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 a 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 Existence of its nature But it is cleare that a soule in the state of separation doth 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 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 oâ— 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 that have a Divine nature for else we should make a Trinity of Modes no Trinunity a 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 Eâ— 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 three 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 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 to 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 iâ— every single person and it is common to aâ— 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 iâ— undivided and indivisible nor as a Speciâ—â— to its Individua for it is not multiplicable nor as a Totum or whole to its parts foâ— 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 toâ— created person which may be separateâ— from a created subsistence for the Divinâ— Nature cannot possibly be separated from all or any one of the Divine Subsistenceâ— or Persons And therefore we must noâ— discourse of the Godhead in such a Notional way as if the Godhead did exist out oâ— the three Persons without any relative subsistence for that is clearly to dream of somâ— strange Absolute God who is neither Father Son nor Holy Ghost When we describe the Godhead according to our beâ— understanding we dare not abstract it from the three Persons but say that The Godhead is one single spiritual infinite Essence in which the Father Son and Holy Ghost
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 me 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 Person doth expresse more excellency then the word subsistence alone doth import for it is proper to say that a Beast doth subsist but it is absurd to say that a Beast is a Person because a Person is an understanding subsistent But neither of these 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 Subsistencâ—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 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 the word 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 Relation but the Godhead doth contain all relative as well as absolute perfection within it self as hath been said 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after such a manner as becomes the infinite dignity and pure majesty of God If men do not wilfully mistake 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 that 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 no mistake but a full agreement in such an high and weighty point 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 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 â—ttributes and pressed him to acknowledge that A Trinity of persons do subsist in the unity of the nature of God 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 Chuâ—ch cause to use the words 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 of 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 A Divine Person is a Spiritual and Infinit Subsistent related indeed to those other uncreated Persons which subsist in the same Divine Nature with it but distinguished from those Coessâ—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 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 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 properâ—o â—o every one of the three or any certain â—ncommunicable propertie whereby any one person is distinguished from the rest â—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 1. What distinction there is between the Divine Nature and the Divine Persons Father Son and holy Ghost 2. What difference there is between â—reated and uncreated persons 3. How these three uncreated persons are distinguished from one another This question concerning the Distinction of the Divine Nature and these three most glorious persons which subsist in it is the most difficult point in all Divinitie â—nd therefore I humbly beg the assistance of all these glorious persons that I may conceive and write judiciously and reveâ—ently of this profound and glorious Myâ—â—erie of Faith I remember that excellent â—peech of judicious Calvin Non minori â—eligione de Deo nobis loquendum quam cogitandum sentio quicquid autem de Deo a nobis cogitamus stultum est quicquid loquimur insulsum What ever we thinkâ— 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 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 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 of Christ doth subsist in alieno supposito 2. They who denie the Trinitie must if they be not worse then Turkes or Socinians acknowledge 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 4. The Divine Nature is not indifferent to subsist in the Father 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 selâ— is due to the most perfect Nature 6. Although Men and Angels are not able to comprehend 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
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 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 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 â—ncomprehensible Let Schoolers examine tâ—is brief account Deus est â—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 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 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 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 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 as 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 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 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 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 creatures 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 the 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 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 necessary 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 purity of his infinite and single Being in that amazing and yet edifying text I am that I am Exod. 3. 14. as if he had said there is nothing in your God which is not God my Attributes do not differ from
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 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 no 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. Fry his Opinion which he delivered to the House and hath since printed and published to the world 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 a 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 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 singularly the same nay the divine naturâ— is as singular as any one of the single subsistences and yet whatever is proper to the Divine nature is common to all three of these Divine subsistences and the Divine nature doth not subsist out of these three Divine subsistences 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 â—f this unity of the Godhead be not only â—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 but they lay most weight upon Iohn 17. 3. Behold say they a plain acknowledgment from the mouth of Jesus Christ Christ 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 That we may know 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 is one and the same God with the Father all three Persons are the only true God for though they 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 Now it doth not follow that the Father Son and Spirit do differ Essentially because they differ personally for these three are â—ne 1 John 5. 7. One God who is the onely â—rue God The Father is the onely true God behold the praedicate in that proposition is not personall but essentiall and â—very Essentiall Predicate belongs to all and â—very one of the three persons because they have one and the same Divine Essence and therefore the Apoâ—â—le saith these three are â—ne 2. Observe how the 17. of Iohn and â— verse is expounded by Iohn himself â— 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 â—sent The onely true God for as Iohn himself expounds This Iesus Christ is the true God and Eternall life 1 Iohn 5. 20. 3 Observe that Iohn himself expoundâ— this also of the Holy Ghost for Father Son and Holy Ghost are one onely God 1 Ioh. 5. 7. These three are one and therefore iâ— 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 to
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 be Eternall because both are Naturall for whatsoever is Naturall unto God must needs be Eternall but because the Father is the first 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 familiarly given to the faâ—ther both in the Old and the New Testament â—hough Father Son and Holy Ghost are all equally God nay are 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 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 the Persons of Men and Angels bâ—â— I desire to distinguish between created anâ— uncreated Persons because uncreated Persons subsist in one single and infinite essâ—nce It may seem strange to some Metaphysical wits that one Person and much more thâ—â— three distinct Persons should subsist in oâ—â— single and undivided essence but these discoursing wits do not distinguish betweeâ— created and uncreated Persons 2. 〈◊〉 ground their faith on scholastical subtiltieâ— 3. Do not study the Holy Scriptures wiâ—â— humility and faith and beg a blessing oâ— their studies by fervent Prayer For they might read in the Scriptures of a divinâ— 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 of Iustinian the Emperour and therefore it is not an interpretation lately 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 humane 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 of Persons rather then Personalities because those abstract notions are not very well understood by the most discoursing men for even they acknowledge that 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 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 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 there is even almost nothing evident to them by the light of reason concerning the Divine 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 enough to conceal his own for he defines a Person thus A Person is the undivided substance of a rationall nature I am not at leasure to reckon up the defects of this imperfect definitioÌ„ Vasquez is bold to say that Aristotle knew not how to distinguish a Person from a singular nature And
there is no doubt but very wise men have erred grossely in this point for want of studying ◠The state of the soule in its separation from 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 of 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 And 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 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 the Oratours 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 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 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 do 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 is Personal may in some sense be affirmed to be naturally due to that particular person But besides those Personal 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 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 Hence it is 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 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 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 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 and 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 pen. It is very absurd to say that a Person is made compleat in his subsistence by any 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 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 Negation but Subsistence is positive though Subsistence may be described by
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 Deus non est per alind Deus Finally â—ake all the three Persons together and â—hey are nothing else but one God and â—hey are one God not Absolutely considerâ—d in his abstract nature but Relatively considered with those peculiar relations â—nd incommunicable properties whereby â—he three Persons are distinguished from one another When the name of God is â—aken Essentially or Commonly in Scripâ—ure we say it doth belong to all three 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 begottâ—â— 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. â— Iesus Christ is one and the same God with the Father Now Papists and Socinians wiâ—â— both confesse that the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself and therefore it will follow that the 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 theâ— in brief The second Person of the Godhead is the only begotten Son of God subsisting iâ— 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 Holy Ghost is an infinite Spirit coessential with the Father and the Son and 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 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 alâ— 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. The word 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 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 and consequently that there are three Gods It is readily acknowledged that the 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 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 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 for there is not a new nature in every one of the Three but the Divine nature which is connoted in these three Hypostasâ—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 eâ—ery Hypostasis doth connote the Divine nature yet all â— here connote one and the same infinite nature in which all three Persons do 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 that is or can be The Divine 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 and therefore the Godhead thus considered doth subsist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 â—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 one another for they have one Independent Spiâ—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 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 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 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 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 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 therefore 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 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 when we treat of this Argument if
and Substance oâ— all that can be said a parte rei as we use to speak but because we are not able distinctly to 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 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 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 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 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 and we have built upon that as the ground-work 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 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 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 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
of God can be communicated to a Creature any more then 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 many finite Perfections and God would not be 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 by 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 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 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 For 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 not 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 These grounds being laid let us consider what great difference there doth to ouâ— 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 and 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 â—â—ngle and infinite and therefore doth conâ—ain in it all Actual Perfection eminently â—nd all possible Perfection both singly and â—ctually because all true and pure Perfection is most Formally included in the Naâ—ure and Essence of God and therefore this eminent Distinction grounded on the Phrase of Scripture and upon visible Obâ—ects and Effects gives us no ground at all â—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 â—minently in the several Effects Egresses Terminations of Gods eminent vertue and single power which is every way boundlesse and infinite and therefore never works according to its full and adaequate vertue The 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 Unity but the first Unity which is uncapable of any difference or number whatsoever only we cannot by a 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 The answer is easie 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 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 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
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 Argument may and ought to be resolved X. The Distinction between the Divine Nature and Persons may be considered 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 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 The Divine Nature of the Father is 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 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 are 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 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 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 grounded on a 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 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 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 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. The peculiar relations do distinguish but they do 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 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 some efficient cause and one of the parts must be
a meere power or passive potentiality that is capable of farther perfection and the other an Act to make that power 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 not 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 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 IV. The three Formall considerations are not 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 learned 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 are no way distinguished under this first consideration but are one thing the choycest and chiefest of things and are one with the most single and singular kind of unity Father Son and â—pirit are one Jehovah one God and the same God 2. The second consideration is Personall and yet 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 self-subsistence 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 the Vnity of the same Godhead 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 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 a Reall distinction do yet confesse that the reall distinction which they treat of is not 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. 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 way without fire or vinegar II. Concerning 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 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 1. All created persons have a finite and dependent Nature but the nature of all uncreated persons is Independent and Infinite this one difference is an infinite difference 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 fallacy because of the imparity and infinite 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 subsistences is Independent the nature of all created subsistences is dependent 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 Mystery in that wonderful subsistence And yet even in that wonderfull Mystery our dependent Nature doth subsist in a person 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 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 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 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 learned 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 But Vorstius was bold to publish his dreames coâ—trary to the Analogy of Faith and unanimous judgment of the reverend Doctours of the Ancient Church The Socinians in their Catechisme the Arminians in their Confession and Apology are exceedingly too blame in this point The Socinians do expunge the single and infinite perfection of Gods 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 Fundamentals of the Christian Religion will be overturned 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 as we say is in the 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 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 most 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 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 is Independent Ergo. 4. The parts compounding are 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 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 IV. Three created persons have three different Natures but these 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 singular Essence Look how many created persons there be of the same species so many singular substances there are of that species For a finite nature cannot be communicated to severall proper persons of the same species without a multiplication of
or Compulsion 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 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 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 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 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 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 subject 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
Christ redeemes us according to the will of God and our Father Gal. 1. 4. Iohn 10. 17 â—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 2. Divine Worship is due to the second Person of this Coessentiall Trinity 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 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 The Papists are deeply engaged to prove that religious honour may be given to a Creature at least in some degree their distinctions are so well known that I need not to insist upon them 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 And therefore may be worshipped as he is Mediatour with a Relative and subordinate Worship 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 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 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 The Arminians in their Apology and other writings endeavour to excuse and gratifie the Socinians 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 Some Lutherans are very much to blame in this Point for they say That the Divine Majesty Worship Glory Omnipotence Omnipresence of the Son of God are communicated to Christ as man but enough of that Divers Learned 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 1. Divine excellency infinite Majesty and Perfection is the Formall and Adequate ground and reason of Divine Worship 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 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 2. The Father Son and Holy Ghost are one and the same God 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 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 can be no ground or reason of a difference of degrees in the
much acquaintance do usually vent to the great dishonour of Christ and Christianity 2. That a meere man a very Creature is to be worshipped with divine Honour 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 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 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 Honour 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 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 Christian Faith for all who are come into the unity of the 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. 2. They do not agree with Christians concerning the Adequate Object of Divine and Evangelicall Worship The Father 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 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 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 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 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 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 when Christ is equall to his Father and hath no humane but a divine subsistence only 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 concerning the substance of the Gospel and 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 Moreover this Covenant is made by all three Persons for the Covenant doth containe the love of the Father the grace of Christ and the Communion of the holy Ghost The Father of our Lord 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 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
producitur non tantum in supposito proprio sed in alieno uti patet de natura humana in Christo non est enim in Christo duplex Suppositum Caieâ—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. a Non est Trinitas modorum sed personarum coessentialiuÌ„ trinuÌ„ itas b Quod excipiunt TrinitateÌ„ igirur fore sine Deo ex eadem insulsitate nascitur Vide Calv. Instit. lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 25. c Nam Deus ita se praedicat unicâ— 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. d Vide Calvinum Melanct OecolampadiuÌ„ 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 is not to be abstracted from the persons or the persons from it The Godhead described not abstracted De omnibus singâ—lis solis his tribus personis tota Deitas perfecta omnibus numeris una dicitur The strange God idolized by some The single Godhead How the three Persons are one God How the Name God is used in Scripture a Vox Deus de eo proprie dicitur qui naturâ Deâ—s est de eo quidem vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communiter sine certae perâ—onae determinatione vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de una aliquâ personâ â—er Synecdochen Nomen Deus sive Absolute dicatur de toâ—â simplicique Deitate sive Relate de unâ aliquâ personâ uâ—am eandemque essentiam designat quaelibet enim persona est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Deo non distinguuntur esse essentia tota Deâ— as est ex se à se singulae personae sunt ipsissima essentia â—um distinctis relationibus personalibus considerata Created Personali tâ—es not abstracted How Christ is the Character of his Fathers Person The Person of Christ is single and Divine Christus non solùm officio Deus est ut blasphemant Sociniani sed Naturâ Deus est coesseÌ„tialis enim filius est Conâ—equens est si in Deum credius in me credâ—re debeatis quod non esset consequeÌ„s si Christas non esset Deus Iohan 14 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non est Patri peruliaris sed tribus personis CoÌ„munis * The unbegotten Nature of the only begotten Son †The second Person of the Godhead The Divine â—erson of the Holy Ghost Certaine Conclusionâ— concerning Divine Persons * The Word Subsistence explained * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumitur pro re per se Subsistente pro supposito intelligente pro divinâ Dei Patris Subsistenrià Heb. 1. 3. Fâ—lius est imago Personae Patris est enim filius essentiae ejusdem cuÌ„ Patre non imago essentiae a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripturis frequeÌ„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 haereticoruâ— est tres Hypostases asâ—erere in divinis Vide Theodor. Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 8. Patrum consensum hac de re videas apoâ— Damascenum Nazianz. c. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat naturam verè Subsistentem per se subsistentem hoc est modo perfâ—ctissimo subsistentem d Hypostatica Emphaticis opponuntur quia omnia Hypostatica veram habent essentiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristot. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Paâ—rem Persona autem Patris est Deus filium gignens in unitate essentiae ingenitae f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat naturam Absolutam Communem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat Naturam subsistentem cum proprietatibuâ— Relativis distinctivis g Personae divinae sunt per se subsistentes nihil autem per se subsistit sine subsistentiâ h Subsistentia 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 reâ—pectus diversi esse possunt i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Craecos Logicos Personam significat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non raro essentiam sed vocum earum in Theol. jam fixa est limitata significatio proinde Logicos istos nobis 〈◊〉 non licet The Divine Persons do most perfectly sâ—bsist k Aristot Categor l Clamamus siquis tres Hypostases aut tria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est tres subsistenâ—es personas non confitetur Anathenia â—it Hieronym Epist 57. How there are three in onâ— one in three m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanâ—s Symb. Naz. orat 37. Sophron act 11. Concil Oecum sexti Damas. Anastaâ— Syn. How the divine Persons subsist by themselvs and yet in one another n Hypostases dicuntur nulla tamen est in divinis personis suppositio vel subjectio sed coessentialis aequalitas Vide Aquin p. 1. q. 39. art 1. o Hieronymus 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 efflagiâ—ant quia vocabulanon ediscimus haeretici judicamur Hieron Epist 57. si quis tres subsistentes personas non confitetur Anathema sit Concerning the word Person p Persona quasi per se Sonanâ— fic non nemo Persona quasi per se una sic CriticoruÌ„ facile principes Persona quasi Ã
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 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 Salmeron 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 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 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 ancient 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 must likewise consider what Augustine saith upon this Argument that 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 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 WHen 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 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 holy 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 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 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 1. To the Father Rom. 7. 25. Rom 8. 3. 2. To the Sonne Act. 20. 28. Tit. 2. 13. 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 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 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 with the Father all the fulnes of the Godhead dwells truly 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 Ioh. 1. 1. Was doth note what is past therefore 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 to consider that Jesus Christ is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. God manifest in the flesh 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 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 Eternity 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 Iehovah 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 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
Pet. 1. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Rev. 2. 23. The Holy Ghost is Omnipresent he dwels in all Saints as in a Temple he repaires adornes beautifies his Temple and acts in every single Saint as the spirit of disobedience acts in Children of wrath we cannot flie from the presence of the spirit because he is Omnipresent Psal. 139. 7. By what hath been already written it is evident that the Holy Ghost hath the titles and attributes of God he doth performe works proper to God and that devine Honour is due unto him I shall clearly prove because it is denyed by the blasphemous wits of this discoursing age The Holy Ghost who spake by Isaiah the Prophet 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 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. 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 and the communion of the holy spirit is spirituall and saving as well as the speciall grace of Christ and love of the Father as appeares by that solemn Apostolicall benediction 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 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. â— 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 Mark 3. 29. Hebr. 6. 4 Hebr. 1â— 28. 29. and therefore there is speciall care taken in the holy Scriptures both for the preservation and vindication of the honour of the Holy Ghost 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 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 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 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. I and my Father are one The Father 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
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 every one of the creatures 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 the 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 Now 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 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 I even I am 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 be justified Compare this with Rom. 14. 10 11 and the Socinians may as safely conclude that theâ—e is no other God but Jesus Christ as they maâ— 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 that 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 â—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 samâ— 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 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 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 â—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 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 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 Divine Title Attribute or Work 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
5 26. There is a subsisting life given to the Son by an eternal generation and the Father hath life in himself and self-subsistence also And yet on the other side it is no dishonour to the Son to be begotten of the Father and to receive subsisting life from the Father for the Son hath life in himself also and being God of himself 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 and therefore the Jewes did conclude aâ—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 to receive subsisting life in such a glorious way from the â—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. â—et them not then pretend 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 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 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. 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 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 holy temple as they honour the Father and the Son The Spirit of â—ehovah is the God of Israel 2 Sam 23. 2 3. 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 Absolute but Relative 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 not included in or excluded from any place The Divine 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 as â—ugustine often argues and the schoolmen from him All things are of the Father 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 illustrious thorowout the world and yet the Godhead remains singly and singularly one in all three Subsistences 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 â—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 the 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 though Voluntarily for the Eternall satisfaâ—â—ion of all three Susistences that the whole Godhead might be in every one of these three according to its infinite 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 Nature Gal
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 â—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 because they have different singular natures different powers c. as hath been shewen in this very chapter All actions of Father Son and 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 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 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 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 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 are sufficiently distinguished to our apprehension 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 1. These uncreated Persons have distinct and proper names in the Word of God 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 and yet they do signifie three different Persons for 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 2. These Uncreated Persons are Coequall 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 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 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 â—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 3. The Uncreated Persons are sufficiently 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 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 Godhead are three in number the Scripture speaks expressely of three These three 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 for there 1. The Father speaks in a voice from Heaven 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 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 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 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 Iohn 8. 13. Our Saviour answers in the next verse Though I beare record of my self yet my record is true for I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me And it is written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true I am one that beare witnesse of my self 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 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 God for when he speaks of his power and Godhead 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 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 3â— cap. 14 16. IV. The divine Persons are distinguished by their inward and personall actions The Father did from all Eternity communicate the living Essence of God to the Son in a
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 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. â—6 Rev. 1. 4. 5. Reverend Calvin was not so morose and austere in this point as to contend about unnecessary words 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 buâ— 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 bâ—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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 unless then we do intend to hold Church-Communion with Pagans 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 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 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. 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 call upon the name of Iesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours 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 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 1. That Jesus Christ our Lord is but a meere man in glory a very Creature and no more 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 as the Deified Atheists of the Family of love with whom I feare Mr. Fry hath had too
Civill states Princes and People for this Spiritual Pollution The Turke was let loose from the River Euphrates to punish the worshippers of Imamages Rev. 9. 14. 20. The flourishing of Religion is the flourishing of the Civill state and the decay of Religion the decay and ruine of the Civil state according to the ordinary dispensations of God When Christ had rode through the Roman state on the white horse of his Gospel of grace and was rejected then followed the Red horse of Warre the black horse of Famine and the pale horse of Pestilence and other deadly plagues Rev. 6. from the 2. to the 8 vers Can any Christian state hope upon Scripture grounds that it shall enjoy honour health riches peace safety settlement if Faith and Piety be overthrowen by the indulgence of that state if Seducers bee permitted to poyson soules to teach damnable Doctrines and perswade men to deny the Lord that bought them to deny his divine nature and subsistence his Offices and the efficacy of them nay his very Redemption by way of purchase by way of proper and alsufficient satisfaction as the Socimans do The patience and bounty of God acting as it were by Praerogative is gloriously manifested in our dayes but surely no Christian state can be secured by a councell or an army which permits men to live without Christ without God in the world without any spirituall communion with God in his Coeternall Son by his Coessentiall Spirit Woe be to us if we neglect so great Salvation as is yet offered to us in this day of Grace XV. The Church as a Church hath no sword it doth therefore belong to the Magistrate to smite with the sword but the Church may exhort the Magistrate to doe his duty 1 Kings 18. 40. XVI We must distinguish between Christian Forbearance vouchsafed to weak Brethren that they may live quietly in all godlinesse and honesty and Antichristian indulgence extended to blasphemous Heretikes and seducing Apostates that they may live quietly in all ungodlinesse and dishonesty to the infection and seduction of others The Kings shall bee rewarded for burning and God praised for judging the seducing whore But judicious Mr. Cotton is afraid that the Antichristian Whore will steale in at the Back-doore of a Toleration XVII Gospel-dispensations are as spirituall for the conversion of Sorcerers Adulterers Murtherers as for recovery of blasphemous Heretiks and seducing Apostates and therefore they who plead for the Toleration of these obstinate persons in hope of their conversion doe indeed proclaime a generall pardon for all malefactours save such only as sin against the Holy Ghost XVIII They who permit men to deny supernaturall Principles do permit them to overthrow the Gospel which is not writen in our hearts by nature as the Law is And yet it should be considered that they who deny the Gospel do consequently sin against the light of nature because they make God a liar by rejecting the testimony of Gâ—d concerning his Son 1. Ioh. 5. 10. They who did seduce men from the beliefe and worship of God as revealed in the Old Testament were to die the death and yet the Old Testament is as divine and supernaturall a Revelation as the New Testament it self And it is cleare that God did reveale himselfe in Christ even in the Old Testament for there is much Gospell in the Law and the Prophets because all the Law and the Prophets bare witnesse of Christ and Moses saith our Saviour wrote of me If then there be an indulgence granted to such as deny supernaturall truths men may overthrow both the Old and New Testament and be Antiscripturists without controule nay it wil if this absurdity be granted clearly follow that the Magistrate may punish such severely who deny the truths which are wrote in Aristotle but must not touch them who deny all the supernaturall mysteries of Faith Written in the Book of God Blush ye Heavens and be ashamed O Earth at the Atheisticall libertinisme of this licentious age Seducers who did thrust men out of the way which the Lord commanded them by his written word to walk in were put to death Deut. 13. 5 10. though they were directed by a supernaturall Revelation to walk in that way Reverend Mr. Burroughs doeth often acknowledge in his Irenicum that such as professe Christianity are justly punished for sinning against the common light of Christianity For it is not conscience but the Devil in the conscience which moves Christians to maintaine errours against the light of Christianity errours that are destructive to the Christian Religion and if any man hath a minde to be an Advocate for the Devil I dare not be an Advocate for him only I desire him to beware how he hearkens to the Divell in Samuels mantle and beseech him to cry mightily to him who alone can cast out Devills to cast the Devil out of his conscience place himself there as on a Throne that he may rule the conscience and command the whole man by his Word Spirit XIX He that by seducing seeks to thrust men away from the beleife and worship of the only true God Father Son and Holy Ghost doth deserve to be punished for his very attempt and endeavour to subvert soules though he doth not prevaile with one soule to depart from God Because he hath sought to thrust thee away from Jehovah thy God Deut. 13. 10. The very murtherous attempt of killing a soule by abusing an Ordinance of God corrupting of Religion telling lyes in the name of the Lord fathering our own damnable lyes upon the holy â—pirit is a Capitall crime XX. Christians are in a worse condition then the Jewes were if men may seduce our wives and children into such opinions and practices as will certainly undoe their souls to all eternity and wee must onely intreat them not to seduce our friends to Hell and the Christian Magistrate hath no power to punish these Soule murthering seducers This argument is affectionately pressed by sweet Mr. Burroughs in his book of Heart divisions pag. 23. 24. I have much more to deliver upon this weighty point but I remember what Hugo said That it is best at some time to say nothing at every time to say enough but at no time to say all 6 MA 50 FINIS Tertul. Apolog cap. 46. Lactant. Epiphan Cicero l. 3. de finibus De Authoritate verborum 1 Jo. 5. 7. Rob. Stephanus Senior Iunior MS optimae sidei Hieron Prob. in Epist. Cathol Hieron Epist. ad Marcel ult Bedae translatio laborat Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae Tertul. Praescript Antichrist Racoviens Vide Cat. Racoviens Scripta Socini Moscorovii Crelâ—ii Volklii Smalcii Goslavii AlcuinuÌ„ de Trinitate in Praefatione ad Carolum magnum Schlusselbergium de Haeresibus Stegmannum Junium Zanchium Gomarum Voetium de Trinitate a Act. Concil Nicen. Nicer The saur Orth. fid l. 4. haeres 32. Epiph. haeres 65. Aug. de haeres c.