. 3. in corpore Art. & resp. ad primum. Est de es­sen iâ cujusliber personae divinae & cujuslibet personalitatis divinae esse ipsum esse per essentiam saltem a parte re [...], quicquid sit de modo concipiendi nostro. Vide Suarez. Me­taph. D [...]sp. 34. much less express this incomprehensible Mysterie, yet we may set satisfactorie bounds to our thoughts and discourses by the Analogy of faith; for the Scripture saith that the Father and the Son are one, and that all three Persons are one, and therefore we do conclude that as the infinite Perfection and Actualitie of the Di­vine Nature doth require three Subsi­stences, because this infinite Perfection doth contain all Relative, as well as all ab­solute Perfection, so doth the single and most singular Nature of God, require that these three glorious Persons subsist in the Vnitie of the Godhead. Now we are sure that the One-nesse, or singlenesse of Gods Nature doth well agree with the infinitness of his Nature, because there can be no mul­tiplication of that which is infinites; there cannot be two or three infinites, and therfore we must needs conclude, that these three Subsistents are one infinite God subsisting with all absolute and Relative Perfection. This is the Sum and Substance o [...] all that can be said a parte rei as we use to speak; but because we are not able distinctly to [Page 102] apprehend the absolute and Relative Per­fefection of God, God doth make himself known to us in a way most suitable to our weak apprehensions in representing him­self to be an eternal Father, and then we are ready to enquire after and willing to heare of an eternal Son; Now according to our weak manner of conceiving we must needs apprehend that there is a Di­vine Relation between the eternal Father and his coeternal Son, and conclude that these two are distinguished from, and in a well qualified Sense opposed to, one another with a mere Relative Opposition, for there can be no contrarie Opposition between the Persons; but this Relative and friendly Op­position assures us, that the Father is not the Son, and that the Father did not beget himself, but did beget his Son; But then we consider again, that this Son is an eter­nal Son, and therefore is God, and we are sure God did not beget another God, for the Power of God is not nay cannot be exercised about any thing repugnant to the Nature of God, and nothing is more repugnant to the Godhead then a Pluralitie of Gods; and therefore we must conclude, that the Father and Son are one, and the same God; Now we are come to the Mysterie which faith must receive, and reason ad­mire.

7. We may best resemble all that differ­ence [Page 103] which is between the Essence of God and the Divine Subsistences, by considering the transcendent Affections of Ens simpliciter and the Attributes of God, [...]. who doth infi­nitely transcend not only a Praedicamental Substance, but a Metaphysical Entity, as the most Metaphysical men who are sound in the Faith▪ do honestly confesse.

1. Concerning the transcendent Affections of Ens, The tran­scendent affections of Ens. which are unum, verum, & bonum; we say, these three affections, and Ens in la­titudine, do not make foure things really distinct; and yet we say they are reall and positive affections; for our Metaphysical science hath too much serious Majesty, to be pleased with the pretty fictions of Rea­son, when our understanding hath got leave to play, and recreate it self with its own artificial inventions. The thing is most cleare and evident to all at the very first proposal, because the things which God hath made, are not beholding to God only for their Entity, and to us for their good­nesse; for the things do not cease to be good, when our understanding ceaseth to work; but the things are truly and really good, whether we think them to be so, or no.

Moreover we say, that these Positive and reall affections of Ens do not make any composition at all in Ens transcendent­ly considered, because then the most simple [Page 104] and uncompounded Being would lose its Being. For Simplicity would be repugnant to Entity, if that Entity it self did involve any Composition. And therefore it is agreed on all sides, that this proposition, Ens sim­plex est Ens, is a true proposition. Finally, from what hath been said it is reasonably and commonly inferred, That Entity, Truth, Goodnesse, and Unity, make but one Real thing, though they do all foure differ quoad modum significandi; Because the thing adaequately signified by all those foure words is but one Real Thing, namely the very Entity of Ens transcendently con­sidered. For when I say, Ens est unum, this Praedicate Vnum doth not superadde any new Entity, but doth imply and con­note the very Entity of Ens. Nay more, if you ask these Metaphysical men, what this transcendent Unity is; they will not answer, that Vnity is Indivision, but Unity is the very undivided Entity it self; not that Unity alone doth signifie simply and adaequately the same that Ens doth in tota latitudine, as Res or Aliquid do; for Unity doth not signifie Truth and Goodnesse, which are the two other transcendent af­fections of Ens, but Ens in its complete compasse and adaequate signification doth import Entity, Truth, Unity, and Good­nesse also. Truth is a single affection of Ens, and therefore it doth signifie or rather [Page 105] connote Entity under an inadaequate con­ceit or notion▪ for it doth represent Ens not in its full latitude, but as considered with respect to the understanding. If we may now make so bold as to compare the Essence of Essences with these Metaphysical notions, we may in some weak measure re­semble that difference which is between the Essence of God and Divine Subsistences, at least in some few particulars: For if when we compare creatures with creatures, there appear to be some dissimilitude even in the most apt similitude, and no similitude runs (as we say) upon four feet; it is not to be wondered at, if this comparison be ra­ther a resemblance, then an illustration. When Divine revelation hath gone before,Rationes praeceden­ces minu­unt, rati­ones sub­sequentes augent fi­dem. and we have built upon that as the ground­work and foundation by a serious faith, these Metaphysical notions may be sub­servient helps in a subordinate way.

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do all Three really, positively, truly subsist in the Divine Essence; and yet these three Subsistences, and the Divine Essence, do not make four, no nor two things really di­stinct; even as Entity, Truth, Goodnesse, and Unity, do not make four things really distinct, as you heard but now, but are one reall thing and no more.

2. Ens is not compounded of Entity, and its three Affections; nor is God com­pounded [Page 106] of the Godhead and three Sub­sistences; nor is any one Person compoun­ded of the Divine Nature and Subsistence.

3. As Truth is not Goodnesse, nor Good­nesse Truth, nor either of them Unity, and yet all three are Entity; so the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father, nor is either of them the Holy Ghost, and yet all three are God, for they are all three but one God subsisting with all absolute and re­lative perfection, as hath been shewen.

4. Every one of the three Affections of Ens, doth connote Entity: Every one of the three Subsistences doth connote the Godhead, the Divine nature, as hath been proved at large.

5. Not any one of the three Affections of Ens doth, nor do all three together su­per-adde a new Entity; not any one of the three subsistences doth, nor do all three together super-adde a new Deity, a new Divine nature, or Godhead: For Ens Ens est unum, ve­rum, bo­num. Ens est essentiâ unicum, affectio­nibus au­tem trinū, trinum & unum, Ens trinunum. Unum est quod pri­us de unoquoque ente cognoscitur: Verum quod proxime cognoscitur; intellectus enim est prior potentia, quàm intel­lectus; & verum dicit ordinem ad intellectum; bonum ad voluntatem. Denique si res sit ficta, non est bona; & proinde bonitas quodammodo fundatur in veritate; omnes autem tres passiones sunt à parte rei. Entitas quoad significa­tum intrinsecum; entitas est bonitas & è converso. is one; Ens est trinum, non triplex, tri­num et unum Ens trinunum: Deus est tri­nus non triplex, trinus et unus, Deus trin­unus; This instance doth in some measure resemble the mystery of the Trinunity.

[Page 106] 6. No affection of Ens can be really se­parated from Ens: Nor can one of the Divine Persons be separated from the Di­vine Nature, or the Divine Nature from any one of the Divine Persons, or any one of the Persons from either of the other two.

7. All the Affections of Ens are distin­guished, but none divided: all the three Subsistences are distinguished, but they can­not be divided.

8. Truth and Goodnesse which are two of the Affections of Ens, are distinguished by their severall and peculiar relations; Truth hath relation to the understanding, and Goodnesse to the will: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are known to be di­stinguished by their severall and peculiar relations; and if it be not unreasonable to say that there is in Entity three affections, and two relations in ente simplicissimo, without any Composition in, or Multipli­cation of the Entity, why should it seem unreasonable, or at least why should it seem incredible that there are three subsi­stences and severall relations in the Godhead, without any composition in, or multiplication of the Godhead?

9. One affection, nay all the affections in abstracto, do but inadaequately represent Ens, unlesse you take notice of the Entity [Page 108] it self, as well as the three Affections. One single Subsistence, nay all three Subsistences in abstracto, do but inadaequately represent God, unlesse you take notice of the God­head in which they subsist; and therefore this praecisive abstraction of the Subsistences from the Divine nature, is but an inadaequate conceit of God, as hath been demonstrated above in this very Chapter: for we must not dream of a Trinity of Modes, but as­sert and believe the glorious and Coessen­tial Trinunity. The Father is truly God, that God who is the only true God; but the Father alone doth not Una sub­sistentia divina non plane pra­stat idem quod prae­stat altera; est enim inter per­ [...]onas di­vinas dif­ferentia relativa numerica Nec est es­sentia di­vina bis aut pluries id quod est, per tres subsistentias. Nam per subsistentiam Patris essentia divina est Pater, non Filius: per subsistentiam verò Filii nec Pater est nec Spiritus Sanctus: non itaque bis est Pater, vel bis Filius, vel bis Spiritus San­ct [...]s; nec possibile est ut eodem respectu essentia divina sit Pater, quo est Filius. Tanta autem est essentiae divinae per­fectio, ut una subsistentia ipsi non possit esse adaequata. Per subsistentiam itaque Patris divina essentia adaequatè est Pater, non verò adaequatè Deus. vid. Bisterfeld. lib. 2. sect. 1. cap. 5. adaequately repre­sent God to us as he is described in the Holy Scriptures. It is true that the Divine Essence is by the Subsistence of the Father adae­quately the Father; but as God is represent­ed by that Divine subsistence only, he is not Deus Trinunus, he is not Father, Son and Holy Ghost; the Father alone is not all those three Witnesses who are one God. And there­fore the acute Socinians with their precise abstractions do but suggest an inadaequate [Page 109] conceit of God: that only true God whom we worship, doth not subsist only in the Person of the Father. We worship God sub­sisting with all Absolute and Relative Per­fection in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for these three are that one God who is the only true God blessed for ever. This is the adaequate representation of God in the Scrip­tures of truth. And we are resolved to re­gulate all our Metaphysical notions by the holy Scriptures, that we may make the highest of Sciences to acknowledge the supremacie of that Divine science which is nowhere to be learnt but in the Word of God; for the purestIn qui­bus ratio estintegra, religionis nostrae mysteria cum rati­one con­sentiunt: in quibus corrupta, cum rati­one pug­nant my­steria, ut rationem corrigant potius quàm superent. In omnibus enim mysteria supra rationem sunt omnino re, ratione, & [...]odo. reason must be ele­vated by the Word and Spirit of God, for the discovery of this mysterie.

10. These affections of Ens represent the manner of that Being which Ens hath as it is transcendently confidered; and the three Divine Subsistences do represent that manner of Being which God hath as he is mostd transcendently considered, namely as subsisting after the most glorious man­ner with all Absolute and Relative Per­fection. It is the manner of a transcendent [Page 110] Entity to be one, and true, and good, and it is the manner of Gods being to be one God in three Subsistences; These three are one single God, there is no Composition or Multiplication imaginable in this single and infinite being.

I was bold to adventure upon this en­quiry because soVerita­tem con­venienter Naturae ex sacris Scripturis asserimus; exiguum autem lu­men tam est simile maximo, ut prout natur [...] u­num sunt, ita conjun­ctione in unm tran­seant, & in majore ac perfectio­re minus sorbeatur, vide I uni­um Trinit. defens. 1 many reverend learned Orthodox and pious Doctours of the Church have declared that the Divine Es­sence differs from the Divine subsistences as the manner of the thing doth from the thing it self; and the Persons differ from one another, tanquam modi a modis. I con­ceived that there was something more in the expression then was commonly known. Moreover I considered that if there might be so great simplicity or singlenesse in a Created and finite Entity, notwithstand­ing there are three affections and two re­lations which do affect that Entity, it seem­ed to me somewhat easie to beleeve that there are three subsistences in one infinite Godhead without any composition in, or mul­tiplication of the single Godhead. Finally I perceive that some youthfull towring wits are drawn away from the simplicity of the Gospel by some froathy speculati­ons presented to them as most sublime cu­riosities andCuran­dum est quod men­tem errantium occupat, tumor rationis humanae ina [...]i Philoso­phiae Metaphysicae spe cie abre [...]tae; unu [...] aut alterum Scriptu­rae locum in transcursu vellicat, ne sine Christo aut Scripturâ (quod vel imperitis foret odiosum) videantur esse: et pro­inde quia ratione humanâ intumescunt, ex ijs ipsis principi [...]s quae natura docet, et approbat, falsas esse ipsorum hypotheses, et Argumentationes demonstravi. Ab ijs quae nobis notiora sunt explicatio petenda est, et proinde explicatio Metaphysica non contemnenda est; quae enim docet Natura minimè cum verbo Dei pugnantia, docet Deus. Metaphysicall notions; and [Page 111] therefore I humbly submit what hath been said to the judgement of the learned, and conclude this discourse with the same pray­er wherewith Augustine shuts up his books of the Trinity, Domine, Deus unus, Deus Trinitas, quaecunque dixi in hoc libro de tuo agnoscant et tui; si quid de meo, et tu ig­nosce & tui. O Lord, who art one God, O God, who art a whole Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, what ever I have said (in this discourse) of thine, let all that are thine ac­knowledge, what ever I have said of mine own, Lord let it be pardoned by thee and thine.

II. Concerning the Attributes of God,II we may observe that they are al perfect, glo­rious, The Attri­butes of God are the Essence of God. infinite, because they do signifie and declare the infinite Perfection, Happinesse, Majesty and glory of God; and to speak higher yet, these glorious Attributes though they be very many, are nothing else but the single undivided indivisible Essence of God, we may be instructed, but are evenQuanto diutius co­gito, tanto mihi res videtur ob­scurior. Cicero de Simonide lib. 1. de Natura Deorum. con­founded with the glory of this mystery.

[Page 112] There are three reasons why we do not readily apprehend this truth.

1. The defect ofQuam admirabi­lis est De­us, cum omnibus linguis sit ind [...]cibilis, omnibus cordibus incogita­bilis! Aug. de cogniti­ne verae vi­tae. cap. 3. Lombard. 1. sent. distinct. 8. Homo imbecillitat [...]s So­boles, ignorantiae alumnus, in tan [...]â mysteriorum caligine Dei ignarus vocibus tenebrosis utitur ad lucem significandam; in verbo veritatis tenebrae appellamu [...], est cato in nobis tene­brarum interiorum subjectum, exterio [...]um illex: est pecca­tum in nobis depascens carnem ut hedera parietem, mentem obscurans, et voluntatem à vera luce abripiens tanquam un­co Carnifex. words to expresse it, especially in English, but indeed the most rich and copious languages are onely hap­py in the confession of their penury when we come to treat of this argument, because the mystery of the Godhead doth transcend all our eloquence, and teaches us to admire and adore with silence what we cannot expresse without a manifest de­monstration of our ignorance.

2. The imperfect manner of signifying is easie to be observed in our most significant words, and therefore we must confesse that the Excellency of God doth transcend the significancy of the most significant words in the most rich and copious tongues.

3 The imperfection of our ownPaucae lectionis, nullius in­tellectio­nis mancipia, intellectione satis mutilâ perfecton [...]m metiun­tur infinitam. under­standing, and of our manner of apprehend­ing and judging of things whiles we are [Page 113] in theVisio quae caele­stis Reip. cives beat, non fit per principia nobis con­naturalia: ibi intel­lectio sine ratiocina­tione, scientia sine disciplina, quies sine motu: istius coeli Sol ipse Deus est sine occasu & sine ortu. body. If any man desire to know a reason why he cannot readily apprehend these divine Mysteries, let him consider the perfection of the mystery, and the imper­fection of his own reason, & he hath a suffi­cient reason, a reason from whence he may draw a most invincible argument against i­dolizing of his own reason, so far as to make his reason judge of the mysteries of faith.

Let us then prudently consider that we are not able to apprehend theIntelle­ctus fini­tus quod est simple [...] & infinitū unico sim­plici (que) a­ctu non capit. infinite and impartible Essence of God but as it were by parts, by many incomplete and inadaequate conceits and apprehensions. The most profound and seriousAcci­piendo Perfectio­nem p [...]o re ip [...]a quae per­fecta est, non sunt in divinis plures perfectio­nes Attributales; omnia enim in divinis quae sunt Commu­nia tribus non plurificantur, sed sunt unum simpliciter & una simplex Essentia. Biel 1. Sent. dist. 2. quaest. 2. schoolmen have fairely expressed this truth: there are not (say they) many Attribut all Perfections, nay there is but one Perfection in God; for all the Essentiall Attributes of God are no­thing else but that single and undivided Essence which is singularly and altogether the same Essence in all three subsistences. Nay, to speak properly the Div [...]ne Essence is one single infinite perfection, and we cannot say that Perfection is in the Essence [Page 114] of God; but rather that the highest Propriè & de vir­tute sermo­nis loquē ­do non est conceden­dum quod in Deo vel divinâ Es­sentiâ sit perfectio, sed perfe­ctio sum­ma est o­mnibus modis di­vina essen­tia ipsa ab eâ penitus indistin­cta. Biel. 1. Sent. dist. 2 quaest. 2. per­fection, even infinite Perfection is the Essenc [...] of God; it is every way his Essence, and no way at all distinguished from it. Finally, if by Attributal Perfections you mean the Conceits or Signs of Perfection, they say these Signs do indeed signifie the Divine Essence, but the Signs themselves are so far from being the Essence of God, that they do not all of them signifie the same Divine Essence after the same way and manner of signifying; for it is clear, that some of the Attributal Terms are affirmative, some are Multi termini Attributa­les Affir­mativi, Negativi, Absolu [...]i, Connota­tive, & Re­lativi ip­sam [...]an­damque Essentiam Divinam simplissimam sed diversimode significant.negative, some are absolute, some conno­tative, and relative. For observe that, when the Perfection of God is declared per viam negationis, byVide Basil. lib. 1. contr. Eunomium. negative Expres­sions, as when we say God is immaterial, incorporeal, invisible, immortal, immutable, immense, and the like, we intend to remove all imperfection from the [...]ssence of God, and leave his pure Essence single and alone, because it is one single and infinite Perfe­ction; we denie that there is any thing in God which might make him like to the Creature in imperfection: For what ever there is which betokens matter, change, privation, or imperfection, we denie that to be in God, because God is one entire, infi­nite Perfection, and therefore we say as [Page 115] I [...]dor. Clarius Orat. 5. tom. 1. pag. 21. Isidore Clarius doth, that in these nega­tives there doth lay hid, not only a positive but an infinite Perfection, and what is infi­nite, must needs be single; you see still the Perfection is a single Perfection. And when the Perfection of Go [...] is declared per viam eminentiae, as the Schooles speak, by attributing all Perfection which we find in the Creatures unto God, after we have removed all imperfection, we say the perfection Attribu­ta illa quoad rem significa­tam magis proprie Deo quam creaturis attribuun­tur; acci­piendo au­tem per­fectiones Attribu­tales prosignis vel concepti­bus▪ per­fectionem significāt, sed imper­fecto mo­do significant, & proinde modus significandi creatu [...] is proprie conv [...]nit, perfectio significata Deo convenit, sed secundum modum Eminentiorem. Vide Th, pag. 1. quaest. 13. art. 2. 3. 6. Zanch. de Naturâ Dei. cap. 8. quaest. 3. signified is most perfectly and properly in God; but the manner of signi­fying of that Perfection by Attributes taken from the Creatures, doth somewhat rellish of that imperfection, which is in the Creature; and therefore we say such Attri­butes in respect of the imperfect manner of signifying do not clearly hold forth that single and infinite Perfection which is in God; Hence it is that reverend Divines have laid down so many rules as Cautions to direct us in this weightie point.

1. A finite and compounded under­standing cannot apprehend the glorious perfection of a single and infinite Es­sence, but by distinct proprieties or Attri­butes.

[Page 116] 2. The Essential Attributes are all of them common to all the three Persons of the Godhead, and to them Omnes proprieta tes Dei nō possunt creaturis communi­cari, quia sic multi­plicaretur ess [...]n ia: necali­quae, quia sic divide­retur. onely.

3. These Essential Attributes are not di­stinguished from the Divine Essence, but are the very Divine Essence or Godhead it self.

4. All these Essential Attributes are in­finite and eternal, because they are the in­finite and eternal Essence of God.

5. These Essential Attributes doAttribu­ta Divina non di­stinguun­tur actualiter in reipsa, neque à Dei Essentiâ neque inter se, quia perfectio Divina est simplici [...]er infinita. vide Irenaeum l. 2. contr. haeres. cap. 8. Iust. Mart. q. 144. August. de Civ. Dei l. 12. cap. 2. Hen. quodlibet. l. 5. q. 1. Durand. Ocham. in 1. d. 2. q. 2. not differ from one another, because the Es­sence of God is single, uncompounded, un­divided, indivisible, and one of these Attri­butes doth Essentially praedicate of the other. The power, wisdom, goodnesse of God, are single, eternal, immutable, in­finite.

6. These Essential Attributes do differ from one another,The Emi­nent Di­stinction [...]f Divine At­tributes. onely according to our weak apprehension; for our finite and compounded understanding not being able to comprehend what is single and infinite, doth frame different conceits of the pro­perties of God, according to the different objects and effects of these Attributes. Now because our understanding doth ground all its conceits upon the several [Page 117] Objects and Effects of these Attributes,Plures e­nim sunt conceptus objectivi virtualiter distincti qui re­spondent pluribus concepti­bus forma­libus rea­liter di­stinctis. Concep­tus autem objectivi non sunt varii reali­ter, actu, in se, sed eminenter & virtua­liter in ef­fectibus distincti. we say, the Difference is not purely Ra­tional, or a meer fiction of reason, but we call it a virtual or eminent Distinction, framed by reason upon the grounds afore­said, for the help of our weak understand­ings. For we must consider, that this Vir­tual Distinction is not aPerfe­ctiones omnes creatura­rum qua­tenus sunt in Deo nihil aliud sunt, quam ipsamet creatrix Essentia Dei. Vide August. lib. 4. Gen. ad lit. cap. 24. lib. 4. de Trinitate. Anselm. Monolog. cap. 34. 35. Real Distinction; because it doth not import, that the At­tributes of God are actually many, or real­ly different; but it signifies, that the infinite Essence of God doth eminently contain all real Perfections which are many indeed in the Creatures; but all Perfection in God is but one single and infinite Perfection, which single and infinite Perfection in re­gard of itsDeus solâ & suâ eminenti virtute omnes creatas perfectiones creaturis communicat, & quicquid est perfectionis in creaturis eminen [...]er continet. eminency, and our weaknesse cannot be expressed by one single Act, or by one Formal and adaequate Conceit of ours, because we do apprehend things ac­cording to those several Objects about which they are exercised, and those several Effects which are by their Virtue and In­fluence really produced. NowNullus effectus est infinitus, & proinde nullus effectu [...] est Divinae Virtuti adaequatus. no Effect in the world is adaequate to the infinite Vir­tue [Page 118] and eminent Perfection of the Divine Nature, and therefore we cannot appre­hend the eminent and infinite Virtue of the Divine Nature, but by considering of those many Objects and manifold Effects in the world, which do all represent the eminent and infinite Virtue of the Divine Nature; and hence it is that we call it a virtual and eminent Distinction, whereas indeed it is rather an Eminence Em [...]nens & v [...]rtual [...] dist [...]nctio in [...]e, non est distin­ctio sed eminentia; est [...]amen respectu nostricon cipiendi virtutem eminen­tem se­cundum distinctos respectus ad diversa obj [...]cta & effectus distinctos. then a Distinction, be­cause the Divine Nature doth eminently contain all Perfection in its infinite Perfe­ction, and the Divine Virtue doth mani­fest it self upon diff [...]rent Objects and va­rious Effects; and therefore our weak un­derstanding frames different concei [...]s of it according to those different Objects and Effects, and consequently gives so many different Attributes to God. And God hath so far condescended to our weakness in Scripture, as to declare his single Perfe­ction by several names and Attributes, an­swerable to those different Objects and Effects, in which the eminent and infinite Virtue of God doth gloriously shine throughout the world. I have insisted long upon this virtual and eminent Di­stinction, that I might by so many several expressions beat this grand Mysterie into the heads of the meanest Christians.

7. When one Attribute of God is ab­stractly considered from the rest of the [Page 119] Attributes,All the At­tributes are inclu­ded in e­very Attri­bute. that Abstraction must be purely Praecisive, not Exclusive; I must not con­sider Gods Iustice alone, so as to exclude his mercie, or any other of the Divine Attributes, from being comprehended within the single and undivided Perfection of the Divine Es­sence. When the Justice of God is consi­dered abstractly, and the Abstraction is purely praecisive,Q [...]od­libet attri­butum di­vinum est infinitum simplici­ter in genere en­ [...]is, & pro­inde essen­ [...]iam divi­nam & re­liqua o­mnia Es­sentialia Attributa [...] in suâ Es­sentiali ratione in­cludit. Vide Caie­tan. de en­te & essen­tiâ, cap. 6. quaest. 12. Communi­cable At­tributes. all the Attributes of God are at least implicitely included within the abstract Consideration of Divine Justice; for Divine Justice is Essential Justice, infinite Justice; God is just by his Essence, not by any Virtue, or good qualitie; and he that is just by his Essence, is perfectly just, infinitely just; you see that infinite Perfe­ction is implyed, and infinite Perfection is Essentially all Perfection, and therefore all the other Attributes of God are implyed, when I do consider one single Attribute within an Abstraction purely praecisive; for there is the same reason of all other At­tributes of God; because God is essen­tially good, wise, mercifull, &c. as well as just.

8. The Attributes which are called Communicable Attributes, are as truly the single and undivided Essence of God, as those Attributes, which we call incommu­nicable; for if we speak properly and strictly, no attribute of God can be com­municated to a Creature, any more then [Page 120] the Divine Essence it self, Isa. 42. 8. Matth. 19. 17. 1. Tim. 1. 17. For all the Attributes of God are his Name, his Per­fection, his Glorie, his Essence, his God­head; and if any of the Attributes were communicated, the Essence of God must be multiplied, divided, or distracted from it self; The communicable Attributes are infinite, and there cannot be more infinites then one, and therefore they must all si­gnifie one single and infinite Perfection. For if any of the Attributal Perfections were finite, then the Perfection of God would be made up of manyPerfe­ctio sim­plex & in­finita non est ex multis & finitis per­fectioni­bus con­flata. finite Perfe­ctions; and God would not bePerfe­ctiones quae sunt in creatu­ris distin­ctae sunt in Deo sim­pliciter & unitè; perfectio enim divina est infinita, & proinde simplex & uniciss [...]ma. infinitely perfect in himself, of himself, and by him­self, but by some finite Perfections super­added to his Essence, which is utterly re­pugnant to the single and infinite Perfe­ction of God. Yet true it is, that some Attributes of God are said to be commu­nicable byQuicquid est perfectionis in creaturis Deo attribuitur, salva Analogiâ quae inter Deum & creaturam perfectissimam semper intercedit. Perfectio creata ut sicnon est Formaliter in Deo seclusis imperfectionibus creaturae; nam seclusâ omni imperfectione non remanet Formalis perfectio creaturae ut sic. Vide Suar. Metaph. Disp. 30. Analogical Accommodation, not in respect of the properties themselves, which are all infinite, but in respect of the Effects of those properties; there is some­thing in the Creature by the bountie of our Creatour, and Grace of our Redeemer, which [Page 121] doth after a weak manner resemble the Per­fection of God, and therefore we are said to be partakers of the Divine Nature, 2. Pet. 1. 4. when we bear the image of God in righteousnesse and holinesse of truth.Nomen Analogum nullā na­turā com­munem rebus A­nalogis si­gnificat. For we are still to remember that God is to be known per viam eminentiae, when we make an Eminent Distinction be­tween one Divine Attribute and another, or ascribe any of the Perfections which are found in the Creatures by way of Attri­butal Perfection unto God. ForIn his quae non mole ma­gna sunt idem est majus esse, quo [...] me­lius esse. Aug. Tri­nit. lib. 6. cap. 8. God is not great in quantity, or good by a qualitie, but by his own infinite Essence. We must remove all imperfection from God, that we may know him per viam negationis; and therefore we say mercie and goodness are notNulla perfectio creata est in Deo Formaliter secundum adaequa­tam ratio­nem quam habet in creaturâ, sed eminenter tantùm, quia imperfectio in­cluditur in intrinseca ratione & conceptu creaturae; S [...]pientia creat [...] est accidens, Sapientia creata est finita, & imperfecta. Perfectio itaque est in Deo Formaliter secundum proprium conceptum Dei. accidents in God, his understanding and his will are not faculties, his anger and hatred are not passions, his many Attri­butes are but one single Perfection; the Perfections which are in the Creature are imperfect, but the Perfection of God is in­finite. Finally we must consider God as the cause of all Perfection in the Creature, that we may know him per Viam Causali­tatis.

[Page 122] These grounds being laid, let us consider what great difference there doth to ou [...] weak understanding appear to be between the Divine Attributes, whether they be compared with the Divine Nature, or with one another, and yet that indeed and truth there is no real difference between the At­tributes and the Divine Nature, or be­tween the Divine Attributes themselves, and we shall more easily conceive what great difference there is between the Fa­ther, Son and holy Ghost without any Es­sential difference between them.

The holy Scriptures speaking to our weak capacitie, describe God and his At­tributes after such a distinct manner to us, that we cannot but conceive, that there is some ground even in the word of God for this virtual andDistin­ctio non est Pura fed emi­nens, quia formatur & funda­tur in ver­bo Dei quod di­stinctè de iis loqui­tur ad captum nostrum. D. Alting. Problem. part. 1. Pr [...]b. 10. pag. 49. D. Voet. pag. de unica & simplicissi­mâ Dei Essentia. Vide. Wallaeum. Gomarum. eminent Distinction be­tween the Attributes, as will-be most evi­dent to any that observe the usual phrase and language of the Scriptures in these and the like places, Exod. 34. 6. 7. 1. Tim. 1. 17. Psal. 103. 8. 9. 10. 1. Tim. 6. 15. 16. But it is as clear that God doth herein gra­tiously condescend to our weakness, be­cause we know that the Divine Nature is [Page 123] [...]ngle, and infinite, and therefore doth con­ [...]ain in it all Actual Perfection eminently, [...]nd allDeus est ex seipso Ens essen­tialiter summe perfectum & proinde ess [...]n [...]ia di­vina inclu­di [...]omnem possibilem per [...]ectio­nem; nam perfectio­nes illae, quae sunt in Deotan­t [...]m emi­nenter pro­ut in ipso, sunt For­malissime de conce­ptu Essen­tiali Dei. Vide Sua­rez. Met. Disp. 30. Sect. 6. [...]dcir [...]o ne quae [...]amus qui sit, cū sit omnia, & super omnia, & p [...]aeter [...]m­nia, [...]. Vide Iul. [...] calig. Exercitat. 365. p. 2. de D [...]o. possible Perfection both singly and [...]ctually, because all true and pure Perfe­ction is most Formally included in the Na­ [...]ure and Essence of God; and therefore this eminent Distinction grounded on the Phrase of Scripture, and upon visible Ob­ [...]ects and Effects, gives us no ground at all [...]o conceive, that the Divine Nature is not one single infinite perfection, because the Scripture speaks distinctly of God, and of his several Attributes, only to teach us to apprehend the impartible perfection of God by degrees rather then parts, because we cannot apprehend it altogether. Our conceits of God are inadaequate, and collected by way of Analogy from the perfection of the creatures; but we must consider that what the creatures do performe by many and di­stinct qualities and acts, God doth performe by his owne Essence which is one most single▪ and most pure act. And therefore we con­clude that this distinction is not really grounded upon God himself, upon his Na­ture, or Essence, but upon the Effects of God. The objective conceits or things conceived, are not really or actually diffe­rent in themselves, but virtually and [...]mi­nently in the several Effects, Egresses, Ter­minations of Gods eminent vertue, and [Page 124] single power, which is every way bound­lesse and infinite, and therefore never works according to its full and adaequate vertue. TheHanc di­stinctionē vocant ra­tionis rati­ocinatae virtualem aut Emi­n [...]ntem. Nonnulli autem di­stinctionē appellant ex Natura Rei Forma­lem, non Actu, sed virtute, aut Emi­nenter. Vi­de sis Rha­dam Con­trovers. in­ter Tho­mam & Sco­tum part. 1. Contro. 4. Scotists do indeed seeme to say more, because they say that this distin­ction of the Attributes is Formall and ex natura Rei; but then they come off againe in their explication of these termes, and say that their meaning is that they are di­stinguished Formally, not Actually, but Virtually and Eminently, and therefore we meane the same thing. For the divine Essence is not only a single Quicquid in Deo est essentiale unum est: à primâ autem unitate omnis differentia, omnisque numerus abesse debet▪ Unity, but the first Unity, which is uncapable of any dif­ference or number whatsoever; only we cannot by aPluribus conceptibus Formalibus inadae quatis realiter de­stinctis unam eandémque essentiam simplicissimam divisim vel potius gradatim concipimus. Conceptus autem ejusmodi Ana­logicè desumimus à rebus creatis, quae per multas distinctas­que qualitates praestant ea, quae essentia divina per se. single act comprehend Gods single perfection, because our understand­ing is finite, and his perfection is infinite.

But it will be said that the Attributes of God have to our apprehension not only different, but contrary effects: the Justice of God doth punish, and the mercy of God doth spare.

[Page 125] The answer is easie:The justice of God is not contra­ry to the mercy of God. the Effects are to our apprehension contrary, nay they are contrary in themselves, but the Attributes are not contrary; for the Attributes do both belong to the same God, nay they are the same God; and these Attributes do not overthrow, but preserve one another. Now we readily grant that the Effects are real­ly different, nay contrary; but we deny that the Attributes of Justice and Mercy are really different, or contrary in them­selves.

Finally, we grant, that according to our manner of apprehension, it is very impro­per to say that the Attribute of Gods mer­cy is the Attribute of his Punitive Iustice, because the termes are here taken in Istae pro­positiones falsae sunt in sensu Formali quae signi­ficant ali­quid Deo convenire secundum eam rati­onem se­cundum quam verè non convenit; ex. gr. misericordia divina punit, justitia divi­na miseretur: attributum Justitiae punitivae est attributum misericordiae: intelligere est velle: voluntas intelligit: in­tellectus vult, voluntas est intellectus. Verae autem sunt istae proposi [...]iones in sensu Identico acceptae, quia essentia divina est simplicissima, & proinde res illa quae est vo­luntas intelligit; res illa quae est misericordia punit. Vi­de D. Vo [...]tium. Select. Disput. p. 1. de unicâ & simplicissima Dei essentia. sen­su formali, as we use to speak, and there­fore that manner of predication is impro­per; yet if you take the termes in sensu i­dentico, the thing is true, because Mercy and Justice are the same thing, the same Essence. We may say that the same God, the same Essence, which is mercy it selfe, [Page 126] doth punish; but it is very improper and absurd to say that God doth forgive by his punitive Iustice, because God who speaks distinctly of his own: Attributes in his word, that he might help our weak under­standing, will not give us leave to speak so confusedly of his glorious Attributes, as to puzzle the understanding of our weak bre­thren.

What I have said concerning the Justice and Mercy of God, might Consideratis con­siderandis, be applyed to his other Attri­butes; and I might discourse in like man­ner concerning the understanding and will of God, concerning the Acts and Decrees of God, and enquire whether they are di­stinct from the Essence of God? that so we may the better understand the distinction which is between the Divine Subsistences and the Divine Essence, by comparing the Divine Attributes, Acts, Decrees, Subsi­stences and Essence altogether; but I shall be brief in that.

IX. The Decrees of God,The De­crees of God. which we, ac­cording to our weak apprehension, are apt to conceive as many, are but one single and Deus in seipso sem­per agit in­tellectu & voluntate ut purus Actus.pure Act in God; nay, to speak strictly, they are nothing else butDe actionibus Dei quas Decreta vocamus rotundè dici­mus, Decreta Dei secundum perfectionem quam dicunt in Deo esse necessaria, aeterna & essentialia. Decreta autem quo­ad speciem, terminationem & extensionem ad externa esse libe­ra, nec deo estentialia esse, nec ipsum Deum. Voluntas enim divina liberè terminatur ad creaturas sine ullâ sui mutatione, vel reali additione; accedit autem externa quaedam denomina­tio, & respectus rationis ex parte Dei in ipso decreto jam libe­rè terminato fundatus, ex parte creaturae in ipsa futuritione seu existentia illius. God himself de­creeing; for the Divine Essence is one pure and single Act. In Deo non distinguuntur Esse [Page 127] Posse & Operari, The Decrees and Acts of God, his knowing, willing, &c. are not many in their owne Absolute nature, for they are the Nature of God considered as a pure and Vital Act; and hence it is that we say the Decrees of God (in their Absolute Nature, or as they are considered with re­ference to Gods owne uncreated truth and goodnesse) are all Essentiall and Necessary, they did not begin to be, they cannot cease to be; God did not begin to know or love himselfe, he cannot cease to know his owne Almighty power, or to love his owne uncreated goodnesse.

The Decrees of God upon this account, and in this consideration, are not capable ofVoluntas & volitio divina una est & sim­plex; nec multipli­citatē aut divisionem & distracti­onem, ne­dum oppositionem, nec prius & posterius aut successionem, nec dependentiam causalitatis & effectus aut cujuscunque al­terius ordinis admittens; haec autem omnia rebus volitis com­petere possunt; res autem volitae à voluntate & volitione divin [...] realissimè & infinitè distinguuntur; de rebus enim externis li­bere volitis loquimur. Vide Maccovium Miscell. qu. Disp. 17. 20. 23, 24, 25, 26. Voetium. ubi supra. multipicity, or division, opposition or succession, dependance or order. For here is nothing but one pure, vitall, eternal, un­changable Act, which is God himselfe, knowing and loving of himselfe for him­selfe. Take it all thus in brief, in a few short conclusions.

[Page 128] I 1. God is a Pure Act, The Acts of God. and therefore he cannot butActus divini con­siderati se­cundum id sunt, quod nil differūt ab essentia divina, & proinde nulla est in illis vel mutatio, vel libertas, sed summa necessitas. Sicut enim Deus non potest non esse, sic neque potest non velle, non intellige­re. Imo actus divini considerati secundum respectum quem di­cunt ad objectum Primum ac principale, ad ipsissimam nimi­rum Dei essentiam, sunt etiam necessarii; quia Deus non potest non essentiam suam scire, & tanquam summum bonum amare. Act vitally; Vitall acts consi­dered with out refe­rence to a­ny object. he must needs un­derstand, and will; here is no such Liberty or Mutability as Vorstius dreamt of, op­posed to unchangable necessity; for as God cannot cease to be because he is the first, ne­cessary and Independent Being, and his necessity of being speaks his infinite per­fection: so he cannot cease to Act, because he is a pure Act; he must needs act vi­tally, who is life it selfe; he must needs know and will because he is the best life, and pu­rest Act; and this necessity speaks his pu­rity and perfection also.

II 2. If this Pure and vitall Act be consi­dered with reference to Gods owne Es­sence,Vital Acts considered with refe­rence to Gods Es­sence. they cannot be distinguished, be­cause Gods Essence is a PureVita di­vina est in­tellectu, volunta­te, & po­tentiâ a­ctuosa. Deus no­vit seipsū ut primum & infinitū objectum, amat seip­sum necessariò, necessitate naturae, sed absque coactione, quia non potest nolle gloriam suam, aut seipsum negare. Act. The self-same divine Essence is both the Act, and [Page 129] Object in these immanent Actions, which do not passe out of God towards, and there­fore have no relation at all to, or denomi­nation from, anyActus immanentes nullum dicunt respectum ad, quia non transeunt in objectum externum. external, Object. God doth know and will all things within him­self naturally, and necessarily; it's his nature to love himself; here is no distinction ima­ginable.

3. Personal Acts (such as the begetting III of the Son,Personal Acts. and breathing forth of the Spi­rit) are not arbitrary, but necessary and na­tural Acts, and therefore aeternal; now acts that are absolutely necessaryActus Personales sunt aeter­ni, & pro­inde horū est absolu­ta necessi­tas absque potentiâ ad oppo­situm. sine potentiâ ad oppositum, as we use to say, being natu­ral and aeternal, are nothing else but God acting in, and by some one or more of the three Divine Subsistences. Nothing that is eternal can be out of God, and there is no­thing in God that is not God, and therefore I need say no more of those Personal Acts in this place, because I am to treat of them at large in the very next Chapter.

4. The Intrinsecal Acts of God which IV do connote some habitude and respect to some thing that is out of the Godhead, Intrinsecal Acts consi­dered with reference to extrinse­cal Objects. are the will of God, or the Essence of God considered after the manner of an Act of [Page 130] his will, Esentiâ ex se actuosa (as the Schooles speak) concepta per modum actus volendi. If this Act be considered in it self, it is nothing else but the will or Es­sence of God, because it is an intrinsecal Actus intrinseci in Deo connotan­tes respe­ctum ad extra sunt ipsa Essen­tia Dei concepta per modum actus, sed relativi, & quidem ad extra. Omnia e­nim novit Deus quae sunt extra se, substan­tias, & ac­cidentia. Gen. 1. 31. Universa­lia, & sin­gularia, Psal. 33. 13 14. Iob c. 1 & cap. 2. Magna & parva. Matth. 6. 25. bona & mala. Psal. 33. 15. Ge­nes. 6. 5. interna & externa. Matth. 6. 4. praeterita. Isa. 38. 3. futura. Isa. 41. 23. praesentia: possibilia denique 1. Sam. 23. 11. & impossibilia. Tit. 1. 2. Omnia etiam liberè vult extra se, quaecunque nimirum statuit vel permittere vel producere; non enim quicquid potest facit.and vitall Act. But now if this Act be considered as Relative, and as related to some thing that is out of God; we say this Act is not necessary, but free in respect of all those things which God decrees to pro­duce or permit in the World; for God doth Arbitrarily decree to permit or pro­duce this, and not that, according to the Counsel of his own will, it being as truly and fully in his power to permit or pro­duce that, as this: both were alike possible, but this is made future, and will in the full­nesse of time be present in Act by virtue of the free decree of God; for all Creatures are produced and do exist by the will of God. It is most evident that the will of God is the same whether it act upon himself or something that is out of the Godhead.

V 5. The Relation which is between the will of God,Extrinsecal Relations. and the Creature, whe­ther [Page 131] in futurition, or existence, is extrin­secal.

6. The Denominations grounded upon VI the termination,Extrinse­cal Deno­minations. or relation of the will of God towards the Creatures, is extrinsecal also.

7. These Actions of God which are VII said to be rather from God,Extrinse­cal Actions. then inActus excrinseci s [...]nt a Deo effectivè, non sunt in Deo Subjectivé [...] God, as to create, govern, redeeme or the like, are called extrinsecal, and therefore the Denomination of God from them must needs be extrinsecal.

8. We have no ground to conceive that VIII the Essence of God is compounded with extrinsecal Terminations,The single Essence. Relations, or Denominations.

9. Though the Objects which God doth IX will are very different,Necessitie and Liber­tie. and their produ­ction is successive, yet the will of God is the self same, and is one single and pure Act: the Power of willing and the Act of willing are not distinct in God; nay God doth will his own happinesse necessarily, and the happinesse of men and Angels freely by the same will; [...] natu­rale & [...] liberum nō constituūt diversas potentias in Deo. necessity and li­berty do not make distinct Powers or wills in God.

10. There is no Potentia Executiva in X God,No Poten­tia Execu­tiva in God. and therefore all those conceits of Vorstius concerning any Change or Com­position [Page 132] in God by several Acts or decrees are but meer dreames, and vain conceits, though they be now published to the World, not with less blasphemic then im­pudence in this licentious age.

It is evident by what hath been said that the eminent Virtue of God (notwith­standing its several Objects, Egresses, Terminations, Relations, Denominati­ons and Effects) is one single and infinite Perfection. This will be the constant re­sult and Conclusion of all sober debates, and Christian discussions. For if the Per­fection of God be not single, then it must be compounded: but it cannot be com­pounded either of things that are finite, or of things that are infinite; the Perfe­ction of God cannot be compounded of finite things, because it is infinite; for many nay all finite things cannot make up one infinite; and God cannot be com­pounded of many infinite things, because there can be but one thing thats infinite, and that is God. And therefore since Gods Perfection is his Essence, and his Essence is single, uncompounded, undivided, indivi­sible, it must needs follow that what­soever is in God, is God, and God is (as hath been often shewen) one single infinite Per­fection. This is our first Principle, and last Conclusion into which all our debates, and by which all our doubts about this [Page 133] Argument may and ought to be re­solved.

X. The Distinction between the Di­vine Nature and Persons may be consi­dered,The Distin­ction be­tween the Divine Na­ture and Persons.

1. In respect of predication; the Di­vine Essence is predicated of every Person, because every one of the three Subsistences is God, nay is the Divine Nature consi­dered with this or that Personal Propriety and Relation respectively. But one Per­son is not predicated of another, the Fa­ther is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father, or the holy Ghost.

2. In respect of Communication, the Divine Nature is not onely communicable but communicated to all three Persons; but it is of the Formal Reason of a Per­son to be incommunicable.

3. In respect of Relation. The Di­vine Nature doth indeed eminently con­taine all absolute and relative Perfection; but the Formal Distin­ctio in Deo nasci­tur ex re­lationibus pr opriis sive perso­nalibus quales sunt pa­ternitas, filiatio, spi­ratio, pro­cessio; quaedam enim rela­tiones sunt omnibus personis communes quales sunt Identitas fundata super Vnitatem Essentiae, simi­litudo fundata super Vnitatem Attributorum, & aequalitas fun­data super unitatem magnitudinis. Relations whereby the Persons are not onely distinguished from, but opposed to one another, cannot be Es­sential under that consideration, because they are peculiar to the several Persons, and not common to all three Persons, as the Essence and Nature is. Peculiar and distinctive Relations are not essential, be­cause the Persons who are relatively di­stinguished, are not essentially distin­guished. [Page 134] The Divine Nature of the Fa­ther is Essentia & paternitas virtute & eminenter Formalem distinctionem continent, quia ita se habent ac si Formaliter distinguerentur. not his Father-hood: for if it were, then every one of the three Persons would be God the Father, all three Persons would be one Person, which is a manifest Contra­diction.

4. In respect of Generation and Pro­cession; the Divine Essence doth not beget, nor is it be gotten, it doth not proceed; and yet the Father doth beget, the Son is begotten, and the holy Ghost doth pro­ceed; the Person of Christ is begotten, but his Divine Nature unbegotten.

5, In respect of number; the Persons are three, the Divine Nature most simply sin­gle, and singularly one.

6. In respect of Order; there is an Or­der to be observed amongst the Divine Persons; the Father is the first Personal Principle, the Son the second, and the ho­ly Ghost who is breathed forth by the Fa­ther, and the Son, is the third; the Scri­pture saith there are three, and doth com­monly reckon them in that Order; and we have no ground to reckon the holy Ghost before the Son because he proceeds [Page 135] from the Son; but the Divine Nature being a single Vnitie, and the first Vnitie, is as uncapable of Order as it is of Number.

XI. Notwithstanding all these and some other distinct Considerations, I shall be bold to make this Peremptorie Determination; The three Divine Sub­sistences are not really distinguished from the Divine Nature, or Essence. The Scrip­ture saith, Christ and his Father areEgo & Paterun [...] sumus nempe [...]s­sentiâ, Po­tentiâ & Gloriâ. Er­go Chri­stus dedu­ [...]it fidem nostram ad hoc fundamen­tum, [...]mi­rum ut ip­se sit unus cum Patre Deus—necesle habemus ut videa­mus in Christo Deitatem, in facie ejus per­sonam Patris, cum sit Character Personae ipsius; in facie ejus gloriam Dei, cum sit splendor gloriae ipsius: in manu ipsius manum & potentiam Patris; denique in illo [...]otam Dei Patris majestatem. Rolloc. in Ioh. 10. 30. one, Ioh. 10. 30. and that all three are one, 1. Iohn 5. 7. Essentially one, and therefore really one. I have said enough above to prove all three Persons to be essentially one. The three Persons are one God sub­sisting with all possible Perfection, Relative as well Absolute in one pure Act ex parte Rei. The three Divine Persons do not differ from the Divine Nature, as an hu­mane Person doth from the humane Na­ture singularly considered: for a singu­lar humane Nature may be separated from an humane Person as is evident in the In­carnation of our Lord and Saviour. But the Divine Nature cannot subsist in alieno supposito; the Nature of God cannot sub­sist in any other or any fewer then these three Persons, who are one and the same [Page 136] God; And therefore the Divine Nature doth not differ really from the Persons, tanquam res à re, as we say, nor tanquam res à modo separabili; they do not differ really either way; nor do the Persons dif­fer really, that is realiter separabiliter from one another, as shall be proved, when we come to speak of the Distinction of the Divine Persons in the next Chapter.

XII. The Distinction between the Di­vine Nature and three Divine Subsistences is not a groundlesse Conceit or a meer fiction of reason, because it is grounded on the Credi­mus tres esse H [...]po­stases no­bis in Scripturâ significa­tas per nomina quae rela­tionem si­gnificant. Non est enim Pa­ter nisi Fi­lii, nec Fi­lius nisi Patris, nec Spiritus nisi Spi­rantis. Itaque relationes quidem ipsas habemus in divinis literis. Chami [...]r. de Canon [...] lib. 9. cap. 10.Word of God. For our apprehension of God must be agreeable to that Divine Revelation, which God hath vouchsafed us of himself in Scripture. Now it is most clear and evident, by what hath been said in this whole Discourse, that the holy Scriptures teach us to conceive distinctly of some things in God, which are not re­ally distinguished in him. And therefore Mr. Fry may do well to consider, and retract that rash Censure which he passes upon this Doctrine of God, when he saith that the Doctrine of three distinct Persons or Subsistences in the Godhead is a chaffie, grosse, Carnal and absurd Opinion, in the Title and 22. page of his blasphemous book; For this distinction is not onely [Page 137] grounded on aHaec di­stinctio ha­bet funda­mentum non tantum in effect is aut phraseologiâ Scripturae, quia fuit ab aeterno. Nam ab aeterno Essentia fuit non tantùm Com­municabilis sed Communicata, persona autem incommunica­bilis; persona filii, genita, essentia ingenita. Phrase of Scripture, but is eternal.

XIII. The Distinction between the Divine Nature and Persons is an Eminent distinction; I have told you above, what we mean by that expression. The Persons are the Essence of God, and not any thing se­parated or divided from it; every one of the three Persons is a Person of the God­head, nay every one of the three Persons is the Godhead considered with some par­ticular property and relation; and the Godhead being absolutely single, we must conclude that the Divine Nature and a Di­vine Person is the same Essentiall Reall thing, though they are Eminently distin­guished by sundry considerations, as hath been shewen.

But it is objected that every one of the three Persons is a Substance,The grand objection. and if there be three substances subsisting in the Godhead under sundry Formal considerations, then there will be three Divine Substances, three Substantial Relations and Properties, and therefore the Godhead will be compounded by these three Substances, substantial pro­perties and relations, or else there will be [Page 138] three substantiall and formall Gods.

To this grand objection, I make these few returns by way of answer.

1. Every one of the three Persons is a Sub­stance, a Divine Substance,The An­swer. but they are the same Divine Substance, because they are the same God: these three are one, they are unum, one divine substance, one God; they are all three divine Persons, but they are Coessentiall Persons, and [...]. Inessentiall per­sons of the same Godhead.

II II. The peculiar relations do distinguish, but they do not compound, Peculiar Relations do destin­guish, but not com­pound. for they do not su­per add any new Entity, much lesse any new Godhead, because all these relations are Na­tural, eternal, and therefore they are God; Absolute and Relative perfection in God, are but one single perfection.

1. The parts or extremes wherewith a­ny thing is compounded must be really, Compositiô described by its seve­rall requi­sites. or at least Modally and Separably distinct; for all created Natures and Persons being com­pounded, are not only Modally, but sepa­rably distinct.

2. The parts compounding must be uni­ted by someQuae actuex na­turâ rei di­stinguuntur, non possunt inter se uniri nisi per actionem causae efficientis: nulla autem causa essiciens prior Deo est; ergo. efficient cause, and one of the parts must be a meere power or passive [Page 139] potentiality, that is capable of farther per­fection; and the other an Act to make that powerEssentia in creatis est divisi­bilis & per­fectibilis; persona enim creata actuat et perficit essentiam perfectibilem; personalitates autem increatae non sunt actus naturae divinae ut sic & praecise consideratae eam perficientes vel informantes. perfect and complete.

3. There must be by vertue of this union and perfection some dependance, multi­plicity and change. Now it is clear that the nature of God in which the persons subsist is not capable of these imperfections; for,

1. There are no compounding parts in God.

2. The persons are not made one per­son by their Inessentiali subsistence, but remaine three distinct Persons.

3. The Persons are not separably di­stinct from the divine nature, or from one another.

4. The Persons do notEssentia in creatis est imperfe­ctae actua­litatis & proinde perfectibi­lis. Essen­tia autem divina non habet se ad modum potentiae perfectibilis, nec persona divina ad modum actus naturam divinam infinitam simplicissimam per­ficientis. Ratio quidditativa, & ratio Relativa in Deo tan­quam diversae rationes Formales à nobis concipiuntur, sed am­bae illae rationes Formales sunt in Deo secundum ultim [...]m uni­tatem & actualitatem propriam. Nihil enim perficit essentiam divinam in actu quidditativo praeter ipsissimam essentiam; ni­hil perficit personam in esse Personali praeter propriam Subsi­stentiam, nihil perficit personam in esse Relativo praeter pro­priam relationem: Pater per ipsam paternitatem perficitur in esse Relativo. perfect the di­vine nature, for it is infinitely perfect of it selfe, and the three Persons are by ver­tue of the same divine Essence Essentially the same God, and really one, as hath been laid. The divine nature is not like a created nature, which is (imperfectae actualitatis as we say) so imperfectly actuated, as that it [Page 140] is capable of farther perfection; for the divine nature hath no weak, imperfect, de­fective, Passive Potentiality in it, and there­fore cannot be contracted, determined, actu­ated by any personal properties or relati­ons. If God be Essentially considered, he hath a singular existence of himselfe by his owne Essence, and hath most perfect uni­ty and quidditative or Essential Actuality, because his Essence is the most perfect Es­sence that is, or can be. If God be Perso­sonally considered, he hath the most per­fect personality that is, or can be, and every person hath a perfect, proper and peculiar subsistence, which is not capable of any far­ther perfection in Esse Personali. Every person is complete in Esse quidditativo per essentiam, in esse Personali per propriam sub­sistentiam. I need say no more on that Ar­gument, because I have upon severall occa­sions said so much already.

III. The Essence of God is not multi­plyed by sundry considerations of the same Essence.

[Page 141] IV. The three Formall considerations are not In Deo est essentia & tres re­lationes, sed non sunt tres essentiae relativae. Propri [...]ta. tes personales praecisè & formaliter sumptae non uniuntur in­ter se, & in se: nam unio in & cum essentiâ est in aliquo tertio. Essentiall, but Personall considerations, and we grant that there are three Formall Persons in, and of the Godhead; but it will not follow from thence that there are three Gods, for these three Persons are one God.

V. A. divine Person may be presented to our most serious thoughts under a three-fold consideration, as learnedVide Ju­nium con­tra Bellar­minum, Controv. 2. lib. 1. Praefat. Ut res planior sit, id praemittendum est perso­nae considerandae triplicem rationem esse; Communem in essen­tiâ quà Deus est: Singularem Absolutam in Persona quà sub­sistit in unitate Essentiae; & Relativam in distinctione & ordine personae unius ad alteram. Iunius ob­serves.

1. The first consideration of a Person is Common or Essentiall, because the same divine Essence is common to all three Persons; when a Person then is consider­ed as God, we call this an Essentiall or Common consideration, because the per­sons areRatione Commu­nis Deita­tis & com­munium essentiali­umque attributorum, nulla distinctio cogitari debet, sed tantùm ratione Personae & proprietatum personalium. no way distinguished under this first consideration, but are one thing, the choycest and chiefest of things, and are one [Page 142] with the most single and singular kind of unity: Father, Son and [...]pirit are one Je­hovah, one God and the same God.

2. The second consideration is Personall, and yet Essentia notat naturam divi­nam cum proprieta­tibus com­munibus: Persona notat natu­ram divi­nam cum proprietati bus dist in­ctivis, si­ve istae proprieta­tes sint Ab­solutae, si­ve sint Re­lativae; ha­bere sub­sistentiam à seest quid Absolutū: [...] est quid Positivum Nomen autem Personae, nomen Relativum communiter dicitur ori­ginationis aut originis respectum includens, quo Pers [...]na di­vina à se, vel ab aliâ subsistentiam habere significatur. Habere autem subsistentiam à se, quantum m [...]hi videtur non dicit respectum ad aliud, vel alium. Absolute, whereby the person is con­sidered as subsisting in the Vnity of the di­vine Essence. This consideration is more singular, because every person hath its pro­per and peculiar subsistence; for the Father doth subsist of himselfe, but the Son hath subsistence from his Father; Now the self­subsistence of the Father is proper, peculiar, personall, that is, proper and peculiar to his person, and yet this self-subsistence is Abso­solute, for his self-subsistence is not his Fa­therhood, and therefore it cannot be esteemed Relative. But though this consideration is more singular, because every person hath his peculiar subsistence, yet herein all three persons agree, that they do all three subsist in the unity of the same Godhead, though every person hath his proper subsistence, & his peculiar way of subsisting; here are in­deed three subsistences under this conside­ration, and yet but one divine Substance, Essence, Nature, Godhead, because all three do subsist in theTres sunt in eadem naturâ divinâ indivisâ Coexistentiâ Coessentialiter subsi­stentes; tres enim personae inconfusè uniuntur & indivisè discernuntur. Vnity of the same God­head; [Page 143] for we must still keep our eye fixed upon that Text, These three are one.

3. The third Consideration is Relative in the order of one person to, and distinction of one Person from another. Est ali­quid in persona Ab solutum quod est Proprium, est aliquid in Deo re­lativum quod est Commu­ne. Iden­titas, simi­litudo, ae­qualitas, mutua praesentia personarum inter se propter incon­fusam in se mutuò comprehensionem, sunt relationes ad intra omnibus personis communes; relationes autē distinctivae sunt propriae. This distinction of persons is to be handled at large in the next chapter; our point in question here in this chapter doth not concerne the di­stinction of one person from another, but the distinction of all three persons from the divine Nature.

Now, they who speak most largely of the distinction between the persons, and say it is in some sense aOmnis distinctio essentialis est realis, sed omnis distinctio realis non est essenti­alis. D. Vo­etius. Reall distinction, do yet confesse that the reall distinction which they treat of is not Personae divinae non differunt realiter essentialiter, nec realiter separabiliter, sed proprietatibus realibus personalibus; tales autem sunt istae reales proprietates quae essentiae divinae non superaddunt no­vam entitatem. Vide D. Alting. Problem. X. Essentiall, and therefore still here is an Essentiall union of the three persons under all these three Consi­derations. We do still make much of that Text, and hold it fast for our direction and support, 1 Iohn 5. 7.

[Page 144] VI. This Argument will be best an­swered by shewing the vast difference be­tween created and uncreated persons, and I have with a great deale of patience wa­ded through all these perplex disputes, that I might make way for the clearing of this grand Mystery, and glad I am that I am now got within sight of it, though I have had as hard a passage as Hanibal had over or through the Alpes, and yet I have made my II way without fire, or vinegar.

II. Concerning the difference between created and uncreated persons,The diffe­rence be­tween cre­ated and uncreated Persons. we may ob­serve that

1. All created persons have a finite and dependent Nature.

2. They have a Compounded Nature.

3. They have a different Nature.7. Obser­vations concerning created Per­sons.

4. They have a different understanding, will, power.

5. They have a different place and pre­sence.

6. They have different Accidents, and are distinguished by an heap of Accidents.

7. Humane Persons with whom we are best acquainted, may differ in time also; one humane person may subsist a long time after another is dissolved.

Having laid down these Positions, let us now make the comparison, and observe the difference between created and uncre­ated persons.

[Page 145] 1. All created persons have a finite and dependent Nature,1. The infinite Nature of uncrea­ted Persons. but the nature of all uncreated persons is Independent and In­finite; this one difference is an infinite diffe­rence, The diffe­rence be­tween cre­ated and uncreated Persons is Infinite. and surely if there were no other difference, that wonld suffice to discover and overthrow all the Arguments of So­cinians and Familists. I do often admire that the acute Socinians who pretend to be wholly ruled by reason, should have no more reason in them then to argue after this absurd manner. Three humane per­sons are thus and thus distinguished, Er­go if there be three divine persons, they must be thus and thus distinguished also, even just as humane persons are. Is not this a grosse fallacyVide Na­zian, orat. de Spiritu Sancto. Damasc. or­thod. sid. lib. 3. c. 5. Athanas. Dialog. de Trinitate & in Mat. 11. Nazi­an. orat de pace Orat. 37, & 51., because of the impa­rity and infiniteAbsur­dum est personas coessentia­les & infi­nitas ad creatarum quae finitae & diversae essentiae sunt modulum redigere. inaequality? if the divine persons must be called into question, let them be tryed by their Peeres. They say they cannot comprehend this Mystery; I say the reason is because it is a Mystery; and if they cannot comprehend it, they may the better beleeve it to be incomprehensi­ble. The single Nature of these three per­sons is infinite, and if men wonder that they cannot comprehend what is infinite, it is be­cause they do not consider that they them­selves are finite.

2. The nature of these three glorious [Page 146] subsistences is Independent; the nature of all created subsistences is dependentNatura creata est dependēs; persona creata est Indepen­dens, quia non est in alio per dependenti­am ab illo tanquam susten­tante., and therefore it is no wonder if a dependent nature do subsist in its proper person, and depend upon its proper person for susten­tation; but the divine Nature doth not de­pend upon the three subsistences for its susten­tation or subsistence; but all three persons do subsist in this Independent and infinite Nature. Philip. 2. 6. subsisting in the Nature of God; so the Scripture expresses it, and we must apprehend and beleeve these ho­ly Mysteries according to the holy Scrip­tures, because no man hath seene God, and God is the only all-sufficient Witnesse concern­ing his owne essence and subsistence, concern­ing himselfe; and therefore we must not think or speak otherwise of God then ac­cording to the Scriptures of truth, in which God hath sufficiently and graciously revealed himself, Iohn 1. 18. Matth. 16. 17. Matth. 11. 26, 27. The Scriptures direct us how to distinguish uncreated persons from created persons. Our finite and de­pendent Nature doth subsist in a created per­son, but uncreated persons do subsist in an Infinite and Independent Nature; there is a manifest difference. Our nature indeed doth subsist in the divine and uncreated person of the Son of God, but that is not according to the common course of na­ture, there is a peculiar reason and another [Page 147] Mystery in that wonderful subsistence; And yet even in that wonderfull Mystery our dependent Nature doth subsist in a person, Cum hu­manitas Christi consequu­ta fuerit personali­tatem propriâ in­finite per­fectiorem, nonest cur propriam personal [...] ­tatem am­plius appe­teret. Si enim adhuc inclinaretur ad propriam perso [...]alitatem, vi qua­dam detineretur in verbo, & ita status illius esset violentus, & quasi contra naturam. Cajetanus. which notes its dependance; and our Na­ture is more satisfied and quieted by subsi­stence in a divine, then in an humane per­son, because it hath a more glorious susten­tation, and is more powerfully upheld by that divine and uncreated person. The di­vine person of Christ doth subsist in his di­vine Nature, and the humane Nature of Christ doth subsist in his divine and onely person.

III. All created persons have a com­pounded and divisible nature,The third difference. but uncrea­ted persons have a single undivided and in­divisible nature. The Socinians, Arminians and Vorstians of this age do not love to hear any discourse of the single Nature of God, in Father, Son and Holy Ghost; this Doctrine, they say, is Philosophical, Scho­lastical, Metaphysical, and therefore there is nothing which concernes Faith, Piety, or manners in it.

But it is most clear and evident that all the glorious Attributes of God are united by an Eternal bond which cannot be dis­solved, and we have invincibly proved, [Page 148] that they do all signifie but one single and infinite perfection. If you take away the singlenesse of Gods being, you take away his Incommunicable, unchangable, incomprehen­sible, independent and infinite perfection. This point is excellently discussed and opened by [...]. Da­mascen. Orth fid. lib. 1. c. 4. Damaseene. Composition (saith he) doth beget strife, strife may well cause a se­paration, and separation dissolution, which all who know any thing of God, will acknow­ledge to be repugnant to the perfection of the Godhead. The learnedVide Ire­n [...]um lib. 2. cap. 16. Athanas. in decret. Synod. Ni­cen. Nazi­ [...]. lib. de Fide. Cyrill. lib. 10. contra Iulian. Euseb. Praeparat. Evan­gel. lib. 8. c. 2. Athenagoram, Talianum, Augustin. de Tri­nit. & passim. Doctours of old did consider that God is a most pure and perfect Act, the first and Independent Being, that he is what he is by his owne Es­sence, and not by participation. ButVorstius Deum contemnendum pingit Corporeum, visi­bilem, mutabilem, accidentibus subjectum, in quo sunt plures res, &c. Vide Eglisem. Cris. & Hypocris. Bogerman contra Grotium. Synod. Nat. Dodrac. Vor­stius was bold to publish his dreames co [...] ­trary to the Analogy of Faith and unani­mous judgment of the reverend Doctours of the Ancient Church. The Socinians in theirRacov. Catechis. de cognitione Dei cap. 1. Catechisme, theRemonstrant. Con [...]ess. Apolog. p. 41. 42. Arminians in their Confession and Apology are exceedingly too blame in this point. The Socinians do expunge the single and infinite perfection [Page 149] of GodsDeus est Spiritus. Joh. 4. 24. Jehovah Exod. 33. 19. Eheje. Exod. 3. 14, 15 [...] Apocal. 1. 4. Summe perfectus Genes. 17. 1. summe­que unus. Deut. 6. 4. & proinde omnem de Deo com­positio­nem imò & quasi com­positionē de Deo ne­gamus. vi­de Rhadā Episcop. Pact. Con­trovers. in [...] ­ter Thomam & Scotum, part. 1. Controv. 4. append. 2. pag. 82. 83, 84. spiritual nature out of their Ca­techisme, that they may more securely de­ny the Coessentiall Trinunity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and therefore I do insist upon this difference between created and uncreated persons, because if the Doctrine concerning the single and infinite perfection of Gods spirituall nature be overthrowne; All the Eglisem. contra Vorstium. Fundamentals of the Christian Re­ligion will be overturned. Maccov. Mis. quaest. Disp. 17. 20, 23, 24, 25. 26. Vas­quez. disp. 16. Deus est liber ab omni compositione et [...]am im­proprie dictâ, qualis est ex essentiâ & esse, ex natura & suppo­sito seu ex essentia & subsistentiâ, ex genere & differentia: & proinde liber ab omni distinctione in essentia su [...]. Nam di­stinctionis & multitudinis transcendentalis personarum at­que adeo modorum & relationum longe alia est ratio. D. Voet. God is Jehovah, he is what he is by his owne Essence, he can neither cease to be, or to be what he is; for he cannot be any other thing, or any otherwise, then now he is, and ever was, Exod. 3. 14, 15. Revel. 1. 8. Iames. 1. 17. Psal. 10. 2. 27. Gos is called Light, and Love, & Life in Scripture, to note the single­nesse of his being, because whatsoever is in him, is himself, and he himself is one single infinite perfection, he is light it self, and in him is no darknesse at all, 1 John 1. 5. God hath not such an imperfect singlenesse of be­ing, [Page 150] as we say, is in theMareria Prima for­mae, diffe­rentiae ul­timae, &c. simpliciter simplices dicuntur; Angeli sunt Com­parative simplices; essentia au­tem divina est Absolutè & [...] simplex. En [...] sum­mum est [...], & proinde essentiti [...] unitate unum, simplicissimè unicum. Vide. D. Vo [...]ti­um de Natura Dei sa [...]pl. first matter of last difference and the like; nor such a single­nesse as is in Angels, or the souls of men, for theirs is but a Comparative singlenesse, there is some kind of composition even in the most glorious Angels. God is not com­pounded of a Nature,Non de [...]emus proprietates Dei ab essentia ejus vel cogita­tione scpara [...]e, quia in essentiae forma & vir [...]ute omnes con­tinentur, & Deus sine proprietatibus ejus cogita [...]i non potest. D. Wallaeus de Deo. pag. 127. Atrributes, and Re­lations, as hath been shewen, nor is any of the Divine Persons compounded; nor can the Godhead be said to be compounded of three Persons; for though the Persons be distinguished, they do not compound, nor can they be compounded. Distinction con­notes perfection, because it is opposite to con­fusion: but Composition denotes multiplicity and imperfection; we must then consider that

1. The Essence of God is mostEssentia divina non est i [...] po­ten [...]iâ, quia est paras actus, non est perfectibilis, quia omnes perfectiones complectitur. per­fect, and therefore nothing can be added to it to make it more perfect, because it is infinitely perfect.

2. Whatsoever is compounded may be [Page 151] dissolved into the parts whereof it is com­pounded; The Godhead cannot be dis­solved, because it cannot be changed.

3. Whatsoever is compounded, must needs be dependent both in being and in working. But God isDeus non depender à subjecto à [...]a [...]sis vel internis, vel externis, à principio quocunque priori aut su­perieri. Independent. Ergo.

4. The parts compounding are Essentia divina non est in se composita, nec aliquid ipsi com­ponibile, nec ipsa a­licui com­ponibili. Essentia aeterna nec s [...]ipsâ nec ullâ realiâ posterior esse po­test. before the whole that is compounded; but God is the Former of all things, and therefore no­thing can be before God. The divine Es­sence cannot be later then it selfe, or later then any thing else, because it is the first and eternall being.

Now if neither of the Nature or Attri­butes Proprie­tates De [...] non minùs [...] sunt quàm ejus essen­tia [...] [...] non essent ipsissima Dei essentia sim [...]l [...] Joh, 5. 26. est vita; Joh. 11. 25.of these uncreated persons, nor the persons themselves be compounded, nor God compounded of the Nature and Per­sons; here is another very great difference between created and uncreated persons, who have life, and are life it self, because they are one single perfection.

[Page 152] IV IV. Three created persons have three dif­ferent Natures, The fourth difference. but these Unius personae in creatae to­ta est essentia divina, sed non so­lius. three uncreated Persons have the selfe same most single and singular nature. Three created persons may have the same specifical nature, but they have not the same singular nature; created persons in respect of their specificall nature which is universall, are [...] of like na­ture, but in respect of their singular nature they are [...]. But now these uncrea­ted persons are [...] in respect of their Singula sunt in sin­gulis, & omnia in singulis, & singula in omnibus, & omnia in omni­bus, [...]num omnia. Au­gust. lib. 6. de Trinita­te cap. ul­timo. Nec major est essentia in tribus quàm in duabus, nec in duabus quàm in unâ, quia tota est in singulis. August. ubi supra. singular Essence: Look how manyTot sunt sustantiae singulares quot personae creatae. cre­ated persons there be of the same species, so many singular substances there are of that species. For, a Essentia creata est finita, circumscripta, imperfecta, divisi­bilis, perfectibilis: per differentiam enim individualem sive personalem contrahitur, perficitur. Essentia partibilis per par­tes & separatim inest singulis individuis Angelicis & humanis. Essentia autem divina est perfecta infinita simplex, & proinde eadem etiam numero & individuo (quod aiunt) tribus perso­nis communis citra omnem multiplicationem, divisionem aut separationem; eadem quippe natura singularis est tota in singu­lis personis divinis. finite nature cannot be communicated to severall proper persons of the same species without a multiplication of singular natures or substances, because every finite nature is imperfect and divisi­ble. The humane nature is communicated to Paul, Peter and Iohn: Now these three [Page 153] persons are three men, for they have three distinct singular natures, though they have one universall nature; and no wonder, for their nature is imperfect and divisible; their universall nature is unum multiplica­bile. But the nature which is common to these three divine Persons is not universall but singular; it is unum immultiplicabile, because the divine nature is infinite, and that which is infinite cannot be multiplyed; the unity of the divine nature is reall Unitas specifica non est rei sed rationis extra men tem enim nostram non est unitas naturae humanae in personis diversis sed pluralitas. Unitas autem essentiae divinae est realis, & singularissima, quia ita Deus est unus ut etiam sit solus, & ita solus ut non possit esse alius.and most perfectly singular. The same singular nature, the whole nature being of bound lesse perfection is really and eternally communicated to all three persons without a­ny division of the nature, se­paration of the persons or composition of nature and persons: the persons are di­stinguished, but not separated; and if we speak properly and strictly, the divine Persona multiplicatur & proinde distinguitur; essentia autem divina nec distinguitur, nec multi­plicatur. Nature, as it is common to all three per­sons, is neither distinguished nor multiplyed; for the na­ture is not distinguished from Unitas ad essentiam proprie pertinet, distinctio autem personarum non ad essentiam propriè & per se, sed ad rationem in es­sentiâ respicit. Iunius con­tra error. Samosat.it self, nor are the per­sons distinguished from one another by the Nature, or naturall properties, but by personall [Page 154] properties,Essentiall Attributes are common but Perso­nal Attri­butes are Incommu­nicable. which are not naturally com­mon to all three, as the Attributes are (which we call Naturall, because they are Essentiall,) for these personall properties are naturally peculiar and incommunica­ble, and yet they do nor superadd any new Nature; because the divine Nature doth containe all Relative as well as Absolute perfection in it; and the Godhead considered with all these incommunicable properties is but one single Godhead, as hath been shew­en: this is a transcendentIn omni­bus myste­ria supra rationem sunt Re, Ratione, & Modo. Mystery in­deed.

V V. Created Persons have a different Un­derstanding,The fifth difference betweene created & uncreated Persons. a different Will, a different Power, because they have a different Na­ture. But uncreated persons who have one and the same undivided and infinite Na­ture, must needs have one and the same Un­derstanding, Will and Power. For, we cannot comprehend God as one pure vital act, but as his life is actuous Vita Dei est actuo­sa intelle­ctu, volun­tate, & po­tentiâ. or active in his Vn­derstanding and Will, in his Essentiall and Almighty Power. Now, what isQuod es­sentiae pro­prium est hypostasi­bus com­mune est. Essential, that must needs be common to all three persons.

Whatsoever the Father is as he is sub­stance, as he is life, as he is eternity, as he is perfection, as he is God, the same is the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost, as Augusti [...] doth frequently discourse. When theQuicquid dicitur de praedicato essentiali, dici [...]ur de Subjecto. Attribute or praedicate is Es­sential, [Page 155] whatsoever is affirmed of the Attri­bute or praedicate, that must needs be true of the subject, as the Philosopher and all that have any reason in them, do unanimously conclude. The Essentiall power of God is the very Essence of God; God doth Act by, and of himself, and not by any faculty or pow­er superadded to his Essence; Christ is called theFilius [...] dicitur ab Epipha­nio contra Marcelli­anos haere­si▪ 72 pag. 358. [...] inquit Ba­silius de Filio con­tra Euno­mium lib 2 pag. 339. power of God, and the Holy Vide D. Go [...]ari Diatriben de Christo [...] & D. Voe­ [...]ii notas in select. Disp. D. Voetii par. 1. pag. 442. 445. 449.Ghost is called the power of the most high. 1 Cor. 1. v. 8. 24. Luke 1 35. to shew that they have the same Essential power that the Father hath Christ saith, that none can take his sheep out of his hand, be­cause none can take them out of his Fathers hand; for saith he, I and my Father are one, John 5. 28, 29, 30. We have one nature, one hand, that is one Power. For the hand of God can be nothing else but the power of God. And therefore since all the three di­vine Persons are one God, because they have one and the same divine Nature, th [...]se three are Omnes tres personae sunt Coes­sentiales, & proinde essentialiter unum sunt; tres enim perso­ne non sunt tres essentiae, sed ipsissima & unicissima essentia, quia simplicissima. Personae autem Coessentiales sunt coaequi­les; licet enim filius & Spiritus Sanctus vitam, potentiam, omnia habeant à Patre, omnia habent per naturam, nihil per gratiam. one with the most perfect and singu­lar manner of unity. Finally, since the Pow­er of God is the Essence of God, it must reeds follow that all three persons have the same power, because they have the same di­vine essence, and they have the self-same essence by nature, not by meere indulgence or grace.

[Page 156] But then some who have a great mind to cavill,The grand objection. tell us that we do but equivocate when we say these three Persons have the same Essentiall Power, because we do con­ceale the other member of the distinction, which is Relative or Potentia divina di­stinguitur in Perso­nalem & Essentialē Personalis est quâ Pa­ter generat filium, &c. Essentialis est quae cō ­munis est tribus per­sonis. Po­tentia Pa­tris vide­tur esse A­ctiva, quia Pater est gignens; generatio autem filii videtur es­se Passiva, quia filius est genitus Psal. 2. 7. Joan. 1. 14. There is no Passive Ge­neration in the Son of God. The divine Essence of Christ is not changed, or begotten. The An­swer. Personall Power. Now it is impossible, say they, that these three should have the same Personall or Relative power, because the Father doth beget a Son as he is God the Father, as he is the first personall principle, and not simply and absolutely as he is God; But the Son hath not power to beget himselfe, or to beget a­nother Son, because there can be but three divine Persons, and there is but one of the three called a Son in Scripture. Moreover, the Son is begotten, and therfore his pow­er is rather a Passive then an Active pow­er. But the power of the Father whereby he did beget his Son is an Active power. Nor did the Holy Ghost breath forth him­selfe by his owne power, for he did not proceed from himselfe, but from the Fa­ther and the Son; and therefore though there be but one Essentiall power, it should seeme that there are three Personall or Re­lative powers truly distinct in the God­head.

[Page 157] This Argument is the most plausible Ar­gument which is urged by them, and there­fore it must be most warily answered.

1. We do not equivocate in this or any other point, but do readily acknowledge that God the Father doth beget a Son as he is God the Father, and not simply and absolutely as he is God; because this eternal generation points at a personall property con­sidered after the manner of a vitall Act. But then as this personal property and relati­on doth not differ really from the divine Essence, so this personal power of beget­ting doth not differ really from the Essen­tiall power, because God doth beget a Son in the unity of his owne divine Essence; his Son is Nullu [...] horum a­lium aut praecedit aeternitate aut exce­dit magni­tudine aut superat po­testate Au­gust. lib. 6. de trinita­te cap. ul­timo. equall to him, and therefore not Ideo non est Pater major fi­lio, quia aequalem sibi genuit. Originis enim quaestio ista est, quis de quo sit; ae­qualitatis autem qualis aut quantus sit. Aug. Cont. Max. l. 3. c. 18. es­sentially Pater non genuit filium exse per seminalem rationem, nec extra se per Physicam productionem, sed in se, hoc est in unita­te essentiae genuit. Philip. 2. 6. different from him, John 5. 18. 26. John 10. 30. Nulla fuit mutatio essentialis in filio, cujus essentia est immutablis.

2. We deny that there is an active Pow­er in the Father,Potentia passiva est propria materiae, ex quâ producitur ge­nitum. In deo autem nulla est generatio Materialis. In passiva generatione genitum à non esse ad esse producitur; Filius autem semper actu exticit; genitus non est gignente po­sterior, quia ab aeterno genitus. and a passive Power in the Son in respect of generation, because a Passive power notes materiality and imper­fection; but this eternall generation cannot [Page 158] be materiall, for God is a Spirit infinitely more spiritual then the most glorious An­gel. Pater genuit filium & filius genitus est—spiritualiter, immutabiliter.

3. The two words of begetting and beingGenera­tio consi­derata re­spectu fi­lii geniti est filiat [...]o sive pro­prietas fi­lii; gene­ratio autē respectu Patris est Communicatio vitae subsistentis; per hanc autem communicationem filius est unum cum Patre ab aeterno. Mich, 5. 2. non sunt itaque duae generationes sed duae personae gig­nens, & genita. Vide D. Alting. Problem. XI. par. 1. begotten which are used in Scrip­ture do not point at two different powers, an Active and a Passive, but at two different persons; the Father who did beget, and the Son who was never unbegotten, Mi­cah 5. 2. for he was of old, from the dayes of eternity.

4. It was not in the power of the Fa­ther to forbeare the begetting of his Son, because the Son is Ens Quod est in po­tentia gig­nentis, id non sem­per extitit, sed potest esse vel non esse. Filius au­tem sem­per exticit imò non potest non esse, quia est [...] Ens sum­me necessarium non minus quàm ipse Pater. summe necessari­um, as well as the Father, the Son is [...], God of himselfe, and not God by participation, nor a different God from the Father, but the same God with the Fa­ther, and therefore an Independent, Eter­nall God, who did not begin to be God, [Page 159] who cannot cease to be God, but hath life in himselfe as well as the Father, Iohn 5. 20. and hath the self-same divine life, divine nature, divine power which the Father hath; and therefore the Schools conclude well that the Father and the Son have the Eadem essentia quae in Pa­tre est pa­terni [...]as, in filio est fi­liatio; eâ­dem potentiâ generat Pater, fili­usque ge­neratur. Habetitaque silius eandem potentiam quam Pater, sed cum a­li [...] relatione; Pate [...] ut commuicans, filius ut accipiens, Johan. 5. 26. [...] generare est dare potentiam, [...] gènerari est acci [...]ere potentiam vide. Aquin. Sum. part. 1. qu. 42. art. 6. same power, but with a different relation; but these different relations do not super­add a new Essence, a new divine Nature; and they who have the same Essence, must needs have the same power, because the Power of God is not distinguished from the Essence of God, and the Father doth communicate the same Essence and Power which the Son receives.

5. There is the same reason of the Son and Holy Ghost; for these three areNon po­test autem qui accepit ei qui de [...]it esse i [...]qual [...], qu [...] [...] accepit ut esse [...] [...]qua­lis. Aug. lib. 3. con­t [...]a Maximinum. cap. 14. e­quall, nay one, Essentially one, one God with the most perfect kind of unity, as hath been shewen: and some that are Me­taphysical acknowledge that nothing is sim­ply Id solum [...] unum est, quod simplicissimum est; Solus itaque Deus s [...]mpliciter unus est in quo nihil omnino est quod Deus non est. Vide Fonse­cam in Metaphys. Aristot. lib. 4. cap. 2. qu. 5. Sect. 7. one, but that which is most [...] and nothing is most singly [...] but God, who [Page 160] hath nothing in himself but that which is himself. Aristot. Metaphys. lib. 4. [...] 1. [...]. 2 [...]. 3. [...]. 4. [...]. 5. [...]. 6. [...]. 6 Kinds of Unity. All the three per­sons have the same Power. Aristotle discoursing of six kinds of unity saith that things may be said to be one▪

1. in respect of Continuity, because they are one Continued body.

2. In respect of their Subject, as two accidents in the same subject.

3. Because they are under the same Ge­nus.

4. Because they are of the same Species.

5. Because they have the same definiti­on; but then he concludes that all these are but imperfect kinds of unity, if compared with the last unity, which is

6. When a thing is one in respect of its single and indivisible Essence.Omnia habet fili­us à Patre, sed Pater & filius unum sunt: filius itaque nihil accipīt ab i­lio, qui est a Filio aliud; filius enim est idem cum Patre uni­cusque Deus.

Now the Father and Son are one, Iohn 10. 30. The Father, Son andPater & Filius spi­rando communicant vitam sub­sistentem Spiritui Sancto per quam Spiritus Sanctus est unum cum Patre & Fi­lio. 1 Joan. 5. 7. Spiritus itaque spiratus vitam accipit subsi­stentem, nec non potentiam Coessentialem; eandem itaque po­tentiam habet Spiritus, sed cum diversa proprietate sive rati­one personali. holy Ghost are one, 1 Iohn 5. 7. and they are one af­ter the most perfect manner, they are one in respect of the most single and indivisible Essence, because the divine Essence is most [Page 161] single and perfectly one. And therefore sincePatres dicunt es­sentiam generare▪ hoc est es­sentia rela­tive acce­pta, essen­tia cum modo & proprietate personali considerata generat, hoc est Deus Pater generat Filium. Essence and Power are not distin­guished in God, it followes undenyably that these three who have one Essence, have one and the same power, but with different properties and relations.

This truth will be more evident when we have discoursed of the distinction of these three divine persons, of which we are to treat in the next Chapter.

VI. Created Persons have a different place and presence,The sixth difference. but Uncreated Persons are omnipresent, they cannot be separated or divided from one another in respect of place or presence, but do subsist in one an­other. The Father didEssentia non gene­rat essenti­am quia est unica, simplicis­sima: per­sona non generat personam extra essentiam, quia essentia in­finita extra se fundi non potest. beget the Son in the unity of the divine nature, and the Son doth subsist in the nature of God, Phil. 2. 6. and all three persons subsisting in the Tota natura divina est in tribus personis, tota in singulis singularissime unica, servatis tum essentialibus essentiae, tum relativis personarum in unitate es­sentiae proprietatibus. same single & omnipresent nature, they must needs subsist in one another. The divine nature of the Father is in the Son, and therefore the Father is in the Son; the divine nature of the Son is in the Father, and therefore the Son is in the Father, and the like may [Page 162] be said of the Holy Ghost, for the divine nature of the Holy Ghost is in the Father and the Son. These three glorious persons are distinguished from one another, and yet they do subsist in one another. They do subsist in one another without any con­traction [...], pro­pter in confusam in s [...] [...] cō ­prehensio­nem & prae­sen [...] [...] circum in­cessionem ut satis barbare lo­quuntur. Vide Gomari Diatrib [...] de Trinit. Inconfuse uniunt [...]r indivise discernun­tur. The divin Persons sub­sisting in one another, commixtion, or confusion, as Vide [...]a­mascen lib. 1. Orth. fid. cap 19. Vide [...] in sent, dist 19. q. 2. Thom p. 1. q. 42. at [...]. 5. John 14. 10, 11. Damascen taught the Schoolmen to speak; when Philip desired Christ to show him the Father, our Saviour answers, He that hath seene me hath seene the Father, John 14. 9. because he is the Image of his Fathers Person, and the illustrious brightnes of his Fathers glory; nay, because the na­ture of his Father is in him, and the person of his Father is in him; and therefore he calls upon Philip to beleeve that his Father is in him. Iohn 14. 10▪ Beleevest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me? as if he had said, I wonder you should not beleeve this truth, it is a special Article of your faith if you be a Christian: and it is a ve­ry plaine Article, for you have some sensi­ble Arguments to confirme your faith in this point, both from my words, and from my works; you may hear the Father speak­ing in me, and see my Father working in me. The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of my selfe, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doth the works. Joh. 14. 10.

And then he presses the point home up­on him by a Peremptory Injunction in the 11. verse. Beleeve me that I am in the Fa­ther, [Page 163] and the Father in me: or else beleeve me for the very works sake. Philip might hear what was truly divine in the saving words of Christ, and see what was divine in the miraculous works of Christ, and by the words and works (and Spirit of Christ ma­king both effectuall) he might be brought to beleeve this necessary point, that the Nature of God the Father, and the Person of God the Father is in Christ. The nature and Person of God the Father is in Christ. John 10. opened. John 10. 38. Give me leave to insist upon this point, for there is more in it then we can well observe at first view, and therefore our Saviour did presse this point home very frequently, and require that men would expressely beleeve it, Iohn 10. 38. beleeve the works—but to what end? Why, that yee may know and beleeve that the Father is in me, and I in him. This is the end of Christs working so many mi­racles amongst them, to bring them to be­leeve that he and the Father did mutually subsist in one another. Credite operibus, beleeve my works saith he, they speak me to be God, and the Son of God, and there­fore I am not guilty of blasphemy, because I say I am the Son of God, and equall to God, for I am God, I and my Father are one God; and if you beleeve that I and my Father are one God, John 10. from the [...]5 v. to the 39. you must beleeve that I am in the Father, and the Father in me. This is the summe and substance of our Saviours dis­course from the 25. verse of the tenth [Page 164] chapter of Iohn to the 39. verse of that chapter; and our Saviour did enter into this discourse at the request of the Jewes, who came round about him, and desired him not to hold them in suspence any longer, but to tell them plainly whether he were the Christ or no. John 10. 24. all then who beleeve Jesus Christ to be the Christ, the true Messiah, the onely Saviour, and an all sufficient Saviour, must beleeve, con­fesse and acknowledge this truth, That the Father is in Christ, and Christ in the Father. From what hath been spoken it is clear and evident, that this is a point of life and death, as we say, a fundamentall point, a point ne­cessary to salvation, and therfore our Savi­our did so often insist upon it. In the 8th. of Iohn, John 8, 16. 18, 29. John 14. 10, 11, 21. John 10▪ 38 John 16▪ 27. 30. 32. Joh. 17▪ 21 The sixth difference betweene created & uncreated persons. our Saviour tells them more then once, that he was not alone, and therefore his te­stimony of himselfe was not a single testi­mony, but his Father who was with him and in him did bear witnes with him, and of him, John 8. 16. for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me; I am one that beare witnesse of my selfe, and the Father that sent me beareth witnesse of me, v. 18. And he that sent me is with me, the Father hath not left me alone, v. 29. This point is difficult to beleeve, that Christ who is man is very God, the same God with the Fa­ther, a different Person from the Father, yet subsisting in the Father, who is the on­ly [Page 165] true God; but as Rollock saith well, though this point be mostUt autem difficilli­mum sit hoc crede­re, & natu­ram longè ex [...]perat: ita necessa­rium est a­deo ad sa­lutem, ut sine fide il­lâ non sit salus. Hinc sequitur quòd cum à naturâ a­lienum sit, & tamen necessariū, oportere nos ex na­turâ exire & supra na turam ef­ferri, ad hoc ut vi­deamus Deum in Christo habitantem. Rolloc. Cō. in Iohan. 14. v. 10, 11 difficult, yet it is most necessary, and therefore we must beg the spirit of God that we may get above nature, and see the Father in Christ, and Christ in the Father, for the naturall man doth not relish, receive or perceive the things of God, 1 Cor. 2. 14, Our Saviour told his Disciples, that when the Spirit was pour­ed out more plentifully upon them, then they should know him to be in his Father. The Father will give you another Comforter even the Spirit of truth, and at that day yee shall know that I am in my Father, John 14. 16, 17, 20. and in the sixteenth of Iohn the Spirit had convinced the Disciples of this weighty truth; for they say, By this we beleeve that thou camest forth from God; Iesus answered them, Do you now beleeve? Behold the houre cometh, yea is now come, that ye shall be scattered every man to his owne, and shall leave me alone, and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me, John 16. 30, 31, 32. In these and divers o­ther places our Saviour doth declare this truth unto us, that he is in his Father; and if it were not a weighty truth of very great consequence and high concernment, he would not insist so much upon it; it is the mutuall in-subsistence, and Coessential Deus est ubique to­tus in seip­so: [...]uōmo­do ubi (que) si in seipso? ubique quia nusquam est absens: in seipso autem quia non Continetur ab eis, quibus est praesens; anq [...]ā sine eis esse non possit. August. Epist. 57. ad Da [...]danum.Omnipresence of the Father and the Son.

[Page 166] And the Spirit beingQui ubi que est in seipso est; qui in se­ipso est, in omnibus sibi Coes­sentiali­bus neces­sario est, volens ta­men gau­densque. Coessentiall with the Father and the Son, must needs be in them both, from whom he proceeds in the unity of the Naturae est in tri­bus perso­nis non [...] tan­tùm, sed & [...]: per sona [...]um non [...] quasi vas esset in va [...]se, sed [...], neina [...]qua­litas inve­heretur. Divine Nature; for it is cleare that an infinite Nature cannot be poured forth beyond it selfe, because it is boundlesse, and therefore when we read 1 Cor. 2. 11. What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him? Even so the things of God knowes no man, but the Spirit of God, (we may safelySpiritus Dei dicitur esse in Deo, 1 Cor. 2. 11. qui tamen est Deus ipse, 1 Cor. 6. 20. nempe ad intimam inexistentiam tri­um personarum in seipsis exprimendam. D. Wallaeus de Simpli­citate Dei pag, 128. adde) which is in God, because he did proceed in the unity of the divineIn processionibus divinis nulla est partitio [...], vel [...] quibus tribus modis res creatae producuntur, quia eadem natura singularis simplex, indivisibilis & infinita sine divisione vel multiplicatione communicatur. indivisible and boundlesse nature. The Holy Ghost hath the same Nature with the Father and the Son; and a Nature of infinite and boundlesse perfection▪ cannot be communicated to any thing that is not infinite, to any thing that is not it selfe, because there can be no other infinite thing but it selfe, there can be but one infinite, and every one of the three glorious per­sons is one and the same infinite God; up­on these grouds we may answer many que­stions.

[Page 167] If you ask Where God was before the World was made? I answer, that he was then, just where he is now, in himselfe [...] seip [...] [...]bi­que est De­us noster omniprae­sentissimus, totus in mundo, totùs extra mundum totus super mundum, totus & unus in omnibus & singulis, nusquam in­clus [...]s, nusquam exclusus, ubique immensus, non per essentiae multiplicationem, extensionem aut divisionem, sed per infini­tatem simplicissimam..

Dic ubi tunc esset, cum praeter [...]um nihil esset;
Tunc ubi nunc, in se, quoniam sibi sufficit ipse.

If you ask where the Father was; I an­swer, in the Son; if you ask where the Son was; I answer, in the Father: If you ask where the Spirit was, I answer, he was both in the Father and in the Son, and they both in him. God Ante omnia De­us erat so­lus ipse si­bi & lo [...]us, & mu [...]dus & omni [...]. uti Tertul­li [...]us con­tra [...]ax. was in all three persons, and all three persons in the Godhead, and in one another, and so they do, and will remaine to all eternity, because they are Coessentiall, because they are one omnipresent and eternall God. The Godhead is not shut up in the narrow cir­cle of the universe, the whole Godhead is in the world, and the whole Godhead is out the world, for the world cannot containe the true God, who did create, and doth up­hold the world, and the single Godhead cannot be divided; and therefore we must not conceive that part of the Godhead is [Page 168] in the world, and part of it out of the world, but the whole Godhead isEssentia Dei non miscetur cu [...]splen didis, n [...]c a sordidis contami­natur, sed in utero virginis fuit hypostatice unita cum carne nostrâ sine ullâ commix [...]i­one, confusione, contamin [...]tione, vel diminutione. [...]. Si homo tantum­modo Christus, quomodo adest ubique invocatus, cum haec hominis natura non sit, sed Dei ut adesse omni loco possit? Ter­tulian. de Trinitate. [...]. Anastasius Antiochenus. Angeli sunt substantiae spirituales separaim & per se subsistentes, & proinde sunt alicubi definitive. every where, it is not included in any place, or excluded from any place; the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot containe him, 1 King. 8. 27. his perfection is higher then heaven, and deeper then hell, Job 11. 8.

From what hath beene said, it is most cleare, that since the Essence of God is om­nipresent, and the selfe same indivisible Essence is in Father, Son and Holy Ghost, all three must needs mutually subsist in one another; though the persons be distinguish­ed, they cannot beTres per­sonae sunt [...] quia [...], & non tan­tum [...]. Tres homines quibus una competit definitio, sunt tantum [...], quia natura eorum est finita, & divisa; non enim tota esten [...]ia patris crea [...]i sed par [...] tantum filio commu­nicatur, & hypostase [...] eorum sunt separatae. Non sunt itaque ejusdem naturae indivisae, ejusdem naturae singularis, & pro­inde licèt communi ratione homines dicantur, tamen reipsa non sunt unus homo. Personae autem divinae [...] sunt propter unius communis, & tamen sing [...]laris naturae identi tatem, quam simul & pariter, & totam habent Pater Filius & Spiritus Sanctus. separated, divided or contracted; and therefore this sixth diffe­rence between created and uncreated per­sons, [Page 169] is so remarkable, that I need not go about to prove that humane persons are separated as well as distinguished; tot sunt humanitates quot homines; and it is most certaine that Angelicall persons have a li­mited presence, because they have a finite es­since. But it is otherwise in divine persons, for the Father works in the Son, and by the Spirit the Father subsists in the Son and in the Spirit, and cannot be separated from these Coessentiall and Omnipresent per­sons, who do subsist with him (as they are both from him) in the unity of the God­head.

I need say no more concerning Angels then what is commonly said, Angeli sunt Alicuòi Definitive; sunt enim in suo Vbi non per operationem vel circumscriptionem, sed per Designationem Definitivam, Angels are naturally somewhere; though they are not in any place by extension of parts yet their finite nature is contained within cer­taine bounds and limits. HenceImmen­sa Dei prae sentia non est accid [...]s vel modus essentiae e­jus sed ipsamet essentia. Deus non est alicubi sed ubique; quod est Alicubi est in ubi Definiti [...]o. Vide Aug. qu. lib. 83. qu. 20. & lib. 8. Geres. ad lit. cap. 26. Chrysost. Homi [...]. 5. ad Coloss. Dan. as [...]en. Nazian. orat. 34. Basi [...]. Hom. 16. Hieronym. in Isa. 66. it is that some learned men affirme that it is impro­per [Page 170] to say, that God isQui est ubique Repletive non est A­licubi Definitive. Vide Scalig. Exercit. 159. §. 5. somewhere because he is every-where; Somewhere is a defini­tive word.

VII. Created Persons have many other different Accidents besides Place, The 7th. difference. of which we have spoken; and [...]ime or Duration, of which we are to speak. It will not be ne­cessary or usefull to discourse of every par­ticular; but that which I intend to insist upon under this head is, That Created Per­sons are distinguished from one another by an Personae creatae dif­ferunt in­telligentia voluntate, potentiâ, essentiâ, o­peratione, locorum intervallis imo pro­priâ acci­dentium congerie. Vide Go­marum de Trinitate Tom. 3. pag. 24. heap of Accidents, and therefore it will be sufficient for the making good of this seventh Difference, to show that divine Persons are not distinguished by a Conge­ries, or heap of Accidents, because there is no Accident at all in God. For the being of God is infinitely perfect, and singularly single, as hath been proved; and therefore it is infinitely below the single perfection of God to be compounded of a substance and accidents for the adorning or perfect­ing of his glorious being. Relations are not Accidents in God. ThePersonae divinae non dicuntur Relativae propter essentias Relativas, sed propter modos sive proprietates Relativas, quae quidem proprietates non differunt realiter essentialiter, imo nec realiter separabiliter ab essentiâ divinâ. Personae autem divinae sunt extra omne genus omnemque dependentiam. reltion of one Coessentiall person to another is agreeable [Page 171] to the Essence of God; it is a necessary rela­tion which did never begin to be, and cannot cease to be.

The relation of God to the creature cannot be reall, because it is such a relati­on as might not have been; but there is no reall thing in God which might not have beene.

2. There can be no reall relation be­tween two extremes, one of which two extremes is unchangeable, and the other might not have been.

3. God was not in any passive Potentia­lity or Power, before he did create the world, to receive any reall act, because he is really aVide Me­taphys. Fonsec. lib. 5. cap. 15. Sect. 7. pure act; and it is evident that a new reall relation is a kind of act wher­of the pure, single, perfect and unchange­able essence is uncapable.

4. Our weak understanding comparing God with the creatures, is apt to frame many denominations, which according to the manner of signifying, seem to import as if God were in potentiâ Vide Sco­tum, Esti­um &c. in 1. sent. dist. 30. omn [...]s [...] re­spectiva concipitur in Deo ad creaturam est tantùm secundum rationem, & modum con­cipiendi nostrum, quia divina natura est Absoluta in se, & ab omni ordine creaturarum independens, sive creaturae exi­stunt sive non. Vide Suarez. Disp. 47. Sect. 15. Num 25. ad multa; yet if we do consider the thing signified, as we ought in a way agreeable to the pure, single and infinite Perfection of God, we [Page 172] shall find that these are but extrinsecall denominations. This point is much beat­en upon by the most acute Schoolmen, and Writers of Metaphysicks, and therefore I need not insist upon it; only observe that when I say created persons are distinguish­ed by a heap of Accidents, I do not mean that a person is made compleat in his sub­sistence by any Accident, or an heap of Ac­cidents, for I have refuted that conceit, in this present chapter pag. 73. I hasten to the eighth Difference.

VIII. Humane Persons with whom we are best acquainted,The eighth Difference betw [...]ene created & uncr [...]ated Persons is in respect of their different duration. may exist in a very dif­ferent time as well as in different places; some lived before, some since the flood: some before the Incarnation, others since the Death and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour; but herein all agree that time is the measure of them all; their duration is very imperfect, their duration is not always contemporary, never Coessentiall. But all three uncreated Persons are Coeternal, be­cause they are Coessential, because they have the same divine eternal Essence: Angels are said to have an eternall duration, but they are not Aecerni­tas proprie dicta est increata; duratio i­taque An­gelorum non est vera aeternitas. Aeternum dicitur quod est extra terminum, & ex se incapax termini, quia in sua intrin­secaratione infinitatem in durando includit. eternall in the same sense that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are Eternall.

1. Because they were created, Coloss. 1. [Page 173] 16. and therefore did begin to be,Angels are not coaeter­nall with God. they have not (as the Schools say) an interminable or interminated duration à parte ante.

2. If they had been created from eter­nity, yet they could not have beene esteem­ed Coeternall with their Creatour, who did create them out of nothing, and did not beget or breath them forth in the unity of his own divine Essence.

3. There can be no lesse then an infinite dif­ference between the finite, dependent, Aliud est esse aeter­num, aliud sempiter­num, quia omne ae­ternum est immuta­bile. Ri­chard. Vi­ctor. lib. 2. de Trinitate. c. 4. Ratio aeternitatis consequitur immutabi­litatem sicut ratio temporis motum. Th. p. 1. qu. 10. art 2. c. chang­able, defective duration of an Angel, and the infinite, independent, immutable duration of these three uncreated, and all creating per­sons, who are one independent, unchange­able, eternall, infinite God the eternity of the three glorious persons is interminable, indefectible, immutable.

4. If Angels had been created from e­ternity, yet they would not have been es­sentially Deus est aeternus, imo & sua aeternitas; Deus enim est infinita perfectio, & proinde simul, & ex se, atque immu­tabiliter habet totam perfectionem suam, ratione cujus ex se sit sufficiens ad coexistendum omni durationi, quantacunque illa sit; & proinde sicut Deus est sua essentia & perfectio, ita est sua aeternitat. Vide Suarez. Metaph Disp 50. Sect. 4. Th. p. 1. qu. 10, a. 2.or intrinsecally eternall, because their essence doth not include any repug­nancy to an actuall beginning.

[Page 174] 5. If Angels had been created from e­ternity, yet God might have annihilated them afterwards, and then they had actu­ally ceased to be.

6. Although they were not actually an­nihilated, yet the veryEst in Angelis potentia Obedien­tialis ad corruptio­nem, quae natural [...]s dicipotest, quia in na­tura Angelorum quae à creatore dependet [...] desinere posse ad nutum creatoris fundatur. Omnis enim potentia Natura­lis est quae in rerum naturis fundatur. Vide si [...] Suarez. Disp. 43. Sect. 4. n▪ 2. possibility of be­ing annihilated is enough to prove their duration terminable, changeable, defecti­ble; and therefore though they had been created from all eternity, they would not have been coeternall with their maker, nor would three Angels have been coes­sentially coeternall with one another.

7. If Angels had been created from e­ternity, they would have been eternall, not by any intrinsecall or naturall durati­on, as hath been proved; and therefore they would have been eternall only by an Si Angeli ab aeterno creati es­sent à Deo, non seque­retur eos esse Deo coaeternos per durati­onem intrinsecam, sed potius ab aeterno esse, & aeternitati coex­istere per denominationem extrinsecam à Dei aeternitate sum­ptam; durarent enim ex aeternitate, non tamen duratione quae sit aeternitas, quia aeternitas est duratio per se, & abintrinseco necessaria, independens, immutabilis, quae nullam variatio­nem aut successionem admittit neque in esse, neque in propri­is & internis actibus aut motibus; vel per internam capaci­tatem, vel extrinsecam potentiam. Angeli non sunt Deo co­aeterni, multo minus aequaeterni, sed sunt potius aeviterni quàm aeterni. extrinsecall denomination, taken from the Eternity of God.

[Page 175] 8. Upon consideration of the Premises, many Reverend Doctours of the Church conclude, that Angels are eternall only à parte post; and they are eternal à parte post, not by their own nature, but by the free fa­vour and appointment of God; and there­fore there is an infinite difference between the duration of these three uncreated per­sons, and the duration of the most glorious Angels in Heaven. Angels areUnum est pri­mum, alia dependent igitur. Er­go suâ na­turâ om­nia praeter unum cor­ruptibilia. Tame [...]si enim sunt entia ab­soluta a subjecto & a termi­no: tamen haud sunt absoluta à causa. Sunt igitur per aliud, & ab alio; at omne dependens ab eo, à quo dependet, si est vo­luntarium principium, mutari potest; ergo ipsae quoque men­tes immateriales etsi ponantur, à Peripateticis coaeternae Deo, tamen ut à Primo pendent à Primi nutu deponi possunt ab eâ essentiâ, in quâ sunt ab illo constitutae. Vide Scalig. exerc. 307. mu [...]able, and God is free Agent both in respect of Crea­tion, and in respect of preservation; and ther­fore God and Angels are not Coeternall as the Peripateticks dreamt. God did vo­luntarily engage himself to create and pre­serve Angels by his own Decree; and there­fore that subordinate aeternity which they have à parte post, is vouchsafed unto them by the free and undeserved favour of God. For (asDamasc. Orth. fid. lib. 2. cap. 3. & 12. Iust. Mart. qu. 13, 14. Hieron. contra Pelagium lib. 2. Cyrill. 8. Thes. c. 2 Angelus auem non potest destrui per Physicam corruptionem, quia non componitur ex partibus Physicis. Viri itaque gravissimi ideo dicunt Angelos natura incorrupti [...]iles esse, quia Angelus non habet aliquid intra naturam sui corruptivum. Damascen saith well) whatsoever had a beginning would soon have an end­ing, if he who gave a beginning to it by his infinite power should think fit to suspend his upholding and preserving influence, or put forth his Almighty and irresistible power against it in a destructive way.

[Page 176] I will not take this faire occasion to speak of the acts or motions of Angels to make this difference seeme greater; for that which hath been said is su [...]cient to make it evident that Angels do not coex­ist with God the Father with the same du­ration wherewith God the Son and God the Holy Ghost do coexist with him; be­cause these three coessentiall persons are Co­eternall; they are all three one God, who is his owne Essence, his owne Eternity; The Scripture calls the God of Israel the Eter­nity of Israel, 1 Sam. 15. 29. and [...]. Ari­stot. lib. 11. Metaphys. cap. 7. Ari­stotle calls him life it selfe, the best life, an Eternall life, that hath neither beginning nor ending, nor succession; and therefore it is evident that he did not beleeve God to be subject toId enim Deus est (inquit A­ristoteles) & proinde Deum ipsam vitam esse intulit; aeternitatem ae vum continuum, aeternumque vocat sine successione, sine terminis. change or variation. God is (saith [...] dicitur [...]. Legimus etiam [...] apud Aristot. 1. de Caelo text. 100. [...] inquit Phavorinus, [...], aevum semper existens, quod nunquam caepit, neque desinit. Plutarchus insuper [...] Deo [...]ribuit. [...]. Deus est, secundum aevum immu [...]abile, qui u [...]us in uno nunc aeter­nitatem implevit. Psal. 146. 6 first Verses. Dan. 9. 24. Heb. 9. 12. 15. Heb. 5. 9. 1 John 3. 9. 1 Pet. 1. 20 23, 24▪ 25. he) a self-sufficient and eternall life. God is truly self-sufficient, because he is al­sufficient, he is infinite in perfection, and therefore infinite in duration; his infinite perfection and duration is nothing else but [Page 177] but his infinite Essence; and this infinite Es­sence is the self-same in all three Coessenti­all, Coeternall and Coequall persons, as hath been proved. And therefore we have good cause to rejoyce and triumph in this glorious difference between created and uncreated persons.

Give me leave to sweeten this dispute with some devotion. We have an everlast­ing Father, an everlasting Saviour and an everlasting Comforter: and we have good cause to lay a charge upon our immortall souls to blesse & praise all three Coeternal persons, for their eternall love, our eter­nall redemption and salvation. Praise the Lord O my soule, while I live will I praise the Lord; whilst I have any being will I sing praises to my God, and put confidence in him, for with the Lord there is plenteous and eter­nall redemption. But O put not your trust in Princes, nor in those sons of men in whom there is no salvation, for their breath goeth forth, they returne to their first earth, and in that day all their thoughts and counsels perish. [Page 178] Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God, which made heaven and earth, the sea and all that therein is, which keepeth truth for ever; read and consider the six first verses of the 146. Psalme▪ there is a great Empha­sis in the sixth verse, which keepeth truth for ever. O let us declare it to the follow­ing generation that [...]his God is our God for ever and ever, and he will be our guide even unto death, Psal. 48. 13, 14. Happy it is for us that we are redeemed by the pre­tious bloud of Christ, who offered up him­self by by his eternall spirit, his divine and eternal Nature, Heb 9. 14. that he might bring in everlasting righteousnesse, Dan. 9. 24. obtaine eternall redemption, and pur­chase an eternall inheritance for us, Heb. 9. 12. 15. Happy, thrice happy it is for us that we are born of incorruptible seed, which will abide in us for ever: for we are born of the eternall spirit, who will per­fect his work in us, and be our everlasting Comforter. Finally, all three uncreated Persons will be our all-sufficient and satis­factory portion and reward for ever-more.

IX. Three Created persons have diffe­rent actions and operations,The ninth difference betweene c [...]eated & unc [...]eated Persons. because they have different singular natures, different powers, &c. as hath been shewen in this ve­ry chapter. All actions of Father, Son and [Page 179] Holy Ghost upon the creatures are undivi­ded, nay indivisible; how Personall Acti­ons ad infra differ, I am to declare at large in the next chapter, where I am to shew how these three glorious persons who can­not be divided, are truly distinguished from one another; onely before I con­clude this chapter, it will be requisite to note, that though the Son cannot be said to beget himself, yet he is not Passive in that eternall generation, as hath been proved a­bove; the divine nature which is communica­ted to the Son by generation, is the nature of the Son as well as of the Father: the Father doth necessarily beget the Son in the power of that Nature, and in the unity of that self-same single and indivisible Nature; and that divine Nature which is communicated to the Son,Christus est [...] non [...] ▪ est enim filius à Pa­tre, Deus à seipso. is not begotten by the Father, but is of it self; and therefore we say that Christ is God of himself, though he be not a Son of himself, but of the Father by eter­nall generation, because the Father is the first principle of subsisting life.

I might proceed to treat of other diffe­rences: that common Rule, Actiones sunt suppositorum, See Mr. Estwicks learned Treatise in confu­tation of Mr. Bidle, pag. 41. is true of divine actions and uncreated Persons; but it is manifest that there are many actions of the soule of man, both when it is in a state of union with, and when it is in a state of separation from the body, which cannot be properly and truly cal­led [Page 180] actions of a person, but I shall not de­scend so low, as to take notice of such dif­ferences.

The nine differences which have been in­sisted on are all considerable. And from them all we may safely conclude that the word Subsistence or Person cannot be attri­buted after the same maner to God, Angels and men. A divine Person is a Spirituall and Infinite Subsistent, which must not be considered as abstracted from, but as Sub­sisting in the Divine Nature, and as related to those other Coessentiall persons, from which he is sufficiently distinguished by some Personall and Incommunicable pro­perty; And therefore Subsistence is attri­buted to God after the most excellent and glorious manner. A Person signifies the most excellent kind of Subsistent, an un­derstanding subsistent, as hath been shew­en; but then an uncreated person, a divine person doth infinitely excell and transcend the person of the most glorious Angel in Heaven; and therefore we must remove all those imperfections from our thoughts, which are in created persons, when we me­ditate or discouse of these divine and un­created persons, that we may think and speak according to the Analogy of faith.

CHAP. VII.
The three Vncreated, Divine, and Coessentiall Subsistents are sufficiently distinguished, though they cannot be divided.

WE are now come to treat of that profound Mystery, [...]. A­than s. ad Scr [...]pio­nem. at which men and Angels stand amazed. How can three be one? (saith the Disputer of this world) or one be three? Can one be distinguished again and again from himself? O bold fools, (saith Athanasius) Why do you not lay aside your curiosity, and enquire no farther after a Trinity, then to beleeve that there is a Tri­nity? The Scripture saith there is but one God, and the Scripture saith that the Fa­ther, Son and Holy Ghost are this one God; and yet the Scripture saith, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three, three and yet one: three Persons and yet one God. We have shewen above that the Godhead cannot be multiplyed; now we are to shew that the Persons are distin­guished, and what kind of distinction there is between these three divine and uncreated Persons.

1. These divine and uncreated Persons [Page 182] are sufficiently distinguished to our appre­hension, Trinitatis divinum dogma est; In Deo sic est ut di­cit; in Scri­pturâ sic dicit ut est; in Ecclesiâ sic creditur ut Scriptura di­cit. Iunius contra errores Samosit.who ought to judge, beleeve, speak, worship, according to the Word of God.

2. These uncreated Persons were truly distinguished from one another before there was any Scripture, any world; for the Coexistencie and distinction of these glorious Persons is eternall, and therefore this distinction cannot be grounded upon the mere phrase of Scripture; it is the true intent of God in severall plain expressions of Scripture, to declare unto us the distin­ction of these divine and uncreated Per­sons. I shall prove this point fully and clearly by certain steps and degrees.

I 1. These uncreated Persons have di­stinct and proper names in the Word of God.The Divine Persons di­stinguished by their proper names. The Father, the Son, [or the Word] and the Holy-Ghost [or Spirit] Now that we may not be Tritheites or Sabellians, let us consider that these three names do not signifie three different Natures, Negamus Deum esse unicam personam tribus nominibus appellatam contra Praxean Sabellium, &c. Negamus tres personas divinas esse tres Deos contra Trithei­tas ad unum omnes. Vide Tertull. contra Praxean. Calvinum contra Servetum. & Aug. Haeres. c. 41. and yet they do signifie three different Persons, for [Page 183] it is evident that one Person cannot be praedicated of another, the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father; the Holy Ghost is not either of them, nor is either of them the Holy Ghost; and there­fore they are three distinct Persons of the Godhead.

II 2. These Uncreated Persons are Coe­quall,The divine Persons are equall, and therefore distinct. and therefore they are distinct; It is most absurd to say that the same Person is equall to himself. But the Son is said to be equall to the Father. Philip. 2. therefore the Son is not the Father.See the Treatise of Reve­rend Mr. Estwick in his Refu­tation of Mr. Bidles Argumēts pag 89. 92. 93. We do usual­ly say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equall in power, to note a distinction of Persons; but then when we speak strictly, we do not say the power of the Persons is equall, but we say the power of the Persons is the same, to note the unity of their Es­sence. We say the Persons are equall in power. goodnesse, wisdome, &c. to note that one person doth not exceed another in degrees of wisdom, power, &c. because it is impossible that there should be any degrees in that which is infinite; and the power, wis­dome, &c. of all the three Persons is the same infinite perfection, because all three have the same infinite Essence. And there­fore when we look upon Power in a com­mon notion, as referred to the divine Es­sence which is common to all three Persons, we say it is the same power. But when [Page 184] we look upon power in a singular notion as it is communicated after a singular man­ner to this, or that person, we say this per­son is equall to that in power, the Father equall to the Son, the Spirit equall to both, to note the distinction of the Persons, and not the distinction of the Power, because the self-same Almighty Power is commu­nicated to the severall persons in a severall way; Power is in the Father of and from himself [that is] not from any other Person; the same power is communicated to the Son, but it is communicated to him by eter­nal generation, and to the Spirit by eternal procession; the [...]ame power then is com­municated to different coequall persons in a different way, as we shall more fully de­clare before we conclude this seventh chapter.

III 3. The Uncreated Persons are suffici­ently distinguished by their number.Divine Persons distinguish­ed by their Number. The nature of God is the first Entity, the first Unity, and therefore it is uncapable of number, because it is most singularly single, and actually infinite.Deitas est perfectio infinita simplicis sime unica Unitas ad essentiam pertinet, distinctio vero personarum non ad essentiam propiè & per se, sed ad rationem in essentiâ pertinet. Iunius contra errores Samosat. It is not proper (if we speak strictly) to say that God is one in Number; we should rather say, that God is one, and an only one. Deus non est unus Numero, sed unicus. But the Persons of the [Page 185] Godhead are three in number: the Scrip­ture speaks expressely of three These three, 1 John 5. 7 Pater au­ditur in voce, Fili­us manife­statur in Homine, Spiritus dignosci­tur in co­lumbâ. 1 Iohn 5. 7.

If any man in Athanasius his time asked how many persons subsist in the Godhead, they were wont to send him to Iordan; Go say they to Iordan and there you may hear and see the blessed Trinity; or if you will beleeve the holy Scriptures, read the third chapter of Matthew, the 16 and 17. verses,August. for there▪

1. The Father speaks in a voice from Heaven,Matth 3. 16, 17. and owns his only begotten Son, saying, This is my beloved Son, &c.

2. The Son went down into the water and was baptized.

3. The Holy Ghost did visibly descend upon Jesus Christ.

In the fourteenth of Iohn we have a plain Demonstration of this truth.John 14▪ 16, 17. I [saith the Son] will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, Iohn 14. 16, 17. May we not safely conclude from hence that the Spirit is a distinct Person, Another Person from the Father and the Son? for the Text is cleare, the Son will pray, and the Father will give Another Comforter; we know the Holy Ghost is not Another God, he is the same God with the Father and the Son, and therefore we must confesse that it is meant of Ano­ther Person; he shall give you Another [Page 186] Comforter, even the Spirit of truth, verse 16, 17. And againe, in the 26. verse of the same Chapter. But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth. What can there be more expresse or cleare? The Scripture teaches us to reckon right, and we see the divine Persons are reckoned three in Number: One Person is not another, there are diverse Persons, there are three Persons, the number numbred, the Persons numbred are named by their distinct and proper names, the number numbring is ex­pressely set down in sacred Records. We are not more exact in any accounts then we are in reckoning of witnesses, whose testimony is produced in a businesse of great consequence, and high concernment.

Now in the great question about the Messiah, witnesses are produced to assure us, that Iesus Christ the Son of the Virgin, and the only begotten Son of God, is the true Messiah, the only all-sufficient Saviour of his people from their sins. And there are three Witnesses named and produced for the proof of this weighty point.

Now, one Person that hath three names, or two Persons, and an Attribute of one or both Persons cannot passe for three Wit­nesses in any fair and reasonable account; we are sure God reckons right, and he reck­ons Father, Son and Holy Ghost for three [Page 187] Witnesses, and he doth not reckon these three and the Godhead for foure (as they do who dream of a Quaternity) because these three are one and the same God bles­sed for ever. Let us then be exact in ob­serving, since the Holy Ghost is so exact in making of the account. In the eighth of Iohn the Pharisees object that our Saviour did bear record of himself, and did con­clude from thence that therefore his re­cord was not true,John 8. 13 Iohn 8. 13. Our Saviour answers in the next verse.Verse 14. Though I beare record of my self, yet my record is true; for I am not alone, Verse 16. but I and the Father that sent me. Verse 17. And it is written in your Law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that beare witnesse of my self, Verse 18. and the Fa­ther that sent me beareth witnesse of me. It is most clear and evident by this dis­course that our blessed Lord did make a fair legall just account; for he cites the Law concerning the validity of a testimo­ny given in by two witnesses; and then he reckons his Father for one witnesse, and himself for another. I am one saith he, and my Father is Another; I and my Father make two sufficient Witnesses in a just and legall account. There is Another (saith he) that beareth witnesse of me,John 5. 32 and I know that the witnesse which he witnes­seth of me is true, Iohn 5 32. There is An­other saith he; he doth not meane another [Page 188] God; for when he speaks of his power and Godhead,John 10 30 he saith, I and my Father are one, Iohn 10. 30. Christ and his Father are one God, but Christ and his Father are two distinct Persons, for they are reckoned as two distinct witnesses; and one Person must not be reckoned for two witnesses. There is Another that bears witnesse,John 5. 32. 37. Iohn 5. 32. and the Father himself, v. 37. bears wit­nesse of me. Well then, Christ is one witness, the Father is another, and the Ho­ly Ghost is a third witness, 1 Iohn 5. 7. we see the Holy Ghost speaks as plainly in this point as we do when we teach a child to tell one, two, and three. For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. If we peruse the Scriptures di­ligently as we ought, we shall finde that these Witnesses are three Persons, who are one and the same blessed God. They are one in nature, though three in subsistence, to shew that these three Persons are not to be reckoned as three men are, who have three distinct singular natures really divi­ded and separated; for these three glorious Persons subsist in one another, and have one and the same single undivided and in­divisible nature; and they are three Wit­nesses, three Persons truly distinct, Iohn 1. 14, 18. cap 5, 3 [...], cap. 14, 16.

IV IV. The divine Persons are distinguish­edDivine Persons distin­guished by Inward & Personall Actions. [Page 189] by their inward and personall actions. The Father did from all Eternity com­municate theVita Dei est essen­tia vivens, vita subsi­stens, quae vita ut in Patre à nullo est, sic in Filio à Patre est living Essence of God to the Son, in a most wonderfull and glori­ous way; Now it is cleare that the Father did not beget himselfe; and therefore the Son is another Person truly distinct from the Father, and yet equall to the Father, be­cause he is begotten in the Unity of the same Godhead, and hath life in himselfe, John 5. 26. the living Essence of God who is life it selfe being communicated to him by an eternall generation. The unbegotten Fa­ther is clearly distinguished from the only begotten Son. But I dare not say as some do, that the Father is Active, and the Son Passive in this eternall generation because this generation is eternall. ForNihil simpliciter aeternum dici potest fuisse in potentiâ, & proinde generatio aeterna non est di­stinguenda in activam & passivā. nothing which is eternall, can be truly said to be in a Passive Power to any thing, much lesse can it be said to be in a Passive Power to be. The Son hath life in himselfe, is life it self, hath life essentially, and as he is the same Essence with the Father, is of himselfe, and hath all that is essentiall from that very Es­sence; but that Essence is communicated to the Son by theCommu­nicatio est Essentiae objectivè, quia est id quod com­munica­tur: Patris autem Activè, quia Pater generando Essentiam communicat. Father, and therefore the Son is said to receive all from the Father. But then we must consider that the Son re­ceives nothing from the Father as from an [Page 190] externall cause but as from an intrinsecall Principle rather the cause, for the Son doth not depend upon the Father as an Effect upon its Cause; And I call the Father Filium à Patre, imò ex ipso Pa­tre, & in ipso Patre genitū in­telligimus est enim Fi­lius Con­substantia­lis, Coes­sentialis, & proinde Patri coae­qualis. Si Filius sit par Deo, par Patri ergo est ei coaequalis: si unum cum Patre, ergo etiam Coessentialis, 1 Iohan. 5. 7. an Intrinsecall Principle of the Sons Subsistence, because the Father doth beget the Son of, and in himself in the unity of the same Godhead; their Divine Nature is one and the same, and their Persons are Coequall and Coeternall▪ because they are Coessen­tiall. This is the very Mystery of Myste­ries which corrupt and wanton Reason de­rides, but prudent Faith admires and adores.

The Socinians tell us,The Grand Objection. that they cannot be­leeve, that the Father did beget a Son of his owne substance, because God is eternall and unchangeable; the single essence of God is indivisible, and being most singu­larly one is incommunicable; part of the Divine Essence could not be communi­cated (say they) to the Son, because the essence is impartible, indivisible; and the self same whole Essence cannot be communica­ted, because it is most singularly one, and therefore incommunicable. Essentia quae est una Numero est incommunicabilis.

To this grand Objection I shall return a plain Answer out of pure Scripture,The plaine Answer. and deliver it in certain Propositions or Con­clusions, [Page 191] that the Answer may be more direct, cleare and satisfactory.

Conclusions concerning the eternal generation.

1. The Father did beget his Son; the Father himself bears witnesse to this truth, and his witnesse is full, and clear, and true. Jehovah hath said unto me,Psal. 2. 7. Thou art my Son, Hebr. 1. 5. this day have I begotten thee, Psal. 2. 7. Nay, the Father declares this truth to men and Angels as a Practicall truth that they may direct and regulate their worship ac­cording to this Mystery. The Apostle proves that Christ is more excellent then Angels, because he hath a more excellent Name then they; For, unto which of the Angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And a­gain, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son, Hebr. 1. 4, 5. Here's a double proof of the point, he hath a more excel­lent name, because he is the Son of God in a peculiar sense, and hath the divine na­ture communicated to him, as shall be ful­ly proved ere we conclude this point; for the name of Son is not an empty Title, he hath the divine nature of his Father in him. Now that he is the Son of God, is testifyed a­gain, and again, saith the Apostle, verse 5. And he begins the sixth verse thus, And a­gain, &c. You see how he doth inculcate [Page 192] this point, how he beates upon it again and againe; and the reason is, because this truth is Fundamentall both of Faith and Worship, as is most evident in the sixth verse of that chapter. And again when he brings in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the Angels of God worship him, Hebr. 1. 6.

You see this Mystery of the unbegot­ten Father, and the only begotten Son is held forth to men and Angels in order to worship that their worship may be direct­ed to Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, and to God the Father, as the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. God declared this truth after a glorious manner from heaven, that it might be more diligently consider­ed.Matth. 3. 17. And lo a voice from heaven, Matth. 19. 5. saying, this is my beloved Son Matth. 3. 17. when he was bapt [...]zed: and the like we read of when he was transfigured in the presence of the Disciples in the holy Mount. And the Apostle doth take notice of these so­lemne declarations from heaven, and layes them down as Fundamentals of the Chri­stian Religion, 2 Pet. 1. from the 16. verse to the twentieth. All the glorious Miracles wrought by our Saviour, Iohn 5. 36 and his resurrection from the Dead bear witnesse to this fundamental truth, that Christ is the first begotten, and the only begotten Son of the living God; be pleased to compare, Acts. [Page 193] 13. 32, 33. with Romans 1. 4. and it will be evident that he was not made, but onely declared to be the Son of God at the time of his Resurrection.

2. The Father did beget his Son from II all eternity before his works of old; I (saith the Son who is the wisdome of the Father) was set up fromRevel. 1. 18. Colos. 1. 15. primoge­nitus om­nis crea­turae phra­si Heb [...]a dicitur, qui ante omnes cre­at [...]ras ge­nitus. everlasting, when as the highest part of the dust of the earth was not made, when he prepared the heavens I was there, &c. Prov. 8. from 21 verse to the 31. his goings forth were of old from the dayes of eternity, Micah 5. 2. Iohn 1. 1. 2, 3. he was with God, he was God, before the beginning he had glory with his Father before the world was, Iohn 17. 5. RelataRelata simul sunt: Deus Pater & Deus filius sunt relata coaeterna; Pa­ter aeternus generat filium coaeternum. simul sunt.

3. The Father did beget his Son in the III unity of the Godhead; the Scripture speaks expressely that Christ is the [...]. Iohan 5. 18. [...] Rom. 8 32. Pro­prium op­ponitur a­lieno quod est extra essentiam Act. 3. 12, Vide D. Al­ting Expli. Cacec. par. 2. q [...]. 33. pag. 177. Proper or Naturall Son of God; he spared not his own Son, or his Proper Sonne; Rom. 8. 32. God is the Father of Christ, his own Father, Iohn 5. 18. the Iewes did well understand the importance and force of that expression, for say they, in that he said God is his own Father, he hath made himself equall with God; and therefore that Phrase doth import that he is the Na­turall and Coessentiall Son of God, else he [Page 194] could not be Coequall with his Father, Iohn 5 18. Philip. 2. 6. All those Texts which prove that Christ is God, and that there is but one God, do prove that Christ is the Na­turall and Coessentiall Son of God. God hath but one Coessentiall Son, to whom he hath given to have life in himself, Iohn 5. 26. because the Divine Nature, which is life it self is communicated to the Son by this eternall and ineffable generation. It is proper to living creatures to communicate their nature by generation in their low and imperfect way; but the great God who is not subject to imperfection, doth after the most glorious and perfect man­ner beget a Son in the unity of his own living Essence, who is therefore called the Son of the living God, that is the Natu­rall and Coessentiall Son of God, who hath the same Divine Life, Nature, Essence with the Father; and therefore Peter is so highly commended for confessing that Christ is the Son of the living God; Bles­sed art thou, saith our Saviour for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven; upon this fun­damentall truth, Christ hath built the Chri­stian Church as on a Rock, Matth. 16. 16. 17, 18. He who hath life in himself is the Naturall and Coessentiall Son of the living God: he hath the same Will, Power, Na­ture, Essence, Life with his Father, Iohn 5. [Page 195] 18, 26. Iohn Totam habet es­sentiam Patris qui dicitomnia quaecun (que) pater ha­bet mea sunt. Iohan. 16. 15. nisi velint haeretici etiam patrem duntaxat partem essentiae divinae habere. Et situt Pater habet vitam in se­ipso, sic dedit filio habere vitam in seipso. Iohan. 5. 26. 16. 15. Iohn 10. 30. 1 Iohn 5. 7. The same single and infinite Essence is in Father, Son and Holy Ghost; the whole undivided and indivisible Essence of God dwels in the Son in its fulnesse and infinite perfection. Coloss. 2. 9.

4. The Father did beget his Son with­out IV change orGenera­tio divina est omnis materiae motus mutationis nec non successio­nis expers, motion after a most glori­ous and wonderfull manner; there can be no change, motion, or succession in this e­ternall and most perfect generation. The Essence of God is spirituall, Iohn 4. 24. and therefore the Son is not begotten of the Fathers seed, or any materiall substance, because God is a single and pure Act, who doth beget a Son within himself Essentially one with himself and therefore his Sonne doth not subsist out of himself, John 14. 10. Iohn 10. 30. for an infinite nature cannot be poured forth beyond it self. There can be no essentiall change in the Son by this generation, because the generation is eter­nall, and the nature which is communicated by generation is unchangable; the Father did unchangably beget his Son, and his Son is unchangably begotten, there is no shadow of changing or turning either in the Father of lights, or the Son of righteousnesse, be­cause [Page 196] they are one and the same unchang­able Jehovah, Iames 1. 17 Malach. 3. 6. They are tooHomo generat modo phy­sico, spiri­tus crea­tus modo Meta hy­sico, spiri­tus increa­tus modo plusquam Hyperphy sico; Ho­mo gignit filium à se efficienter, exse Ma­terialiter, extra se Terminative. Substantia producit accidens à se effi­cienter, in se subjective. Deus non gignit filium efficienter, quia filius non dependet a patre tanquam effectus a causâ; de­pendentia enim in esse de creaturis tant [...]m propriè dicitur, quarun essentia est sinita. Deus non gignit in se subjectivè, nec extra se Terminativè, nec ex se Materialiter; gignit autem in se & ex se Immu [...]abiliter, & [...]t ita dicam [...]pestentialiter, quia genitus non est extra gignentem, sed in eo, & cum eo sabsistit in unâ uniicâque essentia indivisâ. Particula [Ex] Jo­han. 1. 14. non significat Materiam ex quâ, sed principlum à quo. Generatio filii non est libera, sed necessaria; filius enim De­us est, & proinde ens summè necessarium. carnall and base who make an unworthy and odious comparison between the material generation of a weak man, and this more then spirituall and supernaturall ge­neration. The eternall and unchangable Fa­ther doth beget an eternall and unchang­able Son according to the perfection of his eternall, unchangable, infinite nature. The Father doth beget his Son naturally, and therefore in a way agreeable to his un­changable Nature; if the Son were not necessarily begotten, his being would not be necessary, and then his Essence would not be divine.

V V. Jesus Christ is truly and properly the onely-begotten Son of God, and there­fore the only Naturall Son of God.Nomen si­lii Dei est quidem nomen ho­monymū Christo Angelis nec non hominibus etiam com­mune: ra­tio autem nominis est plane [...]i­versa, quia Christus prae Ange­lis nomen excellen­tius sorti­tusest. An­geli sunt filii Dei ad imaginem Dei creati ob gratiae collationē generatio­nisimilen: sunt ita (que) Filii Dei impropriè per Meta­phoram. Sancti fi­lii Dei di­cuntur eti­am sed Me­taphorice respectu regen [...]ra­tionis nec non Adoptionis; solus itaque Christus Propriè Dei Filius est; filius Primogenitus quoniā ante ipsum nullus: filius etiam unigenitus, quia neque post ipsum alius à Patre genitus. Tota tamen filiorum Dei familia in calis & in terrà ex ipso Christo tanquam primogenito nominatur, ut videre est Ephes. 3. v. 15. Christo nomen Dei, Angelis nomen ministorum tribuitur, Christus sedet ad dextram Dei ut Deus—Christus itaque est solus filius Dei Naturalis. Vide M [...]rt. Smiglecii lib. de Christo vero & Naturali Dei Filio adversus impia dogma­ta Valentini Smalcii. Et Gomari Analys. Epist. ad Hebraeos p. 199. nec non Disput. 7. de Patris & Filii personis. pag. 25. 26. operum par. tertia. Jesus Christ is called the Son of David according [Page 197] to his humane nature: but the Lord of Da­vid, and the Son of the living God accor­ding to his divine nature, as appeares by our Saviours discourse with the Pharisees, Matth. 22. from the 41. verse to the 46. And the Jewes sought to kill Christ be­cause he called God his proper Father, as appears by the originall text; for our En­glish translation doth omit that most ob­servable Emphasis; the words are [...], Iohn 5. 18. and Christ is called Gods proper Son; [...], Rom. 8. 32. and the Apostle gives the reason why he is called the proper Son of God in a more excellent way then the most glorious Angel is the Son of God, because Christ is begotten by the Father, but the Angles were only created by him; observe the words of the Apostle, For unto which of the An­gels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; so that the proper reason why he is called the proper Son of God, is, because he is begotten of God; there is the most excellent reason why Christ is said to obtain a more excel­lent name then Angels: Christ was begot­ten in the unity of the Godhead, and ther­fore he alone is properly the Son of God with a supereminent excellency. The Angels are not such excellent sons as Christ is.

  • [Page 198]1. Because Christ is begotten of God, v. 5.
  • 2. Worshipped by Angels with divine honour, worshipped as God, v. 6.
  • 3. He hath the Throne, Scepter, King­dom of God, v. 8.
  • 4. He hath the soveraign and proper Title of God, v. 8.
  • 5. The Attributes of God, eternity, v, 8, 10, [...]1, 12.
  • 6. He sits at the right hand of God, v. 13.

All these excellencies are due to Christ as the proper Son of God, Hebr. 1. wher­as the Angels the most excellent sons by creation are but ministring spirits.

From the [...]e proper and excellent rea­sons we infer that Christ is the only proper or naturall Son of God,John 1. 14 vindicated Particula [...]. [...]oh [...]n. 1 14. non est Assimilativa, sed Declarativa, Assertiva, Demon­strativa, rei veritatem exprimens. Vide Io. Maccovii Loc. Com. Disput 24. De Fili [...] Dei p. 193. Particula quasi non est assimi­lativa, sed expressiva veri, &c▪ because he is the [Page 199] only-begotten Son of God.Vidimus gloriam ejus ut u­nigeniti à Patre, id est qualis unigenitū Dei dece­bat ad de­monstran­dam s [...]am Deitatem. Nam par­ticula [...] non simili­tudinis, sed causae nota est, rei ip­sius veri­tatem. ex­primens. Vide D▪ Alting. Explicat. Cateche. par. 2. qu. 33. p. 176. We, saith Iohn, beheld his glory As of the only begotten Son of God. The word [As] is not assimi­lative, but declarative, and demonstrative in that place, for it doth declare to us that the glory of Christ is agreeable to his di­vine nature, he being the only naturall Son of God, because he is the only begotten Son of God; just as if when we see a King sitting in his Royall robes on his Throne, with a Crowne on his head and a Scepter in his hand, we should say now we see him as a King, that is, now he is like himselfe. his state is agreeable to his Majesty; even so was the glory of Christ which the Apo­stles beheld agreeable to the majesty of the only begotten Son of God, Iohn 1. 14. and therfore the word [As] was not insert­ed tanquam terminus diminuens to diminish the glory of the only begoten Son of God; for the word [As] is left out in the▪ 18. verse of this very chapter, The only begot­ten Son which is in the bosome of the Fa­ther, Iohn 1 v. 18. The Scripture doth a­bound with several expressions to the same purpose. But we are specially to observe that the only begotten Son of God is propoun­ded to us as the object of saving Faith, and therefore this point ought to be diligently studied and considered by us. For so God lo­ved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever beleeves in him should [Page 200] not perish but have everlasting life, John 3. 16. The Socinians observing how much it concernes us to stand stedfast, and not yeeld one whit of ground in this point, have tryed their wit to deceive and seduce us, and therefore they object.Object.

Isaac is called the only Son of Abra­ham, Gen. 22. 2. 12.

To this we answer without any great study,Sol. That Isaac was the only Son which Abraham had by Sarah: he was the onely begotten Son of the Promise; though Isma­el was the son of Abraham by Hagar, the bond-woman, in an unworthy and disho­nourable way; [...]. Greg. Naz. Orat 23. in lau­d [...] Heronis verè filiū ▪ quod & so­lus (sit fili­us), & so­lus (Patri filius) & si [...]gulari modo fili us, & soli Filius, non filius simul & Pate [...]. and therefore this example will not serve the turn, we reject it, for its impertin [...]ncy and dissimilitude. Christ is the only begotten Son of God, he is Ab­solutely and Simply considered his only be­gotten Son, and not only in some respect as Isaac was the only son of Abraham Christ (as Gregory Nazianzen said) is truly the Son of God, he alone is the Son, and the only Son of the Father, and his son in an only or singular way, and he is the son only, he is not the Father also, or the holy Ghost Jesus Christ is the proper Naturall true son of God, begotten by the Father without a mother in the unity of the Godhead, from all eternity, equall to the Father, one and the same God with the Father, as the Scri­pture sets it forth; and therefore we con­clude that he is simply and absolutely the [Page 201] only begotten Son of God, a more excel­lent son then all the other sons of God, not only more excellent in degree, for gradus non mutat speciem; but a super-excellent son, who doth differ from all his other sons, plusquam genere aut specie, because he is one God with the Father. Iesus Christ is truly the Son of God, because he is the true God, 1 Iohn 5. 20. begotten of the Father, Heb, 1 5. begotten without a mother, Hebr. 7. 3. begotten from the dayes of eternity, Micah. 5. 2. a son equal to his Father, who begot him, Iohn 5. 18. Phil. 2. 6. The Son of God, Matth. 16. 16. the first begotten, and the only begotten Son of God, the naturall and proper Son of God; for he is as the Father is, God by nature, Gal. 4. 8. and therefore naturally, necessarily, eternally begotten of the Father in the unity of the Godhead; and there­fore there is more then a graduall, nay more then a specificall or genericall diffe­rence between this and all other sonnes of God; we see by all these various expressi­ons, and by those divine and glorious Attri­butes which are ascribed to Christ in Scri­pture, that God hath wonderfully decla­red his love to us in sending his only be­gotten to redeeme us according to that of the Apostle, 1 Iohn 4. 9. In this was ma­nifest the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the [Page 202] world that we might live through him. When our Saviour called God his Father, the Iewes did very well understand that he meant it in a proper and peculiar sense, and therefore told him that he did make himself equall with God, Iohn 5. 17. 18. and that being but a man he made himself God, Iohn 10. 33. And though the Jewes accused him of blasphemy, and endeavoured to stone him as they pretended for his blasphemy, yet our Saviour doth not excuse his speech, or say he meant it in a Metaphoricall sense, but doth defend it by many arguments both in the fifth and in the tenth chapters of Saint Iohn, though he did thereby endanger his life; he saith he is equall to the Father, nay one with the Fa­ther, Iohn 5. 18. Iohn 10. 30. and when the High Priest asked him whether he was the Son of the blessed, Mark 14. 61. our Saviour answers; I am: there's a punctuall and po­sitive affirmation of it, v. 62, 63. and you may easily know in what sense the High Priest meant it, by his renting of his clothes, and condemning our Saviour to death for blasphemy, v. 64. And yet our Saviour did not endeavour to allay their heat and rage with any retractation; he would not say that he spake Metaphorical­ly, for he spake properly, he meant that he was the proper and naturall Son of God, who had the same nature and power with [Page 203] the Father, and therefore was able to do, and actually did the same works with his Father. And the Iewes did understand him so, and therefore urged the Law against him, and condemned him to death for blasphemy, Iohn 19. 7. The Iews answered him, We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. Mark the reason, because he made himself the Son of God; If our Saviour had not meant that he was the proper and na­turall Son of God, a Son equall to the Fa­ther, & one God with the Father, the Iews would not have accused him of blasphemy.

Moreover the Iewes do generally hold that those words of the second Psalme,Magistri nostri quicquid hoc Psal­mo canitur de rege Messia in­terpretati sunt: sed secundum verborum sonum, & ob refuta­tionem hae­reticorum convenit, ut eum in­terprete­murde ip­so Davide, Heb. bib. mag. cum com. Rab. edit. a Bombergio Venetiis. Rab­bi Salomon. com. in Psalmum secundum. This day have I begotten thee, are meant of the Messiah, as Rabbi Salomon doth ac­knowledge in his commentary upon the place. Whatsoever saith he is sung in this Psalme, our Masters have interpreted of King Messiah; but (saith he) and he whis­pers it as a secret) in regard of the sound of the words, and for the refutation of Hereticks (for so the Iew calls us Christi­ans) we think fit to expound it of David himself. Here's a Iew would faine conceal a confessed truth from Christians, and there are some others it seems that would con­ceal this malitious concealment, for these [Page 204] words are expunged out of the great He­brew Bibles set forth at Basil, but they are to be found in the Hebrew Bibles set forth with the Commentaries of the Rabbins at Venice by Bombergius, or else I had not in­sisted upon the words; I hope the detect­ing of this fraud may be very usefull, but I must hasten to some other arguments.

The Socinians t [...]ll us that there are five Causes of Christs sonship assigned in Scri­pture, which arr all temporall causes, and therfore they see no reason why we should assert, or they beleeve this eternall genera­tion of the Son of God, since Christ may be called the Son of God upon another, and farre different account. We desire to know whether every one of these five cau­ses be totall or perpetuall causes; if they be every one a totall cause, then there will be as many sonships as there are causes, no lesse then five sonships; for that rule is certaine, where there is a totall and sufficient cause in act, there the effect must needs follow. If they be partiall causes, then the causes which succeed in order, do not produce their complete effect, untill the last cause be in act; this we premise, that the vanity of this invention may be more evident in the whole contexture of their discourse. I shall now give them leave to speak their mind freely, and fully. [...]. The first false cause.

1. The first Cause of this Divine son­ship [Page 125] is (as they conceive) the Conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost, whereby (say they) Christ is said to be begotten of God in an excellent and peculiar way; and they urge that testimony of the Angel, which stands upon Record, Luke 1. 35, to make good their conceit; And the An­gel answered, and said unto her: The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be borne of thee shall be called the Son of God. These words of the Angel have reference to the prophesie of Isaiah mentioned in the 31. verse of this first of Luke. The words of Isaiah are, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and beare a Son, and shall call his name Imma­nuel, Isaiah 7. 14. they shall call his name Ie­sus, Matth. 1. 21. he shall be called the Son of the highest, the Son of God, Luke 1. You see the words are different, and therefore we must have speciall respect to the thing signified. Observe then

1. That the Prophet did foretell two particulars.

First, that a Virgin should bear a Son.

Secondly, that the Son born of her should be called the Son of God. The Vir­gin doubts of the first particular, and en­quires how that could be without the knowledge of a man? The Angel informs her, that she should conceive after a pecu­liar [Page 206] and admirable manner by the over­shadowing of the Holy Ghost; and from thence infers the second particular, that she should bring forth a Son, who was to be called the Son of God; and he gives the very same reason which was given by Saint Matthew, because it was so foretold by the Prophet Isaiah, Matth, 1. 20, 21, 22. for the particle [Therefore] Luke 1. 35. is not to be referred to the conception of Christ as the Cause of this divine sonship, but to the Prophecy of Isaiah recorded Luke 1. 31. for all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet Matth. 1. 22.

2. They shall call his name Immanuel, God with us, and therefore he, the same per­son shall be called the Son of God; this is an higher reason then that which the Soci­nians alleage.

3. The Socinians put a Fallacy upon us by assigning that to be the Cause which is not the true Cause,Fallacia non causae, quum non causa pro causâ po­nitur. [he shall be called] that is declared and acknowledged to be the Son of God. This Declaration or manifestati­on of the Son of God in the flesh was tem­porall, 1 Tim. 3. 16. but his generation was eternall, Micah 5. 2. The Son of God was sent, manifested, incarnate, in the fulnesse of time, Gal. 4. 4. but he was the Son of God before his Incarnation, and therefore his Incarnation is not the cause of his divine [Page 207] sonship, the effect cannot be before the cause, but the divine sonship of Christ was before the world was. The Holy Ghost is never called the Father of Christ, and he could not be the principle of the subsistence or the Word, and therefore not the Cause of this divine sonship. The Apostle states the point, and puts it past all dispute, Rom. 1. 3, 4. Christ was made of the seed of Da­vid according to the flesh, but determined and declared to be the Son of God with pow­er according to the spirit of holinesse by the resurrection from the dead; from whence it followes directly that Christ is not pro­perly the Son of God according to the flesh, but is in that consideration rather to be called the Son of David as we observed a­bove, because Christ came of David as con­cerning the flesh; but the eternall Son of God, is God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. When the Jewes said that our Saviour blasphem­ed, because he made himself God, John 10, 33. Christ askes them whether they did accuse him of blasphemy, because he said he was the son of God? v. 36. whereby he declared that he was the Son of God ac­cording to his person which is truly divine; beleeve (saith he) that the Father is in me and I in him, v. 38. The force of his an­swer is evident: I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and therefore I am a divine person; I am the Son of God, and therefore [Page 208] the divine nature is communicated to my per­son, I am begotten in the unity of the God. head, I am in the Father, and therefore if it be no blasphemy for me to say that I am the Son of God, it is no blasphemy at all to say that I am God, because the divine nature is communitated to the naturall and proper Son of God; there's the proper reason why Christ is called the Son of God, because the divine nature was communicated to him by an eternal generation.

II II. The second cause assigned by the So­cinians why Christ is called the Son of God,The se­cond false cause. John 10. 35. 36. explained and vindi­cated. is the sanctification of Christ, for which they cite Iohn 10. 35, 36. Behold say they the second cause of this divine sonship plainly set forth unto us, Christ hath ob­tained an excellent portion of the Spirit, he is sanctified and sent with a divine pow­er into the world to save mankind.

To which we answer, that here is the same fallacy obtruded again, because 1. Christ was the Son of God before he was sent into the world. 2. God did not give the spirit by measure to him, Iohn 3. 34. 3. Christ proves in that tenth chapter of Iohn, that he is one with his Father in power, and therefore in nature, as appears

1. Because he doth the same works that his Father doth, v. 37.

2. Because he is in his Father, and his Father in him, v. 38.

[Page 209] 3. Because he is the Naturall Son of God, and therefore might truly call him­self God, v. 33. 36.

4. Because they themselves called Ma­gistrates Gods, upon a cheaper account; on­ly in regard of their Commission and Of­fice; much more might he call himself God, because he was sanctified without measure, had an higher office and Commis­sion, being sent to do the work of God, to satisfie the justice of God, and save the e­lect of God, which he could not have done if he had not had the Nature of God, and been thereby fully enabled to perfect this work of God. The Argument is ground­ed upon the infinite distance, and imparity between the office of a Mediatour, and the office of a Magistrate; between the only begotten Son of God, who is one with his Father, who begot him, and the Sons of men who are but the Deputies of God.

III. The third Cause which they assigne of this divine sonship,The third false cause. Matt. 3. 1 [...]. is the speciall love of the Father to this excellent Son, Matth. 3. 17.

To this we answer, that God did not make Christ his Son because he loved him, but he loves him because he is his Son, a Son equall to himself, one with himself, the expresse Image of his person, the illustri­ous brightnesse of his glory. That very place which they cite makes much against [Page 210] them: God doth from heaven own Christ for his proper and naturall Son in that very place, Matth. 3. 17. God said not so to the best of Angels, Hebr. 1. 4. 5 To which of the Angels said he at any time, Caelitus clamavit Pa [...]er Hic est filius ille meus, u [...] te­statum faceret hunc esse proprium suum naturalem fil [...]um, è numero aliorum filiorum eo ipso exemptum. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee? that one place is sufficient to discover the fraud of the Socinians in this point.

IV IV. The fourth Cause which they assign is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,The fourth false cause. because when Christ was raised from the dead he was as it were begotten again from the dead, Acts 13. 32, 33.

To which we answer,Genui Ps. 2. prop [...]iè significat generatio­nem aeter­nam. Ge­nui Act 13. significat Metonymi ce, hoc est genitu [...] patefeci ho­ [...]ie, cum te excitavi a [...]m r [...]uis, R [...]m. 1. 4. explici [...]è dicuntur verba ista Psal. 2. de generatione, implicitè & consequenter autem resurrectioni accommodantur; conse­quenter inquam non ratione consequentis sed consequentiae. Vide D. Gomari Analys. Epist. ad Hebraeos pag. 299. that Christ was the Naturall and Proper Son of God be­fore his Resurrection, only he was declared to be the Son of God by his Resurrection, according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 1. v. 4. Declared to be the Son of God with pow­er according to the spirit of holinesse, (that is his divine nature) by the resurrection from the dead. Christ was not made but declared to be the Son of God by his Resurrection. His divine sonship lay hid under the forme of a servant before; only they who had spi­rituall [Page 211] eyes did discern it, Iohn 1. 14. we have seen, and beheld the glory of the only begotten Son of God. Moreover it is ob­servable that the Apostle endeavours to make the mystery of Christs divine son­ship manifest in the thirteenth of the Acts, not simply by his Resurrection, but by the manner of his Resurrection, and the state whereunto he was raised.

1. For the manner, he was raised by his own Almighty and most glorious power in an irresistible way; he did offer violence to all the forces of death and powers of the grave, because it was not possible that he should be holden of them, Acts [...]. 24. when he came to declare himself to be the Son of God with power, Rom. 1. 4.

2 For the state whereunto he was rai­sed, he did not rise to return to the grave a­gain, as Lazarus did, but he raised himself to an immortall life. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, Acts 13. 34. Rom. 6. 9.

Now, God by raising Christ after such a manner, to such a state, did declare him to be his only begotten Son, of whom Da­vid speaks in the second Psalm, and there­fore it was evident by the Resurrection of Christ, that God had fulfilled his promise by sending his only begotten Son to be a Saviour unto Israel, that we might have [Page 212] forgivenesse of sins and all sure mercies by him who died for our sins, and rose a­gain for our justification; this is the scope of the Apostles discourse in the thirteenth of the Acts from the 23 verse to the 39· The second Psalm is cited here by Accom­modation to make good a remote and Im­plicite consequence; as those words, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, &c. are cited to prove a resurrection by an Implicit con­sequence, Matth. 22. 31, 32. Thou art my Son, mine owne proper Son, whom I own for my only begotten Son by raising thee to a never dying life.

The fifth Cause which they assigne,The fifth false cause. is the Exaltation of our Lord and Saviour to glory, and the conferring of a Name and Power upon him above all creatures; for the Apostle, as they conceive, speaks of this sonship, Hebr. 5. 5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

I cannot but admire that the acute Soci­nians should cite every place where the second Psalm is named, to prove that there are so many severall causes of the divine sonship of Christ; but I do more admire that they should cite this Text of all the rest; for if their fifth argument have any force in it, doth overthrow and disprove their four first arguments. If Christ was [Page 213] not begotten before his exaltation to glo­ry, then he was not the Son of God before his exaltation; for surely these men of rea­son, will easily grant that the effect cannot be before its proper and complete cause was in its causall actuality, or actuall causality.

The words of God in the second Psalm are so often repeated, to teach us to keep our eye constantly fixed upon the divine sonship of Christ when ever we discourse of his conception, birth, resurrection, trans­figuration, exaltation to glory, and con­clude that the self-same person who was begotten of God from the dayes of eter­nity took our flesh, dyed for our sins, and rose for our justification; for this is that great and fundamentall truth which runs quite thorow the Gospel, That the Son of Mary who did and suffered all for us, is the proper, the naturall Son of God, the only and All-sufficient Saviour of his people from their sins. We must not part with this truth, for this is all our salvation.

It was very proper for the Apostle to speak of his divine sonship when ever he spake of him as a Mediatour, as a Priest, &c. because he could not have undertaken or gone thorow with any such office unlesse he had been the Naturall and Proper Son of God e­quall to God; and therefore we do readily grant, that the divine offices of Christ do de­clare and make manifest the divine sonship, [Page 214] and nature of Iesus Christ, and this truth is most evident from the connexion of the seven and eight verses of the second Psalm.

I have with the more patience and con­tent waded thorow this large and deep sea that I might come to the haven, where we desire to be; That we might come to take harbour and sanctuary in the merit and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, who is the naturall and proper Son of God.

In the next place I am to prove the e­ternall procession of the Holy Ghost, whereby I shall make the distinction of the Persons more cleare and evident, and ther­fore I hasten to the discussing of that my­sterious, but usefull point.

The Holy Spirit is not called a spirit be­cause of his spirituall nature only,Concerning the Proces­sion of the Holy Ghost. Spiritus di­citur non respectu spiritualis essentiae, sed Incom­municabi­lis subsi­stentiae, quia à Pa­tre & Filio unà quasi spiranti [...]bus proce­dit. for the same spirituall nature is common to all the three blessed Persons; but he is called a Spirit upon a special and peculiar reason because he is breathed forth by the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is called the Spirit which is of God, 1 Cor. 2. 1 [...]. [...]. The Spirit who proceedeth from the Father is sent by the Son from the father, Iohn 15. 26. The Greek Church acknowledges that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father by the Son. All things that the Father hath are mine, saith our Saviour, Iohn 16. 15. But the Spirit did receive all from the Father, and Christ [Page 215] and his Father are essentially one Iohn 10. 30. the Spirit is said to receive of the Son, and to glorifie the Son, John 16. 14. Whatsoe­ver things the Father doth, the Son doth; and as the Son can do nothing without the Father, so the Father can do nothing with­out the Son; not that there is a defect of pow­er in either, but an unity of power and nature in both▪ Omnia quae [...] u­nâ persona dicuntur, de ali [...] [...]ti­ā dic [...]tur, excep [...]is relationi­bus oppo­sit [...]s, quia nihil i [...] Deo mul­tiplicatur ni [...] relatio opposita; spiratio [...] ­tem quâ Pater spi­rat, non opponitur spirauoni▪ quâ spirat Filius. Pa­ter eni [...] [...]nâ ead [...] ­que cum Filio spiratione spirat. Omnia quaecunque habet Pater, [...]adem etiam Filius habe [...], Iohn 16. 15. Iohn 17. 10. Exceptis [...] ­tum iis, in quibus ei oppon [...]t [...]r▪ Non opponitur autem Pa [...]ri quod spirationem; Habet enim spiritus vitam subsistentem à Pa­tre nec non filio unicissima spiratione. Vide D. Alting. Lo. Com. pag. 42. D. Maccovii Disput. 37. de Processione Spiritus. D. Brochmanum de S. sancto, qu. 8. Stegman. Photin. Disp. 6. wen­delin. Christ. Th. lib. 1. cap. 2. Gomar. Disp. de Trinitate, Tom. 3. Disp. 7, 8. Junium Trin. Defens. contra Samosat. Polanum, Zanchium. Synop. Pur. Theol. The divine nature of both the Father and the Son was communicated to the Spirit by this eternall spiration, and there­fore he is sent by both, and he receives of both, and he glorifies both, and he is the Spi­rit of both the Father and the Son. He is called the Spirit of the Father, Matth. 10. 20 because he proceedeth from the Father Iohn 15. 26. and he is called the Spirit of the Son of God, Gal. 4. 6. the Spirit of Christ, Rom. 8. 9. the Spirit of Jesus Christ Phil. 1. 19. the Spirit of Christ, 1 Pet. 1. 11. because he receives of Christ, is sent from Christ, is breathed forth by Christ; the Fa­ther and the Son breath forth the subsistence of the Spirit with one and the same spirati on. When Christ breathed upon his Dis­ciples, he said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, to shew that he had power to dispose of the Spirit, who did from all eternity breath [Page 216] forth the Spirit. The Holy Ghost was breathed forth necessarily by both; I say, necessarily, because eternally there was a double and eternall necessity of it both in respect of the persons breathing, and the person breathed. The spirit was not breath­ed forth as a creature, but as a divine per­son, a person of the Godhead; he was breath­ed forth by Procession, and subsists in the unity of the Godhead; he proceeds from both, and yet in both; for one divine person cannot subsist out of another, but all three subsist in the same undivided and infinite nature.

But the Socinians tell us that the Holy Ghost is nothing else but the power and vertue of God the Father.In what sense the H. Ghost is the vertue and power of the Fa­ther.

To which we answer. That the Spirit is the natural vertue of the Father no more then he is the naturall vertue of the Son, or of himself; for the vertue of God is the es­sence of God; the Holy Ghost is his own essence, and all three persons have one and the same essence; The Holy Ghost who proceedeth from the Father, is called the Power of the Father, Luke 1. 35. because [Page 217] the spirit works as he proceeds in order; the Father works in the Son and by the Spirit. But the Spirit who proceeds from the Fa­ther is distinguished from the Father; the Spirit did not breath forth himself, or proceed from himself. The H. Ghost doth not speak of himself, John 16. 13. but the Father speaks of himself, because he is of himself, he is begotten of none, pro­ceeds from none of the divine persons, is sent by none of them. The holy Ghost doth receive of Christ, is sent by Christ; therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Fa­ther, but clearly distinguished from him, Iohn 16. 14, 15. Iohn 15. 26. Iohn 14. 16, 17, Matth. 3. 16, 17. Matth. 28. 19. 2 Cor. 13. 14. and in diverse other places. The Father and the Spirit are personally di­stinguished, but they are essentially one, 1 Iohn 5. 7. they are one in Power, Nature, Will, and yet are three Persons, three Witnesses who deliver one and the same divine testimony; [...] 1 Cor. 2. 11 [...] 1 Cor. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 5▪ 6. Acts 5. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 3. 16, 17. The testimony of the Ho­ly Ghost is as divine as the testimony of God the Father. The Witnesse of God is greater, verse 9. must refer to the Witnesse of the Father, Word and Spirit, verse 7. though the testimony of the Father be specially insisted on in the following words; for all the three Witnesses in heaven give one and the same testimony, and that testimony is di­vine. The H. Ghost is the Spirit of God, and [Page 218] the Spirit which is of God, Rom. 8. 11▪ 14. 1 Cor. 12▪ 3. Isa. 6 [...] 1. Isa. 63. 14. the Spirit of E­lohim, Gen. 1. 2. the Spirit of Jehovah, Isa. 11. 2. the Spirit which is Jehovah and the God of Israel, as hath been proved at large in the fourth chapter from the 31. page to the fortieth. The distinction be­tween the Father and the Spirit will be more evident when we come to treat of the personall properties; The Socinians are so confounded in this point,Vide Eni­edin. in Explicat. loc. v. & N. T. p [...]g. 288. 289. Ca [...]e chis. Racov. cap. 6. Ostorod Instit. c. 4. Smalcium in [...]. Graweri. p. 6. Smal­cium contra Wi [...]k. vesp. ad cap. 15. that they are forced to acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is no Accidentall vertue, no finite sub­stance, no creature, but the uncreated and substantiall vertue or power of God, because whatsoever is in God, is the substance of God; as Eniedinus confesses. And Smal­cius acknowledges that it may be granted that the Holy Ghost is God, because what­soever is naturally in God may be called God. But I shall prove that the Holy Ghost is not only God, but a person of the God­head distinct from the Father and the Son. Jesus Christ is called the Power of God, 1 Cor. 1. 24. and the Holy Ghost the Pow­er of God, Luke 1. 35, Luke 24, 49. The Son is a distinct Person from the Father; and the Holy Ghost is as the Ancients used to call him, the Personall vertue or Power of the Father proceeding from the Father, by whom he doth declare and put forth his power; 1 Cor. 12. and therefore the Spirit is said to work and distrioute all gifts and graces as he will; Father, Son and Holy Ghost have [Page 219] one and the same Will and Power; still we must bottome upon that truth, These three are one, 1 John 5. 7. That this Pro­cession of the Holy Ghost is mysterious, and for the manner of it unsearchable we do readily grant; and therefore I shall not presume to define after what manner the Holy Ghost is breathed forth from the Fa­ther and the Son; but we are sure that it cannot be any corporeall procession. The Ancients did constantly distinguish be­tween Procession and Generation; but the eternall generation of Christ being spiri­tuall,Non omne quod pro­cedit Nas­citur, quā ­vis omne procedat quod nas­citur. Vide August. contra Ma­ximin. lib. 3. cap. 14. the procession of the Spirit must needs be spirituall; for the Spirit is not only Essentially a Spirit as the Father, and God the Son are, but he is Personally a Spi­rit. The more perfect and spirituall this procession is, the more evident it is that the Spirit was breathed forth in the unity of the Godhead. They who say the Son doth proceed from the Father▪ use that terme [Proceed] in a generall and very large signification:1. The manner of the divine Processions. but then they say that the Son did proceed by Generation, the Spirit by Spiration thereby endeavouring to distinguish the manner of proceeding. 2. They say the Son did proceed from the Father alone,2. The Principle. and therefore is aid to be sent by the Father only; but the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Father and the Son both, and therefore is said to be [Page 220] sent by the Son as well as the Father, Luke 24. 49. Iohn 15. 26. Iohn 14. 26. Iohn 16. 14. but Christ is sent by the Father only, because he is of the Father only, and was not begotten of the Spirit; and the Fa­ther is not sent by any because he is of him­self; hereby they endeavour to distinguish the Principle of these Divine processions. 3. The Son did proceed as the second per­son,3 The Order. the holy Ghost as the third person of the Godhead, and hereby they endeavour to distinguish the order of these divine processions. We know this divine pro­cession is

  • 1. Spirituall.
  • 2. Eternall, because divine.
  • 3. Immutable; this procession is not a change of the Spirit from not being to be­ing,
    Pater & fi­lius spiran­do spiritū naturam divinam communi­cant spiri­tui, ita ut tribus Dei­tatis per­sonis com­munis sit: non est haec Ali [...] ­natio sed Commu­nicatio.
    or from an imperfect being to a more perfect being. We know that procession cannot be a motion from one place to an­other, for the Spirit is omnipresent, fills all places, and therefore cannot change its place. 4. Necessary. The Father and Son did from all eternity breath forth the Spi­rit in the unity of the Godhead, not by a­ny alienation of the Godhead from them­selves, but by an unspeakable communica­tion of the same divine Nature to a third person of the Godhead; And this commu­nication is naturall, and therefore necessa­ry it is, but not Involuntary; the Father [Page 221] and Son did not breath forth the Spirit by any Coaction or Compulsion:
    Spiritus Sanctus procedit nonvolun­tate ut Scholasti­ci, & post eos Cate­chismus Romanus ambigue docuerunt, sed neces­sitate na­turae qu [...] ­admodum & filius naturâ geni­tus est. Pa­ternon spi­rat sine fi­lio, non ob defectum potentiae sed ob uni­tatem es­sentiae. Spi­ritus Pro­cedit ab u­tro (que) sub­sistit in u­tro (que) quia est coessen­tialis utri­que, 1 Io­han. 5. 7. & proinde haec aeterna Spiratio non est contingens sed necessaria; nec libera est nec Involuntaria. Neque enim ne­cessitas haec vim infert, nec voluntas novum concilium desig­ [...]at ex deliberatione superveniens. Vide Athanas. Basilium, Cy­rillum, Nazianzenum, Theodoretum, Damascenum. Vide Goma­rum, D. Alting [...]um, Maccovium, Zanchium, Tilenum, Crocium, Stegmanum, Polan. Syntag. lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 6.
    and yet we cannot say that the Father and the Son did Arbitrarily or freely breath forth the Spi­rit as all three persons did create the world; for they did create the world with such li­berty and freedome as that they might not have created it; but they did Natural­ly and necessarily breath forth the Spirit, and could not but breath him forth: this inward and personall Act is Naturall; such is the perfection of the Godhead that it must needs be communicated to all three persons; and such is the coessentiall unity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as that all three do necessarily and naturally sub­sist in the self-same entire and infinite Godhead. True it is, that the will of God is the Nature of God, but nature is a more comprehensive Word, and therefore ac­cording to our manner of apprehension and in strictnesse of speech, it is more proper to say that the Father and the Son did breath forth the Spirit by the perfection of their Nature, then to say they breathed him forth of their own will, or by some Ar­bitrary Decree; for then it will follow that there might have been but two persons of, [Page 222] and in the Godhead, that the holy Spirit doth exist and subsist Contingently, and by consequent that the Spirit is no person of the Godhead. The acute Samosatenian whom learned Iunius confutes, desired to know whether the Holy Ghost was produced by an action of the Will;

Iunius answers;Iunius Ca­thol. Doct. de Trinit­defen. con­tra Samo­sat. pag. 36 Spiritus Sanctus procedit Naturali­te [...], hoc est actione Naturae, non autem voluntatis. Periculos [...] dicitur spi­ritum procedere na­turâ quidē sed per ac­tionem vo­luntatis: Non procedit actione voluntatis propriè, sed secun­dum actionem voluntatis procedere dicitur, id est secundum eamactionem, vel potius secundùm eum modum quo natura­liter procedunt voluntas & charitas. De hac re igitur posse­mus tacere, & rem Scholasticis defendendam permittere, aut ad libros eorum reijcere. If you oppose the will of God to the nature of God, we cannot say that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father and the Son by their will but by their na­ture, because the Father, Son and Spirit are Coessentiall; for as the Father did be­get his Naturall Son by his Nature, so do the Father and the Son breath forth the co­essentiall Spirit by their nature; nor is it safe to say, saith Iunius, that the nature of the Father doth breath forth the Spirit by an action of his will, but rather according to that manner (the infinite distance being observed between what is humane and di­vine) after which the will doth proceed in man: and this saith he is but a weak re­semblance [Page 223] of the Schools, which we are not bound to defend. For the Nature of God is pure, single, infinite, and therefore we must not follow those resemblances too farre which are grounded upon the distinction of the understanding and the will in creatures, because even that point is very disputable, and the most single and perfect nature of God doth infinitely transcend the perfection of Angels. I be­leeve you are, as I am, willing to get out of the dark. But enough of that, for we read that the Saints are begotten by the will of God, Iames 1. 18. But we must not conceive that Christ is begotten, or the Spirit breathed forth after the same man­ner as we are regenerated: the Spirit is breathed forth in a Connaturall and Coes­sentiall way in the unity of the single and entire Godhead; but we are regenerated by the graces of God.

The spirit doth proceed equally from the Father and the Son; for the unity of the divine nature, and equality of divine per­sons cannot be maintained if that princi­ple be denyed. Peter Lombard and his ad­herents did mince the point with a very dangerous distinction: that the Spirit doth proceed principally from the Father, and lesse principally from the Son. But it is clear & evident that the Holy Ghost being a Coessential person hath the self-same di­vine [Page 224] nature and essence entirely commu­nicated unto him which is in the Father and the Son, without any Alienation of it from them, or Multiplication of it in him; and therefore the Spirit doth not proceed from the Father and Son as they stand in Relative opposition, but as they are essenti­ally and naturally one; and therefore the Spirit did proceed from both equally, aequè primò ac per se, as we use to say. The Spi­rit doth receive from Christ, Iohn 16. 14, 15. but the Spirit being God could not receive any thing but subsistence from the Father or the Son. The Spirit doth glo­rifie the Son, Iohn 16. 14. no otherwise then the Son as God doth glorifie the Fa­ther: because the Son did receive his sub­sistence from the Father as the Spirit re­ceives his subsistence from the Father and the Son.

We must carefully distinguish 1. Be­tween the generation of the Son, and pro­cession of the holy Spirit, though as we have shewen above, the Son doth proceed, if you take that word in a general notion. The most exact Criticks wil not take upon them to distinguish between [...] & [...]. Yet because we want words to expresse our selves, the reverend Do­ctors of the Church thought fit to appro­priate Procession to the Holy Ghost for distinction sake; and the Scripture saith [Page 225] that Christ is the only begotten Son of God; God the Father is never called the Father of the H. Ghost; nor is the H. Ghost called the Son of God. Moreover, the Schoolmen have given advantage to the e­nemies of the Trinity by discoursing of Di­vine Processions at large in a generall noti­on; and for these reasons I did endeavorto distinguish the Procession of the Son from the Spirit in this Chapter, in respect of the Manner, Principle, and order of Procession.

2. We must carefully distinguish be­tween the Eternall Procession of the Spi­rit, and the Temporal Mission of the Spi­rit; but the Natural and Eternal Proces­sion of the Spirit may be evinced by the Temporal Mission of the Spirit. The Greek Church doth acknowledge, 1. that the Ho­ly Ghost is God; and 2. that he is one and the same God with the Father and the Son; and from hence we infer,

1. That the Son did not send the Spirit by way of Command as if he were greater then the Spirit.

2. That the Son did not send the Spirit by way of Counsel and Advice, as if he were wiser then the Spirit; and therefore the only reason why he did Temporally send him, is, because the Spirit did Natu­rally and Eternally proceed from him, and receive his glorious subsistence of him. I might discourse more largely upon this [Page 226] subject;Vide Athanasium 1. Dialog. de Trimtate Damasc. n. de fide Orthod. Modom Curiosita­ti imponat Lector, nec mole­sta▪ & per­plexas di­sputatio­nes cupi­diùs quàm par sit sibi accersat. Calv. In­stit. lib. 1. cap. 13. but I consider what Athanasius, Damascen, and divers other reverend Di­vines who did long study these mysterious points, have after many perplexed debates acknowledged. The Son (say they) was begotten▪ and the Spirit proceeded; this we are sure of, because it is written; if you en­quire after the manner how the one was begotten, and how the other did proceed, we answer that the Son was begotten▪ and the Spirit did proceed eternally, unchange­ably, unspeakably.

Those places of Scripture which are spo­ken of God in the Old Testament are said to be spoken of the Son, and the Spirit in the New Testament, and therefore do by consent of both Testaments, declare that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and the same God; for instance, The sixth of Isaiah is spoken of Jehovah, the God of Israel, whom the Mahumetans, Sa­bellians and Arrians do acknowledge to be the true God, but this is spoken of Christ saith Saint Iohn, chap. 12. 41. These things said Isaiah when he saw his glory and spake of him. But the Holy Ghost hath his share in this prophesie, Acts [...]8. 25. therefore they who beleeve both [...]estaments, must con­clu [...]e that the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are one and the same God.

Finally, the Personall actions and pro­perties of these three declare them to be di­stinct [Page 227] persons; therefore it is easie to con­clude that Father, Son and H. Ghost are three distinct persons, and yet one and the same God.

That the Spirit is a person of the God­head, hath been proved in the fourth chap­ter of this Book; That he is a distinct per­son from the Father and the Son, is most clear by that which hath been said both in that chapter and in this▪ and all those places might be heaped up which prove the personal appearance of the Spirit, when he did assume the shape of a Dove, and ap­peared as in Tongues of fire,Scriptura Neutro Antece­denti rela­tivum masculini generis statim sub­jicit▪ Io­han. 15 26 [...] non [...]: item Johan. 16, 13. 14. Eph. 1. 13, 14. his teaching, leading, acting, ruling, comforting, distri­buting of gifts and the like, together with the several phrases of him in Scripture, and frequent joyning him with the Father and Son as their equall in power and authority in bestowing all spiritual and eternall bles­sings do evince the same. The notes of distinction Another, even the Spirit; These three, &c. The change of the gender in relative Articles, which must necessarily be referred to the Spi [...]it, is very considera­ble. But I have said more then enough up­on this point, and therefore proceed to make the distinction of these three uncrea­ted V persons yet more evident.

V. These uncreated persons are suffici­ently distinguished by their Order.The un­created Persons distingui­shed by their or­der. The Scripture doth most commonly place the Father first in order, the Son second, the [Page 228] Holy Ghost third, when all three are named; and by the inward and personall actions (which have been mentioned) it doth appear, that, this is the Naturall Or­der of these uncreated Persons; for the Son cannot be placed in Order before the Fa­ther, because he is naturally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost cannot be placed in order before the Son, because he doth naturally proceed from the Son:Vide Basilei Magni Epistolam quae in scri­bitur [...]. Edit. Basil. Gr. p▪ 330. this is the proper and natural order. Basil the great in his [...] complains that some in his time did place the Son in order before the Father, and the Holy Ghost before the Son, that they might gain some advantage by that device. Basil tels them that he had received order from the Lord to Baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, and therefore was re­solved to preserve that order [...] inviolable, notwithstanding any de­vices or attempts for to prevent it. When the Witnesses in Heaven are reckoned up in a businesse of the highest consequence, they are reckoned in this very order▪ 1 Iohn 5. 7. The Father, the Word, and the Spi­rit. But it is confessed that sometimes it is most agreeable to the scope and purpose of the Holy Ghost to place the Son before the Father▪ as appears 2 Cor. 13. 13. Gal. 1. 1. and hence it is likewise, that the Ho­ly Spirit is sometimes placed before the [Page 229] Son, as Revel. 1. 4, 5. and sometimes be­fore the Father and the Son, 1 Cor. 12 4, 5, 6. But the natural order doth not over­throw either the equality or coeterni­ty of the Persons, nor doth that order of Enumeration which is pro instituto, over­throw the natural order, and both do suf­ficiently prove the distinction of the three uncreated Persons.

VI. The Divine Persons are sufficiently distinguished by their Personal Properties; The property of the Father is to subsist of himself,Pater [...] a Do­ctoribus Orthodo­xis dicitur Negative, quia à nul­lo est sed à [...]eipso, & per seip­sum ab omni aet [...]rni­tate subsi­stit. that is, to receive subsistence or subsisting life from none but himself. I shall not enter into that sad dispute whe­ther this Personal Property be Absolute or Relative? whether [...] doth not import something asOmnis proprietas increata per nega­tionem ex­plicata funda [...]ur in aliquâ perfectio­ne positivâ Positive and abso­lute as [...]? It is pleaded that the selfe subsistence of the Father is not his Father­hood: and that that rule is beyond dispute, Habere subsistentiam à se non dicit respe­ctum ad Aliud, vel Al [...]um; And therefore I humbly offer it to the consideration of the learned, whether that self subsistence whereby the first person is d [...]stinguished from the Son and the Spirit be Absolute, or Rela­tive? I will not take upon me to deter­mine any thing in so deep a point, or suf­fer my reason to wax wild and wanton in discoursing of so great a mystery: and ther­fore though there be something hinted [Page 230] which may amount to a videtur quod sic in the behalf of the lesse common opinion in the 142▪ age of this book: and it is clear that all three Persons are nothing else but the Godhead considered with all abso­lute and Relative perfection, yet I con­ceive it safest to wave that point, and con­clude with that learned divine, Nos fidelem ignorantiae professionem temerariae assertio­ni praeferendam judicamus. Whether then this self-subsistence be Absolute or Rela­tive, it is enough for our present purpose to prove that the first Person of the God­head is distinguished by his self-subsistence from the blessed Son and holy Spirit. The self-subsistence of the Father is Incommu­nicable, It is proper and peculiar to the first Person to have subsistence from none but himselfe▪ and to be the first Personal Prin­ciple which gives subsistence to the other two coessentiall and coequall persons. The Son receives subsistence from the Father, the Spirit receives subsistence from the Fa­ther and the Son, as hath been proved a­bove; and therefore this self-subsistence doth make a very remarkable, and undeni­able difference between the Father and the two other uncreated Persons.

Some learned men have from hence in­ferred, that because the Father alone hath subsistence from himselfe, therefore the Father alone is God of himself.

[Page 231] But the consequence is absurd, for they do not distinguish between the Essence of God & the peculiar subsistences, in the God­head. The Essence of God is [...]. and is one and the same in all, and every one of the uncreated Persons: it is (if I may so speak) a self-essence and essence it selfe a self-Deity, because every one of the Persons is truly, properly, essentially God, God himselfe; and therefore if the Es­sence of the Father be a self-Deity, so is the Essence of the Son and Spirit. The Divine Essence of the Son is not begotten, caused, produced any more then the Essence of the Fa­ther; the subsistence of the Son is begotten, but not caused; the Divine Essence is com­municated to the Son, but it is not begotton by the Father; for the Father doth commu­nicate that selfe same Divine and entire Es­sence, which is in himselfe, by begetting the personal subsistence of the Son in the Unity of the Godhead from the dayes of eterni­ty. Christ is not God by grace, but by nature; and the Will of the Father did not precede and produce the Godhead in Christ, but accompany and approve the naturall communication of the Godhead to Christ, even as his Will doth approve his own na­tural and eternal goodnesse; and therefore Christ is both his natural Son,Vide Gene­brardum lib. 1. de Trinitate as hath been proved, and the Son of his love, Coloss. 1. 13. Genebrardus was too blame to fall foule [Page 232] upon Calvin and Beza, and other reform­ed Writers whom he condemns as guilty of a new Heresie called Autotheanisme, be­cause they said that Christ was God of him­self, but he was not the Son of himself. Calvin and Beza did not deny that the Godhead was from all eternity communicated to the Son by the Father; onely they say,

1. That the Godhead which is communica­ted is in it self, of it self truly, properly, es­sentially Divine; because the selfe-same Godhead is in the Father and Son whole and entire in both.

2. Because the Godhead which is com­municated, is not begotten; the unbegotten Godhead is communicated to the only begot­ten Son by an eternall generation.

3▪ Because the Godhead which is com­municated,Solus Pa­ter est [...] id est ànullo superiore Numine Essentia­tus sed à seipso De­us. Val. Gen. P [...]o the 8. 12. 40. & ulti­mâ. is not caused, produced, created by the Father, as Valentinus Gentilis dreamt. And therefore Genebrardus, Canisius, Gif­ford, Stapleton, Faber Fevardentius, and the rest are extremely mistaken, when they say that Calvin and Beza deny that the Father did beget his Son in the unity of his own divine essence; For the meaning of Calvin was plainly this, The Son hath the selfe-same divine nature with the Father, they are Coessential: one and the same God who is the only true God, God of himselfe, not God by participation, or cre­ation, but God by nature and essence; for [Page 233] Calvin speaks in opposition to Valentinus Gentilis, who denyes the Son and Spirit to be coessentiall with the Father, but saith the Father did essentiate the Son with another manner of essence then his owne divine es­sence, namely with a created and produced essence. Gentilis saith, the Father onely is truly God, because he only hath an in­created Godhead, and the Son hath not the self-same Godhead with the Father.

I had not said so much on this Argument but that I find Papists, Arminians, Socini­ans, and some bitter Lutherans do all joyn their forces to abuse Calvin, Beza, Viret, Farrell, Simler, Volanus, Gualter, Bullinger, Lavater, the Orthodox Helvetians, and many other reformed Writers upon this Argument. Some say these reverend Di­vines are guilty of Heresie, Blasphemy, A­theisme, because they say Christ is God of himselfe, though they clearly mean that he is one God with his Father, and that the Godhead which is communicated to the Son by generation is an unbegotten Godhead, a self-Deity. If any one desire to read more upon this Argument, he may consult Valentinus Gentilis, and all that write a­gainst him, especially Calvin, and the rest of the Reformed Writers named but now: he may read the Ancients, with whom Ar­minius was not well acquainted; for if he had read them, he would not have said that [Page 234] the word [...] is not to be found in the writings of the Fathers.

They who are taken with Platonical raptures may read Dionysius, Plato's corri­vall; Maximus Pachymerius and the rest, will give them some light therein. Atha­nasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Da­mascen, speak the same thing either [...] or [...]; to whom I might adde Iustin Martyr, Anastasius and Cyrill; as for Origen, I know his writings have been extremely corrupted by the ini­quity of his Antagonists, and yet there are many things that are excellent in him, which I am in charity obliged to conceive to be his genuine and proper judgement, and to impute many of his errors to the fraud, ignorance, or malice of such as made too bold with his Works, or else to a kind of liberty of speaking, which good wits are not free from, when they have no ad­versary in sight who is like to call them to an account for their irregular phrases. Bel­larmine is as modest,Bellar. l. 2. de Christ. c. 19. as we could expect such a sophister to be; only he did not take notice of the controversie between Calvin and Gentilis; but we will pardon that error; for we know the Cardinal was not at lea­sure, and therefore did many times passe sentence upon the Protestants for expedi­tion sake before he had heard their cause. Gregory de Valentia is very ingenuous in [Page 235] this point,Greg. Va­lent. part. 1. disp. 2. quaest. 1. punct. 1. pag. 718. and makes a fair Apology for the Autotheans. If any desire to take a shorter cut, I shall refer them to three most eminent Divines who have studyed this point exactly, and are very criticall both in state of the question, and their phrases, Chamier, Gomarus and Voetius; and now, I crave leave to proceed without beg­ing pardon for this necessary digression, because I hope it may be very useful to learned men.

It is now easie upon the due considerati­on of the premisses to state the point right. It is proper to the Father to have,

1. The Godhead without any commu­nication of it to him from any other uncre­ated Person.

2. To have subsistence from, and of him­selfe as he is the first Person, and the first personall Principle of giving subsisting life unto the other two Coessentiall Persons. For the first uncreated Person cannot re­ceive subsistence from any person, because he is the first person in order, though all three be equall in respect of dignity and du­ration; there can be no person in order be­fore the first Person to communicate his God­head, or give personall subsistence to him either by generation or spiration, and this must needs be a Characteristicall and di­stinctive property which declares the subsi­stence of the Father to be incommunicable. [Page 236] For though all three uncreated persons do subsist in the Godhead,Eadem essentia est in Patre [...], in Filio [...], in Spiritu Sancto [...]. yet self-subsistence is proper to the Father; the Father alone is the first personall principle of subsisting life; the Father is distinguished from the Son, because the Father is unbegotten, and because he did beget the Son; the Father is distinguished from the Spirit, because he did breath forth the Spirit. But I have said enough of that when I treated above of the inward and personall actions. I need not take notice of their nice exception who say the Father is not his owne Father, and therefore cannot be said to be begot­ten of himself, or to have subsistence from himselfe; yet because some take advantage thereby to censure the reverend Doctours of the Church, [...]. Hesychius Suidas. I shall stop the Criticks mouths with one Criticisme out of Hesy­chius and Suidas, To be begotten of ones self (saith Hesychius) is to be begotten of none. God is said to be begotten of himself because he is unbegotten; & Suidas concurs, and doth either transcribe or subscribe. No man ever dreamt that the Father did beget either his Godhead, or his own personall subsistence: for the Godhead were no Godhead if it were begotten; & we know the Father is not his own Father though Synesius and some such Poeticall wits who meant well have adven­tured upon such dangerous expressions. [...]. It doth imply a contradiction that any thing [Page 237] should be the cause of it self, or its own effect, for the cause is before the effect,Vocis sono [...] negativus terminus est sed re­ipsa affir­mat. D. Gerrard de Tribus E­lohim. cap. 8. Sect. 50. pag. 175. and nothing can be before and after it self; and there is a friendly opposition between cor­relates; the Father cannot be his own Son. But notwithstanding all that hath been al­leaged by these Criticall disputants, still it holds good that the Godhead was not com­municated to God the Father by any person created or uncreated, and the first person did not receive his personall subsistence from any other person by generation, spiration, or any other way. But I must not dwell upon this Argument.VII

VII. The uncreated persons are suffici­ently distinguished by their personall and inward relations;The Per­sons distin­guished by their in­ward Re­lations. but we must not con­ceive that there are as many Persons in the Godhead, as there are Relations; for the Father is related to the Son and to the Spi­rit;Spiratio non est fundamen­tum rela­tionis per­sonalis hoc est propriae & peculia­aris; rela­tio autem distinguit vel quà propriavel quà oppo­sita; pater­nitas & spi­ratio, Item filiatio & spiratio non oppo­nuntur, non sunt proprietates peculiaries & incommunicabiles, & proinde non distingunt; relationes dicunt, sed non Persona­les proprias & oppositas. Vide Tho. part. 1. quest. 30. art. 2. An distinctio inter essentiam & relationem s [...]t Realis, formalis, vel rationis. Vide Biol. 1. s [...]nt. dist. 2. qu. 11. & dist. 26. qu. 1. art. 3. Vide Basilium etiam contra Eunomium. lib. 2. p. 134. and the Son is related to the Father and to the Spirit; and the Spirit is related to the Father and the Son. But there is a friendly opposition evidenced by some Re­lations which do help together with the Actions, Order and Properties above men­tioned to demonstrate some kind of di­stinction between the Persons; The Son as he is a Son, is Relatively opposed to the Fa­ther who begat him; and so the Spirit as pro­ceeding by spiration is Relatively opposed to the Father and the Son who did both [Page 238] joyne in breathing forth the holy Spirit; Relations distinguish as proper, and oppo­site.

I might discourse concerning the Order of these persons in working, as well as of their order in subsisting; something might be spoken of the peculiar manner of their working ad extra: and much might be said of the Incarnation of the Son to declare him to be distinct from the Father and the Spirit; and something of the effusion of the Spirit; but I have said enough to evidence that these uncreated Persons are distin­guished;What kind of distincti­on there is betweene these three divine and uncreated Persons. what kind of distinction there is be­tween them, I am now to show, and that I may be brief and plain in the opening of this weighty point, I shall lay down the truth clearly in some few Propositions.

1. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are I not Essentially distinguished: for Christ and his Father are one, Trinitas est. unus solus im­mensus naturali­ter Deus, praeter quem non est alius Deus. Vide Fulgenti­um de fide Orthod. John 10. 30. and all three are Essentially one, 1 John 5. 7. The Synod of Calcedon determined, that Christ was Coessentiall with his Father ac­cording to his Divinity, and Coessential with [Page 239] us according to his Humanity; but the na­turall Union between us and Christ doth only prove a specifical unity; but Christ and his Father have one and the self-same Divine and undivided Essence. He must acknowledge more gods, who holds that the Son and Spirit have another or different kind of Godhead from the Father. Essentiam divinam exinanire ut distincti onem per­sonarum demonstre mus est impium; essentiam autē in ip­sâ distincti one com­plecti ab­surdum. The Arrians did divide the Nature of the Tri­nity, and the Sabellians did confound their Persons; but Christians acknowledge and maintain that there are three Persons, and but one single divine nature in the blessed Trinity; only the second person did assume the nature of man that he might heale our nature, and save our persons.

2. These three Divine Persons are not distinguished realiter separabiliter: That is, they are not so distinguished,Iunius contra Sa­mosaten. as that they can be divided or separated one from another, as created Persons and II Things may.In illâ Tri­nitatis na­turâ sic to­tum unum est ut ni­hil ibi pos­sit separari vel dividi: sic totum aequale est ut nihil i­bi majus aut minus valeat in­veniri. These three Coessentiall per­sons are omnipresent, they do all three sub­sist in the self-same omnipresent nature; nay, they do all three subsist in one another, without any contraction, commixtion, or con­fusion, as hath been proved at large in the 161, 162. and the following pages of this Book. These Coessentiall subsiste [...]ts can­not be separated, or divided any more then their indivisible and infinite Essence can be divided or multiplyed.

[Page 240] 3 These three uncreated Persons are truly distinguished; this proposition is fully proved already in this very chapter:Fulgentius lib. de fide Orthodox. ad Donatū. I know it will be expected by some, that I should say that these three Persons are di­stinguished Really; but I shall humbly desire them to consider, that some have by that expression taken occasion to exercise their wanton wits in cavelling against this deep and glorious mystery to the great preju­dice of this weighty truth. If they be re­ally distinguished, say some, then they dif­fer essentially, or tanquam res & res, then they may be separated, say others, then there are three Gods, say a third. It is too well known what sport Atheists have made upon this advantage; and truly it is much at one whether men do professe themselves Atheists or Tritheites; for he who doth be­leeve that there are three Gods, may when he pleases, beleeve that there is no God at all.

Vorstius presses those that call the di­stinction between the Persons Reall after this manner;Q [...]id quid est aliquid seu quod habet ali­quam en­titatem seu formalita­tem inquit Vorstius habet es­sentiam. If the three persons be really distinguished, then they are tres Res, three reall things; for the multiplication of per­sons is reall, and therefore the Son being really distinct from the Father, and the Spi­rit from both, they must needs have three essences really distinct. And if they are tres Res, then either three substances, or three [Page 241] Accidents; Conseque­tiam ne­gamus. but the Reformed Divines can­not saith Vorstius grant, that they are three accidents, because they deny that there is any accident in God;Tum enim in creatis subsisten­tia & sup­positalitas quia non sunt nihil sed aliquid haberent essentiam; & conse­quenter es­sentiae es­set essentia & hujus rursum essentia, & sic in infinitum. Vide Eglisemnium in Crisi, pag. 20, 21. vide etiam Bis [...]er [...]eldium, Smiglecium, Steg­mannum, [...]esterum in examine Metaphys. Phot [...]ianae. D. Voeti­um de unica & simplic. Dei natura, p. 236. Wendelinum, &c. and if they be three substances, then there are saith he three Gods. Valentinus Gentilis and some Ministers of Transylvania reason much after the same manner. I know not whether Master Fry did ever read any of their writings, but sure I am he hath conversed with some of that perswasion, or else, his carnall reason is of neer kin to theirs.

For upon this very ground Mr. Fry doth adventure to explode three distinct persons or subsistencies out of his Creed,See M. Fry his blasphemy and er­ror blown up & down the king­dome with his owne Bellowes, p. 22, 23. but he will ne­ver be able to explode them out of the God­head: he may sooner explode himself out of the number of Christians; for if he take away the Divine Person of Christ, he takes away the foundation of christianity. But having shew­ed him his danger, I desire to satisfie his reason, awaken his Faith, & settle his Con­science in this weighty point:Si hic ra­tio quae­ritur, non est mirabi­le: si exemplum poscitur, non est singulare, Aug. Ep. 3. & li. 15. de Civ. Dei. cap. 13. lib. 15. de Trin. cap. 7. & Iob. Damas. Orth [...] fid. lib. 1. cap. 9, if he will deny his carnall reason, and not require [Page 240] [...] [Page 241] [...] [Page 243] any example, to illustrate a mystery above reason, and beyond example: Master Fry will tell us news indeed, if he can make it good, That any Ministers or Members of the Church of God in England do make Ie­sus Christ a distinct God from God the Fa­ther. M. Fry his Bell. 22.

2. He may do well to publish those rea­sons,Personae divinae Re­aliter di­stinguntur quia Scri­ptura ali­um dicit Patrem, a­lium fili­um, alium Spiritum Sanctum. Iohan. 5. 32. Iohan. 14. 16. & quia Rela­tive oppo­nuntur: at­qui oppo­sita, quà talia, non possu [...]t es­se idem; nō tamen distinguuntur essentialiter: omnis quidem distinctio essentialis est realis, sed non è contra. Personae ita sunt realiter idem cum essentia divinâ ut tamen Relative inter se opponan­tur; ad haec non sint praedicata Essentialia; distinguuntur ita­que ab essentia divinâ ex natura rei eminenter. Vide D. Voet deunicâ & simplicis. Dei essentiâ, p. 234, 235, 236. which move him and the others he speaks of, to be of that opinion.

3. He doth acknowledge that these three, the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost are equally God, pag. 21. Let him consider his own confession [these three] what are these three? are they three Gods? No, that he doth abominate: are they three Accidents, no, that is absurd; are they three substances? if so, then created or un­created; not created, for that he saith none will affirme: are they three uncrea­ted substances? No saith he, for then they would consequently be three Gods, p. 23.

I hope by this time he sees how easie it is to retort his owne Argument; and if this retortion may helpe him to answer it, I shall be glad that I have retorted it.

[Page 243] His onely answer ought to be, I doe be­leeve that these three are three Subsistents in the same single and infinite Godhead, Phil. 2. 6. Joh. 10. 30. 1 Joh. 5. 7. Heb 1. 3.

Vorstius, Valentinus Gentilis, the Tran­sylvanians require some more curious an­swer; but I shall be as plaine, and as briefe as the weight and depth of this Mystery will permit me to be; I remember that Aristotle saith,Aristotle Ethic. lib. 1. He doth make a truth suffici­ently plaine, who brings such proofes as the point in question will beare.

Now it is most evident that supernaturall Mysteries cannot be expounded according to the rules of Art.Pater Fili­us & Spi­ritus San­ctus sunt tres Res, & non sunt tres Res diverso re­spectu: tres Res respe­ctu relati­onum op­positarum. non sunt tres Res secundum essentiam. Wendelin. Christian, Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 105. Proprietates Personales essentiam divinam nec componant, nec multiplicant, personas autem faeliciter distinguunt. [...], Justin Martyr.

Some returne this answer, That if by Tres Res, three reall things, you meane three persons; there are three Real persons in the Godhead; they are not made three by a fiction of reason, they are declared three by the plaine words of Scripture; but they were three before any Scripture was written, even from the dayes of eternity. But if by Tres Res, three reall things, you meane three Divine Essences, we do deny that three persons are three Divine Essen­ces, or three Gods; for these three persons are but one God blessed for ever.

[Page 244] If you aske others,Non di­stinguun­tur [...] hoc est es­sentiâ, sed [...] hoc est Formali­ter, sivé [...] Persona­liter. vide Dama [...]cen. lib. 1. de si­de Orthod Modi in divinis non sunt separabiles, sunt autem reales, & modi re­ales distinguunt realiter quamvis modaliter. Nonnulli di­stinguunt inter esse Patris, & esse Patrē. Inter esse Quiddita­tivum & esse Personale. Personalitas divina est realis; distin­guuntur itaque Realiter quia distinguuntur Personaliter. Re­lationes in divinis non componunt sed distinguunt: relationes autem reales realiter distinguunt. Proprietates reales propriè simul & realiter distinguunt. they will say that these three are one Being, but they are three proper and peculiar manners of being subsisting in the same God-head. They have one essentiall subsistence say o­thers, but they have three Incommunicable manners of subsisting. Some expresse it thus, these three are Really distinct, but not Essentially; Modally, but not separably; Truly, but Relatively; Formally, and yet but Personally. Others that meane the same thing, say they are distinguished Se­cundum esse Personale, non secundum esse Quidditativum.

They then that say the persons are Real­ly distinct, should explain themselves wari­ly according to some of these or the like safe expressions: namely that by really 1 they doe not meane essentially.

2. They do not mean separably.

3. That by really they doe meane that the Relations and personall proper­ties, whereby the three persons are known to be distinguished, are reall relations and [Page 245] reall properties, and not fictions of reason.

The Relations are opposite, the proper­ties incommunicable, and much might be said of the personall actions to the selfe-same purpose; but I must hasten.

Some do adventure to call this distincti­on naturall, Richardus Bonavent. & Ioh. de Rip; per­sonas di­stingui di­cunt per proprieta­tes Absolu­tas primò, & per Re­lationes Originis ex Conse­quenti. Discrimen [...] tantùm sinxerunt Noëtiani. Epiphan. Haeres. 57. Distinctio personarū naturalis essè videtur, licèt non sit essentia lis inter Patrem & Filium na­turalem intercedit enim relatio naturalis. Personae per nihil quomodocunque distinctum à personis primariò distinguun­tur. Frustra sunt autem qui ideo personas eodem modo di­stinctas esse somniant quo primò diversa distinguuntur; illa enim essentialiter distinguuntur. Vide Biel. 1 Sent. dist. 24. & 26. [...]. Vide Greg. Nyssen. contra Eu-Eunomium lib. 1. Athanas. Basil, Eunomium cont. Naz. D. Alting. Gomarum, Gerrard. Voetium, Maccov. Wendeli. Glassium, Rhadam, Capreolū, Becanum, Eglis [...]mnium in Crisi, Meisuerum, Iunium, Calovium. but that is a very dangerous expression, it must not passe without some favourable graines of allowance, nor can it then passe unlesse it be seasoned with some graines of Salt, and be mollified with some faire and Orthodox Interpretation. By na­turall distinction, they meane Relative, because say they the relations which are between these uncreated persons are not onely real, but naturall also. The Relation between God the Father and his owne na­turall Son is a naturall relation, grounded upon a naturall and personall act [...]on; namely, the eternall generation of the Son. The Greek Fathers speake much of the Familiar and proper Emphasis of this naturall Relation between the Father and the Son.

[Page 246] By naturall distinction then they do not meane an essentiall distinction, as if the three uncreated persons did differ in na­ture; but naturall, in that sound and Or­thodox sense recited above.

I had rather leave my Margin to relate the curiosities of others, then to perplex a meer English Reader with any Scholastical difficulties. I have said enough for the ex­plication of those termes which are most usuall, and yet likely to give offence to such as do not understand the importance of them. I shall therefore conclude this point with Fulgentius his Commentary, which is an excellent Contexture of some pertinent Scriptures for the proofe of the point. Vide Ful­gentium lib. de fide Orthod. ad Dona­tum. When you read (saith he) of Father, Son and Spirit, understand that there are three persons of one essence, omnipotence, eter­nity, &c. For our Saviour saith, I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me Ioh. 8, 16. And concerning the spirit he saith, And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth, Joh. 14. 16, 17. Moreover he com­manded his Apostles to baptize all Nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And the equality of the Persons proves the unity of the Nature, Phil. 2. 6. [Page 247] Iohn 5. 18. and from hence he concludes that there are three Persons, and not three Natures in the blessed Trinity.

From what hath been said, it is evident that these three uncreated Persons are tru­ly distinguished, but they cannot be divi­ded; and it is not so safe to expresse the di­stinction of uncreated Persons by Termes of Art; They who say the distinction is Na­turall, Vide D. Voetium de unica & simp. Dei natura pag. 235. En Myste­rium quod nec capit Ratio, nec demōstrat exemplum Sola enim revelatio­ne divinâ nititur, & proinde fi­de divinâ suscipiendum est & pieta [...]e suspiciendum. Vide D. Alting. de Cognitione Dei Relativa. Incomprehensibilis rei imaginem in rebus creatis frustra quaerin us. Aug. lib. 15. de civ. Dei cap. 13. [...]Damas. Orth. fid. lib. 1. c. 9 Reall, Absolute, or Relative, do de­ny that the distinction is Essentiall, or that the Persons are separable. They who speak most tenderly, say it is Modall, Formall, Personall. They who say it is Naturall in respect of Personall Relations and Naturall Actions, confesse that it is Supernaturall and Mysterious, because the Unity of the Godhead is unquestionable; the Trinity of Persons subsisting in that Godhead admira­ble; both put together undeniable and inex­plicable, and yet most necessarily and high­ly credible.

They who say the Persons are Formally distinct, do mean that they are truly di­stinct; they do not conceive that the distin­ction [Page 248] of the uncreated Persons is grounded upon a meer fiction of reason, or upon the weaknesse of our apprehension, as if we did conceive one Person to be three Per­sons, because he is called by three names, as Praxeas, Sabellius, and some others dreamt. Nor do they beleeve that this di­stinction of these three uncreated Persons is only grounded upon the phrase of Scrip­ture: but they do acknowledge that there is a true and proper, not an improper and figurative distinction between these uncre­ated Persons; nay, they all confesse that this true and proper distinction is an Eter­nall distinction; it was from, and it will last to all eternity, and therefore is not groun­ded only upon some offices and externall dispensations which have respect unto the creature.

CHAP. VIII.
The Grand Mystery of three Di­vine and Coessential Subsistents in the single Godhead is not Problematicall, but Funda­mentall.

ALL points of Doctrine revealed in Scripture are profitable, and precious [Page 249] truths; and every man is obliged to re­ceive, beleeve and embrace every truth made known to him in, and by the holy Scriptures; Because all truths contained in Scripture are of equall credit in respect of the Authority of the Revealer; but all truths are not of equall necessity, weight and im­portance in respect of the Nature and Mat­ter of the points revealed. There is a vast difference between the nature, matter, weight and importance of these two Pro­positions;

1. Paul left his Cloak, Books and Parch­ments at Troas, 2 Tim. 4. 13.

2. Jesus Christ is God and man, the on­ly Mediatour between God and man, the only and All-sufficient Saviour of his peo­ple from their sins.

The first of these Propositions cannot be refused, because it is grounded upon clear Scripture, and he who rejects a point of the least concernment, which he knowes to be revealed in Scripture, doth not in­deed and truth beleeve and embrace any truth at all, no not truths which are of the highest concernment, upon the right ground and true reason, namely because God hath revealed them to us in the holy Scriptures of truth.

A Fundamentall point is of such high concernment,Fundamen­tall points described. that whosoever is ignorant of it is condemned for his meere Negative [Page 250] Infidelity; and whosoever doth refuse to beleeve it, is condemned for his Positive Infidelity, because he rejects a truth deli­vered upon the Authority of God, and a truth so highly credible, that it is necessary to be known, and beleeved for his own salvation. Our Faith, Piety, Hope, Charity, Salvati­on, are all grounded upon these necessary and Fundamentall truths.

Those truths or points of Doctrine are Fundamentall, without the plaine and expresse knowledge whereof we can neither savingly beleeve in Christ, nor rightly worship God in Christ to the obtaining of eternall life.

The Grand Mystery of three Divine and Coessential Subsistents in the single Godhead, is a Fundamentall point.

I desire to make this point very plain.

  • 1. For the satisfaction of the weak.
  • 2. Information of the ignorant.
  • 3. Conviction of the obstinate.
  • 4. Edification of the meek and humble.

It is most cleare and evident that it doth highly concerne Christians to ac­knowledge

  • 1. A Deity against the Atheists.
  • 2. The Unity of this Deity against the Pagans.
  • 3. A Trinity in this Unity against Turks, Jewes, Heretiques, both Ancient and Mo­dern.

We must 1. Know. 2. Beleeve. 3. Ac­knowledge. [Page 251] 4. Worship. 5. Obey. 6. Trust to, and depend upon three Persons, and one God.

Our blessed Lord in that excellent pray­er of his which is most largely recorded, Iohn 17. saith, That this is life eternall to know the Father the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent, ver. 3. This Text hath been opened and vindica­ted at large in this Book already from the 44. page to the 54. and therefore I shall make quick work now, and desire you but to compare this Text with 1 Iohn 5. 20. We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternall life; both texts tell us that it is eter­nall life for to beleeve that the Father and the Son are the only true God, and therefore this is a fundamentall point; And the Scripture speakes expresly that these three, The 1 Joh. 5. 7. open­ed and vindicated at large. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are one, one God; for the witnesse or te­stimony delivered by these three is the witnesse of God, 1 Joh. 5. 7. 9.

But it is objected by some that the words,The grand exception. These three are one. 1 Joh. 5. 7. are not to be found in some ancient Copies, and therefore it will not be safe to build a point of such weight and consequence up­on such a weake foundation.

To which we answer,The an­swer. It is true that these words are not to be found in the [Page 252] Syriack Edition,Si Syrum caeteros (que) sequimur, vel hiatus admitti­tur, vel [...] qnae im­primis e­legans turbatur. Mihi qui talem pri­mò usur­parunt in S [...]cris li­centiam [...] videntur. Heinsius, in locum. but they who speake most modestly, do acknowledge that the Syriack Edition is not Authentick. Learn­ed Heinsius is much offended with that E­dition, as appeares by his Annotations up­on, 1 Ioh. 5. 7. And if we consult the Scrip­tures, and compare this Text with the fol­lowing Verses, and with some other pla­ces of Scripture, which are more plaine, and then adde the testimony and Interpre­tations of the ancient and Reverend Do­ctors of the Church, concerning the words in question, we shall be able to passe a right judgement upon the point in hand.

1. The equality of the Number of wit­nesses suites very right, three witnesses on earth, and three in heaven.

2 The opposition between the quality of the witnesses, witnesses on earth, and wit­nesses in heaven: and yet their sweet har­mony and agreement in one testimony; all six beare witnesse to one and the same truth.

3. The diversity of the very nature of those three who beare witnesse on earth, and the unity of their divine nature who bear witnesse in heaven, is very considera­ble, and it is excellently expressed in the va­riation of the Phrase, These three are one, ver. 7. and these three agree in one; namely, in one testimony, ver. 8. Though their Na­ture be different, yet their Testimony is the same.

[Page 253] But it is objected that the Complutensian Bible saith of the heavenly witnesses that these three agree in one, Bib. edit Complut. [...] v. 7. ver. 7. I humbly offer this satisfaction to pious and learned men; That we have good reason to be­leeve, that there is an imprudent addition in the Complutensian Bible, rather then an omission of so many ancient and approved Bibles; and therefore it is fit that that ad­dition should be expunged out of that one Copy, by the concurrent testimony of so many Copies. Moreover it is cleer by the joynt testimony of other Copies, that the words [...] are omitted in the 7 ver. and the words [...] belong to the eight verse, and therefore there is an inexcusable omission, and an imprudent transposition in thatMerces satis falla­ces vendit officina Chr. Plan­tini Ant­verpiae in editione 1584 ex­cusa & cum Bib. Ar. Mont. vul­gat. corrupt edition. But then it is farther objected, that these words These three are one are wanting in some o­ther Greek copies; for answer I proceed in my observations.

4. If we look upon the Scripture account in other places, we shall find it exactly agreeable to the account in this place, 1 Ioh. 5. 7.

In the eighth of Iohn our Saviour pleads that two witnesses in Law were sufficient for the proof of any point, Joh. 8. 17.Joh. 8. 17▪ 18. and in the tenth verse saith he, I am one, and my Father that sent me is another: they are two wit­nesses, and yet but one God;Joh. 10. 3 I and my Fa­ther [Page 254] are one, Joh. 10. 30. Joh. 10. 30. One in power, and therefore one in nature. He speaks not of the spirit, because Christ was not yet glorified, nor was the Spirit yet manifested by that emi­nent▪ and glorious mission and effusion which was to follow after the Ascension of our blessed Lord. But he did foretell that the third witnesse was to be sent from the Father by the Son, Joh. 15. 26. Joh. 15. 26. But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testifie of me. I might adde to these testi­monies all other places of Scripture, wher­in all the three witnesses are named toge­ther, and then produce all the places which have been formerly cited in this booke to prove the coessential Trin-unity of those heavenly witnesses.

5. The copulative [And] in the begin­ning of the verse,1 Joh. 5. 8. 1 Ioh. 5. 8. doth very fitly connect the whole seventh verse with the eighth, as they are printed in our ordi­nary translation.

6. Hierome doth assure us that the words in question were expunged by the Ar­rians, because these few words do hold forth an undeniable proofe of the divine and Co­essentiall Trin-unity of these heavenly wit­nesses. And divers other learned and ju­dicious men conceive that these words were blotted out in the time of Constanti­us [Page 255] and Valens the Emperours who were sworn enemies of the blessed Trinity, and professed Patrons of Arrianisme.

7. The Hereticks did blot out those words,Vide Am­bros. lib. 3. de Spiritu Sancto. cap. 11. Ioh. 4, 24. God is a spirit, as Ambrose assures us: and therefore this practise of expunging such words in the Scripture as did refute their errours was too common amongst the Hereticks of old,Jurati veritatis hostes lu­cem hanc non tulerunt ideoque eraserunt. Vide Heinsium in 1 Joh. 5. 7. as we might prove by witnesses enough, if that were our businesse.

8. These words, 1 Ioh. 5. 7. are to be found in copies of great antiquity and best credit.

9. This Text is cited by the Ancient Fathers,Athanas. Tom. 1. pag. 91, 92. 93. Cypri­an lib. de Unitate Ecclesiae Paxillus de Mono­machia. Calovius lib. de Fide Patrum ante Con­cilium Ni­cenum. See Mr. Estwicks learned discourse of the Godhead of the ho­ly Ghost. Dr. Alting his Vindication of this Text in his con [...]uta­tion of the Racovian Catechism. by Athanasius in his dispute with Arrius at the counsell of Nice, and Arrius never denyed it for to be Scripture, which certainly he would have done, if there had been any doubt made of it in the Primitive times.

It is cited by Cyprian also in his book de Vnitate Ecclesiae. Paxillus in his booke de Monomachia proves by an induction of the learned Doctors of the Church both before and since Athanasius, that the Do­ctrine [Page 256] of the Coessential Trin-Unity of these heavenly witnesses was generally received by all that were esteemed Orthodox and pious in the Church of Christ. Calovius al­so in his Fides Patrum ante Concilium Ni­cenum, gives in a Catalogue for the satis­faction of all that desire resolution in this weighty point.

10. These three heavenly witnesses are one in Power, nature and Will; all three bear witnesse to the same truth, and their testi­mony is divine, 1 Joh. 5. 9. And the truth which they bear witnesse to is a fundamen­tall truth, a saving truth, that we may beleeve on the Sonne of God and have eternall life. 1 Joh. 5. 11, 12, 13. And if the authority of any one of these three heavenly witnesses be called into question, all may be questioned upon the same grounds, because their testimo­ny is of equall authority; their testimony is personall and divine; and if the testimony and authority of these witnesses were not divine, our faith which is built upon their testimony and authority, would not be a divine Faith. Quale est testimonium, talis est fides. All three heavenly witnesses joyne with one consent and Will in pro­pounding this fundamentall truth, and therefore if we do not beleeve and embrace it, we give the lye to all the three witnesses in heaven, 1 Joh. 5. 10. And if we do beleeve that Jesus is the naturall Son of God, in [Page 257] and by whom all beleevers have eternall life, then we must acknowledge that Jesus Christ is one God with his Father, the true God and eternall life, 1 Joh. 5. 20. Christ is God Attributivè, Joh. 1. 1. Subjectivè, Act 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 16. This one propo­sition, That Iesus Christ is the naturall and proper Son of God, is that Fundamental Con­fession of Faith upon which the Christian Church is built, Mat. 16. 16, 17, 18. Thou art Christ the Son of the living God: This is the Rock upon which Christ hath so firmly built his Church, that the gates of Hell shal never prevail against it, or this fundamen­tall truth. We are all built upon Christ, through the Spirit for an habitation of God, Eph. 2. 20, 21, 22. Father, Son, & Holy Ghost; all three joyn in laying this foundation, and all three are one and the self-same great God, who is the only true God blessed for ever, as hath been fully proved already in this book, and therfore I may be the briefer in the discussion of this weighty point.

The Form of Baptism doth contain in it a short Creed, or Rule of Faith, Mat. 28. 19. And when the ancient Fathers speak such high things of the Creed, they understand it of this short Creed which is part of Canoni­call Scripture, and not of that form which is commonly callled the Apostles Creed. In like manner when they expound Eph. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, they say, [Page 258] there is one Faith and one Baptism, because the sum of our Faith is contained in the forme of Baptism.

When Epiphanius hath reckoned up all the Heresies in his Anaceph. he opposes this one Scripture, Mat. 28. 19. to them all, to shew that he looked upon the Doctrine of the Trinity as a Breviary or at least prime fundamentall of the Christian Faith,Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 2. and Eusebius Pamphilus doth the like.Tertullian de Prae­script. c. 14 & 20. I might produce many pertinent places out of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Na­zianzene, Augustin & others to make good this useful observation,Athanas. Epist. ad ubique Orthodox & Orat. C. G. Sab & contra [...]. That the prime Fun­damentall of the Christian Faith is contained in the Form of Baptism, and founded on Mat. 28. 19. It were easie to shew upon what occasion otherSee Dr. Usher his Sermon [...] the Vnity of the Faith. Articles were added to the publique confessions of Faith in the most renowned Churches in severall ages.Basilius [...] Au­thor lib [...]i de Spiritu Sancto lib. 1. cap. 2. G [...]eg. Nyssen. de Resur. Orat. 2. Epiphanius Anacephal. Euseb. Pamphilus Epist. ad Palestin. Augustin. contra▪ Donatist, lib. 6. cap. 25, & Sermone in Symbolum. Hanc fidei nor­mam—Christus ascensurus reliquit. Ait enim eunies baptizate &c. Damascen. de fide Orthod. lib. 1. cap. 8. Concil. Ancy­ran. de Spiritu Sancto. 2. Didymus Alexander. And it is as easie to prove that the Doctrine of the Coessential Trin-unity was for the mat­ter and substance, if not in expresse terms, in [Page 259] terminis terminantibus as we say, constant­ly maintained

1. In publique Confessions of Faith com­posed, explained, confirmed by the first Ge­nerall Councels, published by the decrees, and edicts of pious Emperours, and ratify­ed by their civil sanctions from time to time. I need not instance in the Nicene Creed, or that Creed which was composed by Athanasius who studied this point, de­fended & suffered for it above forty yeers: The Confession published by the Synod of Constantinople doth not differ in substance from the other Creeds concerning this grand mystery of the blessed Trinity. I am not willing to expatiate upon this Argu­ment, because I should then be engaged to cite very many testimonies of the Ancients, which would swell up my book beyond its due proportion. But if any man desire to read more upon this Argument for his own satisfaction,Vide Par­kerum de Desc. ad inferos Dr. Usher his learned Sermon of the Unity of Faith. D. Voet. de Symbolo Apostolico. D. Gomarum de Symbolo, de Trinitate▪ Glassium, Zanchium de Trinitate. and hath not so much time as to peruse the ancient Records, he may read Master Parkers book de Desc. ad inferos, more especially his fourth book; The lear­ned Sermon of Reverend Doctor Vsher, concerning the unity of Faith, who gives a brief aud satisfactory account of the anci­ent Confessions of Faith with a special re­ference to Baptism. Doctor Voetius, Go­marus, [Page 260] and the rest who have written de Symbolo Apostolico, or of the mystery of the Trinity. The jugling of the Arrians is so plainly set forth in the most faithfull writers of Ecclesiasticall story, that I need not relate how they made use of their inte­rest at Court, and all their carnal policy in every considerable place to pack Councels, forge or corrupt Creeds, seduce all sorts of men, who were led more by interest then Scripture, and then to evade, or comply with subtile distinctions, mentall reservati­ons, equivocations, and such unworthy shifts for to save themselves from censure in a time of Reformation.

2. The Catechismes of the Ancients hold forth this doctrine; the Catechumeni were trained up in the knowledge of it. Lucian who lived in Trajans time,Lucian. in Philopat. brings in a Chri­stian Catechising the heathens in the Do­ctrine of the Trinity.

3. The forme of Baptism strictly obser­ved in the Churches notwithstanding the great ignorance and contention in the East, and the grand Apostacy in the West; doth sufficiently prove that this Doctrine of the Trinity had taken deep root in the minds of men, and that they were by the provi­dence and speciall grace of God very dili­gent and faithfull in communicating of it to their posterity from time to time.

4. The Doxology, or as some call it, the [Page 261] Hymn of glory doth evince the same, and therefore the Arrians endeavoured to make an alteration in the Doxology and in­stead of saying, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy-Ghost, they said, Glory be to the Father, By the Son, and In the Spirit; from whence we may observe by the way, that if we suffer the Fundamen­tall Doctrine of our Faith to be corrupted, we shall not be able to preserve the Fun­damentals of our worship pure, and uncor­rupt.

5. The Form of Apostolicall Benedicti­on which stands upon record, 2 Cor. 13. 14. doth cleerly hold forth the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Fundamentall both of Faith, and Worship; And all who desire the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ, the love of God, the communion of the Holy-Ghost, for their everlasting comfort & salvation, must beleeve and adore all three as on [...] God blessed for ever.

6. All who beleeve in God are comman­ded to beleeve in Christ as God, as one and the same God with the Father. Ye beleeve in God, beleeve also in me, Joh. 14. 1. They are commanded to honour the Son as they honour the Father, Joh. 5 23. And therfore the Doctrine of the divine person of Christ as Coessential with his Father is a Funda­mentall both of Faith and worship.

7. The Doctrine of the incarnation of the [Page 262] Word, the naturall and proper Son of God; the Doctrines of Christs satisfaction,Divinitas Christi est ipsum Fundamentale hujus dogmatis; est enim Articulus fidei necessarius ne­cessitate fi­nis respe­ctu com­munionis internae & invisibilis cum Chri­sto, hoc est cum Dei gratiâ & gloriâ: nec non re­spectu communio­nis Eccle­siasticae in visibili caetu. of our Redemption, and justification by Christ as an all-sufficient Saviour, are Fundamentall Doctrines necessary to be known, beleeved and embraced for our eternall Salvation; for we know the blood of a meere man cannot give satisfaction to the justice of God for those grosse affronts, injuries and abuses which have been offered by man to the infinite Majesty of God. The Church of God is purchased with the blood of God, Act. 20. 28. And if Christ hath not re­deemed the Church with the blood of God, then the Church is not redeemed; your Faith and our preaching are both vain, because you and we are yet in our sins; for then God hath not received satisfaction for our sins, nor a sufficient ransome for our souls. If the Son of God did not take flesh, then was not God manifested in the flesh; then the whole myste­ry of godlinesse which should be without con­troversie great and precious in the eyes of Christians, will be cheap, and vile, and of no account; for the whole mystery of godli­nesse, 1 Tim. 3. 16. depends upon the mani­festation of God in the flesh; Now the di­vine person of the Son took flesh; the per­son of the Father was not incarnate.

8. It is not enough to beleeve that the Son of Mary is risen from the dead; we must beleeve that the Son of God is risen, [Page 263] Rom. 1. 3, 4. It is Iesus our Lord that rose for our justification, Rom. 4. 24, 25. Rom. 10. 9.

9. It is not sufficient to beleeve that there is a man sitting at the right hand of God; we must beleeve that Iehovah sits there, Psal. 110. 1. Mat. 22. 43, 44, 45. And the like must be said of our Advocate, he must be such a one as can plead the wor­thinesse of his person, the merit of his obedi­ence and sufferings, one who is able to save us to the uttermost, Heb. 7. 25. 1 Ioh. 2. 1. 2 One who can plead with some Authority & Ma­jesty; Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, Ioh. 17. 24. He speaks with Authority, I will: he speaks like a Coessentiall and Co­equall person; and it is for the glory of the Father, to beleeve that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, that the Son is Lord, equal to the Father. Ioh. 14. 10, 11. Phil. 2. 6▪ 11. Many arguments more might be collected from divers places of Scrip­ture cited above in the fourth chapter of this book, and I shall enlarge upon this ar­gument in the ninth Chapter.

10. The Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father and Son, the same object of divine Faith and Evangelical worship, the same Author of the Scriptures, and all-saving Grace, Mat. 28. 19. 1 Cor. 12. 6. 11. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Through the Son and by the spirit, we [Page 264] have accesse to the Father, Eph. 2. 18. All Church administrations are to be performed in the power of the Holy Ghost, and are made acceptable by the merit of the Lord Iesus Christ. If we will heare the Spirit speak­ing in the Scriptures to the Churches, if we feel the Spirit Sanctifying of our hearts, if we do not desire to undermine the foundation of the Christian Church, and so overthrow the Church of Christ, if we do not renounce our Christian Faith, and our Baptisme the Sa­crament thereof, if we do not reject the fun­damentall blessing (the best portion of our selves and little ones) the grace of Christ, the love of God and communion of the Spirit, why then, I beseech you, as the Apostle doth, for the Lord Iesus Christs sake and for the love of the Spirit, Rom. 15. 30. and for the glory of God the Father, Phil. 2. 11. that you will beleeve, adore, embrace, love and obey the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as three Divine and Coessentiall Subsistents in the single God-head, as one God blessed for ever, the adaequate object, and Authour of your Faith, hope, love and happinesse.

I do not desire to obtrude any thing up­on the acutest disputant as Fundamentall that is curious or unnecessary. Nay there are many things necessary for the mainte­nance of [...]his truth, and refutation of con­trary errors, when we are to deal with sub­tile Hereticks, which I do not set before [Page 265] the common people as food fit to nourish them: and for that reason I do desire them,Dogma de Trinitate notat non tam nega­tivam & Elencti­cam The­ologiam quàm Po­sitivam; & Theses Principa­les non tam mo­du [...], & [...] ho [...]um G [...]amati­ce, Rheto­rice, & Lo­gice dog­ma illud explicandi quàm ip­sam rem explicatam, non tam formam ac modum per Philosophicas & Logicas notiones, distinctiones, & Axiomata dogma hoc con­tra Pseudo-rationa [...]os quoscunque tutandi, eorum subtilitates persequendo, & ad absurdum redigendo. D. Voetius de Trini­tate, pag. 467. that they will look upon much of my sixth chapter, and of some other chapters in this booke, as [...]t for the direction of young Scholers in this weighty point; for I find young wits apt to be seduced by Logicall subtilities, or rather fallacies, Metaphysical notions, Poetical raptures, nice distinctions and vaine curiosities, from the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ; and therefore I have taken some pains in divers chapters, but specially in the margine for the direction of hopefull youths, who have been too of­ten entangled and ensnared by Socinian fallacies, and at last tempted into loud and hideous blasphemies. We do therefore lay down these plain truths as necessary to be known and beleeved for the maintaining of saving communion with God.

1. That God is. For he who commeth unto God must beleeve that God is. Heb. 11. 6.

2. That there is but one God. Deut. 6. 4.

3. That the Father Son, and Holy Ghost are this one God▪ because they are all [Page 266] three Coessentiall subsistents in this most sin­gle Godhead, 1 Cor. 8. 5. 6. Phi. 2. 6. 1 Io 5. 7 Ioh. 10. 30. Mat. 3. 16, 17. Mat. 28. 19. Act. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 12. 6. 11. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Ioh. 15. [...]6. Rev. 1. 4. 5.

Reverend Calvin was not so morose and austere in this point as to contend about unnecessary words,Vide Cal. Inst. lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 5. & Colonii Anal. Praph. Instit. pa. 36. or curious phrases, so there were such words used as did fitly and fully expresse the whole mistery of Faith in this weighty point, and sufficiently refute the damnable errours of Arrius and Sa­bellius. If men will but acknowledge

  • 1. That the Father, Son and Spirit are one God and the selfe same God.
  • 2. That the Son, is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son; but that these three are distinguished by speciall Relations, Incom­municable and unchangeable properties, so that there is a Trinity of Coessentiall Subsist­ents in the selfe-same Divine Essence, we are all agreed.

Arrius would acknowledge that Christ is God,Vide Apo­logiam Vo­idovij & Ostorodi ad decret. in illustr. D. D. Ord. Belg. an. 1598. Non negamus Dei gratiâ veram filij Dei divinitatem, sed falsam imaginariam, & quam nusquam Sacrae Literae, ag­noscunt. Smalcius etiam Zelum suum in propugnanda verâ divini [...]ate Iesu Christi praedicat in libro de divinitate Christi cap. 25. bu [...] not Consubstantiall, or Coes­sentiall with his Father, for he did deny Christ to be the same God with his Father. And in like manner the Socinians will say, that they acknowledge and maintaine the true Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost; [Page 267] but they do deny that the Son and Spirit are one and the same God with the Father; and affirme, that the Reformed Churches who beleeve that all three persons have the selfe same God-head, do ascribe a false and imaginary God-head to the Son and Spirit, which the Holy Scriptures do no where acknowledge or declare. And this is the true reason why the Orthodox Do­ctors of the Church have been so unani­mous, especially of late yeares in maintai­ning this Proposition,—

Pater, Filius & Spiritus Sanctus sunt [...]. The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are one and the self-same God. On the other side Sabellius acknowledged,Dicit Sa­bellius pa­trem, Fili­um & spi­ [...]itum ni­hil in Deo distinctum sonare. that the Fa­ther Son, and Holy Ghost are one God; but if you say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three different subsistents, then he cryed out as M. Fry doth, that you ac­knowledge three Gods; the best way to a­void these (saith judicious Calvin) is to say That there is a Trinity of Persons in one and the same essence of God. Dic tres esse, vocife­rabitur te nominare tres Deos. Dic in una Dei Essen­tiâ Personarum Trinitatem: dixeris uno verbo quod Scriptu­rae loquuntur, & inanem loquacitatem compresseris. Cal. inst. l. 1 c. 13 sect. 6. Vide D. vo [...]t [...]um de necessitate, & utilitate dog­matis de SS. Trinitate page 467, 468. D. Crocium Synt. nec non Gomarum. For we must needs acknowledge the unity of the Divine na­ture, because we read that the Father, Son and Spirit are one; and we must acknow­ledge [Page 268] the Trinity of these Coessentiall Subsistents or persons, because we read that they are three. Now the Trinity and unity make a Coessential Trinunity; & if the uni­ty of the God-head, and Trinity of the Sub­sistents, or persons be acknowledged, we shall not wrangle about curious phrases, or unnecessary words. The most judicious and moderate men amongst the Orthodox Doctors of the Church agree in this.Learned D. Dave­nant in his Letter to M. Dury. The learned and Reverend Doctor Davenant in his judicious exhortation to Brotherly Communion betweene the Protestant Churches, teaches us how to distinguish between points that are fundamentall, and Problems or Propositions that are not Fun­damentall, and when he comes to reckon up Fundamentals, he instances in the Tri­nity, and expresses himself after this man­ner;

That God is one in Essence, three in Per­sons distinguished betwixt themselves; That the Son is begotten of the Father; That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son; That these three persons are coeternall and coequall.

All these (saith he) are deservedly de­termined and ranked amongst the Fun­damentall Articles. Now if any should contend that all those things which are disputed of the School-men, of the man­ner of proceeding and begetting, are also [Page 269] fundamentall, and necessary to be deter­mined on one side, verily he by this his rash judgement, would gaine no favour with Christ.

But it is objected by some, who do ac­knowledge Christ to be God, that they have no reason to close with us, when we say, That Iesus Christ is Coessentiall with God his eternall Father, because we do im­pose a new word upon them, and so make a new Fundamentall of our own Inventi­tion; to which I answer:

  • 1. That if we make an old truth plaine by a new word, they ought to forgive us that injury.
  • 2. We explaine our new Terme.
  • 3. We save them the trouble of an arti­ficiall and tedious deduction; for as soon as they do but understand the word, they must necessarily imbrace the sense, and ac­knowledge that though the word seem new to them, yet the Doctrine is old; for if the persons be of a different Divine Es­sence, then there would be more Gods then one.
  • 4. We doe hereby secure them against the subtilty of pernicious Hereticks who endeavour to seduce them into dam­nable Heresies; For if the Father, Son and Spirit have not the same Divine Essence, then either there will be more Gods then one, or else the Son and Spirit are no Gods [Page 270] at all, but such petty inferiour Gods as the Socinians make them.
  • 5. No man that hath a sound braine, and a single eye, can conceive that there are divers Gods in the same Essence, and there­fore the expression is necessary and safe. The Father, Son and Spirit are three Coes­ential subsistents in the same single God-head, they are all three one and the selfe-same God, who is God by nature, the only true God blessed for ever; in this Faith we will live, and in this we will dye, as it be­comes Orthodox Christians, who were b [...]ptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

CHAP. IX.
This Grand Mystery of Faith hath an Effectuall influence in­to the Practical Mystery of God­linesse and Power of Religion.

IT is the great designe, and faithfull en­deavour of sincere Christians to attaine unto all riches of the full assurance of under­standing to the acknowledgement of the My­stery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ, Colos. 2. 2. They who have but a Forme of Godlines [...] a kind [Page 271] of painted powerlesse shaddow of piety may look upon the Doctrine of the Tri­nity as a School-point, a meer speculative Doctrine which men receive by Tradition from their fore-fathers; but they who live in the spirit, and walke in the spirit, Gal. 5. 25. have a life that is hid with Christ in God, Colos; 3. 3. hid from formall men, as co­lours are hid from blind men; and these spirituall Christians do account the love of the Father, 2 Cor. 13. 14. the grace of Christ, and the com­munion of the Spirit to be their Heaven upon earth; They receive Iesus Christ, so as to live by him, walke in him, and live to him, Colos. 2. 6. Phil. 1. 21, 1 Ioh. 5. 12, 2 Cor. 5. 15.

What is a Godly life? but a life of faith, and love, of joy and thankfulnesse, of self-denyall, and devotion; of patience and obedience, hope and perseverance, vi­ctory, and triumph. This is the life of God, or that godly life, to which the Ephesians were all strangers till they had learned the truth as it is in Iesus, Ephes. 4. 20, 21. And how come we to be quickned to this God­ly life? but by being begotten of the Father, Iam. 1. 17, 18. borne of the Spirit, Ioh. 3. 6. and hearing the voice of the Son of God, Ioh. 5. 25, 26, When we have learnt of the Fa­ther, and are drawne by the Spirit, we come unto the Son, who is the way, the truth, and the life, Ioh. 6. 44, 45. Ioh. 14. 6. And [Page 272] how is this Spirituall life maintained, but by the Supply of the Spirit of Iesus Christ? Philip. 1, 19.

Let us take the whole frame of a godly life to pieces, and view every part and Spring, and wheel and pin, and then put it together againe, and then we shall be able to judge what effectuall influence these three Coessentiall persons (considered as one and the same God, or as three distinct persons subsisting in the single God-head) have into the Practicall Mystery of God­linesse, and Power of Religion.

The Doctrine of Godlinesse containes

  • 1. Our Faith in God.
  • 2. Worship of God.
  • 3. Obedience to God.

1. Our Faith in God. I have spoken of this grand Mystery of Faith, and shewn that it is necessary to be known and belee­ved in the eight Chapter at large; But I shall now treat of it in a more practicall way. Adam in his Innocency was bound for to beleeve in the Father, Son and Ho­ly Ghost, who are one Almighty God, Creator, Upholder and Governour of Heaven and Earth, Self-sufficient and All-sufficient, blessed in, and of himselfe, the only cause, and adaequate object of the blessednesse of his creatures. Adam was created by all three; after the Image of all three; for God said, Let us make man in [Page 273] our Image, after our likenesse, Gen. 1. 26. and therefore we cannot conceive, but that all three were revealed to Adam, that he might know and beleeve in all three; sure­ly Adam was better Catechized then Jews, Turkes and Pagans are in this great point, and therefore did know, beleeve and Worship all three. There is no questi­on but he entred into Covenant with all three; and therefore beleeved in all three; I cannot beleeve that two of the Divine Persons had no worship or service from Adam their creature before his fall; And doubtlesse Adam knew whom he be­leeved, and whom he worshipped as his Almighty Creator, and All-sufficient God. Adam under the first Covenant was bound to beleeve in the second Person as God, but not as God-man, [...]. Mer­cur. Tris­megist. the Mediatour betwixt God and sin full man. Adam did owe the right of subjection to all three, from whom he received the Honour of Dominion. The world was made for man, man for the ho­nour and glory of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; Adams originall righteousnesse did incline and enable him to beleeve in all three; and surely Adam understood that severe rebuke which was given him present­ly after his fall, Gen. 3. 22. And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of [us] But because I will forbeare disputes, I will not proceed further upon this Argument.

[Page 274] I The Faith of Christians delights to exer­cise it selfe upon God the Father, Son and holy Spirit.God the Father is the object of a Christ­ians faith. God the Father is pleased to be our Tutor, to condescend so far as to teach us; and oportet discentem credere; Schollers must beleeve their teachers. It is written in the Prophets, and they shall be all taught of God; Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learnt of the Father cometh unto me, Ioh. 6. 45. We must beleeve the Re­cord that God the Father gives of his Son, 1 Ioh. 5. 10. When we look upon God as the father of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ, & look upon him as our God and Father in Christ, these neer and deare relations do en­courage us to beleeve him, and beleeve in him, to beleeve his truth, to beleeve his love; his fatherly & tender bowels do perswade and even constraine us to fix our beleife and place our confidence in God the Father.

The heires of Promise have good encou­ragement to beleeve their Father, who gives them all they have and hope for, when he declares the immutability of his Counsell in a faithfull promise, and con­firmes it by an unchangeable Oath, Heb. 6. 17, 18. Surely the Father will not deceive his owne children of their Inheritance which he hath made over to them by promise and Oath; this is the ground of all our hope and comfort; we may safely cast Anchor here, Heb. 6. 18. 19. In the Old Testament, [Page 275] the Covenant runs in the names of Abra­ham, Isaac and Iacob; but in the New Te­stament it runs in the name of Christ; there we read the God of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob; but here we read, God our Father, the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, that is our God and Father in Christ, and for Christ; our Father because Christs Father. Grace be to you, and peace from God our Father; and blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who hath blessed us with all Spirituall blessings in hea­venly things in Christ, Ephes. 1. 2, 3. We can­not but look up with Faith and confi­dence to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ and our Father as the fountaine of all blessing, the fountain of grace and peace and glory. This deare Fatherly relation of God to Christ, and in Christ to us, is some­times darkly intimated and but hinted, and sometimes cleerly & fully expressed to en­courage our Faith. The Disciples were very sad because they heard our Saviour speak of going to his Father: go saith Christ, to my brethren and say unto them, Ioh. 20. 17. What should Mary say for their consola­tion? was it enough to tell them my Lord is alive, and calls you his brethren? no, that were too darke an intimation, and there­fore our Saviour gives her her message in words at length; Go to my brethren, and say unto them I ascend unto my Father, and your [Page 276] Father and to my God, and your God, Joh. 20 17. here's an Evangelical ground of faith, hope and comfort in the time of the sad­dest distresse. The great Argument used to encourage poor trembling beleevers to come to Christ when they have interrup­ted their fellowship with God the Father, Christ and the Holy Comforter by any grievous wounding sinne is this: If any man sin▪ we have an Advocate with the Fa­ther, Iesus Christ the Righteous. God is a Father both to us and our Advocate; there­fore renew the sense of your justification by faith at a Ihrone of Grace; you see our faith is encouraged in the saddest tryals by this Argument. The Father of our Lord Iesus Christ is the Father of mercyes, and the God of all comfort, 2 Cor. 1. 3. the fountaine of grace and peace, Rom 1. 7. Gal. 1. 3. Iesus Christ make it his o [...]inesse to perswade poor tempted soul [...]s to be­leeve that his Father loves them, and [...]ears good wil to them. The Father himself loves you, Ioh. 16. 27 and Christ gave himselfe for to deliver us from sin and the World, Death and Hell, according to the will of God and our Father, Gal. 1. 4. And God so loved the world, that he gave his only begot­ten II Son, that whosoever beleeveth, &c.

II. God the Son is the object of our Faith,Ioh. 3. 16. Ioh. 14 1. Ye beleeve in God, beleeve also in me; even the very Jews did beleeve [Page 277] in God; they who are Christians indeed be­leeve in Christ also. For this end the whole Gospel was written that men might be per­swaded to beleeve that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God, Joh. 20. 31, and that the be­lief of this grand point is necessary and ef­fectual unto salvation is presently declared in the very same verse, & that beleeving ye might have life through his Name I0▪ [...]0. 31. And this is the record that God hath given to us eternal life, & this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life. These things have I writ­ten to you that beleeve on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may beleeve on the name of the Son of God, Ioh. 5. 11, 12, 13. And if God give us an understanding to know this, the knowing of, beleeving and living in Ie­sus Christ the Son of God, the true God, will be effectuall unto life eternal. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Iesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. 1 Ioh. 5. 20. It is for want of spirituall understanding if we do not discern that all our hopes of sal­vation are built upon the Sonship & God­head of Iesus; we must beleeve in Christ as he is the naturall & proper Son of God as he is the true God, the self-same God with the Father.

[Page 278] 1.1 Joh. 5. 5. We must beleeve in Christ as he is the Naturall and Proper Son of God,Act. 8. 37. because this is exactly answerable to that deare and fatherly relation of God the Father,Mat. 16. 16 of which we have discoursed so largely in this chapter.1 Joh. 2. 22. 23, 24. ver. For as we are encouraged to be­leeve in God as the Father of Christ, so are we encouraged to beleeve in Christ as the naturall Son of God: and therefore I have purposely insisted on such Scriptures as do evidently demonstrate this truth, That we are to beleeve on the name of the Son of God and to have life through his name, 1 Joh. 5. 11, 12, 13, 20. Joh. 20. 31. We are to beleeve in Christ as a Mediatour, that our faith and hope may be setled in God; Who by him do beleeve in God, that raised him up from the dead, that your Faith and hope might be in God, 1 Pet, 1. 21. Now the great encourage­ment to beleeve in Christ as an all-sufficient Mediator is this, Iesus Christ is the naturall Son of God; and therefore if Christ will but present us to his Father, we are confident that the Son of God, his natural Son, his pro­per Son, his only begotten Son will prevaile with his Father for us; his relation to God, and his interest in God doth assure us that the intercession of our High-Priest will be irresistible, undenyable. Christ glorified not himself to be made an High-Priest, but he that said unto him Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in ano­ther [Page 279] place, Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchise dech, Heb. 5. 5, 6. We must for the understanding of this Scripture compare three places together, Psa. 1 [...]0. 1. 4. Psa. 2. 2, 7, 8. Heb. 7. 25, 28. The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand—Thou art a Priest—Psa. 110. 1. 4. The Lord said, Thou art my Son, ask of me, Psal. 2. 7, 8. Aske what thou wilt, I can deny thee nothing, thou art my Son, it is thy birth­right to be a Priest, and it is proper for a Priest to aske, and intercede. Other High-Priests were men of infirmity, but the Son who is consecrated and perfected for ever­more, is able by his powerfull intercession, to save those to the uttermost who come unto God by him, Heb. 7. 25, 28. Nay all the offi­ces of Christ are grounded on his Sonship; his kingly power, Psal. 2. I have set my King, &c. Thou art my Son, ver. 6, 7. His Prophe­ticall power is grounded on his Sonship al­so, Mat. 17. 5. And behold a voice out of the cloud,Mat. 17 5. which said, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased: heare ye him. I have promised that ye shall be all taught of God, and therfore I send my own naturall Son to teach and instruct you; he is the great Prophet and Tutor of the Church; hear ye him, and beleeve in him; for he is the true Messiah who is to teach you all things, and I haue sent him on purpose for to instruct you. And this is the work of God [Page 280] that ye beleeve on him whom he hath sent, Joh. 6. 29.Joh. 6. 29. But enough of this,Joh. 7. 29. because I have spoken something of it already in the seventh chapter of this book,Joh. 5. 23▪ and cleerly proved that Christ could not have gone tho­rough with any of his divine Offices, Joh. 6▪ 68. Joh. 17▪ 8. Joh. 16. 27. Mat. 16. 16▪ if he had not been the Natural and Proper Son Act. 8. 37 Joh. 1. 49. Gal. 2▪ 20. 1 Joh. 5. 5. of God, equal to God: read Nathaniels Creed, Ioh. 1. 4 [...]. and Pauls life of Faith, Gal. 2. ver. 20.

2. We must beleeve in Christ as God, the self-same God with the Father. When we know Christ to be God, Rom. 1. 21. we must glorify him as God by beleeving in him. Now I have by many undenyable Arguments proved Christ to be God, and therefore I may safely con­clude that we ought to beleeve in him as God; for cursed is he who beleeves in an arme of flesh. When Peter preached to Cornelius, he told them that Jesus Christ was Lord of all, Act 10. 36. Iudge of all, ver. 42. And that all the Prophets gave witnesse to him, Act. 10▪ 36 42, 43. that through his name, whosoever be­leeveth in him, 2 Joh. v. 9. shall receive remission of sins, ver. 43.Phil. 2. 11, I need say no more but this: He that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ, Ioh. 1. 13▪ he hath both the Father and the Son. Ioh. 17. 10▪ 20, verse [...], The second E­pistle of Iohn, Ioh. 16. 27▪ the ninth verse, Every tongue must confesse that Iesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father, Ioh. [...]. 23▪ Phil 2. 11. The Fa­ther is glorifyed in the Son. 1 Ioh. 2. 24. Joh, 14. 13. And the Son is to be glorifyed in all them whom [Page 281] the Father hath given him, Iohn 17. 10. and Christ is to be glorified by their beleeving in him, Joh. 17. 23. And the Father himselfe loves them, because they beleeve in the Son, Joh. 16. 27. And he who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, Joh. 5. 23. The great mystery of uniting the soule to Christ by Faith (Eph. 5. 32.) and making of it one Spirit with the Lord Jesus▪ 1 Cor. 6. 17. is a main Fundamentall of the myste­ry of Godlinesse, as shall be proved cleerly before I conclude this chapter.

III. God the Holy Ghost is the object III of a Christians divine Faith.God the H. Ghost is the Object of a Chri­stian's di­vine Faith. The Holy-Ghost speaking in the Holy Scriptures doth teach us to beleeve not only in the Father, and in the Son, but in himself also. It is the Spirit that beareth witnesse, because the Spi­rit is truth, 1 Joh. 5. 6. There are three that bear witnesse in Heaven,1 Ioh. 5. 6. but here is speciall testimony given of the Spirit,1 Pet. 1. 11. 12. that we might be moved to beleeve the spirit, Act. 5. 32. who is to testi­fie the whole truth concerning the Father, the Son and himself. It is the Spirit (saith he) whose speciall office it is to bear witnesse, and therefore there is this speciall testi­mony given of him that the Spirit is truth; and then it follows, that the Spirit is one with the Father, and the Son; one in na­ture, one and the same God with them both. These three are one, 1 Joh. 5. 7. and the witnesse of God must without con­troversie [Page 282] be received, unlesse we will make God a Lyer, as the Apostle reasons the point from the 9th verse to the 12th. The Spirit is Truth, the Spirit is God; therefore the Spirit is the object of Divine faith; he that tells a lye to the Holy Ghost, Act. 5. 3, 4▪ tells a lye to God, Acts 5. 3, 4. He that then gives the lye to the Holy Ghost, gives the lye to God; The testimony of the Spirit is a Divine te­stimony, 1 Cor. 2. [...], 4, 5. 1 Cor. 2. 1. 4. the demonstration of the Spirit, a divine demonstration, the power of the Holy Ghost, a divine power. Paul saith his Preaching was not with enti­cing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstra­tion of the Spirit and of power; that our faith might not stand in the wisedome of men, but in the power of God. The wisdome, power, testimony of the Spirit, are all of them divine; the wisdome of the Spirit is in­fallible, the power of the Spirit is irresisti­ble; and therefore our most divine faith is built, and doth stand fast grounded and e­stablished upon the wisdome of the Spirit, because the wisdome of the Spirit is the wis­dome of God, All three divine per­sons teach; 1 The Fa­ther. 1 Cor. 2. 4, 5. We read in the Prophets, that all the children of God shall be taught of God, Esay. 54. 13. of all three per­sons; for the Father teacheth, Mat. 16. 17.Mat. 16. 17. Ioh. 5. 45.Ioh. 5. 45. and the Son who came out of the bosome of his Father,Mat 11. 25. and yet remained in the bosome of his Father teacheth,2 The Son. Heb. 1. 2.Ioh. 1. 18, But the Father and the Son, Mat 11. 27 [Page 283] especially since the Ascension of Christ, Ioh. 15. 15. and the effusion of the Spirit, Luk. 4. 18. do teach the children of God all his Elect by the holy Spirit. Act. 1. 3. And therefore the Apostle shewing how God doth teach his Elect after a more peculiar manner,3 The Spi­rit teacheth after a more peculiar manner. so that even babes in Christ, those whom he calleth little children, are preser­ved even in seducing times,1 Ioh. 2. 20. and led into all necessary truths,1 Cor. 2. 10, 11, 12. notwithstanding all the diligence and subtilty of those many An­tichrists,1 Cor. 12. 3. who are industrious to deceive; he saith, they have an unction from the Holy one, 1 Cor. 12. 13. and know all things; all things necessary to be knowne and beleeved for the obtai­ning the remission of sins,2 Cor. 3. 8. &c. ver. 12.Gal. 3. 2. But more especially he shewes that the Spi­rit doth teach them to continue in the Son and in the Father, Pro. 1. 23. ver.Isa. 59. 21. 24.Isa. 30. 21. and therefore in the Doctrine concerning the Father and the Son, Psa. 119. 102. as it is more expresly set downe in the 9th verse of the second Epistle of Iohn. 1 Ioh. 2. 27▪ And then he shewes that the Spirit should abide constantly in them,2 Ioh. v. 9. to give them cleer and certaine direction in all necessary points, 1 Iohn 2. 27. But the annointing which yee have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same annointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth and is no lye, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him, or it. Ye shall abide in Christ and abide in the truth, which hath been taught you by the Holy [Page 284] Spirit; and the teaching of the Spirit is cleare and certaine; for saith he, the spirit is truth and is no lye. Here is the peculiar teaching of God; the Spirit teacheth us to beleeve in himselfe, aswell as in the Father and the Son. And the Spirit was sent by the Father in the nam [...] of the Son for this very purpose. Moreover it is evident that the Spirit doth not only teach Babes in Christ, but he taught even the Apostles of Christ. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, Ioh. 14. 26 whom the Father will send in my name, Act. 2. 3. 4. he shall teach you all things, Ioh. 16. 13. Joh. 14. 26. Nay the Holy Spirit did endite all the Holy Scriptures, and inspire the Prophets, Apo­stles and all the holy men of God in the writing of them. The Scriptures were not written by the will of men, but by the mo­tion of the Holy Ghost.1 Pet. 1. 11 2 Pet. 1. 21.2 Pet. 1▪ 21▪ where the motion of the Holy Ghost is opposed to the will of men, to shew that the motion and will of the Holy Ghost is the motion and will of God. Many other places and arguments might be superadded; but for the better instruction of ordinary Readers, I shall draw out my Arguments into ranke and file.

I 1. The Spirit is God. The testimony of the Spirit is the testimony of God, 1 Cor. 2. 1. 4.1 Cor. 2. 1. 4. The wisedome of the Spirit, the wise­dome of God;1 Ioh. 5. 6▪ 10. and the power of the Spirit the power of God, 1 Cor. 2, 4, 5. 13. The [Page 285] teaching of the Spirit is the teaching of God; Ihe will of the Spirit is the will of God, 2 Pet. 1. 21. 1 Cor. 12. 6. 11.

2. The Spirit is the Author of the Scrip­tures,II 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1 Pet. 1. 11, 12. Revel. 2. 29.

3. The Spirit is the Interpreter of the III Scriptures,1 Cor. 2, 7▪ 10, 14, 15. and his interpretation is cleer, cer­taine and infallible. The Spirit discovers the hidden wisedome of God; the wise­dome of God in a mystery, the deep things of God, which could not have entred into the heart of man, if the Spirit had not revealed them; and therefore the deep things of God, [...] Cor. 2. 10. are called the things of the Spirit of God ver, [...]4. and things which are spiritually discerned, and therefore they are such things as the Spirituall man by the help of the Spirit is able to perceive, dis­cerne, receive, and to say with truth and comfort, Now I have the mind of Christ, now I know the things that are freely given me of God, 1 Ioh. 3. 24▪ because the Spirit hath revealed them to me.1 Cor. 2. 12. Consider the discourse of the Apostle quite throughout the Second chap­ter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Ioh. 6. 69. Isa. 30. 21▪ and this point will be very cleer.1 Cor. 2. 15.

4. The Spirit is the Author of Faith, he IV gives us supernaturall light, and spirituall eyes, 1 Cor. 2. 8, 9, 10.1 Cor. 2. 8. 9. 10. Ephes. 1. 17, 18.Eph. 1. 17. 18. He that beleeveth on the Son of God hath the witnes in himselfe. 1 Ioh. 5. 6. 10. The Spirit is called the [Page 286] witnesse, 1 Ioh. 5. 6. 10. And the Apostle assures us that none can say, with faith and full perswasion of heart, 1 Cor. 12. 3. that Iesus is the Lord, till he hath been taught to say so by the Holy Ghost,Iude v. 19. 1 Cor, 12. 3.1 Cor. 2. 14.

They who are sensuall and have not the Spirit, Iude ver. 19. do slight the testimony of the Spirit; because the world cannot receive the Spirit, or the things of the Spirit: It is a naturall mans pride and folly to ac­count those things below him which are a­bove him; for he doth account spirituall wisedome foolishnesse, wheras indeed it is too excellent for him to understand because he is a meer naturall sensual man but these spirituall things are spiritually discerned; he doth not receive them, The true reason why men do [...] not beleeve in the Spirit and adore the Spirit. he cannot know them, 1 Cor. 2. 14. This is the true reason why men do not beleeve in the Spirit, and a­dore the Spirit, because he is the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, be­cause it seeth him not, neither knoweth him, Ioh. 14. ver. 17.1 Ioh. 3. 24▪ But saith Christ to his Dis­ciples, 1 Cor. 2. 12. ye know him for he dwelleth with you and shall be in you,Rom. 8. 9. Ioh. 14. in the selfe-same ver. and Act. 5. 32.

5. The Spirit is the Supream Judge of truth,Judicium discretio­nis non ar­guit Of­ficium Judicis. even of controverted truths in mat­ters of Religion; we need not speake of a Private judgement of Discretion, such as spirituall men may passe by the help of the Spirit and word of truth; nor of that Pub­lick [Page 287] and ministeriall judgement which may be passed in greater or lesser Synods where Pastors and Elders are assembled by the Ordinance of Christ,Legislator judicat [...]. and therefore may pray in faith for the direction and assistance of the Holy Ghost in all their Ministeriall determinations.Minister Publicus [...] Christia­nus priva­tus [...]. Vi­de Reve­rend. Dr. Davenant de judice ac Normâ fidei. cap. 3. p. 3. lear­ned Dr. Reynolds Confer. with Hart c. 2. 4, 5, 6.

But I speak of the supremacy and Sove­raignty of Iudgement, which belongs to the Holy Ghost. True it is, that Christ is King and head of the Church, and therefore he is our master, Doctor, Lawgiver. Mat. 23. 10. Iam. 4. 12. But the Father hath sent the Spirit in the name of Christ to teach us the meaning of the Word of Christ, and to lead us into all truth and holinesse by the holy Scriptures of truth. The Spirit did indite the whole Scripture; and it is agreeable to the light of nature, that he who made the Law should expound it. Vide Aug. lib. de do­ctrinâ christiana & Enchir. ad Lau­rentium. This Holy Spirit is a publick Spirit, he governes the whole bo­dy of Christ, the whole Church, and speaks in the whole body of the Scriptures & eve­ry part thereof, and if we do compare one place of Scripture with another, we shall by comparing of Spirituall things with Spirituall,Doctrina nostra est publica, quia est Doctrina Spiritus sancti in Scripturis publice loquentis. come to understand the saving wisdome which the Holy Ghost teacheth; which things we speak (saith the Apostle) not in the words which mans wisedome teach­eth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, com­paring spirituall things with Spirituall, 1 [Page 288] Cor. 2. 13. The Holy Ghost speaking to us in plain places,Vide Opta­tū contra Parmen. lib. 5. in Prin. & Tertul▪ de Anima Quis re­velabit quod De­us texit? P [...]aestat per Deum nescirc quia non revelave­rit, quàm per homi­nem scire quia ipse praesump­serit. Caeli mysterium doceat me Deus ipse qui condi­dit, non homo qui seipsum ig­noravit. Ambr. Ep. l. 5. Ep. 31. Ez 1▪ 30. 19, 20, 21. ver. Vide Damas. de orth. fid. lib. 1. c. 1. In fraudem legis facit qui salvis verbis legi [...] sententiam ejus circumvenit. Contra Dig. Leg. Senatusque consultis. Ama Ecclesiasticas legere literas, & non multa invenies quae requiras ex me—ipso magis inspirante quam hominum aliquo commonente perdisces, Aug. Ep. 120. doth discover to us all that is necessary to be knowne and belee­ved for our eternall salvation, and doth thereby give us so much light as that we may sufficiently understand hard places, if we pray as we should, compare and search the Scriptures as we ought in the Spirit of Faith, and modesty, Iam. 1. 5. Ioh. 5. 39. Mat. 7. 7. 1 Ioh. 5. 14. Rom. 2. 2. 3. and pra­ctise what we know before, Ioh. 7. 17. Phil. 3. 15, 16. for we shall at least learne so much wisedom as not to expound hard places of Scripture in any sense that is contrary to the mind of the Spirit cleerly delivered in plaine places of Scripture. If we expound hard places according to the Analogy of Faith cleerly delivered in other places, though we should mistake in the applicati­on, yet the Spirit doth so far interpose as to keep us from falling into heresie. And if we meet with no plaine places to ex­pound an hard place by, there is then no danger of heresie; because all things ne­cessary to salvation are set downe cleerly in the plaine places of Scripture. This con­ference of Scriptures is an excellent means to bring us acquainted with all Book-cases, [Page 289] the determinations which the Spirit hath made in Scripture,Damasc [...] de orth. fid. lib. 1. cap. 1▪ 2. Aug. de Doct. Christ. lib 1. cap. 35, 36▪ 37, & 40. lib. 3. cap. 2. Aug. de Trinitate lib. 1. cap. 2. & 4. & lib. 5. cap. 26. Aquin▪ part. 1. qu. 36. art. 2. Aug. in E­pist. 1 Ioh. Tract. 3. and left there upon Re­cord in those sacred Rolls (which are the treasury of the Church) for the direction of the Saints. And whether we make use of this ordinance in our private reading, or in the publique ministry, the spirit doth de­liver his judgement authoritatively and in­fallibly in the holy Scriptures, and we may come to be acquainted with the mind and judgment of the Spirit by both Ordinances. Thine eyes shall see Nos Ecclesiae Ministerium in honore habemus, internas persuasiones sine externo verbo tanquam Satanae ludibria cavemus; ex Scrip­turis sapimus, cum Scripturis sentimus, propter Scripturas credimus: Whitaker de Authoritate Script. lib. 1. cap. 10. prope finem. & Controv. 1. de Script. interpret. qu. 5. cap. 4, 5. thy teachers, And thine eares shall heare a word behind thee say­ing, This is the way [this and not that, be­hold a cleere direction] walk ye in it, con­tinue, and go forward in it, do not forsake it; when we are wavering and even turn­ing out of our way on one hand or the o­ther, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left, Item de Catechis. rudibus. cap 3, 4▪ 6, 7, &c. then, even then doth the Spirit resolve us, and put us out of doubt; when we are disputing, and even yielding up the truth in a controversie, we have a cleer, certain, and infallible directi­on from the holy Spirit, Isa 30, 20, 21.Isa. 30. 20, 21.

[Page 290] The Holy Ghost doth exhort the Jewes to compare the dimmer light of the Pro­phers with the cleerer light of the Apostles that so the Sun of righteousnesse may shine in its strength with its healing beams into their hearts;Verbum Dei est lux, lucer­na, lumen ad Deum dirigens i [...] Agendis, Credendis, Spe­randis, a­mandis. and then tels them that no Prophecy of the Scripture is of private inter­pretation, because Prophets spake [as the Apostles also did] not as the will of man did move, or the fancy of man direct; but ac­cording to the mind and will of the Holy Ghost. Psal. 19. And therefore since all the Scrip­tures were endited,Psal. 119. 2 Pet. 1. 16▪ 19. all are to be expounded by the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scrip­tures thus compared;Vide Chamier. de Verita­te Cano­nis, Interi­or Magi­ster docet, Christus docet, in­spiratio ipsius do­cet. Aug. Tract. 3. in Epist. Iohan. Non dicit meliorem sed Certiorem Aug. de verbis Apostol [...] Serm. 27. cap. 4. Praevidens Dominus Iesus Christus impios quosdam futuros qui miraculis ejus Calumniarentur magicis artibus ea tribuen­do, prophetas ante praemisit, Aug Tract. 35. in Iohan. Vide D. Davenant. de judice & Norma fidei, & D. Gomarum. for the Holy Ghost did move all the Holy men, Apostles as wel as Prophets to write, and teach them what they should write. And though we have no extraordinary revelations now by a voice from the excellent glory for our direction, yet we have that which is better, the wri­tings of the Prophets and Apostles to com­pare together; the Prophesies be darke, yet they are sure, more sure then those voices, which may be more easily counterfeited; & though the Prophesies be dark, yet the Spi­rit [Page 291] who did endite them, will if you com­pare them with the writings of the Apo­stles,Chamier de Inter­pret. lib. Canon. give light to both, and deliver his judgement as cleerly in all necessary points as if it were written with a Sun-beame; this I take to be the scope of the Holy Ghost in that excellent discourse,Dr. Rey­nold, in his learned conference with Hart chap. 2. Di­vis. 2. pag. 46. Mr. Hil­dersham in his 145 Lecture upon the 51 Psal. pag. 697. Dr. Alting. Loc. com. 2 Pet. 1. from the sixteenth verse to the end of the chap­ter. And I have consulted the most ju­dicious and experienced writers upon that place, though I cite but few in the margine, because I have not time to peruse them againe.

True it is that we are not to beleeve eve­ry spirit, and therefore are permitted to try the spirits whether they be of God or no, 1 Joh. 4. 1. But in this tryall the Holy Spi­rit speaking in the Scriptures is the suprem Judge, and the Holy Spirit doth condemn all erroneous and fantasticall spirits, Erroneous and fan­tasticall spirits are condemned by the Holy Spirit. Vide D. Whitak. controv. 1. de Script. Interpret. qu. 5. cap. 4, & de Authoritate Scripturae lib. 1. cap. 10. in calce capitis. who forsake old truths, and pretend to follow New Light. The holy Spirit doth constant­ly teach the same truth in the holy Scrip­tures; [Page 292] for he doth not change his mind, or contradict himself. We (saith the Apostle) having the same spirit of Faith according as it is written, I beleeved and therefore have I spoken, 2 Cor. 4▪ 13 Ingenue fatemur non esse nunc no­vas revelationes ex­pectandas, sive à sum­mo pontifi­ce sive a Concilio sive ab Ec­clesiâ totâ. Canus lib. 2. cap. 7. we also beleeve and therefore speake, 2 Cor. 4. 13. The same spirit doth lead all the faithfull into all truth necessary to sal­vation, not Absolutely, and at once, but by degrees. For we see the Apostles them­selves were for a time guilty of grosse er­rours Mark 10. 37, 41. Act. 1. 6. But the faithfull cannot obstinately hold and continue in such odious and damnable errours as do di­rectly overthrow the foundation of Faith; And for the time in which they do erre, they hearken to their own spirits so farre as they are carnall, and do not as they ought, search, and pray, and wait for the directi­on of the Holy Spirit.Ma [...]k 10. 37, 41. It is not the Spirit of Faith which speaks in them,Act. 1. 6. [...]. Aristot. Ethic lib. 5. cap. 7. Non eritijs matutina lux. Isa. 8. 20. Judices ejus lu [...]i vespertini, sacerdotes ejus polluerunt sanctum; injuste egerunt contra legem. Soph. 3. 3. Omnis potestas judicis ministeria [...]is Legibus adstricta est; unicus au­tem [...]ummus Judex est, Isa. 32. 22. Iacobi 4. 12. qui quidem [...] solus judicat. when they dissent from such as receive the publique Testimony of the Holy Ghost speaking in the holy Scriptures. And therefore the Spirit teacheth us to try the spirits and do­ctrines of men by the Scriptures, if they [Page 293] speak not according to this Word, it is not be­cause they have new light from the spirit, but because they have no light, no morning light, heavenly light conveyed unto them in that point wherein they dissent,Revelatio mihi in conscien­tiâ meâ facta est Privata ex parte Sub­jecti, Pub­lica verò ex parte Objecti. or they have not as yet received it; the spirit hath not as yet sealed that portion of truth to their consciences, or writ it in their hearts. For the spirit doth not whisper one thing in privat to my conscience, and declare the contrary in his publique Testimony delivered in the Word. Behold (saith the wisdome of God) I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make knowen my words unto you Pro. 1. 23▪ Pro. 1. 23. For this is the Covenant of God, Ecclesia Instrumen taliter commovet sed non sola mo­vet; mo­vent ipsae Scripturae movet Spi­ritus, & Principa­liter mo­vent. Whi­takerus. that his Word and spirit should go together, and the spirit should deliver his publique Testimo­ny Authoritatively as it becomes his supre­macy and soveraignty in the holy Scrip­tures. This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord, my spirit that is upon thee, and my Word, &c. Isa. 59. 21.Isa. 59. 21. And by atten­dance on the ministry of the Gospel in the Church of Christ we receive the Spirit,Non potest Deus nisi per Deum intelligi, sicut nec honorem a nobis Deus nisi per Deum accipit—non cogitando aut dis­patando veritatem homo assèqui potest, sed audiendo ab eo qui solus docere potest, Hilarius de Trinitate lib. 5. Vide D. Whi­taker de Sacra Scriptura controv. 1. qu. 3. c. 8. Gal. 3. 2. By hearing the doctrine of Faith preach­ed in the Gospel they received the Spirit, and [Page 294] therefore the ministry of the Gospel is cal­led the ministration of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3. 8. And for these reasons we try the doctrines and Spirits of men by the word of God, because the Spirit who is the Author of Scripture doth every where agree with himself, and there is a friendly relation be­tween the truth of the party witnessing, Judicium practicae Discretio­nis a dono coele sli pendet, ex infuso lu­mine Spi­ritus San­cti oritur, non ex privato sensu aut phantas­mate, & ad normam verbi exi­gitur si­mul & di­rigitur. Distinguit i­ta (que) D. Da­venantius inter Iudicium Discretionis, & Iudicium Praecipitatio­nis. Non ad enthysiasmos itaque fanaticos, vel asslatus Ana­baptisticos fideles remittimus. vide D. Daven. de judice & Nor­mà Fidei. Mr. Hildersham his Lectures upon the 51 Psal. Mr. Ball in his larger Catechism. Dr. Reynolds conference with Hart. Dr. Whitaker above cited. Et Rev. D. Reynold Academiae Oxon. Procancellarii in Concione de Animali ho­mine hoc anno 1649. habitâ. & the truth of the thing witnessed. We do readi­ly acknowledge that the world doth look upon this publique testimony of the Spirit in the word as a private testimony, and are apt to scoffe at them who receive it, as at men led by their own private spirit; but the true reason is because this testimony of the Spirit is not manifest to them who have not the Spirit. But it is so manifest to them that have had this publique testi­mony sealed up to their consciences, that they will hold fast this testimony though it cost them their lives. I saw under the Altar the soules of them that were slaine for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. Rev. 6. 9. The testimony which [Page 295] they held is no other then that publick te­stimony which the Spirit delivers in the Word, and had privately sealed up to their Spirits. They were slaine for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held according to that Word. They were Martyr­ed because they gave testimony of that truth, which they had learnt in the Word of God.

I am willing to dwell longer upon this subject, because it is Fundamentum Funda­mentorum, and therefore we will for our better satisfaction descend from hand­ling the point in. Generall unto some very weighty points in particular, and shew how the Spirit doth perswade the hearts and consciences of men to receive his te­stimony in particular controversies, which have been raised and disputed by men of great wit and Spirit.

In the great controversies between us and the Papists,Aug. de u­nitate [...] Ec­clesiae, cap. 16. in Jo­han. Tra. 13. Iren. adv haere­ses, lib. 3. cap. 2. 12. Euseb. Hi. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 14. Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 23. Theod. Histo. lib. 1. Cap. 16. Aug contra Max. Arian. lib. 1. De Bap [...]. con [...]ta Donatistas, lib. 3. cap. 2. Epist, 165. ad Generosun. they do as divers Hereticks have done before them, urge visions, mira­cles, traditions, successions, prudentiall motives, and sometimes Councels, Fathers, and for a fairer pretence, the holy Scriptures. But when they are beaten off from their pretending to Councels and Fathers by our [Page 296] learned Whitaker, Iewel, Abbot, Vsher, Rainolds, not to name Chamier and other Worthyes, what lamentable shifts do they make when they are pressed to stand to the publicke testimony and judgement of the Holy Ghost delivered in the holy Scriptures? We do therefore in compassi­on to their poor soules intreat them to hearken to the Spirit of Christ, and not to the Spirit of Antichrist;1 Cor. 2. 13. Ephes. 6. 16. 17. because the right sense of the Scripture expounded by the Scripture is the sword of Gods Spirit where with all heresies whatsoever are overcome by all those good souldiers, who add the shield of Faith to the Sword of the Spirit. But when men neglect the Scriptures, and ido­lize humane inventions they spend their strength in vaine,The Popes Infalli­ble Supremacy tryed by the Ho­ly Ghost. and are like the blind men of Sodome who wearied themselves to find the doore. The great point of the Popes Infallible Supremacy can never be proved by the Originall, Universall and Perpetuall Tradition of the Church of Christ in all Ages; no, nor by the unani­mous consent of all learned men now li­ving in communion with the present Church of Rome.

The Sorbon Doctors cannot beleeve that the Popes of Rome are not subject to the sins and passions of other men; and if the succes­sion of Popes which they brag of were to be tryed by Fame, Celebrity, Antiquity, [Page 297] Consent; it is most evident to all that are acquainted with pure antiquity, and impar­tiall History, Read the Protestati­on of lear­ned Prote­stants, re­peated by Bp. Jewel, and Doct. Rainoldes in his con­ference with Hart, 8 cap. first Division, pag 393. that the Supremacy of the Popes and Papacy would be sufficiently condemned; but if the Popes infallible Su­premacy come to be tryed by the Holy Ghost, speaking in the holy Scriptures, the Popes and Papacy will be infallibly con­demned by the Supream Judge.

The learnedVide Frā ­cis. Pic. Mirandul. Theor. in expos. Theor. 4ti. Thom. Waldens. Tom. 3. de Sacramen­talibus, Doct. 3. pag. 5. Papists do not agree con­cerning the Infallible Propounder of Fun­damentall points; for

1. Some say that the Popes proposall ex Cathedrâ is sufficient; but Gal. 1. 8.

2. Others say a Councell without the Pope

3. Others, the Pope and Councell both together; it seems the Pope is not sent as Peter, to strengthen his brethren, but his brethren must be sent for to strengthen him.

4. Some say both together is not suffi­cient, either in point of manners, or mat­ter of Faith, unlesse the acceptation of the Church Vniversall be superadded.

5. We are not able to reckon up the number of those who deny the infallibility of the present Church and Pope of Rome.

6. They cannot give us in a perfect In­ventory of allVide For­mam jura­menti prae stand ab Episcopo electo in Pontificali Romano parte primâ. written verities, unwritten Traditions, and Church-definitions, which [Page 298] the whole succession of Popes have upon the credit of their infallibility determined to be necessary for all Christians to know and beleeve.Reservati­ones, pro­visione [...], mandata Apostoli­ca totis viribus ob­servabo, & faciam ab alijs ob­servari.

I need say nothing of the Papall Reser­vations, Provisions, Mandates, and all post­nate Dictates, and Decrees which Bishops & Metropolitans, are by their* Oath made to the Pope at their confirmation, obliged to observe. Nor will I trouble my Reader with the distinction of Supremacy of know­ledge in resolving Church questions (be­cause that they say belongs to the Fathers,Gratian. Decret. Distinct. 20. Vide Wolfgang Laz. com­ment. Rei­pub. Rom. [...]2. cap. 2. Concil. Constan. 1 cap. 2. Theodos. & Valent. Epist. ad discor. in Concil. Chalced. Act 1. Theod. Hi. Ecel. l. 5. cap. 28. Gregor. Regist. l. 4. Epist. 34. who excelled the Popes in expounding of Scriptures) and Supremacy of Power to decide Church causes. For this latter Supre­macy, is that which Popes and Cardinals and all must live by in the Court of Rome; and the former Supremacy is purposely claimed for the support of this. But it was a long time before the Popes presumed to challenge the power of deciding all the greater causes of the Church thorowout the world; For the Bishops of Rome were at the first but Bishops within their own City; then Metropolitans within their own Pro­vince, afterwards Arch-Bishops or Patriarks over Metropolitans within their Princely Diocesse; and last of all their pride and po­licy being crowned with successe did swell them up to be Popes and Lords over all the Christian, or rather Antichristian world.

[Page 299] The Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Su­premacy or Soveraignty of Popes is con­demned by Reason and History, D. Vsher, Iewel, Rainolds, Whi­ker▪ Abbot, Davenant, Bilson, Cha­mier, Go­marus. by Fathers and Councels as others have proved at large; let us not therefore be put off with that ridiculous piece of Sophistry, which is so common; The Pope is infallible and supream Head of the Church, and Lord of the World, because the Scriptures meane so; Vide. Aenc. Silv. de gestis Ba­sil. Concil. lib. 1. laco. Almain. de autho­ritate Ec­clesiae cap. 8. Summi Poncifices suas fim­brias ni­mis exten­den [...]es alios Pa­pas addu­cunt in te­ste [...]. and the Scriptures meane so, because the Pope saith so; who doth not see that the Scriptures are only put in for a meer stale? and there­fore the Argument had been as strong if they had proved the Popes Infallible Au­thority and Princely Supremacy, by an ipse dixit at first. The Pope saith he is Infallible, ergo he is so. I am not at leasure to heare what the Pope who hath endeavoured to dethrone Christ, and depose the Holy Ghost, saith in his owne behalfe at Rome; for if he once bring this great question to be resol­ved in his owne Consistory, he will soon bring all causes to be decided there also where he himselfe is Plaintiffe, Aske a thief or his fellow whe­ther he be a thiefe. Vide [...]. nullus D. de testibus L. omnibus C▪ co. 4. 9. 2. & 3. c. si testes. Witnesse and Iudge; only in prudence and modesty he hath entertained a company of Cardinals (who are to divide the spoiles with him) for his Grand Inquest.

The Popes Supremacy is unwritten, and therefore he is a fit Judge to decide all con­troversies amongst the Traditionaries, whose faith is not written in either Testa­ment.

[Page 300] But since the Pope doth strive with the Holy Ghost for the Chair, and Christ for the Throne; let us heare what Christ and the Holy Ghost do both speake in the Ho­ly Scriptures of Truth, and we shall quick­ly decide this grand controversie, and ma­ny more. Christ is the only Pastour of his Church, he is to continue so and have no successor.

We find in holy Scripture, Christ is the only Head of his whole Church, Ephes. 1. 22. Col. 2. 19. Ioh. 10. 16. Per pa­storem u­nicum in­telligimus Christum non Papā Oecume [...] ­cum, Ioh. 10. 9. 14. 16 26, 27, 28. Sic per Davidem intelligi­mus Chri­stum, Eze. 37. 22, 23. 24. Ezek. 34. 23. 1 Pet. 2. 25. Heb. 13. 20 that Christ is the only Head and Saviour of his whole Church, Ephes. 1. 22. Colos. 2. 19. he doth and will continue with his Church alway, even unto the end of the world, to give life, sense and motion to it, and to rule and governe the whole, and every member of it, by the effectuall councell and working of his Holy Spirit.

The Apostles were but Ministeriall Heads, or Principall Members who had a preheminence over the inferiour members for perfecting of the Saints by the worke of the Ministry, 1 Cor. 12. 21. 28. First Apostles: this eminent ministry or Head­ship did belong to all the Apostles, and not to Peter only; the power of remitting and retaining sins was given to the other Apo­stles aswel as Peter, Io. 20. 21, 22. 23. We de­ny not Peter to be the first Apostle in time, as Andrew was the first Disciple; and there­fore Peter is first reckoned, Mat, 10. 2. Nay we will not deny him to be most eminent [Page 301] in grace, Cuncti claves regni Caelorù accipiant ex aequo. Hieronym advers. 10. vin. lib. 2. Vt Plato Princeps Philoso­phorum, i­ta Petrus Apostolo­rū Hieron. adver. Pe­lag. lib. 1. and for both reasons grant him to be first in Order: but we deny that he was chiefe in dignity or Supream in power; Be­cause we know the Apostles had all equall power; For Christ sent them all as his Fa­ther sent him: they had all of them power to open heaven to beleevers, and shut it against unbeleevers. The power of the Keyes was given upon the confession which Peter made in the name of al the rest, Mat. 16. 16. 18. as he was wont to do, Ioh. 6. 69. The con­fession was common to all, the promise com­mon to all, the performance common to all, Ioh. 20. 21, 22, 23. I need say no more but this.

1. The Papists do entitle Peter to I that Supream Soveraignty which belongs to Christ:Vide Glos. extrava­gant. Ioh. 22. Pote­stas sum­ma Pap. six. 4. Sac. Cerem. eccles. Rom. lib. 1. sect. 7. Leo's Sermons, Epi­stles, Rhemish annot, in Mat. 16. 18. But Peter and the rest of the Apostles were joynt foundations built on Christ the only proper head and foundati­on, Ephes. 2. 20.

2. They entitle the Pope to that pow­er II which did belong to Peter, but Peter had no successour in his extraordinary and Apostolick power, the Pope is no Apostle; Vide An­not. Romae excus. in Cyprian. De aequa­litate. A­postolatus qui cum Apostolis morientibus cessavit nec ad Episcopos transijt. and when Peter speakes of his ordinary power, he tells the Elders that he is their [Page 302] Fellow-Presbyter. I who am also an Elder exhort the Elders,Vide Co­marum parte 3. Disp. 22. de Petri Apostoli & Papae Romani r [...]pug. Dr. Raynolds in his con­ference with Hart Chap. 6. Division 3. pag. 209. 210, 211, 212. 1 Tim. 5. 1. But that Pe­ter was an ordinary Bishop of one City, First of Antioch for seven yeers, and then of Rome for twenty-five, cannot be proved by Scripture, no nor by any credible Histo­rian. I know they rely upon Eusebius his testimony. But it is enough for me to reply, that Eusebius his History doth dissent from his Chronicle, and his Chronicle doth dis­sent from Scripture.

III 3. Christ hath many Ministers to preach his Gospell, but he hath no Catholick Vicar besides his Spirit,Act. 14. 23 Act. 20. 28 Tit. 1. 5 Phil. 1. 1. Pro Apo­stolis filij nati sunt; non Pater unicus pa­pa Oecu­menicus. Vide Aug. Enarrat, in Psal. 34. nec non in Psal. 44. who can challenge the Supream Soveraignty of deciding contro­versies by an infallible Sentence: It is the Spirit that makes the word to be effectuall. 1 Cor. 3. 7. As Christ workes by his Spirit he hath no Vicar; for he himselfe is with his Disciples alwayes to the end of the world, Mat. 20. Christ himselfe doth Baptize with the Holy Ghost: he himselfe did open the heart of Lydia.

4. The Pope challenges this power o­ver IV the Gentiles, but Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles by the appointment of the Ho­ly Ghost, and Peters own consent, Rom. 11. 13. Act. 13. 2. Gal. 2. 9. Paul was chief and la­boured more abundantly then any in this service.

[Page 303] V 5. Peter did never claime or exercise any such power over the Princes and King­domes of the world as the Pope doth, Lu. 22. 25, 26. Mat. 20. 25, 26.

VI 6. If Peter had desired and usurped any Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles, he had thereby degraded himselfe, and been last of all, Mark 9. 34, 35.

VII 7. If the vices of Popes may make them Supream or their errours infallible, Vna vetu­la potest esse perfe­ctior ac major ipso Papâ per­fectione Gratiae & amplitu­dinc Vir­tutum. Turre­crem In Summa de Eccles. lib. 2. c. 82. we are able to prove that by fraud, violence and such like black arts, they have usurped a power over the consciences of men to lead them [...]nto Heresie, Antichristianisme, Athe­isme; For by endeavouring to prove their Infallibility by the Scripture, and then ven­ting grosse errours as infallible truths upon the authority of the Pope and Church, they have tempted some to beleeve neither Church nor Pope nor Scripture; The Pope hath told them that they had as good beleeve nothing as not beleeve all; and therefore it is to be feared, that too many beleeve nothing at all. Let us then to the Law and the Testimony,The Law. and let Christ and his Spirit be heard speake in them, and we will proceed to tryal with the Papists upon what points they please.The First Table. We will try all their new Tutelar Gods, whe­ther Angels or dead men, or their breaden God in the Masse by the 1 Command. Their picturing of God and worshipping of him by pictures by the Second Commandment.

[Page 304] Their Superstitious benedictions, Magicall Incantations, exorcismes, and all those helps to salvation, which salt, wax, spittle, bells can afford, by the third Commandement; and so I might proceed to the Holy-dayes, Masses, &c. or try their Popes usurpations, the cruelty of their Inquisition, their allow­ance of Fornication forbidding to marry, their equivocations, rebellious concupis­cence by the Second Table We will by the Gospell of Christ try the Doctrine of Ju­stification by workes,The Se­cond Ta­ble. The Gos­pel. their publick prayers in an unknowne tongue, their denying of the Testament of Christs bloud to the peo­ple; we will examine whether there be more sacrifices of Christ then one? whe­ther they that dye in Christ rest from their labours? I might proceed to examine their Doctrine, concerning the Offices and bene­fits of Christ; concerning the nature and use of faith, and the Doctrine of the Sa­craments, and the rest of the points in con­troversie between us and the Papists. And truly when I do read such questions as these I cannot but thinke of those Texts, 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2, 3. Now the Spirit speakes expresly, &c. the Spirit doth so expresly condemne these seducing and erring Spirits, that who­soever will be perswaded by the evident demonstrations of the Spirit, and be over­ruled by his positive definitions in Scripture, will confesse that the Papists were very wise [Page 305] in offering to be tryed by unwritten Traditi­ons, or the Pope and his adherents, in all points in question. It is clear that the Popes have taught for Doctrines the Commande­ments of men. He that reades the Epistles to the Romanes and Galathians, 1 Cor. 14. Chap. the second Chapter to the Colossi­ans, the second Chapter of the second E­pistle to the Thessalonians; and the plainer places of the Book of the Revelation, will acknowledge the Spirit doth speake expres­ly.

The Pope must therefore be beholding to his School-men to defend his Doctrine,The grand Pillars both of Popery and the Papacy. and to his Canonists to keep up his Disci­pline, and pretend no more to Scriptures or pure Antiquity for his Justification.

If the Anti-Scripturists would but hear­ken to the Spirit speaking in the Scripture,Anti-Scri­pturists. they would say the Spirit hath magnified both Law and Gospel, and made them hono­rable, precious and glorious in our eyes.

I will not insist upon those many convin­cing arguments whereby the Scriptures are undeniably proved to be the word of God, but humbly desire all men to consi­der whether the true reason (why those Arguments do not effectually perswade ob­stinate men) be not cleerly this,The true reason why men do not beleeve the Scriptures to be the Word of God▪ because men do undervalue the testimony of the Holy Ghost, and resist, vex, grieve, or quench the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to seale up [Page 306] this and all other saving truths to our con­sciences and hearts.

True it is that the law of God is written in our hearts by nature,The Law. but our nature is corrupted, and we are blinded with pride, passion, prejudice, with selfe conceitednes and selfe-love, and therefore it is requisite that the wrath of God should be revealed from heaven against pleasing gainfull sins; nay, unnaturall sins, Rom 1. 18. to the end of the Chapter.The Gospel. Moreover, it is to be sadly considered that the Gospell is not written in our hearts by nature, nor can it be found out by any artificiall Demonstration, but it is discovered to us by Divine Revelation, Rom. 1. 16, 17.

I know many learned men have used the testimony of humane Authors in a Secon­dary and subservient way to confirme our Faith in this point: but it is cleer that we must rest our Faith upon the Authority of God in this and all other points, or else our Faith will not be a Divine Faith.

God sweares by himselfe, because he is the greatest, The prime and infal­lible Truth bears wit­nesse to it selfe. and doth bear witnesse to him­selfe in his word; Nay, to his Word, in his Word, because he is the truest, for he is in­deed the prime truth, the onely Infalli­ble Truth. And hence it is that the Scrip­tures are called the testimonies of God, and the testimony of the Spirit is so often produced, 1 Pet. 1. 11. Act. 5. 32. 1 Ioh. 5. 6. [Page 307] It is no shame to adhere to the Testi­mony of God in the weightiest point, Psal. 119. 31, 46. Hence it is that the Penmen do so often shew their Commissi­on and cry thus saith the Lord. And hence it is that God doth so often own the Scrip­tures for his word. This is my word saith God, this came from my inspiration saith the Spirit. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 2 Pet. 1. 21. This is my writing saith Iehovah, I will own it, and stand to it. I have written to him the great things of my Law saith God, Hos. 8. 12. The Scriptures are the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. They contain the counsel of God, Act. 20. 27. God hath given us sufficient assurance that the Law was written by his own finger, and all other books by his spec [...]al command and inspiration. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim. 3. 16 Prophecy [...]ame not in old time; the word is [...], it came not at any time by the will of man but Ho­ly men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. 1. 21. Our Saviour gives a full testimony to Moses, David, the rest of the Penmen of the Psalms, and all the Prophets; Luk. 24, 44. God hath sealed the testimony of the Penmen by miracles on men and divels, we need not expect new mi­racles to confirm this Old-Testament & anci­ent Gospel; both are confirmed by the old miracles which stand upon Record in both; But if any man preach a New Gospel, we may [Page 308] well call upon him for new miracles. Nay the very preservation of the Scriptures in de­spight of Tyrants, Heretiques and Divels is a convincing miracle. In a word, the Testi­mony of the Penmen is sealed

  • 1. By the Oath of God,
  • 2. By the blood of Christ,
  • 3. By the testimony of the Spirit,
  • 4. By the Efficacy of the Spirit.

The Testimony and Efficacy of the Spirit is that sweet Subject which I am now more especially engaged to insist upon; the Testi­mony of the Spirit to the heart and consci­ence of every true beleever in particular is a convincing Testimony.

But it will be said, that this is such an Argument as none can take notice of and therefore altogether insufficient to per­swade other men to beleeve, to whom no such Testimony hath been vouchsafed.

1. I answer. This is an Argument indeed whereby I cannot convince others: but this is an Argument which makes all other Argu­ments effectual to convince me.

2. The Efficacy of the Spirit in the word upon the hearts of enemies is very conside­rable. Their minds are inlightned, their judgements convinced, their consciences a­wakened,Heb. 4. 12, 13. terrifyed, their hearts smitten, be­cause the very thoughts of their hearts are strangely & unexpectedly discovered,2 Cor. 3. 6. their souls embowelled,2 Cor. 2. 16. and their marrow as it [Page 309] were melted in their bones by this almigh­ty spirit speaking, testifying, working in & with the word: the very letter kils them, the very savour confounds them, though bold Athiests scoffe at the word, and do in their Jovial fits blaspeme the spirit; yet sometimes their hearts quake their joynts tremble, even as Belshazzars did at the ve­ry sight of the hand-writing, when they do but glance their eye upon some startling Text. Their consciences do often joyne with the word and spirit against themselvs against their wils; for though they be self-willed, yet they are after some soule-search­ing Admonition self-confounded and selfe-condemned men, Tit. 3. 10, 11. And though the malice of some men bee too strong for their wit, reason, and conscience; yet it is not too strong for the spirit in the Word; all the powers of Hel in them are over-powred by this good Spirit; all the strong-holds of Sathan batterd, and they themselves so confounded, that they seeme to be even damned already, they thinke themselves in Hell above-ground, when they are stung and bitten, they fall into the passion of the heart, and are taken with such Hellish convulsion-sits that they do e­ven foam at mouth,Act. 7. 54. and gnash with their teeth, Rev. 11. 10 they are cut to the soule,Act. 5. 39. and tor­mented in their conscience, they cry and howle and fight against the Spirit, but all in [Page 310] vain; for even they are out-witted and o­ver-powred, who are not converted by this stinging Efficacy of the Almighty Spirit.

What shall we say to these things? If Idols have been overthrown, Oracles si­lenced, Divels convinced by the Majesty of the Spirit in the holy Scriptures, and so o­ver awed by the Spirit that they have been forced to confesse, nay beleeve these truths at which they tremble; then surely those bold theists are worse then devils who do not tremble at the Word because they do not be­leeve the Spirit.

3. Look upon a soule in its Agony and Pangs, in its Throws and conflicts at its first conversion, or in its After-throws upon some sadrelapse, and observe how the wit is captivated, reason conquered, conscience confounded, heart broken, and will turned, nay all the powers of corrupt nature over­powred and overturned by the word and spirit of God; And then you must needs cry out, O the divine Efficacy of Scripture, which turns a Lyon into a Lamb, a Goat in­to a sheep; a man, a Beast, a Divel into a Saint, and perswades Philosophers and Courtiers, Emperours and souldiers, Pub­licans and Harlots, Mariners and Politici­ans to embrace a Religion, and run a course clean contrary to the carnall and Divelish wisdome of their proud reason, contrary to the stubborn resolutions of their perverse [Page 311] wils; in a word, contrary to their very na­ture, education, custome, contrary to di­ctates of policy and reasons of state, contra­ry to their passions, lusts, interests friends Cōpanions. O victorious spirit! What aileth what aileth thee, O thou man of war, and pride, thou Secretary of nature, & Advocate of the Devil to h [...]ng the head and weep, to resigne thy estate, lay down thy Commissi­on, and thy Armes, burn thy Conjuring-books, and sacrifice thy dearest life in the maintenance of that truth which thou hast formerly contemned? I must cry as he did [...]. This is the power of the Word: Behold the Efficacy of the Spirit in the word conquering and triumphing over the subtilty and obstinacy, the pride and malignity of carnal men. The promises of God are better then all the proffers of Sathan: the divel shewes us the glory of the world: the Scripture shewes us the vanity of the world, and the conscience is con­vinced by the word and Spirit, that the re­version of Heaven is infinitly better then the possessions of earth: all the kingdomes of the world and glory of them are not worth one dayes Communion with Jesus Christ, nay one dayes comfort from the Gospel and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Good reason have we then to beleeve the Spirit. Angels admire, and Divels tremble at the Majesty of the word, Saints beleeve, obey, [Page 312] adore the Majesty of the Spirit speaking in the word of truth and life, of grace and glory.

The Familists might learn by this sad discourse to beleeve the Spirit of God spea­king in the word of God,The Fami­lists. and not beleeve their own natural, carnal, phantastical spi­rits which contradict the word and spirit of God. The Familists did learn of the Pa­pists to call Orthodox Protestants Scripture men, to scoffe at them as Scripture-wise, and to say as Stapleton and divers others do,H. Nico­las [...] the Gosp [...]l of the [...]ing­dome. Dr Rai­nolds Confe [...]nce with Hart cap. 1. di­vis 2. pag, 60. 61 H [...]lets Epistle in Queen Eli­zabeth. that the most diligent conference of Scriptures is the ready way to the most damnable er­rours. That the fountains of Greek and He­brew are neither pure, nor necessary; and the like. And yet Howlet in his Epistle to Queen Elizabeth did lay the sin of the Fa­mily of love to the charge of the Protestants. But Dr. Raynolds our learned Champion in his conference with Hart, doth vindicate the Protestants, and make it evident that such as were godly and learned in the Scripture, did detest Harry Nicolas that imp of Sathan and master of the Family of Love, & therfore they could not lay the Families sinto our charge as if we did foster that ve­nemous vipers brood (I keep to the Doct­ors own expressions that you may see how the zeal of that meek Moses was enflamed in this contest) which did march into the field with Papists to strengthen their hands against Protestants.

[Page 313] The Anabaptists likewise might learn from hence to make the spirit speaking in the word the Judge of their pretended Revela­tions, The Ana­baptists. if they were not too conceited of their own inventions, and apt to fall in love with the dreams of their own feaver­ish brain, with their weak arguments, but strong delusions.

The Arminians the constant enemies of the Grace of God should consider that the Pelagians the advocates of Free-wil and corrupt nature,The Armi­nians Ene­mies of Grace. were confounded with those plain Scriptures which were urged by the Councels of Carthage, Vide Epist. ad Innoc. inter Epist. August. Epist. 90. & 92▪ Concil. Arausican. secundum, August. Tom. 7. Contra Pelagian. Milevis, Orenge, and Holy Augustine in his fragrant works.

The Socinians the enemies of the onely true God,The Soci­nians me­mies of God Vide The­odoret. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 7. Athanas. contra A­rian. Basil contra Eu­nom. Na­zianzen. Hilar & Aug. de Trinitate & contra Arian. Cyrill Alexand. Tom. 5. part. 1. & 2. Thesaurus &c. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; should consider that the Arrians were over­thrown by the Scriptures in the Nicene coun­cel, and by the godly Pastours of the Church, who instead of broken Scriptures (which the Arians urged with as much fraud as the devil did, Mat. 4.) produced plain Scrip­tures and the whole Series of both Testa­ments, and so did invincibly refute their blasphemous errours.

[Page 314] The Libertines who claym a liberty of pub­lishing damnable Heresies and blasphemies under pretence of Prophesying,The Liber­tines might learn, that where the Spirit of the Lord is, 2 Cor. 3. 17▪ there is liberty, 1 Cor. 12. 3▪ true liberty, but no where else; for he who protends to speak by the Holy Ghost,1 Joh. 2, 22, 23. and yet denies Iesus to be the Lord, doth at once blaspheme Christ and the Holy Spirit, and is an Anti-spiritual Lyar, an Antichri­stian Blasphemer, and hath neither Father, Son nor Spirit dwelling in him. For he who speaks by the Spirit doth acknowledge Je­sus to be the Lord, The Ene­mies of the Trinity are Antichri­stian. 1 Cor. 12. 3. And he who denies the Son hath not the Father. Who is a lyer but he who denies that Iesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son; whosoever denies the Son, the same hath not the Father, 1 Jo. 2. 22, 23.

In like manner, every Spirit which confes­seth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God but of Antichrist,Dr. Sibs his judge­ment con­cerning li­berty of Prophesy. 1 Joh. 4. 2, 3. This is that Vorstian liberty which hath un­done so many Nations already, and is now Idolized in England under the name of Li­berty of Conscience, by such as have neither Conscience nor liberty. Reverend Dr. Sibbs did exceedingly cry out against this kind of Liberty in his time. Dr, Sibs his Epistle before Mr. Baines his Commenta­ry upon the Ephesians▪ He would not have way given to Vorstian lawlesse licencious li­berty of prophesie: that every one so soone as he is big of some new conceit, should bring forth his abortive Monster; for then the [Page 315] Pillars of Christian Faith will soon be sha­ken, and the Church of God which is an house of Order, will be [...]ome a Babel, an house of Confusion. The dolefull issues of which pre­tended Liberty, we see in Polonia, Transylva­nia, and in Countries neerer hand.

I might proceed, but this is sufficient for a taste; and if I should but name all the er­rours of this age and not confute them, I should abuse my Reader, and therefore I desire to stop in time, and beseech all that are spiritually minded to hea [...]ken to the Spirit speaking in the word. A [...] Exhor­tation to beleeve the Holy Spirit. Beloved beleeve not every spirit, but beleeve the Holy Spirit, who is the Author of the Scriptures, the Au­thor of Faith, the Iudge of Controversies, the interpreter of the Scriptures, the Doctor and comforter of the Elect, and he will lead you in­to all necessary truth for your present edifica­tion and everlasting Salvation.

The Holy Spirit will assure you that the Scriptures of truth were all written by his own Authority, The Spirit doth testifie that the Scriptures are the [...]ord of God. and you may safely set to your seale, when you have received the in­fallible testimony of the Holy Ghost. We are witnesses of these things (saith the [...]po­stle) and so is the Holy-Ghost also, Act. 5. 32. We shall never receive the word,The Testi­mony of the Spirit sup­ports our Faith in time of Temptation as the Word of God, with joy, reverence, submission and assurance of Faith, specially in times of [...]fflicti­on and temptation, unlesse we receive the wit­nesse of the Spirit, and ground our Faith up­on [Page 316] the wisdome and evident demonstration of VII the Spirit. When we look upon the word of God, and consider, Arguments for the Holy Scriptures. See Mr. Hildersham upon the 51 Psalme and the seventh verse, his 145. Lecture. Mr. Ball his larger Catechisme. Master Hieron of the Dignity of the Scriptures. Reverend Mr. White in his book newly Printed called the way to the Tree of Life, the second and third chapters.

  • 1, The wonderfull consent of all those Holy and selfe-denying men that penned it.
  • 2. The marvellous fulfilling of all the strange Prophecies in the fullnesse of time appointed by God.
  • 3. The Admirable Providence of God in preserving the Scriptures notwithstand­ing all the rage and malice of Hereticks and persecutors.
  • 4. The supernaturall Miracles wrought for to confirm it.
  • 5. The Harmonious testimony that the Church, Martyrs, Saints, have in all ages given to it.
  • 6. The Antiquity, Majesty, Efficacy of it.
  • 7. The divine and heavenly matter con­tained in it,
    • 1. Mysteries above reason,
      Ps. 119. 129
      1 Cor. 2. 9.
    • 2. Commands contrary to our corrupt nature, sent to all Nations, and even to the greatest and proudest of men.
    • [Page 317]3. Threats beyond the strength of man to inflict▪ or the capacity of man to com­prehend an hard heart, a seared Conscience, and yet a trembling Spirit, a reprobate mind and sense, a spirit of madnesse, giddinesse, hor­rour or slumber, an everlasting worm, eter­nall fire, torments with the devil and his An­gels.
    • 4. Promises and rewards beyond the power of man to bestow, or wisdome of Angels to comprehend, 1 Pet. 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 10.
    • 5. The fall, corruption, Redemption, Salvation of man wonderfully declared in the Holy Scriptures: the inward frame and disposition of mans heart, his secret thoughts and most intimate projects, his reserved wishes, desires, ends, and purpo­ses undenyably discovered for his convicti­on, even to admiration and amazement, 1 Cor. 14. [...]5. then the reason of man is even confounded, the obstinacy of mans heart subdued, all the pride of humane glory stai­ned, and the Scriptures appeare to be the word of God.
      The Testi­mony of the Spirit mak [...] all other Arguments effectuall for our conversion unto true Faith.

But now all these Arguments and many more which I could name, will not be ef­fectuall for our regeneration and conver­sion, untill the Spirit be pleased to set all home upon the heart by his own irresistible efficacy, and seale this truth to the Consci­ence by his own infallible testimony. But [Page 318] when the Spirit speaks to and works upon our spirits,Vide Scholasticos de dono Dis­cernendi credenda à non cre­dendis. Lombard. lib. 3. dist. 34. B [...]na­vent. sent. l. 3. d. 34. qu. 1. Ar­gentin. Ib. Aquin. se­cund. q. 8. a 4. q. 9 a. 1. Parisiēs. de Legibus cap. [...]1. Gerson. de exam. Doct. p. 1. con. 6. Mirandul. de fide & ordine credendi. Vide Sententiarios passim de Dono intel­lectus, Scientiae, & Consilii. then we do assent and consent, to all the proposals of God; our very thoughts are captivated and subdued unto the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10. 5. Our Conscience is convinced swayed and unde­niably obliged to beleeve what is promised, allow what is commanded, our will made willing to chose both, the affections to embrace both, our whole man to follow af­ter both according to the directions of God for performing what is commanded, and obtaining of what is promised, Rom. 7. 12. 22. Psa. 119. 106, 112, 113, 127, 128, 167, 173, 174.

I must acknowledge my absolute total and universal dependance upon the infallible wis­dome, Our abso­lute depen­dance upon the Infalli­ble Spirit. infinite truth, power, majesty, great­nesse, and goodnesse of the Holy Spirit, and confesse that he hath soveraigne Right and divine authority to reveale and prescribe whatsoever he pleases upon the rewards and penalties of everlasting life and death.Theologi [...] est doctri­na super­naturalis divinâ re­velatione, non scientifica demonstratione tradita. Johan. 9. 29 Johan. 5. 47. Spiritus Prophetis & Apostolis imo & sibi ip­si in eis testimonium perhibuit. Vide Hen. Gandaveni. Sum. part. 1. ar. 9. q. 3. Greg. Homil. 19. in Ezek. Aug▪ Tract. 3. in Ep. Johan. Hilar. lib. 2. de Trin. prope. finem, & p. 174. [Page 319] And I am obliged to beleeve and embrace al that the Spirit teacheth without any con­tradiction, though it seeme never so im­probable to my carnall reason, and be real­ly contrary to my corrupt affections, ends, and esianes.1. Appre­hension. The spirit teaches me how to apprehend and judge of spirituall things af­ter a spirituall manner;2. Appro­bation. for the spirit tea­ches me what to approve, 3 Election and what I should disallow, 4. Prose­cution. Phil. 1▪ 9, 10, 19. I must choose what the Spirit approves,5 Fruition▪ and then prosecute what I have chosen with care,6. Satisfa­ction. hope, desire, and embrace what I attaine to with love and delight,Psal. 16. 5. 6. 11. and in a word rest satisfyed with the love of the Father,Psal. 73. 25▪ 26. the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Spirit, as my al-sufficient and satisfactory portion for ever­more,Psa. 16. 7. Psal. 17. 15. Psal. 63. 5.Iustifying saith de­pends upon the testimo­ny of the Spirit.

Faith is that Grace which enables and en­clines us upon the divine testimony of the Spi­rit to depend on Christ for righteousnesse and life according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace.Vide Ori­gen. 4. [...]. Simplici­tas nec non maje­stas summa Evangelii cum efficacia conjuncta Philosophos, reges, mun­dum vicit. Vide Aug. l. 13. contra F [...]ustum. c. 5. Gandav. sum. part. 1. art. 9. q▪ 3. Scotum. in. 3. Dist. 23. q. 1. Occham. p. 1. l. 1. c. 4. Aug. l. 1. contra Ep. Fundamenti c. 5. Whitta. Disp. de Sacra Script. Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 8. Mr. White his way to the Tree of Life. The divine Testimony of the Spirit is the true ground of justifying Faith; but Historicall Faith which may be in Devils Jam 2. and Temporary Faith which may be in Reprobates, Luke 8. are not truly groun­ded [Page 320] on the Testimony, wisdome, Authority, Revelation, or demonstration of the Spirit. We read of a Revelation of flesh and blood, Mat. 16. 17. And the demonstration and Re­velation of the Spirit. 1 Cor. 2. 4. 10. 14, 15. Ephes. 1. 17. A man who hath nothing but sense and Reason in him may have an Histo­ricall or a Temporary Faith; but he who doth upon the divine Testimony of the Spirit beleeve that Iesus is the Christ, he is born of God, of the Spirit of God, and hath the wit­nesse in himself, 1 Joh. 5. 1. 6, 10. For the re­generate and they only have a spirituall un­derstanding in them to know him that is true when he is revealed unto them by the Spi­rit of truth, Vide Chry­sostom. Ho­mil. 57. in Johan. 9. [...] [...]. Biel. 3. Sent dist. 23. qu. 2. art. l. Ma­jus lumen in Scientiâ, majus ro­bur in fide Spiritus rationem dirigit, voluntatem determinat, fidem infundit [...]vide etiam Aqu. secundae qu. 2. art. 3. & pag. 1. qu. 1. Almain. in 3. sent. Dis. 24. qu. unica. August. lib. 3. contra Peti [...]. cap. 6. & Retract. lib. 1. cap. 14. Chrysost. Homil. 46. ad. Pop. Antioch. 1 Joh. 5. 20. 1 Cor. 2, 14, 15. Deut. 29. 4. For the Demonstration of the Spirit is not understood by us untill we are re­newed in the spirit of our mind, so that we can look upon the Divine truths testifyed by the Spirit with a spirituall eye, and discern them after a spirituall manner, 1 Cor. 2. 14. And therefore the Testimony of the Spi­rit is not received but by our renewed Spi­rits, Rom. 8. 16. Before we are Regenerate, we receive divine truths only because we judge them reasonable, or because we find them in [Page 321] the Scriptures, Tam certo scimus no­vum in­strumen­tum esse divinum ac Judaei sciebant vetus in­strumen­tum esse Divinum. Joh. 9. 29. Joh. 5. 47. Joh. 5. 39. Our want of Christ. The worth of Christ▪ and we beleeve the Scriptures upon an Humane Testimony, and therefore only with an Humane, not a Divine Faith. But the Spirituall man beleeves all upon the testimony of the Spirit, and doth con­stantly beg the direction of the good Spirit. O thy Spirit is good saith David, teach me, lead me, quicken me by thy Spirit, Ps. 143. 10, 11. Finally, this good spirit discovers to a man before he beleeves,

  • 1. His want of Christ,
  • 2. The worth of Christ.

His want of Christ by reason of

  • 1. His hainous sins which are inexcusa­ble, damnable.
  • 2. His Spirituall wants which are in­numerable.
  • 3. His present misery, and slavery, which are unspeakable, unsupportable.

The worth of Christ, because he is an All-sufficient Saviour, and only Saviour; the Spirit discovers the treasures of Free grace, the mysteries of Divine Faith, which even Angels admire, the unsearch­able riches of Christ, the fulnesse of God, able to satiate the soule with hea­venly, glorious, everlasting happinesse, and even infinite content. Then the soule is convinced by the Spirit of God,The truth and good­nesse of the Covenant of Grace. not onely of the truth, but goodnesse of the Cove­nant made by God with man in Christ, and that there are better things laid up for be­leevers [Page 322] in Christ, then any are or can be be­stowed by Sathan upon his greatest Agents, and dearest favourites, the darlings of the flesh and world, and upon this account the soule is perswaded by this demonstration of the spirit, to close with Christ, and deny itself, to have no ability, wisdome, righteousnesse, will of its own, but to seek wisdom, Righteous­nesse, Sanctification, and Redemption in Christ. 1 Cor. 1. 30. In a word to deny its own will, and take the will of Christ for its rule and compasse, to do or suffer any thing for Christ, to lose or sell all for him.

The good spirit perswades us

  • 1. To prize Christ highly,
    Psal. 119. 103, 111, 112, 127, 128, 140.
    even above all the kingdomes of the world, and glo­ry of them.
  • 2. To beleeve in Christ stedfastly.
  • 3. To love Christ deerly,
    Phil. 3. 8.
    better then our selves,
    We must prize and love Christ above all things, and cleave to him for e­vermore.
    or dearest friends, better then worldly treasures, sensuall joy, or any car­nall contentments whatsoever.
  • 4. To follow Christ fully that we may enjoy him eternally, as our Crown, our happinesse, our heaven. And to this end and purpose to set up the word of God in our Consciences as our only rule for to di­rect us
    Psal. 73. 26, 28.
    • 1. In all points of Faith,
    • 2. In all parts of worship,
    • 3. In all passages of our life and con­versation: that we may cast out the world, [Page 323] the Devil, nay flesh and self and all to make roome for Christ.

Now when the Spirit hath by its own evidence,Faith in all three per­sons. testimony, authority, wisdome and efficacy wrought Faith in the soule, to carry it into the armes of Iesus Christ, [...]. Christ doth bid it welcom,Rom. 5. 2. embraces, kisses it, and takes this young beleever by the hand, Eph. 2. 18. and puts him into his Fathers bosome. Joh. 14. 6. And when we are thus brought to beleeve in Father,Heb 7. 25. Son,1 Pet. 1. 21. and Holy Ghost, then we are fitted and prepared to worship and obey all three glo­rious persons as one God blessed forever. And therefore, I may now proceed to speak of the worship of all three, and then of our obedience to all three.

II 2. This grand Mystery of Faith hath an effectuall influence into our Gospel-wor­ship. The wor­ship of the divine Trin-unity. He takes the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in vain, and doth not make that Holy use which he should of the Titles, Pro­perties, workes and Ordinances of all three, who doth not with Knowledge, Faith, Reve­rence, sincerity and spirituall joy worship all three; for this is true Gospel-worship. And therefore, The fourth and fift chapters of this Trea­tise must be compa­red with this ninth chapter. I would intreat my Reader dili­gently to consider what I have delivered in the fourth, and fifth chapters of this Trea­tise concerning the divine Nature, Titles, Properties, works of all three in order to wor­ship for the glory of the thrice illustrious, and yet single God head; and then if he will [Page 324] study the scope of the first Table of the Holy Law of God, and the substance of Gospel-worship, he will acknowledge that every one who beleeveth in all three per­sons will find his Faith obliging and incli­ning him to worship al three glorious per­sons as one God blessed for ever.

I 1. God the Father is to be worshipped under the Gospel as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our Father in him.God the Father is to be wo [...]ship­ped with Divine worship. I have touched this point already, and because it is not much controverted by our grand e­nemies, I shall not insist long upon it.

All the knowledge of God which we gain by the Scriptures of truth, See learned Mr. R [...]n­doll his great Myste­ry of godli­nesse. is revealed to us on purpose for our direction in the worship of God; we must not worship God according to our own devices, but according to that discovery which God hath made of him­selfe to us in his Holy word,Dr. Down­ham on the Lords Prayer. not onely in respect of his divine nature (as when our Saviour saith God is a Spirit, Mr. Bur­roughes of Gospel-worship, and Gospel-conversati­on. and from thence concludes, that God is to be worshipped in Spirit and truth,) but in respect of the Di­vine Persons also.

We are to worship God, as a Creator, as the first of Causes, Mr. Tho­mas Good­win his Triumph of Faith. last of Ends, best of Beings, to whom we owe our Being, and our well-being; but we must worship God the Father as God, and look upon him as the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, and as our Father reconciled to us in Christ; this is [Page 325] that worship which becomes the Gospel; Distin­guendum est inter objectum considera­tionis, & objectum Adoratio­nis; inter objectum, Adoratio­nis materiale & Formale. Pater enim quà Pater abstractà ratione Deitatis non est adorandus; ipsa enim Deitas est ra­tio Formalis Adorationis. and therefore we ought to worship God the Father considered after this Evangelicall manner, that he may be glorifyed, we mo­ved and affected with those endearing ex­pressions, O God the Father of our Lord Ie­sus Christ, and our Father in him. Such ex­pressions as these do beget in us,

1. Holy boldnesse mixed with Reverence.Eph. 3. 12. [...]

2. Christian confidence; our Father wil sup­ply the wants of his children out of his rich treasure, for he commands Heaven & earth.

3. Filial Love, and cheerefull obedience, which are even con-naturall to our new man upon due consideration of this sweet relation between God and us, Ier. 3. 19.

4. A thankefull acknowledgement of Gods fatherly bounty, even unto admirati­on; Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God, 1 Joh. 3. 1. Nay heyres of God, Rom. 8. 17. What are we vile wretches, wormes and no men, yea by reason of our filthinesse, Dogs, and Devils, that we should be adopted into the family of God, married to the Sonne of God, and made co-heyrs with the Lord of glory! When the Spirit of a man is raised by such [Page 326] thankfull acknowledgements unto an Ho­ly admiration, then it is brought into a Gospel frame, and by such high and sweet thoughts of Gods fatherly love and boun­ty fitted for filiall and Gospel-worship.

But it will be said that the whole Trinity is our Father,In what sense the whole Tri­nity is our Father. and therefore all three persons are to be worshipped under that fatherly consideration, and in that deare Relation.

To which I answer,

I 1. That when the word Father is attri­buted unto God essentially, though all crea­tures are excluded, yet all the three Divine persons are included, because they are co-e­qual, they have one nature, will and wor­ship; they are one and the same God, and they are one Father also in opposition to I­mages, Ier. 2. 27.Jer. 2. 27. To Saints, Is. 63. 16.Isa. 63. 16. Doubt­lesse thou art our Father, Deut. 32. 6 though Abraham be ignorant of us, Jer. 31. 9. and Israel acknowledge us not. Thou O Lord art our Father, our Redee­mer, thy name is from everlasting. And in opposition to all creatures, Mat. 23. 9. and in the Lords Prayer, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all called upon as our Father.

II 2. The word Father is sometimes taken personally, and attributed to a single per­son of the God-head. More frequently, and more peculiarly to God the Father, who is the first Principle of subsisting life (even in respect of his own naturall and Co-essen­tiall Son, as hath been proved at large in [Page 327] this Treatise) and is to be reckoned first in order; and finally in regard of our Adoption and the mysterious and divine Oeconomy and dispensation vouchsafed for the salvation of man; and yet these peculiar notions do not exclude the other persons from being God, as hath been proved above in the fourth chapter, nor do they exclude them from being our Father in the common notion of Father in opposition to creatures and Idols; Christ is our Father nay all three persons have a Fatherly care of us,Isa. 9. 6. Heb. 2. 13, 14. and love to us, and therefore Christ is cal­led our Father, Isa. 9. 6. & Heb. 2. 13, 14. And it is the proper office of the Holy Ghost to Re­generate us,The Holy Ghost is our Father. as it is of the Father to Adopt us; but then the Father doth Adopt us in Christ who is a Father to us, though a Son to God the Father, and the holy Spirit is the Spirit of Re­generation and Adoption, and therefore all three Co-essentiall persons are our Father.

III 3. We may direct our Prayers to any one person, as Steven directed his to the Lord Jesus, Act. 7. 59. Lord Iesus receive my Spirit.

IV 4. We may direct our Prayers expressely unto two of the divine persons. Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Iesus Christ direct our way unto you, 1 Thes. 3. 11.

V 5. We may direct our Prayers unto all three, as we do in the administration of Baptisme: and in that Fundamentall Bene­diction 2 Cor. 13, 14.

[Page 328] VI 6. When we direct our prayers to one of the divine persons, we exclude none, because the Persons are in one another; the Father is in the Son, and they are all three co­essentiall, coequall; They are one God, and therefore are to be worshipped with that selfe same religious and divine Worship which is due to their single and undivided Godhead.

VII 7. When we direct our prayer to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Father considered as our Fa­ther in a peculiar way. the terme Father is taken in a peculiar notion, not in the common notion, and the Apostle di­rects his prayer after this peculiar manner, Eph. 3. 14. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, of whom the whole Family in Heaven and Earth is named. God the Father looks upon us poore wormes as part of his Family, nay, as his deare children whilest we are here on earth, as well as he looks upon his other children, the glorious Saints▪ who are made perfect in heaven. Evangelicall encou­ragement to Gospell-worship. Oh what a quick­ning consideration is this, to bring us upon our knees at a Throne of grace before Christs Father, and our Father, that we may have a childs Portion, and be prepared for that place which Christ is now preparing for us! We are part of the Family numbred amongst those of the best ranke;Ioh. 20. 17. Eph. 3. 14. we are children, and have the same Father that Christ and the Saints in heaven have. Iohn 20. 17. Ephes. 3. 14. and therefore shall come to be [Page 329] Coheires with Christ and them. Here is heavenly encouragement unto Gospell-worship, and Gospell-conversation.1 Tim. 1. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 2. Tit. 1. 4. Phile. 1. 3. Rom. 1. 7. It is no wonder then if that Gospell-worship be frequent­ly performed to God under this endearing consideration and in this sweet and comforta­ble relation.1 Cor. 1. 3. The Apostle wishes us grace and peace from God our Father,2 Cor. 1. 2. and the Lord Jesus Christ, Gal. 1. 3. Rom. 1. 7. and in like manner 1 Cor.Phil. 1. 2. 1 3. 2 Cor. 1. 2.Col. 1. 2. Observe that solemn forme of thanksgiving. 2 Cor. 1. 3. 4. Blessed be God,Col. 1. 3. even the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ the Father of mercies,Eph. 1. 2, 3. and the God of all comfort,1 Thes. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 3.2 Thes. 1. 2. Oh how wil­lingly and cheerefully do we run to the God of all mercies and comfort in a time of temp­tation and affliction!Joh. 16. 27. 2 Cor. 1. 4.1 Pet. 1. 3. For the Fa­ther discovers his bowels of mercy on pur­pose to invite us to him. The Father him­selfe loves you, Iohn 16. 27. All spirituall glorious eternall blessings, our Election, Re­demption, Salvation, are ascribed to this Fa­ther of all grace, mercy, comfort, glory. Christ redeemes us according to the will of God and our Father, Gal. 1. 4. Iohn 10. 17, [...]8. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus, who hath blessed us with all spirituall blessings in heavenly things in Christ accord­ing as he hath chosen us. Ephes. 1. 3, 4▪ 11. Much more might be said to this pur­pose; but this may suffice: It is now time to proceed to my next Point, which is, that

[Page 330] 2. Divine Worship is due to the second Person of this Coessentiall Trinity,Divine Worship is due to Ie­sus Christ as God. to Je­sus Christ our Lord and God. There is but one immediate formall proper Adaequate and Fundamentall reason of Divine Worship or Adorability (as the Schooles speak) and that is the Soveraign Supreme singular Majesty, independent and infinite excellency of the eter­nall Godhead. There is a peculiar and singu­lar esteeme, Faith, Love, and Worship due to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are one God, the only true God. These three are the only Object of Religion, and therefore the only Object of religious Adoration. There is but one kind of Divine Worship, & that Wor­ship and all degrees of it is due to this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; this truth is made good against the Papists as well as against the Socinians, and divers others, whom I need not name, the Ubi­quitists and Arminians, by a cleare stating of the point in Controversie, and invin­cible demonstrations to confirme the Truth.

First,The rise of this Contro­versie. For the cleare stating of this Point we must look a little into the rise of this Controversie, and consider how far it hath been discussed by Learned men, and stated by such as are Orthodoxe, and pru­dent men, since the Socinians, Ubiquitists, and Arminians have endeavoured to make the question more perplexed, and the truth more obscure.

[Page 331] The Papists are deeply engaged to prove 1 that religious honour may be given to a Creature, at least in some degree:The Pa­pists. their distinctions are so well known that I need not to insist upon them.Cultus la­triae, duliae & hyper­duliae pre­catio est directa vel indi­recta. Ab­soluta aut relativa; Suprema vel subal­terna; transitoria velfinalis; oblatoria aut extra oblatio­nem. Card. Perron. in responso ad Regem M. Britan. l. 5. c. 20. Smigl. de Monstris Arriano­rum. c. 9. Vide sis Caje [...]anū, Suarez. Valent. in Thomam. part. 3. q. 25. art. 1. & 2. Cardinall Perron exceeds them all for sophisticall distincti­ons, which he who is at leisure may read in his fifth Book, and twentieth Chapter of his Answer to King Iames. But Smi­glecius being engaged against the Socini­ans, states the Point right; he distingui­sheth between Christs Naturall Power, as he is the Naturall and Coessentiall Son of God, and his Delegated Power which he hath as Mediatour, and concludes that Christ is to be worshipped as he is the Natu­rall Son of God with Divine Worship, because his Naturall Power is his Divine Nature. But (saith he) Christ is not to be worshipped in the second consideration with Divine Wor­ship. Doctor Rainolds in his Book de Idolo­latria Romana hath abundantly refuted all that the Papists bring to excuse their Ido­latry, and proves clearely, that It is Ido­latry to give Religious honour to any Crea­ture; I shall not therefore trouble my Reader with any set-dispute upon that Ar­gument.

The Socinians tell us that The Father is the only Absolute Supreme Independent God, but Christ is a Dependent and subordinate God: 2. The So­cinians. And therefore may be worshipped [Page 332] as he is Mediatour with a Relative and sub­ordinate Worship,Vide [...]rel­lium de uno Deo Patre sect. 1. sect. 36, 37. which they are not affraid to call Divine Worship. But they confess that they worship the Father only as the su­preme Cause, the First Efficient, and the last End: Socin. c. prae [...]. Wie. Volket. in­stit. l. 4. c. 11. But they worship Christ as the se­cond or middle Cause of our Salvation, and the intermediate end of Religion. The ground and formall Reason of this subordinate Worship is (as they conceive) Christs me­diatory Office,Socin. de Adorat. Christi cum Chri­stiano. Franken. & Fran.—Dav. & Antithes. Francisci—Davidis, Ostorod. Instit. cap. 10. the new subordinate God­head, and Lordship over us bestowed upon him for his obedience unto death, which they say, is the Mediate, as his Exaltation is the Immediate Cause of this Subordinate glory.

III The Arminians in their Apology, and other writings,The Armi­nians. endeavour to excuse and gratifie the Socinians;Remonst. Apolog. c. 2. & 16. p. 153. Rhapsod. l. 1. c. 9. for they deny that our grand Argument taken from the Di­vine Honour and Worship of Christ, doth sufficiently prove his Nature to be Divine, and Christ to be one God with his Father. This Argument, say they, is not invincible, and irrefragable, nay, they call it a leaden Argument, because this Divine Honour is given to him by his Fathers gratification in time.

IV Some Lutherans are very much to blame in this Point; for they say,Vbiquitists That the Di­vine [Page 333] Majesty, Worship, Glory, Omnipo­tence, Omnipresence of the Son of God are communicated to Christ as man: but enough of that.

V Divers Learned,Securius locuti sunt viri gra­vissimi an­te exor. tum Arri­um, Nesto­rium Pela­gium, &c. sic & non­nulli qui inter reve­ren dissi­mos meri­to recen­sentur an­te enatas controver­sias Soci­nianas Re­monstran­ticas, &c. Junius defens. Trinit. contra Samosat. p. 3. pag. 190. Exam. Grat. Prosp. part. 2. sect. 5. Chamier. tom. 2. l. 1. c. 4. Polan. Syntag. l. 2. c. 31. Polyand. prima concert contra Socin. c. 21. Paraeus Iren. c. 28. Method controv. ubi (que) c. 31. Camer. tom. 3. Praelect. pag. 173. Maccov. misc. q. 5. Disp. 35, 36, 37. Clut. Id. Disp. 3. 4. 40. Beza. Col. momp. part. 1. pag. 196, 197. Zanch. de 3. Elohim cap. 12. l. 1. Epist. 9. Voet. de Adorat. Christi. Orthodoxe, Judici­ous Doctours of the Church have given the Enemy too much advantage by their un­wary expressions in this Point: and the vi­gilant Enemy hath taken that advantage and made a very vnhappy use of it, to the great prejudice of Christianity. Vno ab­surdo dato mille sequuntur; Error parvus in Principio fit magnus in Fine. I do there­fore entreat the most accurate and nice Reader at his best leasure to read Iunius, Chamier, Polanus, Polyander, Pareus, Ca­mero, Maccovius, Cluto, Beza, Heidan, Diest, Zanchius, Voetius, Altingius, and other sate Writers upon this Point, who have observed every turn, ward, shift of the Enemy, and have given a very faire ac­count of all.

For the present State of the Question be pleased seriously to consider these plaine and weighty conclusions following.

[Page 334] I 1. Divine excellency, infinite Majesty, and Perfection, is the Formall and Adequate ground and reason of Divine Worship. Roman. 1. 21. ad 25. Lactant. Instit. l. 1. c. 19. Si honos i­dem tri­buitur ali­is, ipse com­nino non colitur, cujus re­ligio est il­lum esse unum ac solum De­um crede­re. For by Divine Worship we do acknowledge and declare the Infinite Majesty, Truth, Wis­dome▪ Goodnesse and Glory of our bles­sed God. We do not esteeme any thing wor­thy of Divine Honour and Worship which hath but a finite and created glory; because Divine Honour is proper and peculiar to the only true God, who will not give his glory to any other who is not God. God alone is the Adequate Object of divine Faith, Hope, Love, and Worship; because these graces are all exercised, and this worship performed in acknowledgement of his infinite perfection, and independent excel­lency;Cyprian. ad Fortunat. de exhort. mart. c. 2. Tertul. de Idol. c. 1. Idololatria Dei honorificentiam usurpat, & vendicat creaturae. Ambros. in Epist. ad Ephes. c. 5. Gr [...]g. Nyss Orat. in laudem Bas. mag. Gr. Naz. Orat. in Christi Nativit. Aquin. in Epist. ad Ephes. cap. 5. lect. 3. and therefore no such worship can be due to any thing below God: But the most glorious and excellent Creatures are all below God, and therefore that point is cleare.

II 2. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one and the same God,The same Divine worship is due to all three di­vine Per­ [...]ons. as hath been proved in the fourth Chapter of this Treatise; and therefore one and the same worship is due to all three, because they are Coessentiall, [Page 335] Coequall, Coeternall; they have one and the same divine nature, excellency, perfecti­on, and essentiall glory; and therefore the same acknowledgement is due to all three both from men and Angels. There is not one kind of divine honour due to the Fa­ther, and another to the Son, nor one de­gree of honour due to the Father, and ano­ther to the Son; for there can be no de­grees imaginable in one and the same ex­cellency, which is single because infinite; and what is infinite doth excell and transcend all degrees and bounds. And if there be no degrees in the ground and Adaequate reason of Divine Worship, There are no de­grees in the Ground of Divine Worship. Joh. 10. 30 Iohn 5. 23 Phil. 2. 6, 11. there can be no ground or reason of a difference of degrees in the Worship it selfe. The Father and Son are one, Iohn 10. 30. one in Power, Excel­lency, Nature; one God, and therefore are to be honoured with the same Worship, Iohn 5. 23. All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father; every tongue must confesse that Iesus Christ who is man, is God also, and therefore equall to his Fa­ther. And it can be no robbery, no derogation to the Fathers honour for us to give equall honour to him, and his coequall Son, who subsists in the forme of God, in the nature of God, Phil. 2. 6, 11. You see the Divine Nature, the infinite Excellency of Iesus Christ, is an undeniable ground of this co­equall honour, and therefore the Worship [Page 336] due to Christ as God, the same God with his Father, is the very same Worship both for kind and degree which is due to the Father.

3. This Divine Honour was due to Iesus Christ, before there was any creature to give him his due. Christ wasAdora­bilitas est Attribu­tum Dei absolut [...], sive essentialis pro­prietas. A­doratio autem supponit aliquam creaturae actionem. Deus sine Adorabili­tate non est Deus, fuit autem Deus ab aeterno sine actuali a­doratione. Vide Zanchium [...]b. 1. de incarnatione. Voetium qu. An Christus quà mediator sit adorandus. Adorable, Wor­shipable, that is worthy of Divine Wor­ship before there was any man or Angel to adore, to performe actuall Worship, that Divine Worship which was due to him for his infinite excellency from all eter­nity.

4. When Jesus Christ was declared to the world, God did command even the most glorious Angels to worship him, as his naturall and coessentiall Son, who was begotten from the days of eternity in the unity of the Godhead. For when he brought in his first-begotten, and only be­gotten Son into the world, he said, And let all the Angels of God worship him, Heb. 1. 6.

5. If man had never fallen, never stood in any need of Christs blood, yet all men would have worshipped the naturall and coessentiall Son of God, as one and the same God with his Father, and therefore [Page 337] with the same Divine Worship▪ as soon as his Godhead had been sufficiently revealed to them from heaven, or else that very neglect would have been their fall and ruine.

VI 6. The office of Christ, his discharge of his office,The diffe­rence be­ [...]ween the Motives to and For­mall Rea­son of Di­vine wor­ship. by his active and passive obedi­ence, and glorious benefits which we re­ceive thereby, are excellent motives to ex­cite us to give that Divine Worship to Je­sus Christ, which is due unto him for his owne infinite excellency; but his infi­nite excellency, is the Formall, Proper and Adaequate Ground, Reason and Cause of all the Divine Worship which we per­forme to Iesus Christ, and that for these reasons.

I 1. Because if man had never fallen, and Christ had never died for mans Redempti­on, this Divine Worship had been due un­to him, for his infinite and eternall excel­lency, as hath been proved.

II 2. Because the Father and the Spirit are not Mediatours as Christ is, Unicum tantum est Religi­onis & re­ligiosae A­dorationis objectum, unus nem­pe verus Deus, Pa­ter Filius & Spiritus Sanct. Vide Molin. in novitate Papis. Riv. Dec. ad pri. Praecept. and that Of­fice which is not common to all three Per­sons cannot be the Prime, Immediate, Pro­per, Formall cause, Ground or Reason of that Divine Honour and worship which is due to all three as one God blessed for ever; nay no Office whatsoever can be the proper cause of Divine Honour.

[Page 338] III 3. Because this Divine Honour was due to Jesus Christ from all eternity,Omnis Ra­tio For­malis in Objecto naturâ prior est omni acti­one in ob­jectum illud tendente: passio Christi autem posterior est Adorabilitate, imò & ipsa adoratione filii Dei. before his Incarnation, Passion, &c. and therefore this Divine Honour is not bestowed upon him as a reward of his Active or Passive obedience; for no worship or thing can be before its Formall Cause.

4. Because Jesus Christ is a Mediatour according to both Natures, and therefore according to his humane nature as well as his Divine Nature; but all the honour due to Christ according to his Divine Nature was due from all eternity, and there is no Divine Honour due to him for and by rea­son of his humane nature, or any perfection which doth truly and properly belong to Christ as man. He who was borne of Mary, is to be adored with Divine worship, but not for that reason, because he was borne of Mary, but because he is God, the Coessen­tiall and Eternall Son of God; We must distinguish between the Materiall and Formall Object of worship.Maturam humanam assumpsit persona divina, & divinae su­ae naturae univit; manet itaque unica Christi persona duabus constans naturis. Totam Christi personam itaque adoramus, non totum Personae; natura enim assumpta est creatura: totum Personae duas Christi naturas significat.

1. The Materiall Object of worship is Christ, who is both God and man, the Son of David, the Son of Mary, the Son of God, the Mediatour and Saviour of his people from their sins.

[Page 339] 2. The Formall Object discovers to us the Prime Formall Adequate ground and reason of his Divine worship;Vide C [...] DD. Prof. Leidens [...] Censura Confess. Remonstr. cap. 16. In adoratione objectum Formale & causa propria seu Termi­nus (ut Scholae loquūtur) est divina tantum na­tura quae hujus cul­tus per se tantum est capax. Vide Cy­rilli The­saur. de In­carnat. U­nig. c. 26. l. 2. in Joh. c. 92. Athan. contra Arrianos Orat. 5. Dialog. 3. Humanitas Christi non adoratur [...] nec [...]. Adoratio Mediatoris non resolvitur ultimò in munus Mediatorium▪ sed in Deitatem. Vi­de Professor. Leid. ubi supra. cap. 16. D. Voetium de Adorat, Christi. p. 536. Pareum Irenic. cap. 28. Cyrill. ad Theodos; de recta fide lib. 1. the Coessen­tiall and Eternall Son of God, who is one and the same God with the Father and the holy Spirit, he is worshipped for his infinite and Divine excellency. Christ is worship­ped as God with this Divine worship; his Mediatory Office, servile suffering, cannot be the Prime and Immediate Foundation, the ultimate and terminating object of divine worship due to the Father Son and holy Ghost; and therefore we must conclude that the Formal & Proper reason of the Divine wor­ship due & given to Jesus Christ our Media­tour, is the divine nature & infinite excellen­cy of our Mediatour, which alone is of it self & for it self capable of Divine worship. I should make a tedious digression if I should declare what great Cyrill of Alexandria, No­ble Athanasius, the Ephesine Councell of old, and very learned and accurate Writers of late have delivered upon this Argument [Page 340] with great dexterity and circumspection. They would not be mistaken as if they did di­vide the two natures of Christ, or remove a­ny glorious adjuncts from the Eternall Word, the second Person of the Godhead; and yet desire you to put a difference between that which Christ assumed by the most free De­cree of God, and grace of Hypostaticall union, And that which belongs to him as he is one God with the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Finally, they intreat you to put a diffe­rence between the Gratious Motives to worship Christ, and the Prime, Formall, A­dequate Proper ground and reason of that worship, as I have done, and professe that they worship their whole Mediatour with one entire worship which is not mixed but purely Divine, and therefore is not founded upon any Temporary Office, Service, Benefit, nor any externall denomination or relation, but upon his infinite Excellency, his Eternall Godhead.

And if these considerations will not give men satisfaction,Zan. de. 3. Elohim. l. 3. cap. 12. I hope to satisfy them far­ther yet before I conclude this Chapter. For the point is to me very clear and plain. If Jesus Christ were worshipped as medi­ator, so that his mediatory office or actu­all mediation should be laid as the first foundation,The fourth Argument empr [...]ved & enforced or assigned as the formall rea­son of our worship, then this fourth argu­ment, which I am still improving and en­forcing [Page 341] for the proofe of the point will plainly discover that the Mediation of Christ having respect to the humane nature, will make the humane nature at least in part the ground, reason and cause of this divine worship, which I leave to all sober Divines to consider, before they admit. And it is farther to be considered that Jesus Christ as Mediatour doth condesend to an office and imployment which doth subject him to God as an Head: Vide Cha­mier. Pan­strat. Tom. 2. lib. 1. c. 4 Junius De­fens. 2. de S. Trinita­te Sect. 7. pag. 88, 89 Christus est aequa­lis Patri secundu [...]n Deitatem personam­que divi­nam, Chri­stus ut [...] lecundum voluntari­am gratiae dispensati­onem Pa [...]ri subjectus est—& pag. 100. propter certas causas se ul [...]rò de­miserit salvo naturali jure ut Dispensative inferius regnum procuret per gr [...]tiam. The Head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. 11. 3. And hence it is, that he is called the Servant of God, in respect of that service which he was to performe as Medi­ator, Isa. 42. 1. 2. 3. 4. Nothing is more cleare then that there are some offices to be performed by Christ as a Mediatour, which cannot be performed by Christ as God, because they do import some subjecti­on, as prayer unto God doth, though it is true that Christ being the naturall Son of God doth intercede after an Authoritative manner. We may for the farther clearing of this point resolve that grand question, what the meaning of that request is, when we say Lord Iesus pray for me; the great doubt is whether this request be presented to Christ as God, or as man.

[Page 342] The Answer is,Prayer di­rected un­to Christ as God. that if we look upon this Petition as a Duty performed by us, This duty of Prayer is directed unto Iesus Christ as God; Vide D. Voetium de Adora­tione Christi pa. 5 36. Distingue ipsam Pe­titionem Formali­ter ut est actus no­ster, à repetitâ. Petitio diri­gitur ad personam Mediato [...]is & ea ter­minatur in quâ Deitas habet se ut Ratio For­malis illius tendentiae seu motus cordis no­stri in Christum. Res Peti­ta est actio Christi Mediato­ris qua mediatoris, agenda sc. secundum naturam human [...]m quae est Immediatum precationis subjectum. for all Divine worship is due to God alone, as hath been proved. But if we look not upon the Duty of Prayer, but the matter of this Prayer: it is cleare that the busines which we recommend to Christ is to be performed by him as man; for it is proper to him as man to pray to the Fa­ther; yet because we desire him to inter­cede in an Authoritative way to the Fa­ther, we do likewise request him to inter­cede as it becomes the Naturall and Coessen­siall Son of God. And therefore if we look upon the whole businesse of Intercession, we conclude that he doth intercede [...] as it becomes God-man; because he is our Mediatour according to both Na­tures, Divine and Humane. But then we must remember to reserve what is proper and peculiar to each Nature, for though we grant that there is a Communication of all properties belonging to both Na­tures unto the Person of Christ, yet we must not attribute any thing to the humane nature which is proper and peculiar to the divine; and it hath been undeniably pro­ved that Divine worship is proper and pe­culiar to the Divine Nature.

[Page 343] V 5. The Office of our Mediatour hath a special respect to Gods chosen people by Gods most free Decree; but the relation and externall denomination arising from thence cannot be the Prime, Fundamentall and Immediate Ground, Formal reason, or Adequate cause of Divine worship; for if Christ had not been God, he could not have been capable of that Office, because nothing could satisfie the justice of God but the blood of God; and what ever arises from the free Decree of God, was not necessary in it selfe; but sure I am, Di­vine worship must be founded upon what is Absolutely necessary and Infinitely perfect; and therefore not upon externall Relati­ons or Denominations, but upon the God­head it selfe.

VI 6. The Actuall Mediation of Christ cannot be the Prime and Fundamentall ground of Divine worship; for Christ was not only worshipable, but worshipped with Divine Honour before he did actually mediate as God-man.

VII 7. The Office of our Mediatour is to bring us to himselfe, his Father and holy Spi­rit as to one God blessed for ever, in whom all our blessednesse doth consist; and there­fore our Faith doth not rest Simply and Finally in Christ as he is our Mediatour God and man, but as he is one God with the Father and the holy Spirit. For by the Mi­nistry [Page 344] and Mediation of Christ as God-man, we are brought to beleeve in God, tht our faith and hope might be in God, 1 Pet. 1. 21. Christ is God by Nature, he is Mediatour by Institution, Christus est Deus Naturâ, Mediator autē insti­tuto O eco nomico, & dispensati­one volun­taria. Ne­mo igitur Deum Pa­trem adit si [...]e medi­atore: ac ne Christum qui­dem, cum idem sit Mediator & Deus. Junius de S. Trinitate Defens. 2. pag. 114. D. Voet. De Adoratione Christi pag. 5 29. Christus non est objectum Formale fidei qua Mediator, non est primum Efficiens, & ultimus finis,—sed est causa inferior, tum Pro­cataractica, seu meritoria, tum Instrumentalis & hac ratione collator bonorum, in cujus nomine, per quem & propter quem tendimus in summum bonum, Deum s [...]l. inque eum credi­mus, in eum speramus, eum colimus & adoramus. Joh. 14. 6. Pa­reus in Method. Controv. ubique cap 31. by a voluntary and gratious dispensation unto which he did condescend for our salvation. And upon this account learned Iunius told the subtile Samosate­nian, That Iesus Christ as Mediatour brings us to himselfe as God. And Doctor Voetius saith that Christ as Mediatour is an Inferior cause, in whose Name, and by whose Media­ation we make towards God our chiefest good, in whom we beleeve, and whom we do wor­ship and adore as the first cause and last end, John 14. 6. And Christ is said to save them to the uttermost by his Intercession who come unto God by him, Heb. 7. 25.

We worship Christ and pray unto him, saith judicious Pareus, as one God with the Father and the Spirit the only true God; and this worship is Absolute and Divine; for it is the Absolute worship of the Godhead. [Page 345] But then we call upon God in the name of Christ, because he is our Mediatour, and we desire for to be heard for the satisfaction and intercession of that Person who is God-man.

But the Socinians conclude that if Christ be not to be worshipped with Divine Ho­nour as Mediatour, then there is only a Sub­ordinate Honor and worship due unto him.

To which we answer, that Christ may be considered four manner of wayes.

1. According to his Godhead and Di­vine Person; Christ con­sidered foure man­ner of ways 1. As God. The Essen­tial infinite Glory of Christ. and it hath beene proved at large in this treatise, that there is Divine Honour due unto the Godhead and Divine Person of Jesus Christ; and this is his Es­sentiall infinite glory,

2. Christ may be considered as Mediator according to both natures, as God-man (by a gracious condescension and personall uni­on)II and so we say there is a Mediatory glo­ry due unto him,As Media­tour. which is more illustrious in regard of its manifestation since the alte­ration of his condition from a state of Hu­miliation to a state of exaltation;Proprieta­tes utrius­que natu­rae toti Per­sonae in concreto verè competunt. Filius hominis, qui est persona du­abus constans naturis est omnipraes [...]ns, aeternus, adorabi­lis, adorandus, nempe secundum naturam divinam cujus haec sunt idiomata. Adoramus Deitatem Incarnatam, ipsa autem Deitas est proprium & Absolutum divinae Adoratio­nis Objectum. this glo­ry doth out-shine all the glory of Saints & [Page 346] Angels in Heaven, but it is different from that Naturall and Essentiall glory which is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as one God. For, that essentiall glory cannot be Communicated to the Humane nature, no not since its Assumption, and Christs exaltation. Christus regnat se­cundum naturam divinam Principali­ter, secun­dum Hu­manam Instrumen­taliter, se­cundum personam deni (que) Ab­solutissime in naturâ utra (que) qd­suum opus est consum­mantem. Iunius de Trinitate.

This Mediatory Honour is very glorious, because Christ sits as a King at the right hand of the Majesty on high, and every one must confesse that our Royall Mediatour is not onely man but God also; yet we must acknowledge that since the exaltation of our King, the glory of his divine nature, his essential glory, is only more manifested wher­as it was eclipsed before in the state of Hu­miliation; and the humane nature assumed is only more perfected and not transubstan­tiated into the divine. The Humane nature is stil a creature, though it hath gained as much glory as it is capable of by the Grace of perso­nal union, and glory of exaltation; and be­ing a creature cannot be capable of divine and infinite perfection, which is the For­mall object of divine Adoration;Humanita­ti Christi nec per [...], nec per [...] communi­cata sunt Idiomata divina, quia Idio­mata divi­ [...] sunt ipsissima Deitas; humanitas autem Christi non fit Deitas Christi nec per gratiam unionis, nec per gloriam exal­ [...]tionis. Humana enim natura charismata accepit gloriosa, non Idiomata divina. Vide Wendilin. Christian. Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 16. Smiglec. de monstris Novo [...]um Arian. lib. 1. cap. 9. [...]olan. Syntag. lib. 2. cap. 31. Agit Christus secundum Humanitatem ut instrumentum assumptum in unitatem Perso­nae. Iunius de Trinitate. even as the divine nature of our Mediatour not­withstanding the personal union, is not capable of any humane imperfection; For there is a preservation and distinction of the two natures, notwithstanding their intimate and inseparable union in one person. The natures are united, [...] as the Greek Church of old.

[Page 347] The actions performed by our Royall Mediatour, flow from a double principle in this single person, because this person doth consist of two natures, and each nature performes its proper worke; the divine na­ture doth what is divine, and the humane nature what is humane; and therefore though the person be but one, and the ef­fect one, yet there are two different acti­ons of two different natures united in one person for producing of one and the same glorious effect, and we are to give to each nature what is properly due unto it. Finally the Kingdom which is administred by our Royall Mediatour God-man, in a glorious way is but a dispensatory kingdom, not his natural kingdome, an inferiour and temporary kingdome, not his Soveraigne essentiall eternall kingdome;Omnia in­quit Paulus Ecclesiam compel­lans, vestri sunt, nimirum ut corporis, vos autem Christi ut capitis, Chri­stus verò Dei ut Patris qui misit ipsum, &c.—Una est Es­sentia, Majestas & gloria Dei Patris & Christi secundum Christi Deitatem, personamque divinam; Pater tamen Christ caput est secundum dispensationem gratiae & naturae humana in Christo veritatem. Vide Junium de Sancta Trinitate Defens. 2. Segmento septimo. Nam si Dispensativum hoc Reg­num nunquam traditurus esset, nunquam Regni Naturalis u [...] ­sum Plenū esset recepturus. Iunius ubi supra segmento 12. p. 100▪ and therefore even in the very Administration of it our Mediatour God-man, is in respect of order, and that gratious dispensation unto which he [Page 348] condescended for our Salvation, employ­ed in a kind of Subordinate way; and when he hath accomplished that work for which he undertook this Royall office, he will re­figne this Dispensatory kingdome, and be­come subject (as man, and as head of that body which he hath purchased) to his Father, himself, and the Holy Spirit, as one God blessed for ever, that God may be all in all, 1 Cor. 15. 28. For as we are Christs, so Christ is Gods, 1 Cor. 3. 23. in that safe sense and subordinate way which we have but even now declared, that the Divinity of Christ (which humbled, and as it were emptyed itselfe in the Administration of this subordinate, temporary and dispensa­tory kingdome, yet with the preservation of its naturall and eternall Right) may be more gloriously manifested by the full posses­sion, use, and enjoyment of that naturall, di­vine, eternall kingdome, which doth be­long to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. For all three Co-essential and co-equal persons reign with the same power,Judicium respectu vario com­mune est Sanctae Trinitatis & Christi singulare. Commune respectu com­munis principij agentis, Patris, Filij & Spiritus Sancti; singula­re autem respectu Christi; 1. Respectu Principalis termini secundùm naturam di­vinam illius. 2. Respectu naturae humanae ut Instrumenti adunati in u­nitatem Personae (ut ita dicam) singularissimum. Iun. de Trinitate, pag. 98, 99. Agit enim utraque forma cum alte­rius Communione quod proprium est, verbo scilicet operante quod verbi est, & carne exequente quod carnis est. Leo. Epist. 10. ad Flavianum. Utraque natura suum confert; divina quod divinum, & humana quod humanum est. Wendelinus. Majesty, and glory in the unity of the divine Essence and common acts, in all, and over all, infinitely [Page 349] and immutably from everlasting, to everla­sting; although the naturall reign of Jesus Christ will not be so fully and gloriously manifested untill he hath resigned his dis­pensatory kingdome, and brought all his Elect, notwithstanding all their wants, sins, infirmities, temptations, tryals, enemies, safe to Heaven. This dispensatory kingdom is administred principally by the God-head, Instrumentally by the man-hood, Absolute­ly and perfectly by the person of Christ act­ing in a divine way as God, and humane way as man, that the properties of each na­ture may be reserved as peculiar to each, even whilest he doth mediate, reigne and judge, ac­cording to both; and therefore divine ho­nour is still reserved as proper and peculiar to the divine nature of our Mediator, who is God-man in one person. This definite and dispensatory kingdome is changeable, terminable; it did begin with the first foun­dation, and will end with the perfection [Page 350] of the Church of God. Christ was a Media­tour from all eternity in theEph. 1. 5. 6 Decree of God▪ He was actually given to be a Mediatour as soon asGen. 3. 15 Rev. 13▪ 8. necessity required, he was manifest­ed in the flesh in theGal. 4. 4, 5 fulnesse of time, and will1 Cor. 15. 28, 1 Cor. 15. 25. cease to be a King in this Mediatory and Dispensatory Kingdom when he hath finished his work, and saved his Church. [...] est A­pote lesma Personale Mediatoris Mat. 28. 18, 19. collat. cum Marc. 16. 15▪ 16. & est potestas subordina­ta Act. 2. 36. 1 Cor. 15. 25, 27. Act. 5. 31. [...] Sive Omnipo­tentia est proprietas essentialis Dei. Vide Dr Alting. Licet Pa­ter major est donantis auctoritate, tamen filius minor non est cui unum cum Patre esse donatut. Hilarius lib 9. de Trinitate, Pater Filio tantum donat esse, quantus ipse est. Idem. Now nothing is more cleare then this, that Christ is now subject to his Father in all re­spects, in which he shall be declared to be subject when he gives up his Dispensatory Kingdom; and we are not to worship Je­sus Christ with divine Worship as he is sub­ject to his Father, but as he is equall to his Father, as he is indeed one God with his Fa­ther and the holy Ghost.

III 3, Christ may be considered as Head of that Body unto which he hath united him­self, Christ con­sidered as Head of the [...]hurch. and which he hath purchased with his dearest bloud; and so we know Christ the Head, and his body the Church make up one Christ mysticall.Christ my­sticall. The glory of Christ as an Head is exceeding great, and is excellent­ly described, Ephes. 1. 20, 21, 22, 23. Christ is set at Gods own right hand in heavenly pla­ces [Page 351] far above all principality,Quoties Christi no­men inter argumen­tandum producitur duplex fallacia cavenda est. 1. Vna utrum de Personâ Christi a­gatur in se an vero in mysterio. power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. And hath put all things un­der his feet▪ & gave him to bethe head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the ful­ness of him that filleth all in all. Now Christ mysticall the Head and body, whole Christ mysticall is to be subjected to God, when the Mediatory and Dispensatory Kingdom is re­signed; and therefore if you take Christ [...]s the Apostle doth, 1 Cor. 12. 12. for the Head and body, for Christ mysticall, we say that Head and Members are to be sub­ject to Father, 2. Altera si de Per­sonâ Chri­sti agatur inse, utrum secundum totum Personae, an vero secundum hanc aut illam naturam. Jun. de Trinitate pag. 101. Vide D. Alting. Loc. com. part. 2. de communicatione Proprietatum. Caput & corpus unus sunt Christus. Aug. Christus ille mysticus ex per­sonâ Christi velut capitis omnia [...] & corpore Ecclesiae per [...] Christi in ipsum adunato constans subjicietur Patri. Iunius. Son, and Holy Ghost, as one God blessed for ever.

IV 4. Christ may be considered according to his humane nature;Christ con­sidered as man. and we are bold to say that there is an eminent and transcen­dent glory vouchsafed to the Humane Na­ture of Christ by the grace of Personall union,The habi­tuall and Dispensa­tive glory of the hu­mane na­ture of Christ. and the glory of its Exaltation. The glory of Christs divine Nature was more manifested, but the humane Nature of Christ was fully perfected by his Exaltation; [Page 352] and therefore the humane Nature was ex­alted in a peculiar sense.Vide D. Alting. loc. com. part. 2 de com­municati­one pro­prietatum, nec non Wendelinum. Nec honorem a nobis Deus nisi per De­um accipit, &c. Hilarius de Trinitate. l. 5 No nature not the nature, of the most glorious Angell, was ever so highly preferred in these two re­spects.

1. In respect of Personall union with the Godhead,Christus humanita­tem non a naturâ ha­buit ab ae­terno quia Filius Dei est, sed ex voluntate assumpsit ad dispen­sationem salutis no­strae; atque haec hu­manitas non in se proprie gloriam divinam habet, sed▪ in personâ ex unionis gratiâ: in se vero divinae proximam ex habituali gratiâ, Angelorumque gloriam longissimè superan­tem. Gloria itaque humanitatis est habitualis & dispensativa per personalis unionis gratiam. Vide Iunium de S. Trinitate Defens. 2. pag. 69, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102. Acts 2, 36.

2. In respect of Royall mediation be­tween God and Man; none but Christ the Son of Mary was ever so highly honoured as to be taken into the Society, and fellow­ship of the Mediatory Office with the Son of God. For there is but one Mediatour between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2. 5. who is God as well as man. Nec honorem a nobis Deus nisi per De­um accipit.

But it is most evident that the humane Nature remaines a creature still even after its Assumption, and Exaltation, and there­fore we hold fast our first conclusion; That [Page 353] the divine and infinite excellency of the Coessentiall Son of God is the prime and fundamentall ground, the formall reason and cause of that divine Worship which is due to our Mediatour Jesus Christ;Christus est servator confirente Socino. Jesus Christ our only Saviour by Doctrine, merit and efficacy, by confirmation and Commu­nication. True it is, that the Majesty of God considered in it self is terrible,1. Annun­ciatione quia est Propheta. it is a light not to be approached unto, and there­fore the Word was made man, that we might have encouragement to come unto God,2. Confir­matione vitae incul­pa [...]ae ex­emplo, mi­raculis, passione, nec non resurrecti­one. not only by the mediation of a man full of grace and truth, but by the mediation of him who is God blessed for ever: because a meere man, though free from corruption, and filled with Grace could not by reason of such natural infirmities as are not sinfull, performe the Of­fice of a Foundation, Head, and Spouse in upholding, 3. Com­municati­o [...]e, quia credenti­bus pro data sibi potestate vitam aeternam communicat. Nos autem, ulterius agnoscimus Christum servatorem nostrum esse, 1. Merito, quia pro peccatis nostris Deo satisfecit, nobisque remissionem peccatorum, justitiam & vitàm aeternam acquisi­vit. 2 Efficaciâ dando fidem, resipiscentiam, remissionem, ef­fundendo spiritum, donando vitam aeternam. Merito ut Sa­cerdos, effica [...]â ut Rex. Heb. 10. 12. Act. 2. 36▪ Act. 5 31. quickning and preserving of his Church, Act. 20, 28. Ephes. 1. 23. & 1 Thes. 1. 10. Heb. 9. 14. 15.

That Jesus Christ and the holy Spirit are one and the same eternall God with the Father, hath been proved at large in this [Page 354] Treatise, and therefore divine Honour and Worship is due to Christ & the Holy Spirit as well as to the Father himself, because all three are Co-essentiall, Co-equall, and Co-eternall.

When the seven Electours of the Em­pire met at Franckford about the election of Maximilian the second,Vide Hist. de Maxim. 2. in Rom. Regem. Elect. hist. Simonii Schardi. Tom. 3. some of them being strict Protestants went out of the place of Worship when the Mass began, because they would not be present at that Idolatrous service, but came in again when they sang Come holy Ghost eternall God. We being then convinced by clear Scriptures that Christ and the holy Spirit are one and the same God with the Father, we must glorifie all three Persons as one God blessed for ever.

1. We must not do any divine service to them who are not Gods by nature. The object of divine worship. Gal. 4. 8. 1 Thes. 1. 9, 10. Acts 5. 59. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Mat. 28. 19. Gal. 4. 8. But the three divine Persons have the self­same divine nature, and therefore the very same divine Worship and Service both for kind and degree is due to all three Co-es­sentiall Persons. We must not conceive otherwise of God then he hath revealed himselfe in his Word: For then we shall not worship the true God, but a meere phantasticall Idoll of our own braine. Ye worship ye know not what saith Christ of the Samaritans: Ioh. 4. 22. the Samaritans ser­ved their own Gods, who were not Gods [Page 355] by nature, but false Gods. 2 Kings 17. 29. 33.

2. Nor must we give Father, The divine kind of Worship. Son and Holy Spirit the only true God, any other kind of Worship then what is prescribed in his Word. 2 Chro. 15. 3. Israel is said to be without the true God when they were without the Law, with­out a Priest to teach them how to Worship God according to his Law. 2 Chron. 15. 3. Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching Priest, and without Law. The divine kind of wor­ship prescribed both in Law and Go­spell is spirituall Worship, Divine worship is Spirituall Worship. Mark. 12, 33. Heb. 12. 28. Psal. 51. 6, 16. Deut. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 5. 8. 1 Chron, 28. 9. Phil. 3. 3. Ioh. 4. 23, 24.

3. The Worship of God is either Natural or instituted Worship.Instituted worship hath been changed. The instituted Wor­ship hath been changed, for it was different before the Law, under the Law, and under the Gospell. But the naturall worship and service of God is perpetuall and eternall, it is to be continued in heaven, both by Saints and Angels for evermore.

Naturall Worship is due to Jesus Christ and the holy Spirit,Naturall worship is unchanged­ble. because they have one and the self-same divine nature with God the Father. Angels are called upon to give this Naturall Worship to Jesus Christ. And let all the Angels of God worship him. Heb. 1 6.

[Page 356] 4. Instituted Worship is subservient,Instituted Worship is subservient unto natu­ral worship. as I may so speak to this naturall worship▪ for when we worship God with those meane helps and actions which he himself hath appointed and ordained, we must worship him in spirit and truth.The benefit of divine institution▪ All Ordinances of Christ are meanes of grace to beget know­ledge, faith, hope, love, self-denyal, grati­tude, humility, sincerity, reverence, zeale, and all other graces in the soule, and to encrease them in us, that we may exercise all these graces upon every opportunity, and give God that Natural, Spiritual, Di­vine Honour, which is due unto his singular Majesty, infinite excellency, independent perfection, and eternall Godhead, in know­ing, esteeming, admiring, beleeving, loving, obeying God that our soules may be delighted and satisfyed with God as the chiefest good, as the Crown of all our joyes, an All-sufficient portion of our soules for evermore. This is the full scope of the first Table of the Law,The scope of the Law and sum of the Gospell. and this is the summe of the Gospel. If the first Table of the Law did discover to us

  • 1. The object of worship,
  • 2. The means of worship,
  • 3. The time of worship; and did not also prescribe, require, enjoyn
  • 4. The manner of worship, we should be at a losse; the Law would not be a perfect rule. Our worship would not be agree­able to the nature and will of God; God [Page 357] would be defrauded of his naturall spiritu­all divine worship; and therefore when our Saviour doth deliver the full scope of all the foure first Commandements by re­ducing them to one Commandment,
    The Scope of the foure first Com­mande­ments.
    he saith, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
    Mat. 22. 37. 38.
    with all thy soule, and with all thy mind, this is the first and great Command­ment,
    Deut. 6 4, 5.
    Mat, 22. 37, 38. Deut. 6. 4, 5. This Spirituall worship is taught us in every Commandement of the first Table, if we look upon the inside and spirituall com­passe of those Commandements discover­ed to us by Moses, the Psalmes, Prophets, and the New-Testament.

1. In the first Commandement we are I not barely required for to take God for the object of our worship; but to give him spiritual worship also; The Spiri­tuall com­passe of the first com­mande­ment. Isa. 43. 10. Deut. 4. 39 Jer. 24. 7. Mic 7. 18. Ps 89. 6, 7. 2 Chron. 20. 20. Deut. 6. 5. Mat. 10 37 Rom. 15. 30. Psal. 2. 11. Revel. 5. 1 Thess. 5 17. Psal. 43. 4. because we are required in mind, heart, will, affection and the ef­fects of all these to take the true God, Father, Son, and Holy▪ Ghost, God in Christ by the assistance of the Spirit to be our God, to know, esteem, admire, trust, love, reverence, adore, and serve him with hope, humility, self-deni­all, patience, joy and thankefulness, zeal [...] and constancy. This is the inside and spirituall compass of the first Commandement.

2. In the second Commandement we are II required to worship God purely according to [Page 358] his Will in every Ordinance without any car­nall Imagination, The scope of the se­cond Com­mande­ment. or affections. The Papists will grant that we are by the use of Ordinan­ces (and as they dreame Images also) to carry our hearts to God and Christ in obedience to the second Commandement.Deu. 4. 15, 16, 17▪ 18. 23, 24. The more learned Papists will confess that it is a sin against the first Commandement to terminate our worship in any Image,Isa. 40. 17, 18, 25. be­cause no Image is Iehovah. Act. 17. 29 But they wor­ship Images Relativè (though not Termina­tivè) as visible helps to devotion to carry their hearts to God in worship;Q [...]am si­guram po­netis [...]i qui Spiritus est. Hier. in Isa. c. 40. and it is cleare that the Jews and Heathens of old intended no more,Damas. de Imag. l. 1. & 2. and therefore there is as much to be said for Heathenish and Iewish as there is for Romish Idolatry.Vide [...] Dr. Rainold de Idolola­triâ l. 2. Mr Shep­heard in his Trea­tise of the morality of the Sab­hath. Mr. Balls larger Ca­techisme. Bishop Je­wels Apo­logy. Aug. contra Manich. lib. 20. c. 5. Chrys. in Epist. 1. ad Cor. Hom. 20. VVhat is meant by Love and Hatred of God in the se­cond Commandement. This then is the great sin of the Antichristian Worship­pers at Rome (who endeavour to defend this Relative worship of Images) that they conceive, that the heart of man will be better carried to God and Christ by hu­mane inventions (such as Images, Crucifixes, Reliques, &c.) then by divine Institutions; and this sin is called an hatred of God in the second Commandement. And in the very letter of this Commandement we are di­rected how to expresse our love to God, namely, by seeking of him, and closing [Page 359] with him in his own Ordinances, and insti­tutions with an ingenuous contempt of hu­mane inventions in divine worship, and ser­vice; and though legall Ordinances are not only changeable, but actually changed and abolished; yet there is something mo­rall and unchangeable in this second Com­mandement, which is attendance upon, and observance of the Institutions and ap­pointments of God.The immu­table Law of the se­cond Com­mande­ment. It is an immutable Law that we should give God that worship which is due unto him, expresse our saith in him, and love to him by a spirituall use of such means and Ordinances as he himself should from time to time appoint. The due acknowledgement of Gods immensity, and infi­nite Majesty in our attendance on the Institu­ted means of worship is clearly opposed to the Image-worship in the 40th. Chapt of Isaiah, and first Chapter to the Romans; and there­fore the inside and compass of this second Commandement is spirituall, though the words of it are so comprehensive as to take in ceremoniall as well as Evangelicall worship. For Reverend Divines have made it cleare, that though the second Com­mandement be morall in regard of its sub­stance and generall nature which containes the immutable Law above mentioned, yet in regard of its particular application to those significant Ceremonies, Sacrifices and Sacraments which God did appoint, we [Page 360] say,Mr Shep­heard of the morali­ty of the Sabbath. all Ceremoniall Institutions are referred unto, and comprehended under the second mo­rall Commandement of God. See Mr. Shep­heard in his excellent Treatise of the mo­rality of the Sabbath. pag. 24. 40, 41.

3 3. The third Commandement prescribes a reverend use of all the Titles,The third commande­ment. Proper­ties, Works, and Ordinances of God with Spirituall understanding and affection, with faith, reverence, love, joy, sincerity and thankfulnesse in thought, word, and life.

4 4. In the fourth Commandement we are not only required to rest, but to sanctifie a rest to Jehovah.The fourth Commande­ment. If then we find the Titles, Properties, Works of Jehovah gi­ven to Christ and his holy Spirit in the Old and New Testament, we must conclude that Christ and his holy Spirit are to be wor­shipped in the same Ordinances with the same spirituall and divine worship, which is due to God the Father.

The scope of Law and Gospell is to bring us unto God by the Mediation of Christ and assistance of the Spirit,The Scope of the Law and Gospel. that we may rest upon Christ for justification, walk and grow up in Christ in the progress of our sanctification for our everlasting sa­tisfaction.Two dan­gerous Rocks. Our business therefore is to avoid those two dangerous Rocks upon which so many split and suffer shipwrack in this tempestuous age, namely the Rock of neglecting duties in the course of our [Page 361] sanctification, and the Rock of resting in Duties which overthrows our justificati­on.Beware of neglecting duty, or re­sting in du­ty. We must labour by all means appoin­ted by God to gaine a spirituall, Practicall, experimentall knowledge of the love of Iesus Christ,Experi­mentall knowledge. a knowledge which surpasses all intellectuall knowledge, an affectionate knowledge which is felt in the heart, Eph. 3. 19. but cannot be comprehended in the braine. Phil. 3▪ 8, 10. This is the right Evangelicall knowledge, which prepares a man for spirituall and Evange­licall worship, Phil. 1. 9, 10, 11. for heavenly Communion with Father, Col. 1. 9, 10. Son, and holy Ghost in all Go­spell dispensations,Gal. 2. 20. and Gospell-Conver­sation, that he may come to be enriched with the unsearchable riches of Christ, and filled with all the fulness of God. For this Cause (saith the Apostle, and well he might) I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ; mark the strain, it is purely Evangelicall: that he would grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with might by his [Spirit] That [Christ] may dwell in your hearts: Here are all the three co-essentiall Persons; but how may this be obtained? And to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge: to know it in my heart, to beleeve it with my heart, to feele it in my heart, because the love of God is shed abroad in my heart by the holy Spirit. But what shall I gaine by this? Why the Apostle goes on; [Page 362] That ye may be filled with all the fulness of God. Ephes. 3. 14, 16, 17, 19. The great design of the Apostle was to be found in Christ, ha­ving the righteousness which is of God through the faith of Christ (without pleading his own righteousnesse, which is of the Law) for his justification; And to have a Spiritu­all and Practicall knowledge of Christ groun­ded upon a deep and affectionate experience of the vertue of Christs Death, and Resurrecti­on in his own soule, Phil. 3. 9, 10. that he might be thereby encouraged and provo­ked to press forward in the course of Sanc­tification, toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Iesus, v. 14. that his faith might act in all holy services.Iustifying Faith is the Principle of Evangeli­cal worship Rev. 1▪ 4, 5, 6. Iustifying faith is the Principle of Evange­licall Worship, and Gospell-conversation. Grace be to you, and peace from him which is, which was, Rev. 5. 8, 9 10. 13. and which is to come, and from the seven Bona Theologia non fert ut gratia & [...]ax Evan­gelica ab Ang [...]lis postuletur Alcasar. Col. 2. 18. Rev 19. 10 Rev. 22. 9. spirits which are before his throne, and from Iesus Christ, who loved us and wa­shed us from our sins in his own bloud: And hath made us Kings and Priests unto God, and his Father; to him be glory and domini­on for ever and ever. Amen. Rev. 1. 4, 5, 6.

The hearts of true beleevers are golden vials full of odours and incense, faith and love, sincerity and zeale, selfe-denyall and thankfulnesse, humility and godly reve­rence: and the beliefe of their redemption by the blood of Christ moves them to ac­knowledge [Page 363] the divine power of their Re­deemer, The divine power of our Redee­mer is ac­knowledg­ed by Saints and Angels and to give him divine worship. The Angles, Elders, People all joyne, even ten thousand times ten thousand, and thou­sands of thousands in this acknowledgement; Worthy is the Lamb that was slaine to receive [...]wer, and riches, and wisdome, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them heard I saying, Blessing, glory, honour, and power be unto him that sits upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the foure beasts said Amen, And the foure and twenty Elders fell down and worshipped him that li­ [...]eth for ever and ever, Rev. 5. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.The mystery of godliness We must be brought to the know­ledge and faith of the Son of God before ever we can be wise unto Salvation. 2 Tim. 3. 15. Isa. 53. 11. Ioh. 3. 14, 15. Gal. 2. 20. When once we come to beleeve the love of Christ, then we love,The Cathe­like Faith, and wor­ship. adore, obey Father, Son, and holy Spirit after an Evangelical manner. All the Fundamentall Articles of our faith have reference unto Christ as the Foundati­on,See Dr. Usher his learned ser­mon of the unity of saith. because they are all such as concern his Father, his Spirit, his Incarnation, Media­tion, or his Church, and the benefits which the Church receives from him. And in like manner all our worship is directed unto Father, Son, and Spirit as one God by the [Page 364] Mediation of Christ, and assistance of th [...] Spirit. Eph. 2. 18. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 5▪ 1 Ioh. 1. 3, 4. Ephes. 4. 15. It is our The Chri­stians hea­ven upon earth. Rev. 5. cha. opened. The f [...]ure Beasts. Repraesen­tandis ni­mirum ec­clesiis Chri­stianis jux­ta quatuor plagas mundi; respon­dentque quatuor castri [...] Israeliticis, eorundem animalium vexilliferis—In ec­clesiis quas Animalia repra [...]sen­tant, sunt homines oculatissi­mi, & sci­enti [...]e my­steriorum Dei plenissimi.—quoties ecclesiae sacras Synaxes faciunt, [...]ties 24. Presbyteri p [...]o muneris ratione Animalibus [...] dignus es Domine, &c. Presbyteros Levi­tis & S [...]ce [...]do [...]ibus, quatuor Animalia quatuor Castris Israeliti­cis respondere. &c. Calvis Apocal. ad cap. 4. pag. 8, 9, 10. happiness our heaven upon earth to beleeve, adore, an [...] live to Father, Son, and holy Spirit by main­taining an holy Communion with all three a [...] one God, and our God, in the use of all Ordi­nances and Duties required of us. This is the mystery of Godliness, the Art of living unto God; this is the Lesson which all Members of the Church universall must learne; the foure beasts (who joyne with Angels and Presbyters in adoring the Lamb) are (as learned Mr. Mede, and di­vers others conceive) the Catholike Church of Christ in the foure quarters of the world professing and embracing the Doctrine of the foure Evangelists; these Beasts are full of eyes, full of the knowledge of the myste­ries of Christ, and their spirituall experimen­tall knowledge moves them to worship Iesus Christ. Mr Mede makes this Interpreta­tion the Key to open very many Types in the book of the Revelation, and doubts not but every one who doth seriously perpend the old Castrametation in the wilderness, and compare it with the Apocalypticall [Page 365] Types, will subscribe to this Interpreta­tion.

I know divers learned men do conceive that the foure Beasts are foure Angels, and some presume to nameMichael, Gabriel, Raphael, Vriel. the Angels; but I cannnot embrace their opinion, because I find that the Chorus is made up of Angels, Beasts and Elders; and these three sorts are cleerly distinguished, Rev. 5. 1 [...]. And I be­held and I heard the voyce of many Angels round about the Throne, and the Beasts, and the Elders That the Angels do joyn with the Beasts in worship is granted; That the Angels do protect these Beasts with eyes in all quarters of the world,The foure Beasts re­present the Church universal. Formae quatuor animali­um diver­sae colle­ctionem novae Ec­clesiae ex quatuor orbis pla­gis diver­sisque nationibus, populis, linguis significant. Pareus in Com. in c. 4. Apocalyp. East, West, North and South, is likewise granted. But that the Beasts are Angels, that is it which is, and must be denyed, and therefore I do conceive that Mr. Mede is in the right, and the good man was sorry that he had not time to cleere that point at large; and there­fore I am the more willing to proceed up­on this Argument, and perform that service to the Church, which he would have done with more dexterity. Let us then consi­der,

1. That upon Christs mediation his Fa­ther I gave him the heathen for his inheri­tance, and the uttermost parts of the [Page 360] [...] [Page 361] [...] [Page 362] [...] [Page 363] [...] [Page 364] [...] [Page 365] [...] [Page 366] earth for his possession;The Pro­mise made to christ. Aske of me and I will give thee the Heathen, &c. Psal. 2. 8.

II 2. Let us consider that promise made to the Church the mystical body of Christ, Is. 43.The Pro­misemade to the Church universal. Fear not, for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name, thou art mine; —I am Iehovah thy God, the Holy One of Israel thy Saviour;—Since thou wast pre­cious in my sight thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee,—fear not, for I am with thee; I will bring thy seed from the East, and gather thee from the West. I will say to the North give up, and to the South keep not back, bring my sons from farre, and my daughters from the ends of the earth, even every one that is called by my name. This is the substance of the seven first ver­ses of Isa. 43. Behold the Church univer­sall gathered from all parts of the world, into one mysticall Body, that all may be united unto Christ the Head by faith, and to one another by love, that so they may all joyne in beleeving, adoring and obey­ing the Lord Jesus, his Father, and the Ho­ly Spirit.

III 3. Consider how these precious promi­ses are fulfilled by Gospel-dispensations and Christian exercises. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, The ful­filling of these Pro­mises. whether we be Iews or Gentiles, bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit, 1 Cor. [Page 367] 12. 13. Christ did grace the solemnity of his triumphant ascension, with that choice gift of the ministry, for the edifying and perfecting of Saints, till we [All] even all the members of the Church universall, come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ, Eph. 4. 8, 11, 13. Christ mysticall is deficient untill the Saints are gathered from all quarters into the unity of Faith, and knowledge of the Son of God, because this is a fundamentall point; for Christ built his Church upon that Fun­damental Confession, The foun­dation of the ca­tholick church. thou art Christ the Son of the living God, Mat. 16. 16, 18. and other foundation can none lay, 1 Cor. 3. 11. And the superstruction must be agreeable to the foundation, that we may attain unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ, every part making some consider­able supply for the increase of the body, by growing up in all things into Christ the Head, Eph. 4. 13, 15, 16. Christ is the on­ly Head and Mediatour,The coes­sentiall Trinunity acknow­ledged by the ca­tholike church in Gospel-worship. and therefore Iewes and Gentiles both have accesse through Christ by one Spirit to the Father, Eph▪ 2. 18. Here's an acknowledgement of the blessed Trinunity made by the Catholike Church in Gospel-worship. And the Apo­stle directs his Epistle to the Church of God at Corinth, with all that in every place [Page 368] call upon the Name of Christ our Lord both theirs and ours, 1 Cor. 1. 2. and concludes his second Epistle with The Grace, &c. 2 Cor. 13. 14.

4. Compare what hath been spoken with the Song of Angels,Thronusiste in me­dio Pres­bytero [...]um & Anima­lium posi­tus est Templum aut Taber­naculum. Quid a­liud innu­ere volunt Quatuor cornua al­taris aurei in conspe­ctu Dei? Apoc. 9. 13. Templum Taberna­culi Testi­monii a­pertum in Coelo. A pocal. 15. 5 M. Mede Com. ad cap. 4. pag. 6, 7. Presbyters and Saints full of eyes in the book of the Re­velation. These foure beasts were in the midst of the Throne and round about the Throne, Revel. 4. 6. The Forme of the Throne is quadrangular, and one beast pla­ced in the middle of every one of the foure sides. Mr. Mede shewes how these foure Beasts observe what is done by God in the foure quarters of the World; and how they speake in order upon the opening of the foure first seales, Rev. 6. and the 7 first verses; and a voyce proceeds from the midst of the foure Beasts, Revel 6. 6. Fi­nally, the Virgin-church, Revel. 14. sings the same song that the foure Beasts did, which is called a New Song, sung in the praise of the Lambe and his Father; And in some copies which are of credit, we read that the Virgins had the Habentes nomen Agni. Primasius, Aretas, Andreas, Syrus In­terpres, &c. Vide M. Mede Com. ad cap. 14. pag. 215. Lambes Name, as well as his Fathers, written in their foreheads, Revel, 14. 1. and they are the first fruits to God and to the Lambe, Revel. 14. 4.

[Page 369] 5. This New Song which is sung to the V Lambe and his Father, containes in it the Mystery of Gospel-Worship,Novi Can­tici formu­la univer­sum cul­tus Evan­gelici My­sterium continet. Clav. A­pocal. Mr. Mede. pag. 220. Rev. 4. 8. 11. Revel. 5. 8. 9. 12, 13. 14. verses. Revelat. 7. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15. verses. Revelat. 11. 15, 16, 17. Revel. 14. 1, 3, 4. because in it Re­demption, power, riches, wisdome, strength, honour, glory and blessing are ascribed unto him who sits upon the Throne, and to the Lambe, Revel. 5. 12, 13, 14. Worthy is the Lamb that was slaine to receive power, &c. Rev. 5. 12. they fall downe before the Lamb, Rev. 5. 8. and in the 9. ver. sing a new Song, Thou art worthy, &c. for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy bloud.

6. This pattern of Gospel-worship comes VI from Heaven; the Angels sing this song,Idea cul­tus Evan­gelici ali­unde quā à caelitibus peri ne­quit. and the Saints, the followers of the Lambe, they glorifie the Lambe and his Father on earth as the Angels doe in Heaven; accor­ding to that request in the Lambes Prayer, the Lords Prayer, Our Father which art in Heaven, let thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. We receive this Directory for Gospel-worship from Christ and his An­gels.

7. All the Virgin-church, all that follow 7 the Lambe whither soever he goes, into all or any quarter of the World; they, and they onely learn this Song.

8. These Redeemed Virgins refuse to re­ceive VIII [Page 370] the Beasts mark, they renounce the Dragon and his Angels, all his pomps, [...] Satanae Angelos, pompam, pultum, o­cera, omnemque apparatum ejus Idololatricum respuo. va­nities, worship, and all the furniture of his worship, all the errours and Idols of the false Prophets, though they lose their tra­ding, the comforts of their life, yea and life it selfe: This is the Lambs mark.

IX 9. These Redeemed Virgins make a publike profession of their faith in, and love to the Lamb and his Father; they have the marke of both in their forehead, and they cry aloud, their voice is like the voice of Thunder. Rev. 1. 4. 5 Rev. 14, 1, 2. Rev. 5. 12. They are not ashamed or afraid to acknowledge Fa­ther,Rev. 5. 8, 9. 12. Son, and the holy Spirit the only and adequate object of divine Faith, and Wor­ship,The profes­sion, fideli­ty, victory of the Vir­gin-Church and the sole cause of Justification, San­ctification, Redemption, Peace and Glory; for all this is held forth to us clearly in this Book of the Revelation; and there is a speciall blessing promised to such as read and heare the words of this Prophesie, and keep those things which are written therein. [...]Rev. 1. 3. And amongst other blessings they have the blessing of victory, and triumph vouch­safed them,Rev. 14 4. they get victory over the Beast, over his Image, Rev. 12. 11. his Marke, and the num­ber of his Name. Rev. 15. 2, 3. Rev. 15. 2. They defie the Romane errours and Idols,Rev. 14. 12. and are armedRev. 17. 14 [Page 371] with faith and patience against this cruelty and Tyranny of Antichrist: They cannot be enticed by any rewards, seduced by any subtilties, terrified by any threats to em­brace any doctrine, or forme of worship de­rogotary to the honour of the Father, the Lamb, or the holy Spirit; for the Spirit doth in this Book teach the Churches to come in to Christ,The myste­ry of Go­spel-wor­ship. and defie the Beast; and the Churches hearken to the Spirit as the Fountain of truth,Rev. 1. 4, 5 grace, peace, and glory; This is the mystery of Gospel-worship, Rev. 2. 18, 29. we must beleeve, Rev. 7. 9, 10. love, adore, obey the Father, the Lamb, and the Spirit of Grace and Peace, the Doctour and Comforter of all Christian Churches throughout all the foure quarters of the world, Rev. 5. 13, 14. East,The subjec­tion of the Church u­niversall to the Lamb, and Holy Spirit. West, North, South, that so the promise Isaiah 43. may be ex­actly fulfilled. Rev. 7. 9, 10. A great mul­titude, an innumerable multitude of all Nations cry. Salvation to our God which sit­teth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb. The Kingdoms of the World must become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ. Rev, 11. 15.

And when the Divell and his Angels who deceive the World, accuse the Bre­thren, and blaspheme Christ, are cast forth, then there is a loud voice in Heaven: Now is come Salvation, and strength, and the Kingdom of our God, and the Power of his Christ; for the Accuser of our Brethren is [Page 372] cast down, &c. Rev. 12. 9, 10. In a word, when the Redeemed Virgins and noble Conque­rours come to sing their triumphant Song, that Song doth contain the Scope of the Law, The scope of the Law and sub­stance of the Gospell in the Book of the Re­velation. The Testi­mony of Ie­sus, and the Spirit. and the substance of the Gospell; for they are to sing the Song of Moses, and the Song of the Lamb. Rev. 15. 3. And they who sing are such as do keep the Commandements of God, and the testimony of Iesus, Rev. 12. 17. And the testimony of Jesus is the Testimony of the Spirit, delivered in the Word to the Churches of Christ, Rev. 2. 7, 11. all three persons do deliver the same testimony, Rev. 19. 10 1 Ioh. 5. 7.Rev. 11. 19. but the Son and the Spirit do most eminently joyne in delivering their testimony, Rev. 2. 11, 18, 29. Rev. 3. 1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 21, 22. Rev. 19. 10.

The Spirit doth encourage them to be­leeve his Testimony, and follow the Lambe: and the Martyrs are slaine for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held, Rev. 6. 9. and they overcome by the bloud of the Lamb, and by the word of their testi­mony, Rev. 12. 11. The testimony of the Spi­rit, and the testimony of Iesus, Rev. 12. 17. And when the Spirit hath encouraged them to love Christ better then their lives,The Mar­tyrs are conquerors by the Te­stimony of the Spirit and the bloud of the Lamb. Rev. 12. 11. and they have overcome by the testimony of the Spirit and the bloud of the Lamb, then the Spirit doth pronounce them blessed. Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord—yea saith the Spirit. Rev. [Page 373] 14. 13.The Virgin Church is begotten, Wooed, per­swaded, go­verned, up­held, com­forted by the Spirit. The Church is begotten, instructed, perswaded, governed, upheld, comforted by the holy Spirit, as Babylon is the habi­tation of Devils, and the hold of every foule spirit, Rev 18. 2. It is the Spirit which wooes the Church, and perswades her to be the wife of the Lambe, and to make her selfe ready for the marriage. And the Spirit and the Bride say come, Rev 22. 17.The Pro­phesie, bles­sing and Communion of the Spi­rit. And that we may look upon this whole Prophesie as comming from the Spirit as well as the Lamb, the Angel assures us that the Testimony of Iesus is the Spirit of Prophesie. Rev, 19. 10. The love of the Fa­ther,2 Cor. 13 14. and the grace of the Lord Jesus is communicated to us by the holy Spirit;Rev. 1. 4. 5. compared with Rev. 22. 21. and therefore although the grace of the Lord Iesus is alone expressed in the close of this Booke of the Revelation, yet the love of the Father, and Communion of the holy Spi­rit must needs be understood according to the Prayer in the beginning of the Book. Rev. 1. 4, 5. Grace, &c.

3. The Spirit is worshipped in this Book III of the Revelation, Grace be to you and peace from the seven Spirits, The Holy Spirit is to be worship­ped with divine wor­ship. Rev. 1. 4. It is not agreeable to the Christian faith to pray unto Angels, and beg grace and peace of them; They do not hold the Head, who worship Angels. Rev. 1. 4. opened at large. Col. 2. 18, 19. Angels are our fel­low servants, and do forbid us to give that worship to them which is due to God only; [Page 374] and they refuse to be worshipped because it is contrary to the Testimony of Jesus,Angel▪ wor­ship prohi­bited by christ. Rev. 19. 10. And I fell at his feet to worship him, Tertia in­terpretatio veterum & recētio­rū [...] Docto­rum solae Scripturae, & fidei Christia­nae analo­ga est. D Pareus Com. in Apoc. c. 1. and he said unto me, see thou do it not; I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Iesus; worship God. This is the testimony of Jesus, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, Mat. 4. 10. The Book of the Revelation doth containe divers cleare testimonies against worshipping of Angels, I am of them (saith the Angel) that keep the saying of this Book; worship God. Rev. 22. 9. And therefore that place Rev. 1. 4. must needs be understood of the holy Spirit. For God will not give his glory to another, Isa. 42. 8. and good Angels will not take it from him,Why the ho­ly Ghost is called se­ven spirits. but protest against this Will▪ worship, as Idolatry. The Holy Ghost is called seven Spirits by an usuall Metalepsis of the effect for the cause: he doth pour forth various gifts: seven is a note of Perfection, and the holy Spirit, one and the same Spirit is given to all the seven Churches,Gratiam precatur septem ec­clesiis, qui­bus singu­lis unum eunde nq (que) spiritum sanctum quasi septem in solidum tribuit. every Church hath so much of the holy Ghost as is necessary; and it runs as if every one of the seven Churches had seven Spirits, because every one hath enough of the Spirit for their Sanctification and Salvation. The Apostle therefore begging grace and peace from [Page 375] this Co-essentiall Trinunity, The worship of the Co­essentiall Trinunity. the Father, the seven Spirits, and Iesus Christ, doth suffici­ently instruct us in this mystery of Evange­licall Worship. Votum Gratiae & pacis univocè con­cipit [...] D. Parei Com. in Apoc. c. 1. Deus Trin­unus gra­tiae Pacisq (que) causa adae­quata inte­gra. Some object, that then the Spirit will be set before the Son; but the answer is easie, that there is a Metathesis in the words; and it is observable that the Son is sometimes named before the Father. 2 Cor. 13. 14. and sometimes the Spirit is named before the Son, as Rev. 1. 4. 1 Pet. 1, 2. and sometimes the naturall order is observed, the Father is named first, the Son second, and the Holy Ghost third; The naturall order is not overthrown when the Father is named after the Son, or the Spi­rit before the Son: Nor is the equality of Persons overthrown when the naturall order is observed; And therefore that objection is not considerable.

Naturall worship is due to the Holy Ghost because he hath the same divine na­ture with the Father and the Son.Naturall worship is due to the Holy Ghost the Creator of the New Creature. That di­vine Faith is due to the Spirit hath been proved at large. That divine love is due to him is cleare, Rom. 15. 30. I beseech you for the Lord Jesus Christs sake, and for the love of the Spirit. The Spirit is the Author1 Cor. 6. 11. and object of all those graces which are called divine ex parte objecti; faith,Tit. 3. 5, 6. hope and love,1 Pet. 1. 2. Rom. 15. 13, 16, 30.Rev. 1, 4. Rom. 15. 13, 16. John 3. 5. Rom. 5 5

[Page 376] In a word,Instituted worship is due to the holy Spirit. Instituted Worship is due to the Holy Ghost by vertue of both Sacra­ments. Mat. 28. 19. By one Spirit we are I all baptized into one body: and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.In the Sa­craments. 1 Cor. 12. 13. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Mat. 3. 11. Ioh. 5. 5.

In hearing of the Word we must hear­ken to the Spirit with the self-same atten­tion, II devotion as we do to the Father and the Son,In hearing of the word of God. Heb. 3. 7, 8.Rev. 2. 11, 18. 29. compared with Ps. 95. The holy Ghost forbids us to harden our hearts against himself speaking in the Word, Rev. 3. 1, 6, 13. Acts 7. 51. We grieve the Spirit when we resist the Spirit, and will not put our seale to the Word by a Spirituall assent, and fiduciall consent, and hinder the Spirit from sealing up our Election and Redemption to us. For though Christ makes the Purchase, yet the Spirit makes the assurance, 1 Iohn. 3. 24. III Iohn 14. 16, 17. Iohn 15. 26.

In Prayer we are to call upon the Holy Ghost, In Prayer. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Rev. 1. 4. because the Holy Ghost is God, 1 Cor. 12 6, 11. Act. 5. 3, 4. I cannot but wonder at them, who say, that holy and spirituall worship is not due to the holy Spirit, when the truth is, we can give no worship at all to the Father or the Son untill we are enabled by the holy Spirit. Rom. 5. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 3. 2 Cor. 4. 13. 2 Cor. 13. 14. And whenBy the Communion of the spirit we have Communion with the Father and the Son in Gospell-worship. by the Communion of the Spirit we have Communion with the Father and Son in Gospell-worship; we are the [Page 377] Temples not only of the Holy Ghost, but of the Co-essentiall Trinunity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, all three do dwell in us, walk in us,All three co-essentiall Persons dwell in the Temple of the holy Spirit. and abide in us. For when we receive the Spirit of truth, he abides with us, dwels in us, perswades and enables us to love God the Father, and the Lord Jesus, and then all three Co-essentiall Persons make their abode with us, as is clearely held forth to us. Ioh. 14. 16, 17, 23. 2 Cor. 6. 16, 18. 1 Cor. 3. 16. Ephes. 3. 16, 17. But if a man have not the Spirit of Christ he hath no saving interest as yet in Iesus Christ. Rom. 8. 9.He who is not the Temple of the Spirit is no Son of God, or member of Christ. because he is not as yet the Son of God by Regeneration or Adoption, he is not a member of Jesus Christ, he is not the Tem­ple of the Holy Ghost: He doth not wor­ship this Co-essentiall Trinunity as he ought to do in Spirit and in truth. He who hath the Spirit in him, doth worship the Spirit in spirit and truth, because the Spirit is the Power of the Highest, (even as Christ is the Son of the Highest) a Personall Power, Luk. 1. 32, 35. compared. The Spirit is the spirit of Elohim, Gen. 1. 2. The Spirit of Ie­hova, Isa. 11. 2. The God of Israel, 2 Sam. 23. 2, 3. The spirit of God, and the spirit which is God, 1 Cor. 2. 11. 12. Acts 5. 3, 4. This point hath been sufficiently proved in the fourth Chapter, and therefore I need say no more, considering that the Socinians have no Arguments which are considerable, [Page 378] when compared with these plaine places of the Holy Scriptures, and those many places and proofes which have been for­merly produced in this Treatise.

If any desire to have their Arguments (such as they be) answered at large, he may read Mr. Estwicks learned Treatise concerning the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, lately published. I proceed to the third part of Godliness,The third part of E­vangelicall godlinesse. which is Obedi­ence.

3. Obedience is due to the Father, Son, III and Holy Ghost, all three Co-essentiall Persons,Obedience is due to all three Per­sons. because they are Co-essentiall, because they are one God blessed for ever.

I 1. Obedience is due to God the Father. This truth is generally acknowledged by all that are not Atheists;Obedience is due to God the Father. the Iews and Socinians subscribe to it. If we do acknowledge God the Father to be the Father of our Lord Je­sus Christ, and our Father in him, the in­ference will be immediate, cleare and strong, that we ought to honour and obey our heaven­ly Father. For how shall God put us among his Children, unless every one of us say unto him, my Father, my Father, I do obey thee, and will not depart from thee? But I said, how shall I put thee among the Chil­dren, and give thee a pleasant Land, a good­ly Heritage of the hosts of Nations? And I said, Thou shalt call me my Father, and shalt [Page 379] not turne away from me. Jer. 3. 19. And when God speaks to them as to Children, they presently submit: Return ye back­sliding children, And I will heale your back­slidings; they presently reply, Behold, we come unto thee, for thou art the Lord our God, Ier. 3. 22. A Son honoureth his Father—if then I be a Father where is mine honour? Mal. 1. 6. Mal. 2. 16. Mat. 12. 50. Mat. 23. 9.

When God is considered under this en­dearing relation of a Father, we yeeld▪ a filiall obedience unto God,Filiall and Foederall Obedience. we performe a foederall obedience, a sincere and Evange­licall obedience.2 Cor. 7. 1. I (saith Jehovah) will be your God, Tit. 2. 14. I will be your Father; Having these Promises (saith the Apostle) let us cleanse our selves from all filthinesse of the flesh, 1 Joh. 4. 16, 19. and spirit, Psa. 130. 4. perfecting holiness in the feare of God, Psa 103. 13 2 Cor. 6. 16, 18.Jer. 32. 40. 2 Cor. 71. 1 Pet. 1 14, 17, 18.Mal. 2. 10, 16. As we are to worship God in this Fatherly relation,Mat. 12. 50 Mat. 6. 9. Gal. 4. [...]. so are we to obey him also;Mat. 23. 9. Whosoever shall do the will of my Father,Hos. 3. 5. &c. Mat. 12. 50.

That all three Co-essentiall Persons are our Father,Ezek. 16. 63. hath been proved already in this very Chapter,1 Joh. 4. 10. pag. 326, 327. and that God the Father is our Father in a peculiar con­sideration, pag. 328. and therefore I need not insist longer upon this Point, since the Scriptures are cleare, so cleare that even very Cavillers confess this truth. Christ himself as man obeyed the Father, Iohn 4. 34.

[Page 380] II 2. God the Son is to be obeyed. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, God the Son is to be obeyed. heare ye him. Mat. 17. 5. Heare him, be­leeve him,Mat. 17. 5. obey him; the Godhead of Christ is the Formall reason of our Obedi­ence;Gal. 1. 10. but all his benefits are sweet encou­ragements to us to performe our duty.Heb. 5. 9. Be obedient as children,Tit. 2▪ 14. saith the Apostle,1 Joh. 3. 16 and if ye call on the Father, &c. passe the time of your sojourning here in feare; For as much as ye know ye were not redeemed— but with the precious bloud of Christ. 1 Pet. 1. 14, 17, 18, 19. Why do the Presby­ters throw down their Crowns at the feet of Christ,The subje­ction of Presbyters to Iesus Christ. and fall down before the Lamb, but to testifie their subjection, and profess how ready they are to serve and obey Je­sus Christ? Rev. 4. 10, 11. Rev. 5. 8. Christ is the Author of Salvation to them that obey him, The life of a Christian. Heb. 5. 9. The life of a Christian is a living unto Christ, a life of faith, love, and obedience, Gal. 2. 20. 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. Phil. 1. 20, 21. We are made new Creatures in Christ, that we may performe new obedi­ence to Christ, 2 Cor. 5. 17. He who serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. All manner of obedi­ence, in­ward and outward due to Christ. Rom. 14. 18. We are under the Law to Christ. 1. Cor. 9. 21. All manner of obedi­ence, inward and outward is due unto the Lord Jesus Christ. Cursed is he that doth not prize and love Christ above all the Kingdoms of the World and glory of them, Mat. 28. 19▪ 20. above all the [Page 381] comforts of life, Col. 3. 23, 24. and life it self, 1 Cor. 16. 22. Luk. 14. 26, 33.Tit. 2. 14. Mat. 13. 44, 46. Phil. 3. 7, 8, 10.1 Cor. 16. 22. Col. 3. 23, 24. Eph. 6. 6. 7. Eph. 5. 26, 27. and Tit. 2. 14. compared together.

3. God the holy Ghost is to be obeyed;Rev. 12. 11. We are devoted to his service in Baptisme; III our bodies and soules are temples consecra­ted to his honour and service;Spirituall obedience due to the holy Spirit. the Spirit doth conquer our carnall reason, mortifie our corruptions,Mat. 28. 19. and subdue our hearts unto the obedience of himself, as well as to the obe­dience of the Father and the Lord Jesus.Act. 5. 3, 4, 32.

We are debtors to the Spirit: 1 Cor. 3. 16. 17. We are his Creatures; The spirit of Elohim did forme and fashion the rude Mass,2 Cor. 13. 14. out of which all things were made, Gen. 1. 2. The renova­tion of all things by continued propagation is ascribed to the Spirit;Rev. 1. 4. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, We are debters to the spirit. The spirit is our Crea­tor. they are created, and thou renew­est the face of the earth. Psal. 104. 30. Our soules are breathed into us by this Spirit of life. Gen. 2. 7. Iob 33. 4. The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. The spirit fits us for all services. The soule is enabled and adorned with all abilities by the Spirit, that it may be qualified for all manner of ser­vice. In respect of Counsell and Government, Numb. 11. 25. In respect of resolution and action. Iudg. 14. 6. But that which is most endearing,The spirit of Regene­neration and Adop­tion. is, that the Spirit is the Spirit of Conviction, Regeneration, Conversion, Sanc­tification, Edification, and Consolation. 1. Pet. 1. [Page 382] 2. 2 Thes. 2. 13. Gal. 5. 22. 1 Cor. 12. 8, 9. The Spirit is the God of all comfort, it is his speciall office to comfort mourners. The Spirit fitted the man Christ to be our Mediatour. The Spirit fitted the man Christ to be our Mediatour; as is most evident, because

1. The Spirit formed the nature of man of the substance of the Virgin after an extra­ordinary manner, Luk. 1. 35. compared with Gal. 4. 4. for the service of the Lord Christ.

2. He sanctified the humane Nature which Christ assumed after such a perfect manner, that it was free from all sin in the very moment of conception, Luke 1. 35.

3. He united this pure humane nature with the divine in the same Person, the Per­son of the Son of God, Luk. 1. 35. compa­red with Heb. 10. 5. a body hast thou fitted unto me by the holy Ghost.christus est Messias Messiarum Christus Christo­rum. Joh. 20. 31. Our Saviour was annointed with the Spirit above mea­sure, that he might be a fit head and Medi­atour for us, that we and his whole Church might receive of his fulnesse, graces answe­rable to his graces,Dona ista absolutē & in se finita fuere, sicut & ipsa Christi na­tura finita est; nostri tamen respectu, sunt absque mensurâ. Vide D. Alting. exp. Catech. part. 2. & pag. 170, 171. Ioh. 1. 16. Ioh. 3. 34. Ioh. 1. 14. Isa. 61. 1. Psal. 45. 7. compared together. Act. 10. 38. Luk. 2. 40, 52. Mat. 3. 16, 17. Ioh. 7. 39.

[Page 383] If we consider how the Spirit hath ma­nifested his divine power in garnishing hea­ven and earth, Iob. 26. 13. in annointing Christ and Christians. 1 Ioh. 2. 27. in orde­ring and regulating Church-affaires, and enabling Ministers for all Church-service, that the Elect might be gathered, conver­ted, perefected, saved by the efficacy of the Spirit in all Ministeriall Dispensations, we shall see reason enough to acknowledge the divine power of the Spirit, by all spiri­tuall and heavenly obedience. 1 Cor. 12. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13. Isa▪ 6. 1. 9. Act, 28, 25. com­pared.

If we harden our hearts against the Pre­cepts and Exhortations of the spirit speak­ing in the Word,Willfull dis­obedience to the spirit is a soule step to­wards the unpardona­ble sin. if we vexe, grieve, resist and quench the Spirit, we are in a ready way to that black and unpardonable sin of doing de­spight to the Spirit of grace; and therefore unlesse we meane to proceed to totall and finall disobedience, it highly concerns us to obey the holy Spirit,Sincere o­bediense to the effec­tuall call of the spirit is a good evi­dence of our Election. and answer the many cals and motions of the Spirit by sincere obe­dience, that our effectuall Vocation may evi­dence our Election, and the Spirit may seale us up unto the day of Redemption; for the same spirit is the Spirit of Sanctification and Adoption, the spirit of Revelation, Mortification, Vivification, Consolation. The Spirit quickens, moves, enables, en­clines, perswades us to beleeve in Christ, [Page 384] and to love one another, to keep all the Commandements of God; Now this spi­rit of faith,Comfort for such as find the spirit of Sanctifica­tion in them, though they do not feele or beare the spirit of Adoption. love, and obedience is the Spi­rit of Sanctification; and if you find the spi­rit of sanctification in you, be of good com­fort; though the spirit of Adoption seeme to withdraw, yet he is certainly present, nay, is not idle or silent, he speaks by his reall works, and sweet fruits; for the spirit of Sanctifica­tion is the spirit of Adoption, it is one and the self-same spirit. This is his Commande­ment, That we should beleeve on the Name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one ano­ther as he gave us Commandement. And he that keepeth his Commandements dwelleth in him, and he in him, and here­by we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us, 1 Ioh. 3. 23, 24. And hereby we know that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 1 Ioh. 4. 13. And there­fore if there be a spirit of faith,We should rejoyce in, and be thankefull for our o­bedience to the Spirit. love, and obedience in you, rejoyce in it, lift up your heart to God in thankfulness for it; God be thanked that ye (who were the servants of sin) have obeyed from the heart that for me of Doctrine which was delivered unto you by the holy spirit. Rom. 6. 17. Be much in supplication and thanksgiving, and the spi­rit of Supplication will be a spirit of Adop­tion, an oile of gladnesse; Heb. 1. 9. The spirit will teach you to cry Abba, Father, [Page 385] with comfort, Gal 4. Rom 8. The spirit will fill your soules with all joy, and peace in beleeving, and in obeying; the joy of the spirit shall be your strength, the comforts of the Almighty, Rom. 14. 17. even all the comforts of the Kingdom of God (which consists in righ­teousnesse, and peace, and joy in the holy Ghost) shall be all-sufficient to revive and support your dejected spirit. All your fears and discomforts shall be dispelled, your wants supplyed your wound, soares, infir­mities healed, and you at last filled with all the fulnesse of God. Mal. 4. 2. Eph. 3. 19.

Beleeve in the spirit, obey the spirit, and ye shall be sealed with the spirit, Eph. 1, 13. I beseech you by the tender mercies of God, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, by the joy, and for the love of the Spirit, that you consider what hath been said, that ye receive this wholesome Word as it is in truth the word of God, the word of the Fa­ther, Son, and holy Ghost, but testified after a more especiall and immediate manner by the Holy Ghost that it may worke effectually in all you who beleeve it, The right manner of Obedience to God. 1 Thes. 2. 13. Even unto spirituall and sincere obedience to Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost; and that it may be so, we must have a care to obey af­ter the right manner; for Amazia was too blame, though he did that which was right in it self, because he did it not with a per­fect heart. 2 Chron. 25. 2. Let us imitate [Page 386] our Saviour, who did all as he was comman­ded, Ioh. 14. 31. Let us have

1. High thoughts of the Majesty and greatnesse of God.

2. Sweet thoughts of the rich grace and infinite goodnesse of God.

3. An intire and an universall respect to all the commands, and every work of God, Ioh. 6. 28, 29. Every work which God hath given us to do, Ioh. 17. 4. and ordained for us to walk in, Eph. 2. 10 For every command of God must have a divine authority over our consciences and hearts. Psal. 119. 6. and then Christ will account us his friends, Iohn 15, 14.

4. A more especiall respect to the weigh­tiest and greatest duties of Religion, such as God hath more especially enjoyned: for instance,

1, The duties of inward worship and obedience, Mat, 22. 37, 38. the most re­served and intimate duties of Religion.

2. Duties of judgment, mercy, and fi­delity towards all men, Mat. 23. 23. Love to our enemies, Mat. 5. 44. 45.

3. Duties of our particular callings and speciall relations,Psal. 101. 2, 8. publique duties, and fa­mily duties,Zach. 12. 12, 13. 14. especially such as are most private, Mat. 6. 6. Zach, 12. 12.

4. The great work of Faith which is the summe of both Testaments,Act. 26. 18 because all ju­dicious and zealous love,Heb. 9. 14. all sincere and2 Pet. 1, 3, 4. [Page 387] uniforme obedience springs from faith, Iohn 6. 29.Eph. 3. 19. This is the worke of God; Joh. 6. 29. and unbeliefe is the work of the Devill;Eph. 6. 16. faith purifies our heart by applying the bloud of Christ to our soules.Act. 15. 9. Heb. 9. 14.1 Joh. 4. 16, 19.

The weighty matters of Law and Gospel may be referred to those foure Heads above mentioned;Magnes a­moris a­mor. observe that excellent Scrip­ture: God hath chosen the poore of this world [rich in faith] and heires of that kingdome which he hath promised to them that [love him] Iam. 2. 5.1 Tim. 1. 5. Faith and love will make us constant in the performance of all the other weighty matters required of us both in Law and Gospell,James 2 5. and we have proved at large that faith and love is due to all three Persons. 1 Joh. 5. 3, 4. We must performe all our du­ties

1. As to a Father, a divine Father, as hath I been proved.

2. In the name of Christ.II

3. In the strength of the spirit.III

4. At the command, and for the glory of IV all three co-essentiall Persons:1 Cor. 8. 6. for all things are of the Father,1 Cor. 12. 6, 11. by the Son, and through the spirit.

5. With a willing mind, a perfect heart,V a good conscience,1 Chro. 28. 9. and faith unfeigned.

6. With all self-denyall,1 Tim. 1. 5. diligence, con­stancy.VI

7. With an humble desire that we and VII our obedience may be accepted in and for [Page 388] Christ according to the tenour of the Co­venant of grace.

Let us now put all together again, and observe what a sweet harmony,The whole mystery of the co-es­sentiall Trinunity reduced to Practice. exact Sym­metry, and glorious uniformity there is in this whole mystery of Faith, this my­stery of the Co-essentiall Trinunity as re­duced to practice by its effectuall influence into the mystery and power of godli­nesse.

Beloved Christians, I look upon my self as the least of Saints, and greatest of Sinners, unworthy to be accounted a Mem­ber, but far more unworthy to be a Mini­ster of Jesus Christ, because I know more evill by my self then I know by any member of Christ; but I thank God our Father, Christ Iesus our lord, and the co-essentiall Spirit the same God, who worketh all in all, 1 Cor. 12. 6. that I have obtained mercy, and ability of all three for to be faithfull,The Evan­gelicall Ministry. and to be coun­ted faithfull by them all; for they have all three in some measure enabled me, for that they counted me faithfull, putting me into the Ministry; for I am a Minister of that Gospell, which is revealed from heaven by Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and I am a Mi­nister accordidg to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectuall work­ing of his power; unto me I say, who am lesse then the least of all Saints in this grace given, that I should preach the love of the [Page 389] Father, the grace and unsearchable riches of Christ, the sweet Communion, peace and joy of the holy Ghost, which is unspeaka­ble and full of glory.

Be pleased then to take a view of the whole mystery of faith and godlinesse, and observe how this Co-essentiall Trinuni­ty of Father, Son, and holy Ghost, who are one God blessed for ever, is the ade­quate Object, Author, End of all Religion.

1. Look upon the Grand Mystery of our Election unto Grace, Peace, and Glory,I and observe what practicall inferences may be drawn from thence to raise our hearts to admire,The grand mystery of our Electi­on by Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost re­duced to Practice. Sicut ergo caetera praedican­da sunt, ut qui ea prae­dicat obe­dienter audiatur: ita praede­stinatio­nem suo tempore & loco praedicandam esse, ut qui obedienter haec audit, non in homine ac per hoc nec in seipso sed in Domi­no glorietur. Aug de [...]ono persev. l. 2. c. 24. Frustra ignoranti­um auribus ingeris nos Liberum Arbitrium condemnare; imò verò damnetur ille, qui damnat. Hieron. ad Cresiphontem.beleeve, love, worship, obey Fa­ther, Son, and holy Ghost. Elect accord­ing to the fore-knowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obe­dience and sprinkling of the bloud of Iesus Christ: grace unto you and peace be multipli­ed. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, &c. 1 Pet. 1, 2, 3, 4. God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the spirit, and beliefe of the Truth, whereunto he called you by our Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of the Lord Iesus Christ—Now our Lord Iesus Christ him­self [Page 390] and God even our Father, &c. 2 Thes. 2. 13, 14, 16 Here is the freewill of the Elect; but Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spi­rituall blessings in heavenly places in Christ according as he hath,Eph. 1. 3, 4, 5, 13. ver. chosen us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and unblameable before him in love,Col. 3. 12. &c. Ephes. 1. 3, 4, 5.Joh. 15. 16. Our thankfulnesse should be shewen for this free Grace▪ 2 Tim. 1. 9. to all three Persons in our thanksgiving, believing, obeving, as is cleare from these places and so our prayers should be answerable to our faith, love, and thankfulness▪ and therefore it is observable that in the very same Chap­ter the Apostle makes his addresse after this modell, That the God of our Lord Ie­sus Christ the Father of glory may give unto you the Spirit of Wisdome, and Revelation in the acknowledgement of Christ, Ephes. 1. 17. and so 2 Thes. 2, 16. Rev. 1. 4, 5. 2 Cor. 13. 14. many other places may be urged which containe the mystery of faith, worship, and obedience, and if Christ and his Spirit be not alwaies named in them, yet the be­nefits of Christ, the gifts, graces, fruits, comforts of the spirit (which are named) do direct us to both. Moreover, when the name of God is used Quoties Deinomen Indefinite ponitur, non minus Filium & Spiritum, quàm Patrem designat—retineatur u [...]itas essentiae & habeatur ratio ordinis. calvin instit. lib. 1. cap. 13. sect. 20. Joh. 14. 10. Joh. 15. 26. Joh. 10. 30. 1 Joh. 5. 7. indefinitely, all three [Page 391] Persons must be understood to be compre­hended in that essentiall Title, because they are one and the same God. Finally one Person doth subsist in another, and the same honour is due to all three, because all three have the same divine Nature, which is single because infinite, and therefore there is enough discovered to prevent all scru­ples in the upright-hearted, and Cavils in the contrary-minded. Read the third and fourth Chapters of the Epistle to the Colossians, and there you will see a very pregnant proofe of this point. Colos. 3. Pia sanc­torum vi­gilantia non est ex ipsorum arbitrio sed ex do­no gratiae in ipsis per gratiae me­dia exu­scitato. Colos. 4. [...]. Co­loss. 4. 12. Confite­mur neminem immeritò perdi, neminem meritò liberari. Prosp. The Epistle to the Ephesians. Fides est medium ad salu­tem, & tamen ipsius electionis Effectus. Put on therefore as the Elect of God holy and beloved bowels of mercies, kindnesse, humbleness of mind— above all these things put on charity; let the peace of God rule in your hearts—do all in the name of the Lord Iesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him; What ever you do, do it heartily as to the Lord. And then the summe of all their requests is, That they may stand perfect and compleat in all the will of God. This takes in the full scope of Law and Gospell; whatever belongs to faith, worship, or obedience; whatever is just, and equall, or well-pleasing unto God. Col. 3. 20. Col. 4. 1. And the Epistle to the Ephesians runs parallel with this to the [Page 392] Colossians.Impius sensus qui putat bea­tiorem es­se homi­nem, cui Deus nihil dedecit, quam cui universa [...] in Christo per Spiri­tum San­ctum se­cun [...]um e­lectionem [...]ratuitam [...] i [...]. [...] 11 5 7 Mat. 20. 16 Matth. 24. 22, 24. electi su­mus non meriti prae rogativâ, non fati necessi [...]a­re, non te­ [...]ritate f [...]rtunae, sed alti [...] ­dine divi­tiarum sa­pientiae & scientiae Dei quam non aperit sed clausam miratur Apostolus. Aug. Prosper▪ Eulgentius. Ye are elected and therefore ye must be holy before all three Coessentiall Persons by whom ye were elected; ye must beleeve the Word of truth as the truth is in Iesus, that ye may be sealed with the Spirit, and filled with all the fulnesse of God; ye must bow your knees to the Fa­ther of our Lord Jesus Christ; you must study the unity of Faith, and of the know­ledge of the Son of God; ye must keep the unity of the Spirit, ye must grow up in­to Christ in all things, ye must not grieve the holy Spirit whereby ye are sealed unto the day of Redemption, but maintaine a fruitfull fellowship with God in Christ by the communion of the holy Ghost; for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteous­nesse and truth; ye must be filled with the Spirit, giving thanks alwaies for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ; ye must do whatsoever is right or equall, Ephes. 6. 1. [...] this is right, just, and equall. Put on the whole armor of God, take the sword of the Spirit, the shield of Faith, pray alwaies with all prayer and supplicati­on in the Spirit. Peace be to the Brethren, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sin­cerity. [Page 393] I need make no inferences, the words are so plaine, that they prove the point in terminis terminantibus, as we use to say.

Consider the discourse of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans,The Epistle to the Ro­mans. where the A­postle hath even lost his reader in the depth of this Mystery of the eternal counsel of Fa­ther Son and holy spirit; Amori Pa­tris aeter­no, gratiae­que Spiri­tus singu­lari nobi [...] in Christo destinatae totum Sa­lutis ad­scriptum videmus in Epistols ad Roma­nos: Con­tumeliam reddit ju­stitia, ho­norem do­nat inde­bitum gra­tia. Aug. he puts this question to all the busie disputants, who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his Counsellour? and concludes that of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to whom be glory for ever. Amen. We have mercy from him, faith and repentance from him by an effectual vocation according to his purpose of election. Rom. 8, 28: 29. Rom. 9. 11. 15. 16. 18, 23, 24, 29, 30. Rom. 10. 20. Rom. 11. 2, 5, 6, 7, 29, 30, 32. 36. We have mercy, grace and glory from all three, and therefore all honour and glory be to all three for ever Amen. And the Apostle doth beseech the God of patience, and consola­tion, the God of hope, and the God of peace,Epist. 105. to fill them with all joy and peace in beleeving that they may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost, Epist. 59. de bono Persev. Ench. ad Laur. Pros. who is the God of hope, comfort and peace; for the Kingdom of God doth consist in righte­ousnesse and peace, and joy in theEphes. 5. 9. Holy Ghost. Rom. 14. 17. and if wee serve Christ (who is God blessed for ever. Rom. 9. 5. [Page 394] in these things, we shall be accepta­ble to God, and approved of men. Rom. 14. 18.

The fruits of the spirit in us are markes, The fruits of the Spi­rit are marks of our election The first E­pistle to the Thessaloni­ans. because fruits of our election by God. The A­postle writing to the Church of the Thessa­lonians, which is in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ, begs grace and peace for them from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ;Quae sit li­berae dis­cretionis in concilio Dei causa supra fa­cultatem humanae cognitio­nis inqui­ritur & si­ne fidei di­minutione nescitur, modo con fiteamur neminem immeritò perdi, ne­minē me­ritò libe­rari. remembers their work of faith, labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father, and then concludes their election of God because the Gospel came to them in power, and in the Holy Ghost; for they received the Word in much af­fliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost. The Apostle exhorts them in every thing to give thanks, because it is the will of God in Christ Jesus, and bids them beware of quenching the Spirit; and beseeches the Spirit, who is, undeniably, the God of Peace, and by special office our Sanctifyer and Comfor [...]er, to sanctfy us wholly. The very God of peace sanctify you wholly, &c.

And the Apostle discourses in like man­ner in the second Epistle to Timothy; God saith he,The second Epistle of Timothy. hath given us the spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind, saved us and cal­led us with an holy calling, according to his own purpose and grace,2 Tim. 1. 9. which was gi­ven us in Christ Iesus before the world be­gan [Page 395] And tells us that every one who doth pretend to be elected,Si omnes liberaren­tur, lateret quid pec­cato per justitiā de­beretur; si nemo, quid gratia lar­giretur. or presumes to call upon Christ and claim an interest in him, must depart from iniquity, be sanctifyed that he may be meet for the masters use, and pre­pared unto every good work.

I instance in some dark expressions, on purpose to shew that even in them there is by interpretation an acknowledgment,August. Ep. 105. That we are elected by Father, Son and Ho­ly Ghost to Grace, Peace and Glory, and therefore ought to admire, beleeve, worship, love, obey all three Persons as one, and the same God, blessed for ever; we must be ho­ly before them in faith and love.

2. If we consider our Creation,II. our Creation. we are created by Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as hath been proved;Gen. 1. 2. and therefore we were created for the worship and service of all three.1 Cor. 8. 6. The spirit of Elohim sate up­on the waters,Job 33. 4. hatched the world and all the beauty and glory of it.Job 26. 13.

3. If we consider the vigorous provi­dence of God,Ps. 104. 30 all things are preserved,John 1. 3. upheld,III. Provi­dence. maintained,Zec. 4. 6, 7. ordered,Sam. 10. 6 governed, by Father Son and Holy Ghost,2 Cor. 3. 6. the Holy-Ghost governs the Church,Luk. 1. 35. and over-rules the world also.

4. If we consider our fall,IV. The Fall. and therein our abominable sin, and the intolerable curse due unto it.

1. Our sin which we committed in A­dam [Page 396] the first sin, it was a sin of cursed a­theisme, divellish pride, unbelief, rebellion, apostacy, a sinning sin, because it did dis­able, pollute, infect, poyson both our souls and bodies with originall and damnable corruption; all sins against Father, Son and Holy-Ghost proceed from this root of bit­ternesse.

2. The curse due to this sin is intole­rable, unavoidable, it is the curse of an Om­niscient and Omnipotent God; a temporal, spiritual, eternall Curse, the Curse of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Men and Angels cannot help us, we cannot be par­doned, Redeemed, Sanctified, Adopted, Com­forted, Saved, but by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; still this doctrine of the Co­essentiall Trinunity, must be preached and applyed for our spirituall and eternal good, as will appeare by our following discourse.

V 5. If we consider our effectuall vocation. The father cals us in Christ,1 Cor. 1. 9. by his Spirit speaking in Law and Gospel,1 Joh. 1. 3 and work­ing powerfully upon our consciences and hearts:1 Cor. 13. 14. all three Persons do joyntly per­forme this saving work;Rom. 15, 16. Shew which Per­son can be spared.1 Thess. cap. 1. 5.

VI 6. Our Iustification is by the free-grace of the Father manifested in the Covenant of grace,Gal. 5. 5. by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed by the Father,Titus. 3. 5, 6, 7. and applyed by1 Cor. 6, 11 [Page 397] the Spirit, our faith is grounded on the Testimony of the Spirit, and wrought by the efficacy of the Spirit.

7. Our Redemption is by the Father VII who gave us his Son: by Christ,Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27. verses. who gave us himself; by the Spirit, who doth draw us unto Christ,Gal. 1. 3, 4. and puts us into the armes and bosome of our Redeemer.Act. 26. 18 We are re­deemed from the guilt and punishment of sin more eminently by Christ,1 Pet. 1. 18 19, 22, 23. verses. but we are redeemed from the power and dominion of sin,Rom. 5. 6. 8, 10. from our vaine conversation, from this present evill world, and tyranny of Sathan, not only by the death, resurrection and intercession of Christ, but by the effica­cy and power of the holy Ghost; And it is to be observed that though Christ makes the Purchase, Eph. 1. 13. yet the Spirit makes and gives the Assurance. Rom. 8. 16

8. Our Adoption is by all three. The Fa­ther VIII doth adopt us in Christ by the Spirit of Adoption.Rom. 8. 15. Gal. 4. 6.

9. The Covenant of Grace is made and IX confirmed by all three.

10. The Church is gathered, instructed,X preserved, saved by all three; the Church enjoyes and maintaines spirituall and hea­venly communion with all three in all Or­dinances and duties, 3 Cor. 13. 4,

1. In hearing the word,1. Hearing the Word. Father, Son and holy Spirit, do all teach us as hath beene proved at large, John 6. 45. 1 Cor. 2. 13. [Page 398] Heb. 1. 1, 2. Heb. 3. 7.

II 2. We are baptized in the name of all three, devoted,Baptisme. dedicated, consecrated to the service of all three, 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. Mat. 28. Tit. 3. 5, 6. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Matth. 3. 11. Iohn 3. 5. Rom. 6. 3, 4, 5, 6. we are adopted into the family of God, that we may be married to the Son of God, and made co [...]heirs with Christ in glory.

III 3. In the Lords Supper the Father invites, and entertains us,The Lords Supper. gives us his Son for our Head, Husband, Saviour, Feast and all; Christ gives us his Body and Blood to nou­rish us,1 Cor. 10. 16. and the Spirit enables us to receive this spirituall nourishment after a spirituall manner,1 Cor. 11. 24, 25. that we may thrive and grow thereby; the Spirit mortifies our lusts, strengthens our faith,2 Cor. 13. 14. renews our repent­ance, inflames our zeale, pacifies our con­science, purifies our heart, assures us of the favour and love of God, seals our pardon to us, and seals us up to the day of redemp­tion. The love of the Father, The Grace of the Son, The Communion and Peace of the Spirit, is so plentifully vouchsafed to ex­perimentall Christians in this Sacrament, that I may well subscribe Probatum est.

IV 4. In Prayer and thanksgiving we do manifestly hold Communion with all three.Prayer.

First, We pray to the Father in the name of Christ by the power of the spirit of supplication. Ephes. 2. 18. 1 Cor. 1. 2. [Page 399] 1 Thes. 3. 11. Rom. 8. Gal. 4. 2 Thes. 2. 16. Rev. 1. 4.

Secondly, Our thankfull praises. Eph. 3. 21. Ephes. 5. 18, 19, 20. are presented to all three.

V 5. We keep a Sabbath to Father, Son,The Lords day. and holy Spirit; all our Fiduciall breathings after God, all our Penitentiall meltings before God, our Obedientiall closing with God, our pangs of love, raptures of zeale, extasies of joy, do arise and spring from the beliefe and consideration of the rich grace, tender mercies, and sweetest love of our deare Father, our beloved Saviour, and our sanctifying Comforter. Gal. 2. 20. Col. 1. 12. Ephes. 1. 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 17. Eph. 2. 4, 5, 6, 8. 1 Pet. 1. 8.

Every Lords day,The Busi­nesse of the Lords day. much more every Sa­crament-day should be a sealing day, a sanc­tifying day, an edifying, saving Sabbath. God doth upon such daies take as wholy off from our own business,Eheu nec fictis la­chrymis dolendaest ista profa­natio quae sub prae­textu Li­bertatis Christianae in diei Do­minici ce­lebrationē tanquam torrens ir­rupit. that we might make it our only business to serve and en­joy God by maintaining an holy Commu­nion with God in Christ by the effectuall working of the holy Ghost for a whole day together, that we may in the close of the day attaine the end of our Sabbath-service which is a rest of complacency, sweet content, and full satisfaction in the armes and bosome of a Father, a Saviour, and a Comforter; this, this is to enjoy a Christi­an Sabbath.

[Page 400] The heathens knew something of a Sab­bath.Sabbathū inter om­nes morta­les celebre. Vide Theophil. Antioch. lib. ad Attolycum. Joseph. lib. 2. adversus Appion. Phil. Iud. lib. 2 de vitâ Moysis.

The Jewish Holy days were Appendi­ces to the fourth Commandement,The Iewish Holy days. and therefore might be well taken off again, the morall Commandement remaining entire. For it is granted, that they are taken off from the second Commandement, and yet that remaines entirely morall; and I beleeve it will be cleare to any man that studies the point that the Jewish holy daies did belong most properly, and directly to the second Commandement; Indirectly and but Re­ductively to the fourth, because they were at most but Appendices to the fourth Com­mandement: But even Jewish Holy daies, and the most solemne services upon them did in their Primary and Principall Institu­tion, as Wallaeus himself doth acknowledge; point at Christ and his benefits; and the point is cleare by the Epistle to the He­brewes, and more especially by the ninth and tenth Chapters of that Epistle, Heb. 9. 10, 11, 14. Heb. 10. 1, 4, 9, 10. Luk. 4. 18, 19. 1 Cor. 5. 7.Vide Aug. Ep. 68. ad Ca­sulanum. Chrysost. Homil. 10. in cap. 2. Gen. Phil. Iudae. lib. 3. de vitâ Moysis. Theod. Trad quaest. in Gen. The Sabbath was instituted be­fore the Law was given on Mount Sinai, but [Page 401] the fall of man defaced the whole work of the first Creation, and therefore it is no wonder if Christ the Lord of the Sabbath require us to keep a Sabbath in remem­brance of the new Creation by the work of Redemption, which was actually finished by the Resurrection of our blessed Lord upon the first day of the week. For Christ en­tred into his Estate of Rest in the day of his Resurrection, though he did not enter into his place of rest in the third Heavens till the day of his Ascension, and the place is but accidentall in respect of the State of rest, and rest it self. The Will of our Lord was the instituting cause, the Rest of our Lord the moving cause. When God rested from the work of Creation he was refreshed, Exod. 31. 17. and when Christ rested from the work of Redemption he was refreshed, and his Father took delight in the work of the new Creation, which he could not take in the old Creation,See Master White of the morality of the 4th. Comman­ment. Dr. Twisse, Mr. Cawdry, and Mr. Palmer, Mr. Shep­heard, Dr. Ames Medulla Theol. Dr. Lakes Theses. which was so defaced, that he did repent of it, Gen. 6. but God will never repent that he sent his Son to re­deem, or his Spirit to sanctifie his Elect, but Father, Son, and Spirit will be refreshed and satisfied with all the sweet fruits of this new Creation and Renovation by the death, resur­rection, and Spirit of the Lord Iesus. Mat. 17. 5. Ioh. 19. 30, Isa, 53, 10, 11. Rom. 4. 25. Rom. 8. 33, 34. Rom. 11. 29. Heb, 7. 21, 22.

[Page 402] The approved practice of the Primitive Christians declares the Doctrine of the Apostles,The grounds of sanctify­ing the Lords day. and the Doctrine of the Apo­stles shews what was the Command of Christ the Lord of the Sabbath concerning the sanctification of the first day of the week, which is therefore called the Lords day, and the Christian Sabbath.

The Jewish Sabbath was the Holy day or Sabbath of Jehovah as Creatour,The Iewish Sabbath. Isa. 58. 13. The Chri­stian Sab­bath. and all three Co-essentiall persons did create us. The Christian Sabbath is called the Lords-day, since the Lord Christ hath been decla­red to be the Son of God by his resurrecti­on, Rom. 1. 4. and the Lord of all, Rom. 14. 9. Mat. 28. 17, 18.

The Ministry and Sacraments under the new Testament are appointed by Christ,The Evan­g [...]licall Mi­nistry. and therefore used by vertue of the second Commandement though the outward wor­ship be changed, & in like manner the Sab­bath appointed by Christ must be observed by vertue of the fourth Commandement though the day be changed, because this is the generall scope both of the second and fourth Commandements that we ought to observe all the Institutions of God from time to time. The scope of the se­cond and fourth Com­mande­ments. We are then obliged both by Law & Gospel to observe the Lords day, & we may with con­fidence expect a blessing upon our observa­tion of it;Rabbi Ag­non dicit hanc bene­dictionem transire su­per sancti­ficantes Sabbatum ante legem in Sina da­tam. Cog­nitio & ce­lebratio Dei Crea­toris, & considera­tio seria operum Creationis ac Redem­ptionis ad Ceremoniā referri nequeunt. D. Waelleus de Sabbatho. pag. 583. for he who sanctified the day did blesse it also, that is, annexe a blessing [Page 403] to the sanctification of it; Read Peter Martyr upon the second of Genesis, and the fourth Commandement, when God rested from the works of Creation he appointed a Sabbath, although he did not rest from works of Providence; and in like manner Christ hath appointed a Sabbath upon his resting from the work of Redemption by price, although he doth not rest from the work of Redemption by Power till all his Enemies be vanquished and his Elect sa­ved.

These grounds being laid it is most evi­dent,How the Lords day is to be sanctified unto Fa­ther Son and holy Ghost. that we are to keep a spirituall rest to Father, Son, and holy Ghost upon the Lords day. We are not only to draw neare to the Ordinances, but to God, and Christ in them by the power of the holy Spirit, because all spirituall Communion with God in Christ is maintained by the power of holy Ghost. 2 Cor. 13, 14. And our Communion with God upon the Lords day ought to be more immediate and eminent, How Chri­stians do enjoy God upon the week-days. more spirituall and heavenly than at other times. Christians do enjoy God, not only in his Creatures providences and works of their callings ac­cording to the variety of their occasions, but also in acts of Immediate worship and service even upon the week daies; but we [Page 404] are to do God some more eminent service on the Lords day, we should not content our selves with week-dayes-prayers, and praises, our holiness and communion should be extraordinary upon this solemne day, I and therefore

1. Eminent for the degree of it; there should be a Sequestration of our minds and hearts from the world,Eminent holiness and Com­munion, Read Mr. Shepherds excellent Treatise upon this Subject in his fourth part of the sanctifica­tion of the Sabbath. and a consecration of them to the blessed Trinity in the high­est degree, and after the most immediate manner in all exercises of Religion with admiration, confidence, love, reverence, delight, and thankfulness, that we may come as neare to God (who comes down on purpose to meet us in his Ordinances with a full blessing) as it is possible for Creatures that are cloathed with flesh. We must abstaine not only from servile works, but servile thoughts, cares, affections; The Sacrifice was doubled on the Sabbath to shew that our holiness should be redoubled on that day, Num. 28. 9. The Sabbath was called holiness, Exod. 31. 15. and the Holy of Jehovah, Isa. 58. 13. to shew that we should be exceeding Holy upon this Holy day. We should be transported beyond flesh and the world, and have our conversation in heaven that day; for the day requires some transcendent holiness.

II 2. Our Holiness and Communion should be Restorative; for we contract much soile,Restorative Communion [Page 405] abate the vigour of our graces by converse with the world upon the week days, and now there should be Restauratio deperditi: We should sadly review our experiences, and failings all the week, and make up all our defects upon this acceptable day, this season of Grace, when God sits in state, and scatters treasures of grace amongst hungry, and thirsty Saints that are poor in Spirit, and wait for spiritual Alms at a Throne of Grace.

3. Constant Communion; we should III maintaine a continued and un-interrupted Communion with God in private,Constant Communion as well as publike all the whole day together; It is lawful for us on the week days to go about our worldly occasions after we have been at prayer, but we find that when we have been well warmed by Family duties, we are apt to catch cold againe presently, when Company or worldly businesses break in upon us, but we must keep our hearts in a Sabbaths days frame all the Lords day, yea, and at night also; when our bodies are wearied in service, we must not be wea­ry of Service, but our hearts must be pan­ting and working after more of God, and Christ, and the holy Spirit.

4. Soule-satiating Communion, we must IV take delight in our converse with God, Soule-sati­ating com­munion. enjoy­ment of Christ, and walking in the Spirit all the day. We must enter into the rest of our beloved, and take a sweet complacency in the [Page 406] fruition of God, in the glimpse of his glory, in the taste of his love, in the kisses of his mouth, in all the testimonies of his favor, in all the love-tokens sent us from heaven. The joy of the Lord must be our strength, and in this strength we must go forth and mortifie our corruptious, resist temptations, and go about our worldly business all the next week with heavenly minds.

I cannot stand to speak directly and fully to the particular duties of the Sabbath;Extraordi­nary duties or extraordinary duties of Evangelical fasting, and Christian Feasting, for all which there should be a serious preparation, in all which there must be a prudent sequestration of our minds and hearts from the world, that theremay be an intire consecration of them unto God, and a sincere sanctification of all these times to Father, Son, and holy Ghost, as it becomes the Sons of God, the Members of Christ, and Temples of the ho­ly Ghost. We should get oyle into our ves­sels, dress and trim our Lamps, that we may meet the Bridegroome of our soules in his appointed walkes, in his own Ordi­nances and exercises. I should say some­thing likewise of our Penitentiall meltings before God;Penitential meltings. Thus in briefe then, when our conscience hath been wounded by the Spirit of bondage, and is renewed by the Spirit of Regeneration, it will in due time be pacified by the spirit of Adoption, but [Page 407] even then the soule will melt into teares, nay, then it melts most kindly, and laments most affectionately; O I have sinned against the tender mercies of the bowels of God; I have kicked my Father upon the Bowels; I have made a sport and pastime of those sins, which let out the heart bloud of my dear Savi­our; I have grieved, vexed, and even quenched the holy Spirit my sweetest Comforter; I have sinned against all three, and so trebled all my sins; I feare I have (saith the Soule in its agony) even done despight to the Spirit of grace, and trampled on the bloud of the Son of God; but I have learnt to sub­mit, and beleeve, to rejoyce, and tremble, to weep, and waite; for I waite upon a Fa­ther, upon him whom my soule loves; the spirit of faith and love hath taught me to come with a broken heart, and a bleeding con­science to a Father, to a Saviour, to a Com­forter; I desire to keep the wound open by renewed Confessions, and sprinkle the clensing bloud of Christ upon it by a lively faith. Oh it is soveraign bloud, and must be fiducially sprinkled by a speciall appli­cation; and it is the spirit which makes this speciall application, and administers revi­ving Cordials to broken hearts, and fain­ting soules in their swowning fits.

The sad condition of the most ingeneous sort of un­reg [...]nerate men. When the most Ingenuous and refined sort of unregenerate men come to see, that not­withstanding all their Civility and Forma­lity [Page 408] they are in the gall of bitterness by reason of their impenitence and unbeliefe, their opposition to the power of godliness, their undervaluing of the mercies of God, the love of Christ, graces and comforts of the holy Spirit, and feele these sins set home upon their hearts and consciences with stinging aggravations, they are even fired out of their naturall estate, and by the pre­venting grace of the Spirit made sensible of sin, and hungry after grace and mercy. The dreadfull impressions of Gods infinite Majesty, and damning wrath make all the sensuall impressions of sin to be remembred with proportionable and self-condemning hor­rour. But when the most glorious trea­sures of Gods sweetest mercies, and richest grace, folded up in his fatherly bowels, are opened to these ingenuous men, and the Spirit hath touched their hearts to lament after Christ; then this ingenuous soule will cry out, Oh what restless agonies, what stin­ging wormes, what unquenchable flouds of flaming brimstone, how many Hells are there treasured up in one Hell for such a wretch as I am, who have undervalued the riches of Gods mercy, the love and merits of Christ, the graces and comforts of the Spirit; hea­ven and earth may be astonished, men and An­gels amazed at my prodigious madness in un­dervaluing Christ and Heaven: In the midst of this agony and conflict, prudent asto­nishment, [Page 409] and spirituall horrour, the holy Spirit urges invincible Arguments which are sweetly compulsive to perswade and constraine the soule to long for Christ. For when the Spirit hath made the threats both of Law and Gospel effectual to humble us, he fils the soule with despaire of mercy if it continue in its former estate, in the gall of impenitence, and bond of unbeliefe, but with­all it doth assure the soule that there is plente­ous redemption, and eternall salvation trea­sured up in Christ for penitent beleevers. Motives to Faith and true Repen­tance. Then the spirit opens the mystery of free Grace contained in a Covenant sealed with the Oath of God, and bloud of Christ; he re­veales the eternity, excellency, sweetness, freeness, fulness, infiniteness of Gods mer­cy and grace, Christs love and merits as so many motives and encouragemets unto faith and repentance. The Spirit sets a Par­don and a Crown before us, acquaints us with the all-sufficient righteousnes and un­searchable riches of Christ, and his own free and effectuall grace, unspeakable com­forts, and glorious joyes, and then con­vinces us that we want this grace to sanctifie us, this Pardon and righteousnesse to justi­fie us, this Crown, and these joyes to en­rich and satisfie us. And upon this discovery the soule is encouraged to give credit to the holy Ghost to beleeve the love of the Father to depend upon Christs satisfaction, and ap­ply [Page 410] his righteousnes, to prize the love of the Fa­ther, the merit of Christ, the grace and com­forts of the Spirit above a World; in a word, to sell all for Christ, and give up all to Christ, resolving to be ruled by himself and his spirit for evermore. Now the soule hath a new life put into it, it hungers and thirsts for a more intimate Communion with Fa­ther, Son, and holy Ghost, and this hun­gry soule sucks whilest the breast is open till it hath filled it self with substantiall nou­rishment & reviving Cordials. This devout soule becomes (as Chrysostome styled Saint Paul) an insatiable worshipper of Father, Son, and holy Ghost, it desires to grow in grace, to presse on towards perfection, to have Father, Son, and holy Ghost to come sup with it, dwell in it, rule in it, that it may be enriched with the unsearchable riches of Christ, and filled with all the fulness of God.

This converted soule doth after these Peni­tentiall meltings, The great difference between an ingenuous man and a gracious man. Fiduciall breathings after Christ, and obedientall closing with Father, Son, and holy Ghost, differ as much from it self (when it was most ingenuous before its conver­sion) as an Angell doth from a Divell. For the most ingenuous and refined sort of un­regenerate men have nothing in them, which is more excellent then common grace, and common grace leaves them in the state of Nature under the power of [Page 411] sin, and in the very suburbs of Hell wholly at the command of Sathan; and if any man think otherwise, let him take heed that very thought doth not naile him fast to that unre­generate and cursed estate for evermore.

Beleeve it Brethren, that Historicall faith, and Naturall wisdome do but excite some pang of self-love, which makes us ve­ry solicitous how we may stop the mouth of our convinced conscience with some kind of ingenuous Civilities, and outward for­malities without any penitent acknowledg­ment of our sinfull and cursed estate, any prudent esteeme of Christ, whose bloud, merit, righteousness, and grace ought to be prized above a world. We never seeke Christ in earnest till he hath first sought us, found us out, and brought us home by his pre­venting, quickening, saving grace. And when Christ dwels conquering and reigning in the soule, the soule is not content with ci­vilities and formalities with common grace, or some low degree of speciall grace, but it aimes at grace in perfection; the heart is kindly broken by Faith and Love,How far an unregene­rate man may be changed. the soule is humble, thankfull, zealous, merci­full, diligent, constant in serving Christ, and Christians upon all occasions. Civill and Formall men may by legall terrours be brought to some kind of Devotion, they may by an Historicall saith be brought to some kind of admiration of the Gospel, [Page 412] to many good wishes and velleities, nay, to a Reformation in many particulars, but because they undervalue the love of the Father, the grace of Christ, the Communi­on of the Holy Ghost, and consequently the power of godlinesse, notwithstanding all their terrours, wishes, admiration, refor­mation, and hankerings after Christ and Heaven, they perish in their unbelief, be­cause they never had any hungry and thirsty desires, restlesse desires after Christ, (such as would not be satisfied without him,) wrought in their souls by the light of the Gospel, power of the Spi­rit, serious and seasonable offers of Christ. They never come to a deliberate choyce and thankfull acceptance of Christ to be their Saviour, Husband, Priest, Pro­phet and King; but did indeed choose ra­ther to be Satans bondslaves, then Christs spouse, they would not make a prudent exchange of Satans fetters for Christs yoake, and therefore are but dancing to hell with their fetters, in the fairest path that they can possibly find to the chambers of death; they could never be perswaded to be content with Christ alone as their al-sufficient portion, and therefore refused to sell all for him, and give up all to him, but did upon mature deliberation, and in coole blood reject Christ, resist his Spirit, refuse a pardon of sinne, and Deed of Hea­ven, [Page 413] purchased and sealed with the Heart-blood of God; and this very consideration will sting the conscience and torment the soule of these everlasting Bedlams, when they lie in chains of darknes, cursing them­selves to all eternity, and blaspheming God for torturing of them in the angry flames of hellish brimstone.

But that this mystery may be yet more freely discovered; take any man that is not guilty of the black and unpardonable sin of trampling on the blood of Christ, and doing despight to the Spirit of grace, and let him be one of the most desperate vil­lains that ever served the devil, and I dare encourage this wretch, whom hell and Sa­tan do even gape and groane for, to go to Christ for preventing grace, that the Holy Spirit may set home the curses of the Law, and the more severe threatnings of the Gospel, upon his obdurate heart in a sa­ving way, and beseech him to knock early at Heaven-gate, the sooner the better, be­cause God gives Christ and his Spirit, a Par­don and a Crown, as Fathers give lands to their children, only because they will give them, he gives all Freely and Royally. Christ hath gifts for the rebellious also, God shews mercy and gives grace to them that do deserve neither grace nor mercy. And if the spirit do open the eyes and heart of this man, that the sense of his own de­villish [Page 414] bruitishnesse may move him to en­quire after God and Christ, Prov. 30. 1, 2, 3. and gives him present support from fal­ling under the weight of his own sin, and Gods curse into despair, after illumination, conviction, terrors, before he come to hunger after Christ, submit to him, and close with him, as an al-sufficient Saviour, and an only Saviour;The Con­version of notorious sinners. This trembling soul may in the midst of cares, and hopes, and terrors, be encouraged and enabled by a Spirit of Regeneration, with all humility, joy and thankfulnesse to accept of Christ, and rest upon him for righteousnesse and life, by a faith of Dependance, Adherence, Recumbence, and to submit and melt with Evangelical repentance at a Throne of grace; and when his heart is thus broken by faith and love, which do cast out unbe­lief, self-love and slavish fear which tends to despair; this even now very black soule, but now purified by the Spirit of Regene­ration, and revived by the Spirit of Adop­tion, sprinkling the blood of Christ upon his conscience, and shedding the love of God abroad in his heart, will be encoura­ged to call God Father, and Christ Savi­our; the Father will meet, embrace, adorn him, wipe off his tears and filth, and kisse that prodigal mouth, which came from feeding with swine and kissing of harlots; Christ will bid this soule welcome, it shall [Page 415] be thrice welcome to this Co-essentiall Trinunity.The grea­ [...]est sinners are wel­come to Christ when they turne and submit to him. For God who brought his par­doning mercy, preventing and effectuall grace to us when we looked not after him, will surely bid us welcome when we come unto him with a prudent care, a lively faith, a Son-like reverence, a penitent indignati­on against our sin and lusts, melting affec­tions, and yearning bowels towards him, and flaming zeale in his service, and for his cause. He who ran and called after us when we looked not after him will not reject us when we come unto him out of tender re­spect, and hearty love to him and his ser­vice; He that hath the Spirit, shall have Son, and Father also.

Let all churlish Nabals, proud Pharises, politick Gallios, scoffing Ishmaels, impeni­tent Formalists, No meri­torious Praepara­tives. and unbeleeving Atheists consider what hath been said, and look up­on themselves as guilty of eternal death, let them heare with wonder and amaze­ment, let them beleeve and tremble, and let all the enemies of the grace of God, Pelagians, Papists, &c. know that all prepa­ratives are wrought by the Word & Spirit, and that it is one great preparative to ab­hor the thought of all meritoriousness in all or any of those preparatives which make way for the infusion of faith; for faith is the free gift of God, and though there be many necessary preparatives to drive us to [Page 416] Christ, yet there are no meritorious Qua­lifications in us to bribe God, allure Christ, or deserve grace. The Spirit works when, where, and as he pleases, and he who doth not prize the love of the Father, the grace of Christ, and Communion of the Holy Ghost above a world is not as yet ac­quainted with the mystery of Faith, or the Power of Godliness, he hath neither Father, Son, nor Spirit in him.

CHAP. X.
Christians who have a lively sense and sweet experience of this grand mystery of Faith, and practicall mystery of Godliness, are afraid to hold Communion with such as pretend to be Spi­rituall Christians, and yet deny the divine Nature and distinct subsistences of Christ and his ho­ly Spirit.

IT is observed by a great States man, That he who follows Truth too neere at heeles, may have his Teeth heat out; but I had rather lose my teeth than not teach, and profess the truth. He who presses this point in this Licentious Age, wherein Scepticks in the highest points are called Seekers, and Hereticks good Christians, had need beg the promise of the Father, Luk. 24. 49 Magnitu­do animi ad praedi­candum [...] ­vangelium necessaria ex alto promittitur. D. A [...]ting. that he may be endued with vertue from on high, that is, a magnanimous and more then an Heroi­call spirit to preach the truth. We must [Page 418] not feare the face of man in the cause of God; if the Devill might set up his Church in England, wherein Heresie is instead of a Preacher, profaneness and ungodliness in­stead of Ruling Elders, yet I must be bold to say, that these Seekers whom the Re­formers called Libertines, are as the Fa­thers called them, but Nullifidians, and Atheists, professed Atheists; for They are Atheists, who will not beleeve and adore the only true God, Father, Son, and holy Ghost; and such are the Seekers whom I am to deale with; who deny the Lord Christ to be God; and I shall easily disco­ver that this is Atheisme;An etiam Abnegatio Christi quae fit corde in Ep [...]cureis­mum pro­lapso sit peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum? Vide Scultetum in Ideis concionum ad cap 6. ad Hebraeos. Clamant D [...]ifica [...]i Spiritus homunciones se nullum habere Deum, sed usque adeo se sibi esse mortuos, ac Deo unitos ut ipsimet Deus effecti sint; vide Joh. Ruys broch. in cap. 2. Apologiae. Nobilissimum Marnixi­um in Tract. contra Enthysiastas, & Calvinum de Libertinis in Gallia. Merceunum contra Deistas. De Atheismo subtili & palliato, vide D. Vedelium de Deo Synagogae. Casp. Barth. Adversar. lib 10. cap. 6. Cornel. à Lapide Comment ad Act. 17. 18. Sladum nec non Eglisemnium contra Vorstium. Atheus est qui fidem & cultum Dei directe aut indirecte à se aut ab al [...]s removet. D. Voetius de Atheismo. whether reigning Atheisme or no, let the Socinian Seekers and Deifyed Atheists judge. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the Doctrine of Christ [hath not God;] he who abideth in the Doctrine of Christ, he hath both the [Page 419] Father and the Son. The second Epistle of Iohn the ninth verse, Who is a lyar but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist that denyeth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denyeth the Son, the same hath not the Father, 1 Ioh. 2. 22, 23, 24. He who hath not the true God, Father, Son, and holy Ghost for his God, is an Atheist; for if he do acknowledge a false God, a false God being no God, it must still bee granted that no man can bee excu­sed from Atheisme by his acknowledgment or worship of any thing that is not God; I speak of such speculative Atheisme as doth commonly run into practical Atheism, and may consequently end in direct and down-right Atheisme, or at least such affec­ted Atheisme, as will permit that Radicall and Seminall Atheisme which was borne with them to sit quietly in their hearts as on a Throne, so that they have no actuall belief of the true God which doth amount to an historicall beliefe; much lesse any that can effectually over-power or dethrone their natural Atheisme. And yet I beleeve these Atheistical Libertines can never fully blot out all the natural notions of a God­head written in their hearts by the finger of God,Vide John. Junium in Refutatio­ne Prae­lect. Socini cap. 2. & D. Rivet. in Psal. 10. though many of them have made a very unhappy progress in this devillish stu­dy; for the devils themselves have not at­tained to any Atheistical [...] or [...]; [Page 420] D. Voet. de Atheismo. Ignorans quis sit De­us ignorantiâ pravae dispositionis; & contra sensum numinis congenitum verum Deum negans, Atheus certè, nec immeritò, [...]cendus est. Nulli autem sunt Athei qui certò persuasi sunt non esse Deum. Vide Mersennum in Gen. 1. à pag. 235. usque ad pa. 279. & Voetium in Ther site. Sect. 2. cap. 4. & de Atheismo parte secundâ, & parte quarta pag. 189. Wigandum de Ari­anis in Polonia. Facilis est ab Atheismo S [...]ciniano in directum Atheismum prolapsus. Vide Bedae notas in Ephes. 2. 14. & D. Vedelium de Deo Synagogae. Atheismus interpretativè con­tradicens & directè blasphemans ferendus non est in civili hominum societate, quia bonum civile non consistit sine metu cultuque numinis. Vide Calvin. in Psal. 115. de Atheo blas­phemante. the Devils beleeve and tremble; but enough of that; the Socinians are Atheists Interpretativè at the least.

It is not enough for Christian Commu­nicants to attaine to the first principle of natural Theology, and confess that there is a God, but they must acknowledge the first principle of Christianity, which is indeed Supernatural Divinity, and acknowledge, that Father, Son, and holy Ghost are the on­ly true God; for else we go no farther then Pharaoh that grand Seeker did, when he as­ked, who is Iehovah that I should obey his voice? Exo. 5. 2. or then the Samaritans and Athenians did, who worshipped they knew not what. Ioh. 4. 22. Act. 17. 23. The Turks, the Pagans, the Jews do acknowledge that there is a God;Vide Arist. de coelo lib. 1. cap. 3. Aug. in Psal. 44. Senec. Epist. 1. 7. Damas [...]. de Orth. fid. lib. 1. c. 1. Ciceron. de naturâ Deorum. unless then we do intend to hold Church-Communion with Pagans, [Page 421] Jews, Mahumetans, we must require some­what more of those, whom we admit un­to Christian Communion than a bare ac­knowledgment that there is a God, or that the Father is God. For he who doth deny the Godhead of the Son, doth deny the Father also, and consequently hath no God at all for his God, as hath been proved al­ready from the ninth verse of the second Epistle of Iohn, The Fa­ther and his coequal Son are to be honou­red with equal ho­nour. and 1 Iohn 2. 22, 23, 24. He that honoureth not the Son as highly as he honoureth the Father, he doth not honour the Father, who sent his co-equall Son to give us life. Ioh. 5. 21, 23. We must acknow­ledge the Son to be equall to the Father, for this redounds to the glory of God the Father.Christian communion with the Father in his natural Son by their co-es­sential spi­rit. Phi. 2. 6. 11. We can have no Christian and spiritual Communion with God the Fa­ther but in his natural Son, and by their Co­essential Spirit, as is manifest by comparing these Texts together, 1 Ioh. 1. 3. 1 Cor. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Rev. 1. 4, 5. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Ephes. 2. 18, 22. 1 Cor. 12. 3, 6, 8, 11, 13. and by the full scope of all my practical Discourse in the ninth Chapter of this Treatise. This is life eternal, &c. Iohn 1 7 3. 1 Iohn 5. 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 20.The largest bounds of Christian Communi­on. When Saint Paul doth enlarge the bounds of Christian Communion as far as he can, he writes thus; Vnto the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Iesus, called to be Saints, with all that in every place [Page 422] call upon the name of Iesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours. We can have no Christian communion with such as deny the Godhead of Christ. 1 Cor. 1. 2. We cannot maintaine any Christian Communion with such as deny the Godhead of Christ; for they must (as Francis David, and David George, &c. did) deny that Christ is to be worshipped with divine faith and love, because (as they blaspemously said) he hath not the same divine nature with God the Father;Vide Epi­stolas Martini Seidelii Silesii a­pud Soci­num de A­doratione Christiad versus Christian—Franc­ken. & Francis­cum Da­vidis. Catechis. Racov. The Soci­nìans are blasphemous and Idolatrous Hereticks. or else they must say as Socinus, who wrote against Francis David, said, that Christ is to be worshipped with divine worship; and then they will if you put their principles together (as you may see them together in that Racovian Alcoran the Racovian Catechisme) be found to be even the very best o [...] them, but a pack of Blasphemous Idolaters, With whom We ought not to hold Communion. For whilst they do blasphemously affirme, that Christ is a meere man in glory, and the Son of God only in a metaphoricall, not any proper sense, We must draw these conclusions, The best of the Socinians maintaine,

I 1. That Jesus Christ our Lord is but a meere man in glory, a very Creature and no more: The Family of love. H. Nico­laus Fami­liae Carita­tis: Pater dixit, Ego sum Deus. Vide The­odor. and therefore they are blasphe­mers; and so are all they who say, that they are as much God as Iesus Christ; for these are high swelling blasphemies, such [Page 423] as the Deified Atheists of the Family of love (with whom I feare Mr. Fry hath had too much acquaintance) do usually vent to the great dishonour of Christ and Christi­anity.Cornhert in Speci­mine injustitiae Deificati Hen Nicolai Praefat. Mr. Fry his Bellows. pag. 16.

2. That a meere man, a very Creature II is to be worshipped with divine Honour;Mr Fry his proud blas­phemy. and therefore they are Idolators. Master Fry must prove, that he himselfe is to be worshipped with divine Honour also, or else he cannot make good his proud asser­tions in his blasphemous Pamphlet; or else he must say as David George did, that Christ is not to be worshipped with divine Honour.

Now then the question is, The grand question concerning Christian communion with blas­phemous Idolaters, seducing Hereticks, and base Apostates. What respect is to be shewn, or Communion ought to be held with blasphemous and Idolatrous Hereticks, who are Seducers also, and do zealously en­deavour to poyson soules, as it doth well be­come Apostatizing Renegadoes?

They who are acquainted with Ecclesi­asticall Writers,Vide Go­marum, Voetium, Zanchium, Polanum de Trini­tate. Jod. know what respect was shewne, or Communion held with Arians and others, who did deny the God-head of Christ, though they did maintaine that Christ was to be worshipped with divine [Page 424] Honour;Coc [...] The­saur. Ca­thol. lib. 1. Goldast. in Imperial. constit. Tom. 3. Elmen­horst. com. ad Genna­dium. I shall not tell long stories of Cerinthus, Ebion, Photinus, Arius, and their adherents; but it is cleare and evident that the Arians were condemned because they were a pack of blasphemous and Ido­latrous Hereticks, Seducers, Apostates, up­on the grounds which I shall presently re­late and such as are above mentioned; They did deny the divine nature of Christ, and yet acknowledged that Divine worship was due unto him. But I had rather produce proofs then tell-stories, and therefore I shall give you the true grounds and reasons why they are rejected from Christian Communion, and why even civill respect is denied to such, who upon mature deliberation, after more admo­tions then one, deny the Godhead of Christ, and the holy Ghost.

I shall begin with Christian Communion,The Rea­sons why Socinians are rejec­ted from Christian communion because that makes most for my purpose.

1. These vaine men are rejected from Christian Communion for these reasons.

1. Because they do not agree with Christians in the common unity of the I Christian Faith; for all who are come into the unity of the Faith,The com­mon unity of the Christian Faith. are come into the knowledge of the Son of God. Ephes. 4 13. And into the knowledge of the holy Ghost, be­cause these are the Baptismall Principles of the Doctrine of Christ. Acts 19. 2, 3. Heb. 6. 1, 2, 4. Mat. 28. 19. Ioh. 14. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 1, 4, 12, 13. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Eph. 4. 4, 5, 6.

[Page 425] 2. They do not agree with Christians II concerning the Adequate Object of Divine and Evangelicall Worship. The Father,The Ade­quate ob­ject of Di­vine and Evangeli­cal worship Son, and holy Ghost are the Adequate object of Divine and Evangelical worship, of Divine Faith, Hope, & Love 1. Iohn 5. 6, 7. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Rev. 1. 4. 5. Mat. 28. 19. Ioh. 14, 1, Ioh. 5. 23. Rom. 15. 30. 1 Cor. 3. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 6. 19, 20. 1 Cor. 12. 6, 8, 11.They who deny the Trinity are apt to close with Iews and Turks. They may well go joyn with Pagans, Jews, Mahumetans in worship, who say that Christ is a meere man. Mahomet did collect his Alcoran with great dexterity out of such common Princi­ples as that he might take in Iews and Chri­stians. Vide Epi­stolas Sei­delii apud Socinum de Adora­tione chri­sti. Videl. de Deo synago­gae. lib. 1. cap. 2. so­cinismus ex Mahu­metismo oritur, & in eundem resolvitur. Stegman. Photin. Socinismus est recta ad Judaismi, Turcismi, nec non Atheismi via. Exempla dabant Neuserus & Pafradus viri non indocti, quorum ille minister in Palatinatu, hic praecep­tor Classicus Scholae Marpurgensis. Vide D. Voetii Antidota Generalia adversus Socin. pag. 437. 438. Abrah. Calovium [...] And Socinus he followed Maho­mets inctructions; he saith, Arians and Calvinists may be both saved, so they do but live morally. Barlaeus saith, that Jews may be very pious towards God in their Religion, though they do deny and reject Jesus Christ; as Videlius shews in his Book de Deo Synagogae. And this, as Barlaeus is pleased to call it, is accounted the most accurate Divinity of the high flying Mer­curies: Beza in his Epistle to Petrus Sta­torius hath given our great wits a faire war­ning. I have read of one Nuserus a Mini­ster [Page 420] [...] [Page 421] [...] [Page 422] [...] [Page 423] [...] [Page 424] [...] [Page 425] [...] [Page 456] in the Palatinate, who did first fall away to the Socinians, and deny the Tri­nity, and afterwards turned to the Turks, and did solemnly profess himself to be a Mahumetan at Constantinople. And the like is written by Authors of good credit, concerning that Schole master, who fell away to Judaisme, and wrote Letters from Thessalonica, that the reason why he went off from the Christian profession was be­cause he could not digest the mystery of the Trinity. We that are Christians, worship the only true God, Father, Son, and holy Ghost; and therefore we must be true to our Religion, and beware of such impo­stors, who would seduce us to worship a meere man instead of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

My heart rises with just indignation against Mr Fryes blasphemous Pamphlet,Mr Fryes blasphemy. when I read there, That according to his understanding of the word subsistence he may be said to be God too, as well as Iesus Christ, pag. 16. I know he will wrangle about the word subsistence; but that word is found in Scripture, and applyed unto the Father, Heb. 1, 3. and we read of the being, or subsisting of the Son in the (Forme, that is, the) Nature of God; [...]. Phil. 2. 2. he thought it not robbery to be equall with God. Sure Ma­ster Fry ought to think it robbery to make himself equall with Christ in subsistence, [Page 427] when Christ is equall to his Father, and hath no humane, but a divine subsistence only,Error Per­sonae fata­lis error est. which doth uphold the humane na­ture which Christ hath assumed; and all Christianity is built upon the divine subsi­stence of Christ God-man as hath been shewn, and shall be yet more clearely ma­nifested.

In like manner, they that receive not the holy Ghost, cannot be received by us whose happiness it is to beleeve, adore, obey the spi­rit, as hath been shewn at large.

3. They do not agree with Christians III concerning the substance of the Gospel, and Covenant of Grace.The sub­stance of the Gospel, and the Co­venant of Grace. Whatsoever we receive in point of Religion ought to be received upon the credit of all three Persons, but more especially upon the Divine Testimony of the Spirit of Christ, the holy and eternall Spirit sent down from heaven. 1 Pet. 1. 11, 12. 1 Co­rinth. 2. 1, 4, 5, 12. 13. They then who do reject the Spirit, and deny his testimo­ny to be divine, because his nature (as they blasphemously maintain) is not divine, do indeed reject both Testaments, and there­fore reject the whole Gospel and Cove­nant of Grace.The Con­tents of the Covenant of Grace. Moreover this Covenant is made by all three Persons, for the Cove­nant doth containe the love of the Father, Gal. 5. 5. the grace of Christ, 2 Cor. 13. 14. and the Communion of the holy Ghost. Eph. 2. 18. The Father of our Lord [Page 428] Jesus Christ doth enter into Covenant to be our Father in the Lord Christ; The Co­venant is established upon the satisfaction and Righteousness of God-man; Socinis­mus est haeresis pestilen­tissima, di­vinitatem Christi spiritus (que) abnegans, viamque per pro­priam vitae obedienti­am ad coe­lum affec­tans. Socinia­nism over­throws the Covenant of Grace. Socinis­mus divi­nam Chri­sti essenti­am, perso­nam, satisfactionem negans, objectum fidei cultusque tollit, Christianismum evertit. and therefore they who deny the Godhead of Christ, must rest upon their own righteousness and obedience for justification, and salvation, as the Socinians do, and then Christ will profit them nothing, because they over­throw the New Covenant and are fallen from Grace. Gal. 5. 4, 5. The Covenant is sealed with the bloud of Christ, who is not only the Son of Mary, but the natu­ral Son of God. This is the substance of the Gospel, the same Person is God and man, The Son of Mary is the true Messiah, the Lord Christ, the only Son of God, equall to his Father, the Head and Saviour of the Church, the true God, the blessed God, the great God, the mighty God We are redeemed with the bloud of Christ, the bloud of God, the bloud of Christ who is God. The Cove­nant is to quicken and cure us.

1. To quicken us, We are quickned and cured by Christ, and his spirit ac­cording to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace. for we were dead be­fore the Medicine came, and Christ and his Spirit raise us from death, and give us a spirituall life.

2. To cure us, for when our Physitian [Page 429] hath restored us to life, he can more easily restore us to health.

In the Covenant God promises to give us himself, The Spirit is given by Covenant as a bond of union. his Son, and his Spirit. The bond of the Faederal and mystical union on Gods part is the Spirit, and on our part Faith, which is wrought in us by the same Co-essen­tiall Spirit. And Christ is the only Medi­atour of this Covenant.

1. We have but one Mediatour and sure­ly of this Covenant.Christ God-man is the only Medi­atour of the Covenant. Christ is God and man in one subsistence or Person. 1 Tim. 25. 1 Cor. 8. 6.

2. This one Mediatour is God and man in one Person: the Son of man. Mat. 16. 13. the Son of God ver. 17. Rom. 1. 3, 4. Rom. 9. 5. Heb. 7. 3. Ioh. 8. 58. Acts 20. 28. 1 Ioh. 1. 1. Ephes. 4. 10. Joh. 3. 13. Ioh. 6. 62. Ioh. 1. 14. Phil. 2. 6. He for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, even he himself and not another person; he also himself took part of the same flesh and bloud whereof we are partakers, Heb. 2. 10, 14.

I hope by this time it is evident that the Covenant is made in Christ the natural and co-essentiall Son of God,The high importance of this truth. who is God and man in one Person, and therefore we can­not close with them who will not close with this saving Truth; for this is an Ar­ticle of everlasting life. Mat. 16. 16, 17, 18. Ioh. 17. 3. 1 Ioh. 5. 20. Ephes. 4. 13. I humbly intreat Mr. Fry to consider what hath been said, that he may repent and retract his un­happy opinion, namely, That the word sub­sistence [Page 430] holds forth no more of Christ his being in the Godhead then may be affirmed of every Creature, Mr Fry in his Bellows printed at Addle-hill. pag. 15, 16, 17. That whatsoever the head did par­take of, that did the members also. And that according to his understanding of the word subsistence, M [...] Fry himself might be said to be God too as well as Iesus Christ, p. 15, 16. This is the unsavory breath of Mr Fry his blasphe­mous Bellows printed at Addle-hill in Fe­bruary 1648. If his confutation be as publike as he thought fit to make his blas­phemous errour, (which he accounts but a molehill, pag. 17.) he may thank himself.

I might adde many other reasons, but I must be briefe.

IV 4, I might argue from the very nature of Christian Communion, which is a Chri­stian and spiritual Communion with the Father,The na­ture of christian Communion in the Son, by the Spirit; but I have said enough of that already in this ve­ry Chapter,2 Cor. 13. 14. and handled it practically and at large in the ninth Chapter of this Trea­tise.Eph. 2. 18.

V 5. I might argue from the Sacraments of Communion, and seales of that Cove­nant of grace,The Sacra­ments of communion which they who do deny the Trinity overthrow, as hath been pro­ved.

I 1. In Baptisme we Christians are devo­ted and consecrated to the beliefe, worship, and service of God the Father,Christian Baptisme. God the Son, and God the holy Ghost, who are all three [Page 431] one and the same God, the only true God blessed for ever; and therefore they who do not beleeve and worship God the Son, and God the holy Ghost as the same God with the Father,Mat. 28. 19 do indeed renounce the Faith and Baptisme of Christians;Eph. 2. 18. they take away the Adequate Object of Christian Faith,2 Cor. 13. 14. and Evangelical Worship.Act. 2. 38, 39. God promises to be a Father, 2 Cor. 6. 18 Saviour, and a Comforter to us; he seales his promise to us by Baptisme and fullfils his Promise by giving us his Son for our Saviour, 2 Cor. 7. 1. and his Spirit for our Sancti­fier and Comforter; Rom 8. 15 for he shews himself to be a Father to us in Christ by sending the spirit of Regeneration and Adoption into our hearts; Gal. 4. 5, 6 We are regenerated by the spirit of God, adopted into the Family of God, married to the Son of God, that we may be heires and coheires with Christ the King of Heaven, and Lord of Glory; and all this is to oblige and encourage us in the beliefe, worship, and service of Father, Son, and holy Ghost.

2. In the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per II we Christians sanctifie the Name of Christ the natural Son of God, and the name of the Co-essential Spirit; The Lords Supper. the everlasting counsels of Gods Fatherly love, the riches of his free grace, all the treasures of the Covenant and Spirit of grace, all the suf­ferings of our crucified Redeemer the Lord of glory, are in this great Ordinance evi­dently [Page 432] set before the eye of our faith, that by the grace of Christ, assistance and fel­lowship of the holy Ghost, we may have a more intimate Communion with God; for this sweet Communion with the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ is by the Communion of the bloud of God, (Acts 20. 28. compa­red with 1 Cor. 10. 16.) and of the Spirit of God. 2 Cor. 13. 14 This is the grand Ordi­nance for the highest,The grow­ing, saving communion sweetest, strongest Communion with the Father in the Son, and by the spirit that can be attained to whilest we are cloathed with flesh. The Gospel is appointed both for the begetting and encrease of grace; this Ordinance is annexed to the Gospel, that the Gospel and this Ordinance both together may (by the power of Christ and his holy Spirit) be effectual according to the Counsel of Gods will for bringing of lost Sinners into a sa­ving communion, nay, a growing, thriving communion with Father, Son, and holy Ghost, that we may come to be enriched at last with the unsearchable riches of Christ, and filled with all the fulness of God.

I 1. When we see the Bread and Wine consecrated and set apart for this holy use, we should consider the unspeakable love of God the Father,The myste­ry of the Trinity is made even sensible to us in the h [...]ly Sacra­ment. setting his co-essential Son Jesus Christ apart in his secret and eternall Counsell for to be the Surety and Saviour [Page 433] of his chosen people: This is the great mystery, which the very Angels desire to look into, and which will be the subject of all the praises and Hallelujahs both of Saints and Angels to all eternity in the highest heavens.

2. When we see the bread broken and II wine poured out, we must remember the love of Christ, whose body was broken and bloud shed for our sins.

3. When the Bread and Wine is distri­buted III and divided, we should meditate upon the Application of Christ crucified to every one of our own soules in parti­cular;The special application Now this speciall Application is made by the assistance and communion of the holy Ghost.

And therefore this mystery of the Co-essentiall Trinunity must be acknowledged by all who are admitted to this sacrament, because this is the greatest confirmation of the great Bond of the highest Communion which we can have with Father,The highest communion Son, and holy Ghost, and with the most pretious Christians, who are sound in faith and ho­ly in life.

We can never understand the Presence, Sacramen­tal know­ledge. Institution, and mind of Christ in this Ordi­nance, unless we beleeve the cursed condi­tion of men in their naturall estate, the divine nature and person of Christ, the greatness of the price that was paid for the [Page 434] satisfaction of Gods justice, and appeasing of Gods wrath, who did not spare his own Co-essential Son, but manifested his hatred against sin, and love to his Elect in not spa­ring his Son, but breaking his body and shedding of his bloud, that we might be redeemed by the bloud of God; this is the mystery which is made sensible in the Sa­crament, and is really evident to the eye of faith,Sacramen­tal myste­ries are spi­ritual and yet real. Gal. 3. 1. And whosoever looks up­on these great mysteries of the Gospel as fan­cies, and doth not beleeve them to be reall things truly exhibited, really presented to beleevers in a Sacramental, mystical,Joh. 6. 55, 63. spiri­tual way in this Ordinance, hath not yet learnt the truth as it is in Jesus; and is not prepared for such high Communion. We Christians do not come with hungry and thirsty soules longing after farther Com­munion with Christ for mortifying of our lusts,Sweet com­muni [...]n for hungry Soules. and encrease of all our graces by his spirit, untill we beleeve this grand mystery of Faith; and we are then experimentally acquainted with the mystery of Godliness when we have been made drink into one Spirit with Christ and his Members, when we look upon him whom we have pierced by our sins, and acknowledge him to be the natural and Co-essential Son of God; there can be none of those fiduciall breathings after Christ, Penitential meltings before him, or obediential closings with him, as is [Page 435] evident by our ninth Chapter untill we do in some measure beleeve this mystery of Faith, and understand the substance of the Covenant of grace, which is sealed in this Sacrament by God, and must be actually renewed by every good Communicant; our Meditations, Faith, Love, Repentance, Joy, Thankfulness, will not be rightly pla­ced or exercised, if this grand mystery of Faith and Godliness be rejected by us.

6. I might argue from all the Offices of VI Christ; they who do not beleeve the di­vine nature of Christ,The Offices of Christ. do utterly disable Je­sus Christ from being a Mediatour, a Priest, a Prophet, a King, for the saving of his peo­ple to the uttermost.

They who deny the divine Essence and Person of Christ, do deny his satisfaction to be all-sufficient in our behalf. They de­pose Christ from that spirituall and heaven­ly kingdom which he hath by Nature; and render him uncapable of that Mediatory Kingdom, which is delegated to Christ, God man by the Decree of the Co-essenti­all Trinunity. But I have said enough of that in the former part of this Book.

I pass on to enquire what civill respect II</