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
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.
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
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
he is called the Servant of God in respect of that service which he was to performe as Mediator Isa. 42. 1. 2. 3. 4. Nothing is more cleare then that there are some offices to be performed by Christ as a Mediatour which cannot be performed by Christ as God because they do import some subjection as prayer unto God doth though it is true that Christ being the naturall Son of God doth intercede after an Authoritative manner We may for the farther clearing of this point resolve that grand question what the meaning of that request is when we say Lord Iesus pray for me the great doubt is whether this request be presented to Christ as God or as man The Answer is that if we look upon this Petition as a Duty performed by us This duty of Prayer is directed unto Iesus Christ as God for all Divine worship is due to God alone as hath been proved But if we look not upon the Duty of Prayer but the matter of this Prayer it is cleare that the busines which we recommend to Christ is to be performed by him as man for it is proper to him as man to pray to the Father yet because we desire him to intercede in an Authoritative way to the Father we do likewise request him to intercede as it becomes the Naturall and Coessensiall Son of God And therefore if we look upon the whole businesse of Intercession we conclude that he doth intercede 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it becomes God-man because he is our Mediatour according to both Natures Divine and Humane But then we must remember to reserve what is proper and peculiar to each Nature for though we grant that there is a Communication of all properties belonging to both Natures unto the Person of Christ yet we must not attribute any thing to the humane nature which is proper and peculiar to the divine and it hath been undeniably proved that Divine worship is proper and peculiar to the Divine Nature 5. The Office of our Mediatour hath a special respect to Gods chosen people by Gods most free Decree but the relation and externall denomination arising from thence cannot be the Prime Fundamentall and Immediate Ground Formal reason or Adequate cause of Divine worship for if Christ had not been God he could not have been capable of that Office because nothing could satisfie the justice of God but the blood of God and what ever arises from the free Decree of God was not necessary in it selfe but sure I am Divine worship must be founded upon what is Absolutely necessary and Infinitely perfect and therefore not upon externall Relations or Denominations but upon the Godhead it selfe 6. The Actuall Mediation of Christ cannot be the Prime and Fundamentall ground of Divine worship for Christ was not only worshipable but worshipped with Divine Honour before he did actually mediate as God-man 7. The Office of our Mediatour is to bring us to himselfe his Father and holy Spirit as to one God blessed for ever in whom all our blessednesse doth consist and therefore our Faith doth not rest Simply and Finally in Christ as he is our Mediatour God and man but as he is one God with the Father and the holy Spirit For by the Ministry and Mediation of Christ as God-man we are brought to beleeve in God tht our faith and hope might be in God 1 Pet. 1. 21. Christ is God by Nature he is Mediatour by Institution by a voluntary and gratious dispensation unto which he did condescend for our salvation And upon this account learned Iunius told the subtile Samosatenian That Iesus Christ as Mediatour brings us to himselfe as God And Doctor Voetius saith that Christ as Mediatour is an Inferior cause in whose Name and by whose Mediaation we make towards God our chiefest good in whom we beleeve and whom we do worship and adore as the first cause and last end John 14. 6. And Christ is said to save them to the uttermost by his Intercession who come unto God by him Heb. 7. 25. We worship Christ and pray unto him saith judicious Pareus as one God with the Father and the Spirit the only true God and this worship is Absolute and Divine for it is the Absolute worship of the Godhead But then we call upon God in the name of Christ because he is our Mediatour and we desire for to be heard for the satisfaction and intercession of that Person who is God-man But the Socinians conclude that if Christ be not to be worshipped with Divine Honour as Mediatour then there is only a Subordinate Honor and worship due unto him To which we answer that Christ may be considered four manner of wayes 1. According to his Godhead and Divine Person and it hath beene proved at large in this treatise that there is Divine Honour due unto the Godhead and Divine Person of Jesus Christ and this is his Essentiall infinite glory 2. Christ may be considered as Mediator according to both natures as God-man by a gracious condescension and personall union and so we say there is a Mediatory glory due unto him which is more illustrious in regard of its manifestation since the alteration of his condition from a state of Humiliation to a state of exaltation this glory doth out-shine all the glory of Saints Angels in Heaven but it is different from that Naturall and Essentiall glory which is common to Father Son and Holy Ghost as one God For that essentiall glory cannot be Communicated to the Humane nature no not since its Assumption and Christs exaltation This Mediatory Honour is very glorious because Christ sits as a King at the right hand of the Majesty on high and every one must confesse that our Royall Mediatour is not onely man but God also yet we must acknowledge that since the exaltation of our King the glory of his divine nature his essential glory is only more manifested wheras it was eclipsed before in the state of Humiliation and the humane nature assumed is only more perfected and not transubstantiated into the divine The Humane nature is stil a creature though it hath gained as much glory as it is capable of by the Grace of personal union and glory of exaltation and being a creature cannot be capable of divine and infinite perfection which is the Formall object of divine Adoration even as the divine nature of our Mediatour notwithstanding the personal union is not capable of any humane imperfection For there is a preservation and distinction of the two natures notwithstanding their intimate and inseparable union in one person The natures are united 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Church of old The actions performed by our Royall Mediatour flow from a double principle in this single person because this person doth consist of two natures and each nature performes its proper worke the divine nature doth what is divine and the humane
nature what is humane and therefore though the person be but one and the effect one yet there are two different actions of two different natures united in one person for producing of one and the same glorious effect and we are to give to each nature what is properly due unto it Finally the Kingdom which is administred by our Royall Mediatour God-man in a glorious way is but a dispensatory kingdom not his natural kingdome an inferiour and temporary kingdome not his Soveraigne essentiall eternall kingdome and therefore even in the very Administration of it our Mediatour God-man is in respect of order and that gratious dispensation unto which he condescended for our Salvation employed in a kind of Subordinate way and when he hath accomplished that work for which he undertook this Royall office he will refigne this Dispensatory kingdome and become subject as man and as head of that body which he hath purchased to his Father himself and the Holy Spirit as one God blessed for ever that God may be all in all 1 Cor. 15. 28. For as we are Christs so Christ is Gods 1 Cor. 3. 23. in that safe sense and subordinate way which we have but even now declared that the Divinity of Christ which humbled and as it were emptyed itselfe in the Administration of this subordinate temporary and dispensatory kingdome yet with the preservation of its naturall and eternall Right may be more gloriously manifested by the full possession use and enjoyment of that naturall divine eternall kingdome which doth belong to Father Son and Holy Ghost For all three Co-essential and co-equal persons reign with the same power Majesty and glory in the unity of the divine Essence and common acts in all and over all infinitely and immutably from everlasting to everlasting although the naturall reign of Jesus Christ will not be so fully and gloriously manifested untill he hath resigned his dispensatory kingdome and brought all his Elect notwithstanding all their wants sins infirmities temptations tryals enemies safe to Heaven This dispensatory kingdom is administred principally by the God-head Instrumentally by the man-hood Absolutely and perfectly by the person of Christ acting in a divine way as God and humane way as man that the properties of each nature may be reserved as peculiar to each even whilest he doth mediate reigne and judge according to both and therefore divine honour is still reserved as proper and peculiar to the divine nature of our Mediator who is God-man in one person This definite and dispensatory kingdome is changeable terminable it did begin with the first foundation and will end with the perfection of the Church of God Christ was a Mediatour from all eternity in the Decree of God He was actually given to be a Mediatour as soon as necessity required he was manifested in the flesh in the fulnesse of time and will cease to be a King in this Mediatory and Dispensatory Kingdom when he hath finished his work and saved his Church Now nothing is more cleare then this that Christ is now subject to his Father in all respects in which he shall be declared to be subject when he gives up his Dispensatory Kingdom and we are not to worship Jesus Christ with divine Worship as he is subject to his Father but as he is equall to his Father as he is indeed one God with his Father and the holy Ghost 3 Christ may be considered as Head of that Body unto which he hath united himself and which he hath purchased with his dearest bloud and so we know Christ the Head and his body the Church make up one Christ mysticall The glory of Christ as an Head is exceeding great and is excellently described Ephes. 1. 20 21 22 23. Christ is set at Gods own right hand in heavenly places far above all principality power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come And hath put all things under his feet gave him to bethe head over all things to the Church which is his body the fulness of him that filleth all in all Now Christ mysticall the Head and body whole Christ mysticall is to be subjected to God when the Mediatory and Dispensatory Kingdom is resigned and therefore if you take Christ â—s the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 12. 12. for the Head and body for Christ mysticall we say that Head and Members are to be subject to Father Son and Holy Ghost as one God blessed for ever 4. Christ may be considered according to his humane nature and we are bold to say that there is an eminent and transcendent glory vouchsafed to the Humane Nature of Christ by the grace of Personall union and the glory of its Exaltation The glory of Christs divine Nature was more manifested but the humane Nature of Christ was fully perfected by his Exaltation and therefore the humane Nature was exalted in a peculiar sense No nature not the nature of the most glorious Angell was ever so highly preferred in these two respects 1. In respect of Personall union with the Godhead Acts 2 36. 2. In respect of Royall mediation between God and Man none but Christ the Son of Mary was ever so highly honoured as to be taken into the Society and fellowship of the Mediatory Office with the Son of God For there is but one Mediatour between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. who is God as well as man Nec honorem a nobis Deus nisi per Deum accipit But it is most evident that the humane Nature remaines a creature still even after its Assumption and Exaltation and therefore we hold fast our first conclusion That the divine and infinite excellency of the Coessentiall Son of God is the prime and fundamentall ground the formall reason and cause of that divine Worship which is due to our Mediatour Jesus Christ Jesus Christ our only Saviour by Doctrine merit and efficacy by confirmation and Communication True it is that the Majesty of God considered in it self is terrible it is a light not to be approached unto and therefore the Word was made man that we might have encouragement to come unto God not only by the mediation of a man full of grace and truth but by the mediation of him who is God blessed for ever because a meere man though free from corruption and filled with Grace could not by reason of such natural infirmities as are not sinfull performe the Office of a Foundation Head and Spouse in upholding quickning and preserving of his Church Act. 20 28. Ephes. 1. 23. 1 Thes. 1. 10. Heb. 9. 14. 15. That Jesus Christ and the holy Spirit are one and the same eternall God with the Father hath been proved at large in this Treatise and therefore divine Honour and Worship is due to Christ
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
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
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
and dispensation to be observed amongst them as we shall hereafter prove But the intent of the Holy Ghost is to exclude all that are not Gods by nature as the Apostle speaks Gal. 4. 8. from the Godhead and from laying any claim to the naturall Attributes of God or pretending to do any work that is proper and peculiar to God The true and living God is opposed to Idols 1 Thes. 1 9. But Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are to be acknowledged and served as oneâ— rue and living God with the Father The living God the God of truth and King of eternity is opposed to those counterfeit Gods Jer 10 11 12. And therefore when the Apostle saith There is no other God but one 1 Cor. 8 4. He tells you whom he doth exclude such as are but conceited gods so called and so reputed equivocal gods v. 5 6. The Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God by nature the same God with the Father and therefore they are not excluded In like manner when it is said that Iehovah alone did lead the people in the wildernesse and condâ—ct them unto Canaan that exclusive particle is put to exclude strange gods such as were then idolized but were indeed no Gods as is most evident Deut. 32. 12. So Iehovah alone did lead him and there was no strange god with him but these strange gods who are here excluded were no gods as is cleare by comparing the 16. and 21. verses of the same Chapter I have already proved that the title of Iehovah is given both to Christ and the Holy Spirit and therefore when it is said Iehovah alone did lead them in the wildernesse the Son and Spirit are not excluded for the Spirit did instruct and guide them in the wildernese Nehem. 9. 20. and the Spirit did instruct their teachers also but they rebelled against the Spirit Isa. 63. 10. And Iesus Christ the Angel of Gods presence was present with them to guide them Exod 23. 21. The Name of God and the Nature of God is in him for he is to pardon sin or punish as â—e pleases Our Saviour is called The onely Lord and The onely wise God Iude Epistle in the 4 and 25. verses but the Father is not thereby excluded from being God for he is the onely wise God also 1 â—im 1. 17 and therefore by the same reason the Father is the onley true God and the Son and Spirit are the very same onely true God also When our Saviour presses that Text Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve he doth not exclude himself or the Holy Ghost for both are to be worshipped with divine worship as hath been already proved at large in this very Chapter Many other proofs might be produced from other Scriptures and divers other arguments colleâ—ed from the 17. of Iohn to prove that Jesus Christ is not excluded from being the same only God with his Father To know Christ who is God and annointed of God Heb. 1 8 9 Psal. 45. To know Christ whom thou hast sent Eâ—go he was a divine Person before he was sent to take the humane nature and he had eternal glory with his Father before the world was Iohn 17. 5. Naâ— his calling of God Father makes him equall with God nay he is not only equall to but one with his Father Ioh. 5. 18. Ioh 10. 30. Moreover if the Father have not a divine and eternal Son how is he a divine and eternal Father Finally if the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not all three the same true God there is no God for these three are one and therefore all three are one God or else there is no God at all from whence it will follow that if we will be Socinians we must be Atheists The Son and Spirit have the same nature with the Father and therefore if his nature be divine so is theirs CHAP. V. The Manner of GOD'S Being or Subsisting in the Father Sonne and H. Ghost is the best manner of Being that is or can be and the single Godhead is thereby thrice illustrious throughout the woâ—ld HItherto we have contended for the truth of this Divine Being or Subsisting Now â—e shall demonstrate the excellency thereof God is made known to us as the everlasting Father of our Lord Iesus Christ and is to be adored worshipped as the Father of our Lord Iesus Rom. 15. 6. Ephes. 1. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 3 If God had been the Father of men and Father of Angels only and not the Father of our Lord Jesus he would not have been so exceeding glorious as now he is for Angles have but a sinite excellency but when he begets a Son equall to himself without any change in himself and the begetting of this glorious Person is as eternal as the divine nature it self This mysterie is exceeding glorious and admirable and like the Godhead incomprehensible Moreover the Lord Iesus Christ his own Son Rom. 8. 32. and his only Son begotten by eternal generation Ioh. 1. 14. being the illustrious brightnesse of the Fathers glory and the expresse character of his subsistence is so exceeding glorious that the most glorious Angels above are commanded to adore and worship him Heb. 1. 3 4 5 6. For to which of the Angels said God at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And therefore when he brings his first-begotten and his only begotten Son into the world he saith And let all the Angels of God worship him Behold how the Godhead shines gloriously not only in one single Person but in Father and Son both by this manner of subsistence that every tongue may confesse Iesus Christ to be God and Lord to the glory of God the Father And therefore the Father is not lessened or robbed of his glory by the glory of his coequal Son Phil. 2. 6. 11. but there is a pious acknowledgment made of this glorious mysterie which doth very much redound to the glory of God the Father For by this meanes God the Father is acknowledged to be the First personall Principle subsisting of himself and by himself for he received not his subsistence from any other and he gives subsistence unto two glorious Persons equall with himâ—elf The Socinians seem to be very zealous for the glory of God the Father and therefore they deny the Godhead of Christ and the Holâ— Spirit to the glory of God the Father as they pretend but the Scripture teaches us the contrary namely to confesse the Godhead of Christ and the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father For it doth exceedingly redound to the glory of the Father that he gives subsistence unto two glorious Persons who are equall to himself and yet receives no subsistence from them or any other For as the Father hath life in himself so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself Joh
5 26. There is a subsisting life given to the Son by an eternal generation and 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
singular natures or substances because every finite nature is imperfect and divisible The humane nature is communicated to Paul Peter and Iohn Now these three persons are three men for they have three distinct singular natures though they have one universall nature and no wonder for their nature is imperfect and divisible their universall nature is unum multiplicabile But the nature which is common to these three divine Persons is not universall but singular it is unum immultiplicabile because the divine nature is infinite and that which is infinite cannot be multiplyed the unity of the divine nature is reall and most perfectly singular The same singular nature the whole nature being of bound lesse perfection is really and eternally communicated to all three persons without any division of the nature separation of the persons or composition of nature and persons the persons are distinguished but not separated and if we speak properly and strictly the divine Nature as it is common to all three persons is neither distinguished nor multiplyed for the nature is not distinguished from it self nor are the persons distinguished from one another by the Nature or naturall properties but by personall properties which are not naturally common to all three as the Attributes are which we call Naturall because they are Essentiall for these personall properties are naturally peculiar and incommunicable and yet they do nor superadd any new Nature because the divine Nature doth containe all Relative as well as Absolute perfection in it and the Godhead considered with all these incommunicable properties is but one single Godhead as hath been shewen this is a transcendent Mystery indeed V. Created Persons have a different Understanding a different Will a different Power because they have a different Nature But uncreated persons who have one and the same undivided and infinite Nature must needs have one and the same Understanding Will and Power For we cannot comprehend God as one pure vital act but as his life is actuous or active in his Vnderstanding and Will in his Essentiall and Almighty Power Now what is Essential that must needs be common to all three persons Whatsoever the Father is as he is substance as he is life as he is eternity as he is perfection as he is God the same is the Son of God and the Holy Ghost as Augustiâ— doth frequently discourse When the Attribute or praedicate is Essential whatsoever is affirmed of the Attribute or praedicate that must needs be true of the subject as the Philosopher and all that have any reason in them do unanimously conclude The Essentiall power of God is the very Essence of God God doth Act by and of himself and not by any faculty or power superadded to his Essence Christ is called the power of God and the Holy Ghost is called the power of the most high 1 Cor. 1. v. 8. 24. Luke 1 35. to shew that they have the same Essential power that the Father hath Christ saith that none can take his sheep out of his hand because none can take them out of his Fathers hand for saith he I and my Father are one John 5. 28 29 30. We have one nature one hand that is one Power For the hand of God can be nothing else but the power of God And therefore since all the three divine Persons are one God because they have one and the same divine Nature thâ—se three are one with the most perfect and singular manner of unity Finally since the Power of God is the Essence of God it must reeds follow that all three persons have the same power because they have the same divine essence and they have the self-same essence by nature not by meere indulgence or grace But then some who have a great mind to cavill tell us that we do but equivocate when we say these three Persons have the same Essentiall Power because we do conceale the other member of the distinction which is Relative or Personall Power Now it is impossible say they that these three should have the same Personall or Relative power because the Father doth beget a Son as he is God the Father as he is the first personall principle and not simply and absolutely as he is God But the Son hath not power to beget himselfe or to beget another Son because there can be but three divine Persons and there is but one of the three called a Son in Scripture Moreover the Son is begotten and therfore his power is rather a Passive then an Active power But the power of the Father whereby he did beget his Son is an Active power Nor did the Holy Ghost breath forth himselfe by his owne power for he did not proceed from himselfe but from the Father and the Son and therefore though there be but one Essentiall power it should seeme that there are three Personall or Relative powers truly distinct in the Godhead This Argument is the most plausible Argument which is urged by them and therefore it must be most warily answered 1. We do not equivocate in this or any other point but do readily acknowledge that God the Father doth beget a Son as he is God the Father and not simply and absolutely as he is God because this eternal generation points at a personall property considered after the manner of a vitall Act. But then as this personal property and relation doth not differ really from the divine Essence so this personal power of begetting doth not differ really from the Essentiall power because God doth beget a Son in the unity of his owne divine Essence his Son is equall to him and therefore not essentially different from him John 5. 18. 26. John 10. 30. Nulla fuit mutatio essentialis in filio cujus essentia est immutablis 2. We deny that there is an active Power in the Father and a passive Power in the Son in respect of generation because a Passive power notes materiality and imperfection but this eternall generation cannot be materiall for God is a Spirit infinitely more spiritual then the most glorious Angel Pater genuit filium filius genitus est spiritualiter immutabiliter 3. The two words of begetting and being begotten which are used in Scripture do not point at two different powers an Active and a Passive but at two different persons the Father who did beget and the Son who was never unbegotten Micah 5. 2. for he was of old from the dayes of eternity 4. It was not in the power of the Father to forbeare the begetting of his Son because the Son is Ens summe necessarium as well as the Father the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe and not God by participation nor a different God from the Father but the same God with the Father and therefore an Independent Eternall God who did not begin
to be God who cannot cease to be God but hath life in himselfe as well as the Father Iohn 5. 20. and hath the self-same divine life divine nature divine power which the Father hath and therefore the Schools conclude well that the Father and the Son have the same power but with a different relation but these different relations do not superadd a new Essence a new divine Nature and they who have the same Essence must needs have the same power because the Power of God is not distinguished from the Essence of God and the Father doth communicate the same Essence and Power which the Son receives 5. There is the same reason of the Son and Holy Ghost for these three are equall nay one Essentially one one God with the most perfect kind of unity as hath been shewen and some that are Metaphysical acknowledge that nothing is simply one but that which is most 〈…〉 and nothing is most singly 〈◊〉 but God who hath nothing in himself but that which is himself Aristotle discoursing of six kinds of unity saith that things may be said to be one 1. in respect of Continuity because they are one Continued body 2. In respect of their Subject as two accidents in the same subject 3. Because they are under the same Genus 4. Because they are of the same Species 5. Because they have the same definition but then he concludes that all these are but imperfect kinds of unity if compared with the last unity which is 6. When a thing is one in respect of its single and indivisible Essence Now the Father and Son are one Iohn 10. 30. The Father Son and holy Ghost are one 1 Iohn 5. 7. and they are one after the most perfect manner they are one in respect of the most single and indivisible Essence because the divine Essence is most single and perfectly one And therefore since Essence and Power are not distinguished in God it followes undenyably that these three who have one Essence have one and the same power but with different properties and relations This truth will be more evident when we have discoursed of the distinction of these three divine persons of which we are to treat in the next Chapter VI. Created Persons have a different place and presence but Uncreated Persons are omnipresent they cannot be separated or divided from one another in respect of place or presence but do subsist in one another The Father did beget the Son in the unity of the divine nature and the Son doth subsist in the nature of God Phil. 2. 6. and all three persons subsisting in the same single omnipresent nature they must needs subsist in one another The divine nature of the Father is in the Son and therefore the Father is in the Son the divine nature of the Son is in the Father and therefore the Son is in the Father and the like may be said of the Holy Ghost for the divine nature of the Holy Ghost is in the Father and the Son These three glorious persons are distinguished from one another and yet they do subsist in one another They do subsist in one another without any contraction commixtion or confusion as Damascen taught the Schoolmen to speak when Philip desired Christ to show him the Father our Saviour answers He that hath seene me hath seene the Father John 14. 9. because he is the Image of his Fathers Person and the illustrious brightnes of his Fathers glory nay because the nature of his Father is in him and the person of his Father is in him and therefore he calls upon Philip to beleeve that his Father is in him Iohn 14. 10 Beleevest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me as if he had said I wonder you should not beleeve this truth it is a special Article of your faith if you be a Christian and it is a very plaine Article for you have some sensible Arguments to confirme your faith in this point both from my words and from my works you may hear the Father speaking in me and see my Father working in me The words that I speak unto you I speak not of my selfe but the Father that dwelleth in me he doth the works Joh. 14. 10. And then he presses the point home upon him by a Peremptory Injunction in the 11. verse Beleeve me that I am in the Father and the Father in me or else beleeve me for the very works sake Philip might hear what was truly divine in the saving words of Christ and see what was divine in the miraculous works of Christ and by the words and works and Spirit of Christ making both effectuall he might be brought to beleeve this necessary point that the Nature of God the Father and the Person of God the Father is in Christ. Give me leave to insist upon this point for there is more in it then we can well observe at first view and therefore our Saviour did presse this point home very frequently and require that men would expressely beleeve it Iohn 10. 38. beleeve the works but to what end Why that yee may know and beleeve that the Father is in me and I in him This is the end of Christs working so many miracles amongst them to bring them to beleeve that he and the Father did mutually subsist in one another Credite operibus beleeve my works saith he they speak me to be God and the Son of God and therefore I am not guilty of blasphemy because I say I am the Son of God and equall to God for I am God I and my Father are one God and if you beleeve that I and my Father are one God you must beleeve that I am in the Father and the Father in me This is the summe and substance of our Saviours discourse from the 25. verse of the tenth chapter of Iohn to the 39. verse of that chapter and our Saviour did enter into this discourse at the request of the Jewes who came round about him and desired him not to hold them in suspence any longer but to tell them plainly whether he were the Christ or no. John 10. 24. all then who beleeve Jesus Christ to be the Christ the true Messiah the onely Saviour and an all sufficient Saviour must beleeve confesse and acknowledge this truth That the Father is in Christ and Christ in the Father From what hath been spoken it is clear and evident that this is a point of life and death as we say a fundamentall point a point necessary to salvation and therfore our Saviour did so often insist upon it In the 8th of Iohn our Saviour tells them more then once that he was not alone and therefore his testimony of himselfe was not a single testimony but his Father who was with him and in him did bear witnes with him and of him John 8. 16. for I
am not alone but I and the Father that sent me I am one that beare witnesse of my selfe and the Father that sent me beareth witnesse of me v. 18. And he that sent me is with me the Father hath not left me alone v. 29. This point is difficult to beleeve that Christ who is man is very God the same God with the Father a different Person from the Father yet subsisting in the Father who is the only true God but as Rollock saith well though this point be most difficult yet it is most necessary and therefore we must beg the spirit of God that we may get above nature and see the Father in Christ and Christ in the Father for the naturall man doth not relish receive or perceive the things of God 1 Cor. 2. 14 Our Saviour told his Disciples that when the Spirit was poured out more plentifully upon them then they should know him to be in his Father The Father will give you another Comforter even the Spirit of truth and at that day yee shall know that I am in my Father John 14. 16 17 20. and in the sixteenth of Iohn the Spirit had convinced the Disciples of this weighty truth for they say By this we beleeve that thou camest forth from God Iesus answered them Do you now beleeve Behold the houre cometh yea is now come that ye shall be scattered every man to his owne and shall leave me alone and yet I am not alone because the Father is with me John 16. 30 31 32. In these and divers other places our Saviour doth declare this truth unto us that he is in his Father and if it were not a weighty truth of very great consequence and high concernment he would not insist so much upon it it is the mutuall in-subsistence and Coessential Omnipresence of the Father and the Son And the Spirit being Coessentiall with the Father and the Son must needs be in them both from whom he proceeds in the unity of the Divine Nature for it is cleare that an infinite Nature cannot be poured forth beyond it selfe because it is boundlesse and therefore when we read 1 Cor. 2. 11. What man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him Even so the things of God knowes no man but the Spirit of God we may safely adde which is in God because he did proceed in the unity of the divine indivisible and boundlesse nature The Holy Ghost hath the same Nature with the Father and the Son and a Nature of infinite and boundlesse perfection cannot be communicated to any thing that is not infinite to any thing that is not it selfe because there can be no other infinite thing but it selfe there can be but one infinite and every one of the three glorious persons is one and the same infinite God upon these grouds we may answer many questions If you ask Where God was before the World was made I answer that he was then just where he is now in himselfe Dic ubi tunc esset cum praeter â—um nihil esset Tunc ubi nunc in se quoniam sibi sufficit ipse If you ask where the Father was I answer in the Son if you ask where the Son was I answer in the Father If you ask where the Spirit was I answer he was both in the Father and in the Son and they both in him God was in all three persons and all three persons in the Godhead and in one another and so they do and will remaine to all eternity because they are Coessentiall because they are one omnipresent and eternall God The Godhead is not shut up in the narrow circle of the universe the whole Godhead is in the world and the whole Godhead is out the world for the world cannot containe the true God who did create and doth uphold the world and the single Godhead cannot be divided and therefore we must not conceive that part of the Godhead is in the world and part of it out of the world but the whole Godhead is every where it is not included in any place or excluded from any place the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot containe him 1 King 8. 27. his perfection is higher then heaven and deeper then hell Job 11. 8. From what hath beene said it is most cleare that since the Essence of God is omnipresent and the selfe same indivisible Essence is in Father Son and Holy Ghost all three must needs mutually subsist in one another though the persons be distinguished they cannot be separated divided or contracted and therefore this sixth difference between created and uncreated persons is so remarkable that I need not go about to prove that humane persons are separated as well as distinguished tot sunt humanitates quot homines and it is most certaine that Angelicall persons have a limited presence because they have a finite essince But it is otherwise in divine persons for the Father works in the Son and by the Spirit the Father subsists in the Son and in the Spirit and cannot be separated from these Coessentiall and Omnipresent persons who do subsist with him as they are both from him in the unity of the Godhead I need say no more concerning Angels then what is commonly said Angeli sunt Alicuòi Definitive sunt enim in suo Vbi non per operationem vel circumscriptionem sed per Designationem Definitivam Angels are naturally somewhere though they are not in any place by extension of parts yet their finite nature is contained within certaine bounds and limits Hence it is that some learned men affirme that it is improper to say that God is somewhere because he is every-where Somewhere is a definitive word VII Created Persons have many other different Accidents besides Place of which we have spoken and â—ime or Duration of which we are to speak It will not be necessary or usefull to discourse of every particular but that which I intend to insist upon under this head is That Created Persons are distinguished from one another by an heap of Accidents and therefore it will be sufficient for the making good of this seventh Difference to show that divine Persons are not distinguished by a Congeries or heap of Accidents because there is no Accident at all in God For the being of God is infinitely perfect and singularly single as hath been proved and therefore it is infinitely below the single perfection of God to be compounded of a substance and accidents for the adorning or perfecting of his glorious being Relations are not Accidents in God The reltion of one Coessentiall person to another is agreeable to the Essence of God it is a necessary relation which did never begin to be and cannot cease to be The relation of God to the creature cannot be reall because it is such a relation as might not
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
of Isaiah are Behold a Virgin shall conceive and beare a Son and shall call his name Immanuel Isaiah 7. 14. they shall call his name Iesus Matth. 1. 21. he shall be called the Son of the highest the Son of God Luke 1. You see the words are different and therefore we must have speciall respect to the thing signified Observe then 1. That the Prophet did foretell two particulars First that a Virgin should bear a Son Secondly that the Son born of her should be called the Son of God The Virgin doubts of the first particular and enquires how that could be without the knowledge of a man The Angel informs her that she should conceive after a peculiar and admirable manner by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost and from thence infers the second particular that she should bring forth a Son who was to be called the Son of God and he gives the very same reason which was given by Saint Matthew because it was so foretold by the Prophet Isaiah Matth 1. 20 21 22. for the particle Therefore Luke 1. 35. is not to be referred to the conception of Christ as the Cause of this divine sonship but to the Prophecy of Isaiah recorded Luke 1. 31. for all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet Matth. 1. 22. 2. They shall call his name Immanuel God with us and therefore he the same person shall be called the Son of God this is an higher reason then that which the Socinians alleage 3. The Socinians put a Fallacy upon us by assigning that to be the Cause which is not the true Cause he shall be called that is declared and acknowledged to be the Son of God This Declaration or manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh was temporall 1 Tim. 3. 16. but his generation was eternall Micah 5. 2. The Son of God was sent manifested incarnate in the fulnesse of time Gal. 4. 4. but he was the Son of God before his Incarnation and therefore his Incarnation is not the cause of his divine sonship the effect cannot be before the cause but the divine sonship of Christ was before the world was The Holy Ghost is never called the Father of Christ and he could not be the principle of the subsistence or the Word and therefore not the Cause of this divine sonship The Apostle states the point and puts it past all dispute Rom. 1. 3 4. Christ was made of the seed of David according to the flesh but determined and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holinesse by the resurrection from the dead from whence it followes directly that Christ is not properly the Son of God according to the flesh but is in that consideration rather to be called the Son of David as we observed above because Christ came of David as concerning the flesh but the eternall Son of God is God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. When the Jewes said that our Saviour blasphemed because he made himself God John 10 33. Christ askes them whether they did accuse him of blasphemy because he said he was the son of God v. 36. whereby he declared that he was the Son of God according to his person which is truly divine beleeve saith he that the Father is in me and I in him v. 38. The force of his answer is evident I am in the Father and the Father in me and therefore I am a divine person I am the Son of God and therefore the divine nature is communicated to my person I am begotten in the unity of the God head I am in the Father and therefore if it be no blasphemy for me to say that I am the Son of God it is no blasphemy at all to say that I am God because the divine nature is communitated to the naturall and proper Son of God there 's the proper reason why Christ is called the Son of God because the divine nature was communicated to him by an eternal generation II. The second cause assigned by the Socinians why Christ is called the Son of God is the sanctification of Christ for which they cite Iohn 10. 35 36. Behold say they the second cause of this divine sonship plainly set forth unto us Christ hath obtained an excellent portion of the Spirit he is sanctified and sent with a divine power into the world to save mankind To which we answer that here is the same fallacy obtruded again because 1. Christ was the Son of God before he was sent into the world 2. God did not give the spirit by measure to him Iohn 3. 34. 3. Christ proves in that tenth chapter of Iohn that he is one with his Father in power and therefore in nature as appears 1. Because he doth the same works that his Father doth v. 37. 2. Because he is in his Father and his Father in him v. 38. 3. Because he is the Naturall Son of God and therefore might truly call himself God v. 33. 36. 4. Because they themselves called Magistrates Gods upon a cheaper account only in regard of their Commission and Office much more might he call himself God because he was sanctified without measure had an higher office and Commission being sent to do the work of God to satisfie the justice of God and save the elect of God which he could not have done if he had not had the Nature of God and been thereby fully enabled to perfect this work of God The Argument is grounded upon the infinite distance and imparity between the office of a Mediatour and the office of a Magistrate between the only begotten Son of God who is one with his Father who begot him and the Sons of men who are but the Deputies of God III. The third Cause which they assigne of this divine sonship is the speciall love of the Father to this excellent Son Matth. 3. 17. To this we answer that God did not make Christ his Son because he loved him but he loves him because he is his Son a Son equall to himself one with himself the expresse Image of his person the illustrious brightnesse of his glory That very place which they cite makes much against them God doth from heaven own Christ for his proper and naturall Son in that very place Matth. 3. 17. God said not so to the best of Angels Hebr. 1. 4. 5 To which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee that one place is sufficient to discover the fraud of the Socinians in this point IV. The fourth Cause which they assign is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ because when Christ was raised from the dead he was as it were begotten again from the dead Acts 13. 32 33. To which we answer that Christ was the Naturall and Proper Son of God before his Resurrection only he was declared to be the Son of God by
his Resurrection according to that of the Apostle Rom. 1. v. 4. Declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holinesse that is his divine nature by the resurrection from the dead Christ was not made but declared to be the Son of God by his Resurrection His divine sonship lay hid under the forme of a servant before only they who had spirituall eyes did discern it Iohn 1. 14. we have seen and beheld the glory of the only begotten Son of God Moreover it is observable that the Apostle endeavours to make the mystery of Christs divine sonship manifest in the thirteenth of the Acts not simply by his Resurrection but by the manner of his Resurrection and the state whereunto he was raised 1. For the manner he was raised by his own Almighty and most glorious power in an irresistible way he did offer violence to all the forces of death and powers of the grave because it was not possible that he should be holden of them Acts ◠24. when he came to declare himself to be the Son of God with power Rom. 1. 4. 2 For the state whereunto he was raised he did not rise to return to the grave again as Lazarus did but he raised himself to an immortall life And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead now no more to return to corruption Acts 13. 34. Rom. 6. 9. Now God by raising Christ after such a manner to such a state did declare him to be his only begotten Son of whom David speaks in the second Psalm and therefore it was evident by the Resurrection of Christ that God had fulfilled his promise by sending his only begotten Son to be a Saviour unto Israel that we might have forgivenesse of sins and all sure mercies by him who died for our sins and rose again for our justification this is the scope of the Apostles discourse in the thirteenth of the Acts from the 23 verse to the 39· The second Psalm is cited here by Accommodation to make good a remote and Implicite consequence as those words I am the God of Abraham Isaac c. are cited to prove a resurrection by an Implicit consequence Matth. 22. 31 32. Thou art my Son mine owne proper Son whom I own for my only begotten Son by raising thee to a never dying life The fifth Cause which they assigne is the Exaltation of our Lord and Saviour to glory and the conferring of a Name and Power upon him above all creatures for the Apostle as they conceive speaks of this sonship Hebr. 5. 5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee I cannot but admire that the acute Socinians should cite every place where the second Psalm is named to prove that there are so many severall causes of the divine sonship of Christ but I do more admire that they should cite this Text of all the rest for if their fifth argument have any force in it doth overthrow and disprove their four first arguments If Christ was not begotten before his exaltation to glory then he was not the Son of God before his exaltation for surely these men of reason will easily grant that the effect cannot be before its proper and complete cause was in its causall actuality or actuall causality The words of God in the second Psalm are so often repeated to teach us to keep our eye constantly fixed upon the divine sonship of Christ when ever we discourse of his conception birth resurrection transfiguration exaltation to glory and conclude that the self-same person who was begotten of God from the dayes of eternity took our flesh dyed for our sins and rose for our justification for this is that great and fundamentall truth which runs quite thorow the Gospel That the Son of Mary who did and suffered all for us is the proper the naturall Son of God the only and All-sufficient Saviour of his people from their sins We must not part with this truth for this is all our salvation It was very proper for the Apostle to speak of his divine sonship when ever he spake of him as a Mediatour as a Priest c. because he could not have undertaken or gone thorow with any such office unlesse he had been the Naturall and Proper Son of God equall to God and therefore we do readily grant that the divine offices of Christ do declare and make manifest the divine sonship and nature of Iesus Christ and this truth is most evident from the connexion of the seven and eight verses of the second Psalm I have with the more patience and content waded thorow this large and deep sea that I might come to the haven where we desire to be That we might come to take harbour and sanctuary in the merit and satisfaction of Jesus Christ who is the naturall and proper Son of God In the next place I am to prove the eternall procession of the Holy Ghost whereby I shall make the distinction of the Persons more cleare and evident and therfore I hasten to the discussing of that mysterious but usefull point The Holy Spirit is not called a spirit because of his spirituall nature only for the same spirituall nature is common to all the three blessed Persons but he is called a Spirit upon a special and peculiar reason because he is breathed forth by the Father and the Son The Holy Ghost is called the Spirit which is of God 1 Cor. 2. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Spirit who proceedeth from the Father is sent by the Son from the father Iohn 15. 26. The Greek Church acknowledges that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father by the Son All things that the Father hath are mine saith our Saviour Iohn 16. 15. But the Spirit did receive all from the Father and Christ and his Father are essentially one Iohn 10. 30. the Spirit is said to receive of the Son and to glorifie the Son John 16. 14. Whatsoever things the Father doth the Son doth and as the Son can do nothing without the Father so the Father can do nothing without the Son not that there is a defect of power in either but an unity of power and nature in both The divine nature of both the Father and the Son was communicated to the Spirit by this eternall spiration and therefore he is sent by both and he receives of both and he glorifies both and he is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son He is called the Spirit of the Father Matth. 10. 20 because he proceedeth from the Father Iohn 15. 26. and he is called the Spirit of the Son of God Gal. 4. 6. the Spirit of Christ Rom. 8. 9. the Spirit of Jesus Christ Phil. 1. 19. the Spirit of Christ 1 Pet. 1. 11. because he receives of Christ is sent from Christ is breathed forth by
Christ the Father and the Son breath forth the subsistence of the Spirit with one and the same spirati on When Christ breathed upon his Disciples he said Receive ye the Holy Ghost to shew that he had power to dispose of the Spirit who did from all eternity breath forth the Spirit The Holy Ghost was breathed forth necessarily by both I say necessarily because eternally there was a double and eternall necessity of it both in respect of the persons breathing and the person breathed The spirit was not breathed forth as a creature but as a divine person a person of the Godhead he was breathed forth by Procession and subsists in the unity of the Godhead he proceeds from both and yet in both for one divine person cannot subsist out of another but all three subsist in the same undivided and infinite nature But the Socinians tell us that the Holy Ghost is nothing else but the power and vertue of God the Father To which we answer That the Spirit is the natural vertue of the Father no more then he is the naturall vertue of the Son or of himself for the vertue of God is the essence of God the Holy Ghost is his own essence and all three persons have one and the same essence The Holy Ghost who proceedeth from the Father is called the Power of the Father Luke 1. 35. because the spirit works as he proceeds in order the Father works in the Son and by the Spirit But the Spirit who proceeds from the Father is distinguished from the Father the Spirit did not breath forth himself or proceed from himself The H. Ghost doth not speak of himself John 16. 13. but the Father speaks of himself because he is of himself he is begotten of none proceeds from none of the divine persons is sent by none of them The holy Ghost doth receive of Christ is sent by Christ therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Father but clearly distinguished from him Iohn 16. 14 15. Iohn 15. 26. Iohn 14. 16 17 Matth. 3. 16 17. Matth. 28. 19. 2 Cor. 13. 14. and in diverse other places The Father and the Spirit are personally distinguished but they are essentially one 1 Iohn 5. 7. they are one in Power Nature Will and yet are three Persons three Witnesses who deliver one and the same divine testimony The testimony of the Holy Ghost is as divine as the testimony of God the Father The Witnesse of God is greater verse 9. must refer to the Witnesse of the Father Word and Spirit verse 7. though the testimony of the Father be specially insisted on in the following words for all the three Witnesses in heaven give one and the same testimony and that testimony is divine The H. Ghost is the Spirit of God and the Spirit which is of God the Spirit of Elohim Gen. 1. 2. the Spirit of Jehovah Isa. 11. 2. the Spirit which is Jehovah and the God of Israel as hath been proved at large in the fourth chapter from the 31. page to the fortieth The distinction between the Father and the Spirit will be more evident when we come to treat of the personall properties The Socinians are so confounded in this point that they are forced to acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is no Accidentall vertue no finite substance no creature but the uncreated and substantiall vertue or power of God because whatsoever is in God is the substance of God as Eniedinus confesses And Smalcius acknowledges that it may be granted that the Holy Ghost is God because whatsoever is naturally in God may be called God But I shall prove that the Holy Ghost is not only God but a person of the Godhead distinct from the Father and the Son Jesus Christ is called the Power of God 1 Cor. 1. 24. and the Holy Ghost the Power of God Luke 1. 35 Luke 24 49. The Son is a distinct Person from the Father and the Holy Ghost is as the Ancients used to call him the Personall vertue or Power of the Father proceeding from the Father by whom he doth declare and put forth his power and therefore the Spirit is said to work and distrioute all gifts and graces as he will Father Son and Holy Ghost have one and the same Will and Power still we must bottome upon that truth These three are one 1 John 5. 7. That this Procession of the Holy Ghost is mysterious and for the manner of it unsearchable we do readily grant and therefore I shall not presume to define after what manner the Holy Ghost is breathed forth from the Father and the Son but we are sure that it cannot be any corporeall procession The Ancients did constantly distinguish between Procession and Generation but the eternall generation of Christ being spirituall the procession of the Spirit must needs be spirituall for the Spirit is not only Essentially a Spirit as the Father and God the Son are but he is Personally a Spirit The more perfect and spirituall this procession is the more evident it is that the Spirit was breathed forth in the unity of the Godhead They who say the Son doth proceed from the Father use that terme Proceed in a generall and very large signification but then they say that the Son did proceed by Generation the Spirit by Spiration thereby endeavouring to distinguish the manner of proceeding 2. They say the Son did proceed from the Father alone and therefore is aid to be sent by the Father only but the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Father and the Son both and therefore is said to be sent by the Son as well as the Father Luke 24. 49. Iohn 15. 26. Iohn 14. 26. Iohn 16. 14. but Christ is sent by the Father only because he is of the Father only and was not begotten of the Spirit and the Father is not sent by any because he is of himself hereby they endeavour to distinguish the Principle of these Divine processions 3. The Son did proceed as the second person the holy Ghost as the third person of the Godhead and hereby they endeavour to distinguish the order of these divine processions We know this divine procession is 1. Spirituall 2. Eternall because divine 3. Immutable this procession is not a change of the Spirit from not being to being or from an imperfect being to a more perfect being We know that procession cannot be a motion from one place to another for the Spirit is omnipresent fills all places and therefore cannot change its place 4. Necessary The Father and Son did from all eternity breath forth the Spirit in the unity of the Godhead not by any alienation of the Godhead from themselves but by an unspeakable communication of the same divine Nature to a third person of the Godhead And this communication is naturall and therefore necessary it is but not Involuntary the Father and Son did not breath forth the Spirit by any Coaction
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
be the cause of it self or its own effect for the cause is before the effect and nothing can be before and after it self and there is a friendly opposition between correlates the Father cannot be his own Son But notwithstanding all that hath been alleaged by these Criticall disputants still it holds good that the Godhead was not communicated to God the Father by any person created or uncreated and the first person did not receive his personall subsistence from any other person by generation spiration or any other way But I must not dwell upon this Argument VII The uncreated persons are sufficiently distinguished by their personall and inward relations but we must not conceive that there are as many Persons in the Godhead as there are Relations for the Father is related to the Son and to the Spirit and the Son is related to the Father and to the Spirit and the Spirit is related to the Father and the Son But there is a friendly opposition evidenced by some Relations which do help together with the Actions Order and Properties above mentioned to demonstrate some kind of distinction between the Persons The Son as he is a Son is Relatively opposed to the Father who begat him and so the Spirit as proceeding by spiration is Relatively opposed to the Father and the Son who did both joyne in breathing forth the holy Spirit Relations distinguish as proper and opposite I might discourse concerning the Order of these persons in working as well as of their order in subsisting something might be spoken of the peculiar manner of their working ad extra and much might be said of the Incarnation of the Son to declare him to be distinct from the Father and the Spirit and something of the effusion of the Spirit but I have said enough to evidence that these uncreated Persons are distinguished what kind of distinction there is between them I am now to show and that I may be brief and plain in the opening of this weighty point I shall lay down the truth clearly in some few Propositions 1. The Father Son and Holy Ghost are not Essentially distinguished for Christ and his Father are one John 10. 30. and all three are Essentially one 1 John 5. 7. The Synod of Calcedon determined that Christ was Coessentiall with his Father according to his Divinity and Coessential with us according to his Humanity but the naturall Union between us and Christ doth only prove a specifical unity but Christ and his Father have one and the self-same Divine and undivided Essence He must acknowledge more gods who holds that the Son and Spirit have another or different kind of Godhead from the Father The Arrians did divide the Nature of the Trinity and the Sabellians did confound their Persons but Christians acknowledge and maintain that there are three Persons and but one single divine nature in the blessed Trinity only the second person did assume the nature of man that he might heale our nature and save our persons 2. These three Divine Persons are not distinguished realiter separabiliter That is they are not so distinguished as that they can be divided or separated one from another as created Persons and Things may These three Coessentiall persons are omnipresent they do all three subsist in the self-same omnipresent nature nay they do all three subsist in one another without any contraction commixtion or confusion as hath been proved at large in the 161 162. and the following pages of this Book These Coessentiall subsisteâ—ts cannot be separated or divided any more then their indivisible and infinite Essence can be divided or multiplyed 3 These three uncreated Persons are truly distinguished this proposition is fully proved already in this very chapter I know it will be expected by some that I should say that these three Persons are distinguished Really but I shall humbly desire them to consider that some have by that expression taken occasion to exercise their wanton wits in cavelling against this deep and glorious mystery to the great prejudice of this weighty truth If they be really distinguished say some then they differ essentially or tanquam res res then they may be separated say others then there are three Gods say a third It is too well known what sport Atheists have made upon this advantage and truly it is much at one whether men do professe themselves Atheists or Tritheites for he who doth beleeve that there are three Gods may when he pleases beleeve that there is no God at all Vorstius presses those that call the distinction between the Persons Reall after this manner If the three persons be really distinguished then they are tres Res three reall things for the multiplication of persons is reall and therefore the Son being really distinct from the Father and the Spirit from both they must needs have three essences really distinct And if they are tres Res then either three substances or three Accidents but the Reformed Divines cannot saith Vorstius grant that they are three accidents because they deny that there is any accident in God and if they be three substances then there are saith he three Gods Valentinus Gentilis and some Ministers of Transylvania reason much after the same manner I know not whether Master Fry did ever read any of their writings but sure I am he hath conversed with some of that perswasion or else his carnall reason is of neer kin to theirs For upon this very ground Mr. Fry doth adventure to explode three distinct persons or subsistencies out of his Creed but he will never be able to explode them out of the Godhead he may sooner explode himself out of the number of Christians for if he take away the Divine Person of Christ he takes away the foundation of christianity But having shewed him his danger I desire to satisfie his reason awaken his Faith settle his Conscience in this weighty point if he will deny his carnall reason and not require any example to illustrate a mystery above reason and beyond example Master Fry will tell us news indeed if he can make it good That any Ministers or Members of the Church of God in England do make Iesus Christ a distinct God from God the Father 2. He may do well to publish those reasons which move him and the others he speaks of to be of that opinion 3. He doth acknowledge that these three the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost are equally God pag. 21. Let him consider his own confession these three what are these three are they three Gods No that he doth abominate are they three Accidents no that is absurd are they three substances if so then created or uncreated not created for that he saith none will affirme are they three uncreated substances No saith he for then they would consequently be three Gods p. 23. I hope by
this time he sees how easie it is to retort his owne Argument and if this retortion may helpe him to answer it I shall be glad that I have retorted it His onely answer ought to be I doe beleeve that these three are three Subsistents in the same single and infinite Godhead Phil. 2. 6. Joh. 10. 30. 1 Joh. 5. 7. Heb 1. 3. Vorstius Valentinus Gentilis the Transylvanians require some more curious answer but I shall be as plaine and as briefe as the weight and depth of this Mystery will permit me to be I remember that Aristotle saith He doth make a truth sufficiently plaine who brings such proofes as the point in question will beare Now it is most evident that supernaturall Mysteries cannot be expounded according to the rules of Art Some returne this answer That if by Tres Res three reall things you meane three persons there are three Real persons in the Godhead they are not made three by a fiction of reason they are declared three by the plaine words of Scripture but they were three before any Scripture was written even from the dayes of eternity But if by Tres Res three reall things you meane three Divine Essences we do deny that three persons are three Divine Essences or three Gods for these three persons are but one God blessed for ever If you aske others they will say that these three are one Being but they are three proper and peculiar manners of being subsisting in the same God-head They have one essentiall subsistence say others but they have three Incommunicable manners of subsisting Some expresse it thus these three are Really distinct but not Essentially Modally but not separably Truly but Relatively Formally and yet but Personally Others that meane the same thing say they are distinguished Secundum esse Personale non secundum esse Quidditativum They then that say the persons are Really distinct should explain themselves warily according to some of these or the like safe expressions namely that by really 1 they doe not meane essentially 2. They do not mean separably 3. That by really they doe meane that the Relations and personall properties whereby the three persons are known to be distinguished are reall relations and reall properties and not fictions of reason The Relations are opposite the properties incommunicable and much might be said of the personall actions to the selfe-same purpose but I must hasten Some do adventure to call this distinction naturall but that is a very dangerous expression it must not passe without some favourable graines of allowance nor can it then passe unlesse it be seasoned with some graines of Salt and be mollified with some faire and Orthodox Interpretation By naturall distinction they meane Relative because say they the relations which are between these uncreated persons are not onely real but naturall also The Relation between God the Father and his owne naturall Son is a naturall relation grounded upon a naturall and personall actâ—on namely the eternall generation of the Son The Greek Fathers speake much of the Familiar and proper Emphasis of this naturall Relation between the Father and the Son By naturall distinction then they do not meane an essentiall distinction as if the three uncreated persons did differ in nature but naturall in that sound and Orthodox sense recited above I had rather leave my Margin to relate the curiosities of others then to perplex a meer English Reader with any Scholastical difficulties I have said enough for the explication of those termes which are most usuall and yet likely to give offence to such as do not understand the importance of them I shall therefore conclude this point with Fulgentius his Commentary which is an excellent Contexture of some pertinent Scriptures for the proofe of the point When you read saith he of Father Son and Spirit understand that there are three persons of one essence omnipotence eternity c. For our Saviour saith I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me Ioh. 8 16. And concerning the spirit he saith And I will pray the Father and he will give you another Comforter even the spirit of Truth Joh. 14. 16 17. Moreover he commanded his Apostles to baptize all Nations in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And the equality of the Persons proves the unity of the Nature Phil. 2. 6. Iohn 5. 18. and from hence he concludes that there are three Persons and not three Natures in the blessed Trinity From what hath been said it is evident that these three uncreated Persons are truly distinguished but they cannot be divided and it is not so safe to expresse the distinction of uncreated Persons by Termes of Art They who say the distinction is Naturall Reall Absolute or Relative do deny that the distinction is Essentiall or that the Persons are separable They who speak most tenderly say it is Modall Formall Personall They who say it is Naturall in respect of Personall Relations and Naturall Actions confesse that it is Supernaturall and Mysterious because the Unity of the Godhead is unquestionable the Trinity of Persons subsisting in that Godhead admirable both put together undeniable and inexplicable and yet most necessarily and highly credible They who say the Persons are Formally distinct do mean that they are truly distinct they do not conceive that the distinction of the uncreated Persons is grounded upon a meer fiction of reason or upon the weaknesse of our apprehension as if we did conceive one Person to be three Persons because he is called by three names as Praxeas Sabellius and some others dreamt Nor do they beleeve that this distinction of these three uncreated Persons is only grounded upon the phrase of Scripture but they do acknowledge that there is a true and proper not an improper and figurative distinction between these uncreated Persons nay they all confesse that this true and proper distinction is an Eternall distinction it was from and it will last to all eternity and therefore is not grounded only upon some offices and externall dispensations which have respect unto the creature CHAP. VIII The Grand Mystery of three Divine and Coessential Subsistents in the single Godhead is not Problematicall but Fundamentall ALL points of Doctrine revealed in Scripture are profitable and precious truths and every man is obliged to receive beleeve and embrace every truth made known to him in and by the holy Scriptures Because all truths contained in Scripture are of equall credit in respect of the Authority of the Revealer but all truths are not of equall necessity weight and importance in respect of the Nature and Matter of the points revealed There is a vast difference between the nature matter weight and importance of these two Propositions 1. Paul left his Cloak Books and Parchments at Troas 2 Tim. 4. 13. 2. Jesus Christ is God and man the only Mediatour between God and man the only and All-sufficient Saviour of
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
Saviour saith God is a Spirit and from thence concludes that God is to be worshipped in Spirit and truth but in respect of the Divine Persons also We are to worship God as a Creator as the first of Causes last of Ends best of Beings to whom we owe our Being and our well-being but we must worship God the Father as God and look upon him as the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ and as our Father reconciled to us in Christ this is that worship which becomes the Gospel and therefore we ought to worship God the Father considered after this Evangelicall manner that he may be glorifyed we moved and affected with those endearing expressions O God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ and our Father in him Such expressions as these do beget in us 1. Holy boldnesse mixed with Reverence 2. Christian confidence our Father wil supply the wants of his children out of his rich treasure for he commands Heaven earth 3. Filial Love and cheerefull obedience which are even con-naturall to our new man upon due consideration of this sweet relation between God and us Ier. 3. 19. 4. A thankefull acknowledgement of Gods fatherly bounty even unto admiration Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God 1 Joh. 3. 1. Nay heyres of God Rom. 8. 17. What are we vile wretches wormes and no men yea by reason of our filthinesse Dogs and Devils that we should be adopted into the family of God married to the Sonne of God and made co-heyrs with the Lord of glory When the Spirit of a man is raised by such thankfull acknowledgements unto an Holy admiration then it is brought into a Gospel frame and by such high and sweet thoughts of Gods fatherly love and bounty fitted for filiall and Gospel-worship But it will be said that the whole Trinity is our Father and therefore all three persons are to be worshipped under that fatherly consideration and in that deare Relation To which I answer 1. That when the word Father is attributed unto God essentially though all creatures are excluded yet all the three Divine persons are included because they are co-equal they have one nature will and worship they are one and the same God and they are one Father also in opposition to Images Ier. 2. 27. To Saints Is. 63. 16. Doubtlesse thou art our Father though Abraham be ignorant of us and Israel acknowledge us not Thou O Lord art our Father our Redeemer thy name is from everlasting And in opposition to all creatures Mat. 23. 9. and in the Lords Prayer Father Son and Holy Ghost are all called upon as our Father 2. The word Father is sometimes taken personally and attributed to a single person of the God-head More frequently and more peculiarly to God the Father who is the first Principle of subsisting life even in respect of his own naturall and Co-essentiall Son as hath been proved at large in this Treatise and is to be reckoned first in order and finally in regard of our Adoption and the mysterious and divine Oeconomy and dispensation vouchsafed for the salvation of man and yet these peculiar notions do not exclude the other persons from being God as hath been proved above in the fourth chapter nor do they exclude them from being our Father in the common notion of Father in opposition to creatures and Idols nay all three persons have a Fatherly care of us and love to us and therefore Christ is called our Father Isa. 9. 6. Heb. 2. 13 14. And it is the proper office of the Holy Ghost to Regenerate us as it is of the Father to Adopt us but then the Father doth Adopt us in Christ who is a Father to us though a Son to God the Father and the holy Spirit is the Spirit of Regeneration and Adoption and therefore all three Co-essentiall persons are our Father 3. We may direct our Prayers to any one person as Steven directed his to the Lord Jesus Act. 7. 59. Lord Iesus receive my Spirit 4. We may direct our Prayers expressely unto two of the divine persons Now God himself and our Father and our Lord Iesus Christ direct our way unto you 1 Thes. 3. 11. 5. We may direct our Prayers unto all three as we do in the administration of Baptisme and in that Fundamentall Benediction 2 Cor. 13 14. 6. When we direct our prayers to one of the divine persons we exclude none because the Persons are in one another the Father is in the Son and they are all three coessentiall coequall They are one God and therefore are to be worshipped with that selfe same religious and divine Worship which is due to their single and undivided Godhead 7. When we direct our prayer to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the terme Father is taken in a peculiar notion not in the common notion and the Apostle directs his prayer after this peculiar manner Eph. 3. 14. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ of whom the whole Family in Heaven and Earth is named God the Father looks upon us poore wormes as part of his Family nay as his deare children whilest we are here on earth as well as he looks upon his other children the glorious Saints who are made perfect in heaven Oh what a quickning consideration is this to bring us upon our knees at a Throne of grace before Christs Father and our Father that we may have a childs Portion and be prepared for that place which Christ is now preparing for us We are part of the Family numbred amongst those of the best ranke we are children and have the same Father that Christ and the Saints in heaven have Iohn 20. 17. Ephes. 3. 14. and therefore shall come to be Coheires with Christ and them Here is heavenly encouragement unto Gospell-worship and Gospell-conversation It is no wonder then if that Gospell-worship be frequently performed to God under this endearing consideration and in this sweet and comfortable relation The Apostle wishes us grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 1. 7. and in like manner 1 Cor. 1 3. 2 Cor. 1. 2. Observe that solemn forme of thanksgiving Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort 2 Cor. 1. 3. Oh how willingly and cheerefully do we run to the God of all mercies and comfort in a time of temptation and affliction 2 Cor. 1. 4. For the Father discovers his bowels of mercy on purpose to invite us to him The Father himselfe loves you Iohn 16. 27. All spirituall glorious eternall blessings our Election Redemption Salvation are ascribed to this Father of all grace mercy comfort glory
Worship it selfe The Father and Son are one Iohn 10. 30. one in Power Excellency Nature one God and therefore are to be honoured with the same Worship Iohn 5. 23. All men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father every tongue must confesse that Iesus Christ who is man is God also and therefore equall to his Father And it can be no robbery no derogation to the Fathers honour for us to give equall honour to him and his coequall Son who subsists in the forme of God in the nature of God Phil. 2. 6 11. You see the Divine Nature the infinite Excellency of Iesus Christ is an undeniable ground of this coequall honour and therefore the Worship due to Christ as God the same God with his Father is the very same Worship both for kind and degree which is due to the Father 3. This Divine Honour was due to Iesus Christ before there was any creature to give him his due Christ was Adorable Worshipable that is worthy of Divine Worship before there was any man or Angel to adore to performe actuall Worship that Divine Worship which was due to him for his infinite excellency from all eternity 4. When Jesus Christ was declared to the world God did command even the most glorious Angels to worship him as his naturall and coessentiall Son who was begotten from the days of eternity in the unity of the Godhead For when he brought in his first-begotten and only begotten Son into the world he said And let all the Angels of God worship him Heb. 1. 6. 5. If man had never fallen never stood in any need of Christs blood yet all men would have worshipped the naturall and coessentiall Son of God as one and the same God with his Father and therefore with the same Divine Worship as soon as his Godhead had been sufficiently revealed to them from heaven or else that very neglect would have been their fall and ruine 6. The office of Christ his discharge of his office by his active and passive obedience and glorious benefits which we receive thereby are excellent motives to excite us to give that Divine Worship to Jesus Christ which is due unto him for his owne infinite excellency but his infinite excellency is the Formall Proper and Adaequate Ground Reason and Cause of all the Divine Worship which we performe to Iesus Christ and that for these reasons 1. Because if man had never fallen and Christ had never died for mans Redemption this Divine Worship had been due unto him for his infinite and eternall excellency as hath been proved 2. Because the Father and the Spirit are not Mediatours as Christ is and that Office which is not common to all three Persons cannot be the Prime Immediate Proper Formall cause Ground or Reason of that Divine Honour and worship which is due to all three as one God blessed for ever nay no Office whatsoever can be the proper cause of Divine Honour 3. Because this Divine Honour was due to Jesus Christ from all eternity before his Incarnation Passion c. and therefore this Divine Honour is not bestowed upon him as a reward of his Active or Passive obedience for no worship or thing can be before its Formall Cause 4. Because Jesus Christ is a Mediatour according to both Natures and therefore according to his humane nature as well as his Divine Nature but all the honour due to Christ according to his Divine Nature was due from all eternity and there is no Divine Honour due to him for and by reason of his humane nature or any perfection which doth truly and properly belong to Christ as man He who was borne of Mary is to be adored with Divine worship but not for that reason because he was borne of Mary but because he is God the Coessentiall and Eternall Son of God We must distinguish between the Materiall and Formall Object of worship 1. The Materiall Object of worship is Christ who is both God and man the Son of David the Son of Mary the Son of God the Mediatour and Saviour of his people from their sins 2. The Formall Object discovers to us the Prime Formall Adequate ground and reason of his Divine worship the Coessentiall and Eternall Son of God who is one and the same God with the Father and the holy Spirit he is worshipped for his infinite and Divine excellency Christ is worshipped as God with this Divine worship his Mediatory Office servile suffering cannot be the Prime and Immediate Foundation the ultimate and terminating object of divine worship due to the Father Son and holy Ghost and therefore we must conclude that the Formal Proper reason of the Divine worship due given to Jesus Christ our Mediatour is the divine nature infinite excellency of our Mediatour which alone is of it self for it self capable of Divine worship I should make a tedious digression if I should declare what great Cyrill of Alexandria Noble Athanasius the Ephesine Councell of old and very learned and accurate Writers of late have delivered upon this Argument with great dexterity and circumspection They would not be mistaken as if they did divide the two natures of Christ or remove any glorious adjuncts from the Eternall Word the second Person of the Godhead and yet desire you to put a difference between that which Christ assumed by the most free Decree of God and grace of Hypostaticall union And that which belongs to him as he is one God with the Father and the Holy Ghost Finally they intreat you to put a difference between the Gratious Motives to worship Christ and the Prime Formall Adequate Proper ground and reason of that worship as I have done and professe that they worship their whole Mediatour with one entire worship which is not mixed but purely Divine and therefore is not founded upon any Temporary Office Service Benefit nor any externall denomination or relation but upon his infinite Excellency his Eternall Godhead And if these considerations will not give men satisfaction I hope to satisfy them farther yet before I conclude this Chapter For the point is to me very clear and plain If Jesus Christ were worshipped as mediator so that his mediatory office or actuall mediation should be laid as the first foundation or assigned as the formall reason of our worship then this fourth argument which I am still improving and enforcing for the proofe of the point will plainly discover that the Mediation of Christ having respect to the humane nature will make the humane nature at least in part the ground reason and cause of this divine worship which I leave to all sober Divines to consider before they admit And it is farther to be considered that Jesus Christ as Mediatour doth condesend to an office and imployment which doth subject him to God as an Head The Head of Christ is God 1 Cor. 11. 3. And hence it is that
the Holy Spirit as well as to the Father himself because all three are Co-essentiall Co-equall and Co-eternall When the seven Electours of the Empire met at Franckford about the election of Maximilian the second some of them being strict Protestants went out of the place of Worship when the Mass began because they would not be present at that Idolatrous service but came in again when they sang Come holy Ghost eternall God We being then convinced by clear Scriptures that Christ and the holy Spirit are one and the same God with the Father we must glorifie all three Persons as one God blessed for ever 1. We must not do any divine service to them who are not Gods by nature Gal. 4. 8. But the three divine Persons have the self-same divine nature and therefore the very same divine Worship and Service both for kind and degree is due to all three Co-essentiall Persons We must not conceive otherwise of God then he hath revealed himselfe in his Word For then we shall not worship the true God but a meere phantasticall Idoll of our own braine Ye worship ye know not what saith Christ of the Samaritans Ioh. 4. 22. the Samaritans served their own Gods who were not Gods by nature but false Gods 2 Kings 17. 29. 33. 2. Nor must we give Father Son and Holy Spirit the only true God any other kind of Worship then what is prescribed in his Word Israel is said to be without the true God when they were without the Law without a Priest to teach them how to Worship God according to his Law 2 Chron. 15. 3. Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God and without a teaching Priest and without Law The divine kind of worship prescribed both in Law and Gospell is spirituall Worship Mark 12 33. Heb. 12. 28. Psal. 51. 6 16. Deut. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 5. 8. 1 Chron 28. 9. Phil. 3. 3. Ioh. 4. 23 24. 3. The Worship of God is either Natural or instituted Worship The instituted Worship hath been changed for it was different before the Law under the Law and under the Gospell But the naturall worship and service of God is perpetuall and eternall it is to be continued in heaven both by Saints and Angels for evermore Naturall Worship is due to Jesus Christ and the holy Spirit because they have one and the self-same divine nature with God the Father Angels are called upon to give this Naturall Worship to Jesus Christ. And let all the Angels of God worship him Heb. 1 6. 4. Instituted Worship is subservient as I may so speak to this naturall worship for when we worship God with those meane helps and actions which he himself hath appointed and ordained we must worship him in spirit and truth All Ordinances of Christ are meanes of grace to beget knowledge faith hope love self-denyal gratitude humility sincerity reverence zeale and all other graces in the soule and to encrease them in us that we may exercise all these graces upon every opportunity and give God that Natural Spiritual Divine Honour which is due unto his singular Majesty infinite excellency independent perfection and eternall Godhead in knowing esteeming admiring beleeving loving obeying God that our soules may be delighted and satisfyed with God as the chiefest good as the Crown of all our joyes an All-sufficient portion of our soules for evermore This is the full scope of the first Table of the Law and this is the summe of the Gospel If the first Table of the Law did discover to us 1. The object of worship 2. The means of worship 3. The time of worship and did not also prescribe require enjoyn 4. The manner of worship we should be at a losse the Law would not be a perfect rule Our worship would not be agreeable to the nature and will of God God would be defrauded of his naturall spirituall divine worship and therefore when our Saviour doth deliver the full scope of all the foure first Commandements by reducing them to one Commandment he saith Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soule and with all thy mind this is the first and great Commandment Mat 22. 37 38. Deut. 6. 4 5. This Spirituall worship is taught us in every Commandement of the first Table if we look upon the inside and spirituall compasse of those Commandements discovered to us by Moses the Psalmes Prophets and the New-Testament 1. In the first Commandement we are not barely required for to take God for the object of our worship but to give him spiritual worship also because we are required in mind heart will affection and the effects of all these to take the true God Father Son and Holy Ghost God in Christ by the assistance of the Spirit to be our God to know esteem admire trust love reverence adore and serve him with hope humility self-deniall patience joy and thankefulness zeal◠and constancy This is the inside and spirituall compass of the first Commandement 2. In the second Commandement we are required to worship God purely according to his Will in every Ordinance without any carnall Imagination or affections The Papists will grant that we are by the use of Ordinances and as they dreame Images also to carry our hearts to God and Christ in obedience to the second Commandement The more learned Papists will confess that it is a sin against the first Commandement to terminate our worship in any Image because no Image is Iehovah But they worship Images Relativè though not Terminativè as visible helps to devotion to carry their hearts to God in worship and it is cleare that the Jews and Heathens of old intended no more and therefore there is as much to be said for Heathenish and Iewish as there is for Romish Idolatry This then is the great sin of the Antichristian Worshippers at Rome who endeavour to defend this Relative worship of Images that they conceive that the heart of man will be better carried to God and Christ by humane inventions such as Images Crucifixes Reliques c. then by divine Institutions and this sin is called an hatred of God in the second Commandement And in the very letter of this Commandement we are directed how to expresse our love to God namely by seeking of him and closing with him in his own Ordinances and institutions with an ingenuous contempt of humane inventions in divine worship and service and though legall Ordinances are not only changeable but actually changed and abolished yet there is something morall and unchangeable in this second Commandement which is attendance upon and observance of the Institutions and appointments of God It is an immutable Law that we should give God that worship which is due unto him expresse our saith in him and love to him by a spirituall use of such means
grace and peace from this Co-essentiall Trinunity the Father the seven Spirits and Iesus Christ doth sufficiently instruct us in this mystery of Evangelicall Worship Some object that then the Spirit will be set before the Son but the answer is easie that there is a Metathesis in the words and it is observable that the Son is sometimes named before the Father 2 Cor. 13. 14. and sometimes the Spirit is named before the Son as Rev. 1. 4. 1 Pet. 1 2. and sometimes the naturall order is observed the Father is named first the Son second and the Holy Ghost third The naturall order is not overthrown when the Father is named after the Son or the Spirit before the Son Nor is the equality of Persons overthrown when the naturall order is observed And therefore that objection is not considerable Naturall worship is due to the Holy Ghost because he hath the same divine nature with the Father and the Son That divine Faith is due to the Spirit hath been proved at large That divine love is due to him is cleare Rom. 15. 30. I beseech you for the Lord Jesus Christs sake and for the love of the Spirit The Spirit is the Author and object of all those graces which are called divine ex parte objecti faith hope and love Rom. 15. 13 16 30. In a word Instituted Worship is due to the Holy Ghost by vertue of both Sacraments Mat. 28. 19. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body and have been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 13. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Mat. 3. 11. Ioh. 5. 5. In hearing of the Word we must hearken to the Spirit with the self-same attention devotion as we do to the Father and the Son Heb. 3. 7 8. compared with Ps. 95. The holy Ghost forbids us to harden our hearts against himself speaking in the Word Acts 7. 51. We grieve the Spirit when we resist the Spirit and will not put our seale to the Word by a Spirituall assent and fiduciall consent and hinder the Spirit from sealing up our Election and Redemption to us For though Christ makes the Purchase yet the Spirit makes the assurance 1 Iohn 3. 24. Iohn 14. 16 17. Iohn 15. 26. In Prayer we are to call upon the Holy Ghost 2 Cor. 13. 14. Rev. 1. 4. because the Holy Ghost is God 1 Cor. 12 6 11. Act. 5. 3 4. I cannot but wonder at them who say that holy and spirituall worship is not due to the holy Spirit when the truth is we can give no worship at all to the Father or the Son untill we are enabled by the holy Spirit Rom. 5. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 3. 2 Cor. 4. 13. 2 Cor. 13. 14. And when by the Communion of the Spirit we have Communion with the Father and Son in Gospell-worship we are the Temples not only of the Holy Ghost but of the Co-essentiall Trinunity of Father Son and Holy Ghost all three do dwell in us walk in us and abide in us For when we receive the Spirit of truth he abides with us dwels in us perswades and enables us to love God the Father and the Lord Jesus and then all three Co-essentiall Persons make their abode with us as is clearely held forth to us Ioh. 14. 16 17 23. 2 Cor. 6. 16 18. 1 Cor. 3. 16. Ephes. 3. 16 17. But if a man have not the Spirit of Christ he hath no saving interest as yet in Iesus Christ. Rom. 8. 9. because he is not as yet the Son of God by Regeneration or Adoption he is not a member of Jesus Christ he is not the Temple of the Holy Ghost He doth not worship this Co-essentiall Trinunity as he ought to do in Spirit and in truth He who hath the Spirit in him doth worship the Spirit in spirit and truth because the Spirit is the Power of the Highest even as Christ is the Son of the Highest a Personall Power Luk. 1. 32 35. compared The Spirit is the spirit of Elohim Gen. 1. 2. The Spirit of Iehova Isa. 11. 2. The God of Israel 2 Sam. 23. 2 3. The spirit of God and the spirit which is God 1 Cor. 2. 11. 12. Acts 5. 3 4. This point hath been sufficiently proved in the fourth Chapter and therefore I need say no more considering that the Socinians have no Arguments which are considerable when compared with these plaine places of the Holy Scriptures and those many places and proofes which have been formerly produced in this Treatise If any desire to have their Arguments such as they be answered at large he may read Mr. Estwicks learned Treatise concerning the Godhead of the Holy Ghost lately published I proceed to the third part of Godliness which is Obedience 3. Obedience is due to the Father Son and Holy Ghost all three Co-essentiall Persons because they are Co-essentiall because they are one God blessed for ever 1. Obedience is due to God the Father This truth is generally acknowledged by all that are not Atheists the Iews and Socinians subscribe to it If we do acknowledge God the Father to be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father in him the inference will be immediate cleare and strong that we ought to honour and obey our heavenly Father For how shall God put us among his Children unless every one of us say unto him my Father my Father I do obey thee and will not depart from thee But I said how shall I put thee among the Children and give thee a pleasant Land a goodly Heritage of the hosts of Nations And I said Thou shalt call me my Father and shalt not turne away from me Jer. 3. 19. And when God speaks to them as to Children they presently submit Return ye backsliding children And I will heale your backslidings they presently reply Behold we come unto thee for thou art the Lord our God Ier. 3. 22. A Son honoureth his Father if then I be a Father where is mine honour Mal. 1. 6. Mal. 2. 16. Mat. 12. 50. Mat. 23. 9. When God is considered under this endearing relation of a Father we yeeld a filiall obedience unto God we performe a foederall obedience a sincere and Evangelicall obedience I saith Jehovah will be your God I will be your Father Having these Promises saith the Apostle let us cleanse our selves from all filthinesse of the flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the feare of God 2 Cor. 6. 16 18. 2 Cor. 71. 1 Pet. 1 14 17 18. As we are to worship God in this Fatherly relation Mat. 6. 9. Gal. 4. â— so are we to obey him also Whosoever shall do the will of my Father c. Mat. 12. 50. That all three Co-essentiall Persons are our Father hath been proved already in this very Chapter pag. 326 327. and that
13 14 16 Here is the freewill of the Elect but Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who hath blessed us with all spirituall blessings in heavenly places in Christ according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and unblameable before him in love c. Ephes. 1. 3 4 5. Our thankfulnesse should be shewen for this free Grace to all three Persons in our thanksgiving believing obeving as is cleare from these places and so our prayers should be answerable to our faith love and thankfulness and therefore it is observable that in the very same Chapter the Apostle makes his addresse after this modell That the God of our Lord Iesus Christ the Father of glory may give unto you the Spirit of Wisdome and Revelation in the acknowledgement of Christ Ephes. 1. 17. and so 2 Thes. 2 16. Rev. 1. 4 5. 2 Cor. 13. 14. many other places may be urged which containe the mystery of faith worship and obedience and if Christ and his Spirit be not alwaies named in them yet the benefits of Christ the gifts graces fruits comforts of the spirit which are named do direct us to both Moreover when the name of God is used indefinitely all three Persons must be understood to be comprehended in that essentiall Title because they are one and the same God Finally one Person doth subsist in another and the same honour is due to all three because all three have the same divine Nature which is single because infinite and therefore there is enough discovered to prevent all scruples in the upright-hearted and Cavils in the contrary-minded Read the third and fourth Chapters of the Epistle to the Colossians and there you will see a very pregnant proofe of this point Put on therefore as the Elect of God holy and beloved bowels of mercies kindnesse humbleness of mind above all these things put on charity let the peace of God rule in your hearts do all in the name of the Lord Iesus giving thanks to God and the Father by him What ever you do do it heartily as to the Lord. And then the summe of all their requests is That they may stand perfect and compleat in all the will of God This takes in the full scope of Law and Gospell whatever belongs to faith worship or obedience whatever is just and equall or well-pleasing unto God Col. 3. 20. Col. 4. 1. And the Epistle to the Ephesians runs parallel with this to the Colossians Ye are elected and therefore ye must be holy before all three Coessentiall Persons by whom ye were elected ye must beleeve the Word of truth as the truth is in Iesus that ye may be sealed with the Spirit and filled with all the fulnesse of God ye must bow your knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ you must study the unity of Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God ye must keep the unity of the Spirit ye must grow up into Christ in all things ye must not grieve the holy Spirit whereby ye are sealed unto the day of Redemption but maintaine a fruitfull fellowship with God in Christ by the communion of the holy Ghost for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousnesse and truth ye must be filled with the Spirit giving thanks alwaies for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ ye must do whatsoever is right or equall Ephes. 6. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is right just and equall Put on the whole armor of God take the sword of the Spirit the shield of Faith pray alwaies with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit Peace be to the Brethren and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity I need make no inferences the words are so plaine that they prove the point in terminis terminantibus as we use to say Consider the discourse of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans where the Apostle hath even lost his reader in the depth of this Mystery of the eternal counsel of Father Son and holy spirit he puts this question to all the busie disputants who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his Counsellour and concludes that of him and through him and to him are all things to whom be glory for ever Amen We have mercy from him faith and repentance from him by an effectual vocation according to his purpose of election Rom. 8 28 29. Rom. 9. 11. 15. 16. 18 23 24 29 30. Rom. 10. 20. Rom. 11. 2 5 6 7 29 30 32. 36. We have mercy grace and glory from all three and therefore all honour and glory be to all three for ever Amen And the Apostle doth beseech the God of patience and consolation the God of hope and the God of peace to fill them with all joy and peace in beleeving that they may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost who is the God of hope comfort and peace for the Kingdom of God doth consist in righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. and if wee serve Christ who is God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. in these things we shall be acceptable to God and approved of men Rom. 14. 18. The fruits of the spirit in us are markes because fruits of our election by God The Apostle writing to the Church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ begs grace and peace for them from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ remembers their work of faith labour of love and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of God and our Father and then concludes their election of God because the Gospel came to them in power and in the Holy Ghost for they received the Word in much affliction with joy of the Holy Ghost The Apostle exhorts them in every thing to give thanks because it is the will of God in Christ Jesus and bids them beware of quenching the Spirit and beseeches the Spirit who is undeniably the God of Peace and by special office our Sanctifyer and Comforâ—er to sanctfy us wholly The very God of peace sanctify you wholly c. And the Apostle discourses in like manner in the second Epistle to Timothy God saith he hath given us the spirit of power of love and of a sound mind saved us and called us with an holy calling according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Iesus before the world began And tells us that every one who doth pretend to be elected or presumes to call upon Christ and claim an interest in him must depart from iniquity be sanctifyed
holy in life We can never understand the Presence Institution and mind of Christ in this Ordinance unless we beleeve the cursed condition of men in their naturall estate the divine nature and person of Christ the greatness of the price that was paid for the satisfaction of Gods justice and appeasing of Gods wrath who did not spare his own Co-essential Son but manifested his hatred against sin and love to his Elect in not sparing his Son but breaking his body and shedding of his bloud that we might be redeemed by the bloud of God this is the mystery which is made sensible in the Sacrament and is really evident to the eye of faith Gal. 3. 1. And whosoever looks upon these great mysteries of the Gospel as fancies and doth not beleeve them to be reall things truly exhibited really presented to beleevers in a Sacramental mystical spiritual way in this Ordinance hath not yet learnt the truth as it is in Jesus and is not prepared for such high Communion We Christians do not come with hungry and thirsty soules longing after farther Communion with Christ for mortifying of our lusts and encrease of all our graces by his spirit untill we beleeve this grand mystery of Faith and we are then experimentally acquainted with the mystery of Godliness when we have been made drink into one Spirit with Christ and his Members when we look upon him whom we have pierced by our sins and acknowledge him to be the natural and Co-essential Son of God there can be none of those fiduciall breathings after Christ Penitential meltings before him or obediential closings with him as is evident by our ninth Chapter untill we do in some measure beleeve this mystery of Faith and understand the substance of the Covenant of grace which is sealed in this Sacrament by God and must be actually renewed by every good Communicant our Meditations Faith Love Repentance Joy Thankfulness will not be rightly placed or exercised if this grand mystery of Faith and Godliness be rejected by us 6. I might argue from all the Offices of Christ they who do not beleeve the divine nature of Christ do utterly disable Jesus Christ from being a Mediatour a Priest a Prophet a King for the saving of his people to the uttermost They who deny the divine Essence and Person of Christ do deny his satisfaction to be all-sufficient in our behalf They depose Christ from that spirituall and heavenly kingdom which he hath by Nature and render him uncapable of that Mediatory Kingdom which is delegated to Christ God man by the Decree of the Co-essentiall Trinunity But I have said enough of that in the former part of this Book I pass on to enquire what civill respect is due to such as do deny the divine Nature of Christ and his holy Spirit That one Text to my apprehension 2 Ioh. 9. 10 11. containes a very full and satisfactory answer Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ he hath both the Father and the Son If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evill deeds But that this point may be more clearly stated and all mistakes prevented be pleased to consider 1. That such Points of Religion and Worship as are necessary to be known and beleeved for the maintenance of Christian spirituall saving Communion with Father Son and holy Ghost are clearely delivered in the holy Scriptures of truth 2. That if men who were formerly unblameable in their life and conversation be seduced into any errour which doth contradict or subvert such Fundamentall Points they ought to be instructed with the spirit of meekness in a Christian and brotherly way 3. They are to be admonished with all faithfulness and meekness of Wisdom twice or thrice that they may understand the importance of the truth which is denyed the danger of the errour maintained the sad consequences of both that if their conscience be not feared they may return from their beloved and damned errours 4. If after all this meekness patience and forbearance all Christian instructions and brotherly admonitions they do as men that are judicially blinded for sinning against conscience 1. Persist in their errour 2 Reject and revile the truth of God in these high and necessary Points 3. Fall from the grace of God frustrate the grace and Covenant of God evacuate the death of Christ depose Christ and his Spirit from their Throne and Godhead 4. Seduce and poyson others Mat. 21. 38. 5. Deny and overthrow the foundation of divine Faith Hope Love and Justification by Faith and the Adequate object also of all Christian Faith Evangelicall Worship and sincere Obedience These bold Atheists for they deny the only true God Father Son and holy Ghost may without any scruple be rejected from Christian Communion For there is certainly some lust or other which hinders them from seeing the truth or professing that they do see it and therefore it may be taken for granted that these men are obstinate self-condemned men men that combine with their Wills and Lusts against their own conscience and cleare shining Scriptures And therefore these men cannot complaine that they are punished for their conscience when they are indeed punished for sinning against their conscience because they are condemned by their own conscience But it will be said that there are scarce any such men to be found as I have described To which I answer Be pleased but to consider what hath been delivered in this very Chapter already and compare it with the foregoing Chapters and with the many blasphemous Pamphlets which do pass up and down without controule in this licentious Age in which men adventure upon the very language of hell under pretence of exercising their Christian Liberty and speaking according to their New Light and this Point will be too cleare For we do already grant that no man ought to be troubled for following the dictates of his conscience rightly enformed but for following of pernicious errours which are contrary to his own conscience unless he be judicially blinded by God for his customary sinning against light of conscience in former times 2. Nothing is more common then for men to speak out of the abundance of that naturall Atheisme which lurkes in their hearts contrary to the dictates of their naturall conscience 3. Though conscience may be quiet whilst men are exercising their wits to maintaine some errour which is contrary to those mysteries of faith which transcend naturall reason and are repugnant to the corruption of reason especially if they are engaged in multitudâ— of business connived at by such as sit at sterne and do thrive and prosper in the world Yet conscience will find a time to speak when it may
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.
Vide Clem. Alex stromat lib. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 y Vide Basil Ascet. Reg. 80. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nihil est de fide nisi quod Deus per Apostolos Prophetas revelavit aut quod inde evidenter deducitur Bellarm. l 4. de verbo Dei c. 9. z Vide Salmer in 2 Epist. ad Timoth. Disput. 4. a Phot. Biblioth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Vide Cyrill de Trinit pers Christi c. 10. Theodoret. Epit. divin dogm c. de Spiritu Sancto Damasc orth fid l. 3. Naz. Orat 23. in laudem Heronis Athan. de Decret Synod Nicen Eundem Epist ad Serapion de sentent Greg. Nyssen Dyons contra Eunom Tertul. adversus Praxaean Theodoret. Dialog 2. cap. 4. Nazianzen orat 37. de Spiritu Sancto Epiphan contra Sabel Basilium contra Eunomium Sabellium Arium Cyprian lib. 2. adversus Judaeos ad Quinirum cap. 6. August contra Maximin Bellarm. de verbo dei l. 4. c. 11. c Quod expresse non habetur in Scripturis potest tamen inde evidenter deduci Vocabulum in Scripturis non legimus rem cui hoc vocabulum recte adhibitum est fideique sensum invenimus Vide Augustinum Epist. 174. ubi contra Pascentium Arianum dispurat Eundem insuper in Ioannem Tract 97. Ambrosium lib. de fide contra Aria nos cap. 5. Augustinum contra Maximinum Arian Theod. Hist. lib. 1. c. 8. Basil. contra Eunom c. 4. Tractat. Definit Tom. 2. Athanas. d Greg. Nyssen contra Eunom lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. e Job 12. 16. Pro. 8. 14. Isa. 28. 29. Gal. 4. 8. Phil. 2. 6. Col. 2. 9. The Subsistence of the Godhead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The three divine Subsistences 1. The Subsistence of the Father 2. The Subsistence of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide D. Davenant in Coloss. 2. 9. Iesus Christ is truly God The Divine titles of Jesus Christ prove his Person to be divine and one of the natures united in his person to be divine f Isa. 9. 6. En infantem aeternitatis Patrem En parvulum optimum maximum Deum maximum g Christ is Iehovah and therfore he is God Ehié Jehovâ quod ex eo contractum est Iâ—h ab Hajâ vel havâ Esse derivantur Essentiam infinitam notant Nomen itaque Jehovae cui reliqua duo sunt aequalia Deo proprium est Gomarus oper par 3. disp 2. de Deo vero Iesus Christ is Immanuel h Epiphan contra Apostolicos Vide Cyril lum in Ioh. cap. 3. 8. Hiuro in Zach. 2. Ambr. l. 5. de fide cap. 4. Aug. contra Pascen tium nemo igitur jam calumniaturde verbo et si enim verbum ipsum in Lege scriptum non reperitur res tamen reperitur ego et Pater unum sumus Epist. 174. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 16. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 17. 10. Vide D. Glassium in Explic orat Christi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Epiph. Contra Sabellium Divine Attributes are ascribed to Christ. 1 Eternity Micah 5. 2. from the dayes of Eternity Iohn 17. 5. 2 Omnipotence 3 Immutability 4 Omniscience 5 Immensity Prov. 8. 22. Ioh. 1. 1. 3. Matth. 18 20. Matth. 28. 20. 3 Divine works Iohn 2. 19 21. Horsum profuit personae dignitas ut irae infinitae onus sustineret sufficiens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esset Isa. 53. 4. Act. 20 28. Heb. 9. 12. 14. 26. Divine Honour due to Christ. Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1 2. Joh. 14. 1. Psal. 2. 12. Ro. 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12. v. 4. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 16. 13 1. The Divine Nature and Person of the holy Ghost 2. Divine Titles m Christus est Potentia Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritus Sanctus est potentia Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vide Gomarum Disp. de Trinit Tom. 3. Disp. 7. 8. Divine Titles which prove the Nature person of the Spirit to be Divine Num. 12. 6 Heb. 1. 1. 2 Pet. 1. 21. 1 Cor. 3. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 6. 19. compared together 1 Cor. 12. 5 6. 3. Divine Attributes The Omnipotence of the Spirit 4. Divine works of the Spirit The Omniscience of the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 9. 1. 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. Joh. 16. 13. The Omnipresence of the Spirit Rom. 8 9. 2 Tim. 1. 14. 1 Cor. 3. 16 Rom. 8. 26 27. 1 Cor. 12. â—â— 1 Thes 2. 13 Vide Basilium lib. de Spiritu Sancto Vide Nazianzen Orat. 37 testimoniorum exameÌ„ de Deitaâ—e Spiritus Sancti inventes Petrum DamianuÌ„ lib. 3. Epi 1 1 Cor. 6. 19 20. Rom. 12. 1. 2. 1 Peâ— 2. 5. 1 Cor. 3. 16 17. Eph. 2. 18. 22. Vide Aug. cont Maximinum Acts 7 51. Isai 63. 10. Ephe. 4 30 Heb 3 7 8 Galath 5. 18. 25. Rom 8. 12 13. 14. 1 Thess. 5. 19. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Matth. 3. 11. John 3 5. The unity of the Godhead a Deus unus tâ— inuâ—us solus unicus simplicissime unús unicissime unicus The Father Son and Holy Spirit all three are but one onely God 1 John 5. 7 John 10. 30 Unitatem essentiae contra Arianos Trinitatem personarum contra Sabellianos tuemur Tres substantias esse dixerunt Subsistentium personas per Substantias edocentes non Substantiam Patris et Filijeâ— Spiritus Sancti diversitate dissimilis essentiae separantes ex câ—nâ—il Antiâ—chen Hilar. de Synodo adversus Arianos c We do not only acknowledge a Trinity but a Trinunity in opposition to the errour of the Tritheites Vnum Trinum de monstrant trinunum Deum simplicissimè unicum 1 Iâ—h 5. 7. Hi tres sunt unus ille Deus trinunus Deus Infinitum hoc est summe absolutè perfectum non potest esse nisi unum Si â—nus potest emnia quid opus est pluribus diis omnia autem potest Deus trinunus Deus est trinunus est unus absolute trinus relate unus quoad essentiam trinus quoad subsistentiam * See Mr. Fry his Answer to the Charge of Blasphemy and Errour c. p. 20 22. d Deus ita est unus ut etiam â—it solus ita solus ut non possit esse alius En naturam infinitam summeÌ„ unam unicissimè unicaÌ„ e Deus non tam unus numero dicendus est quà m unicus Pater filius sunt unum potius quà m unus Ioh. 10. 30. Sunt inquies unus Deus imò potius sunt idem unicusque Deus f Personae coessentiiales in se mâ—tuò subsistentes inconfusè uniuntur indivisè discernuntur g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Natura divina est singularissima simplicissimè uniâ—a i Non minus individuum est essentia divina quà m persona D. Alâ—ing Problem k Natura divina est
perfectibilis persona enim creata actuat et perficit essentiam perfectibilem personalitates autem increatae non sunt actus naturae divinae ut sic praecise consideratae eam perficientes vel informantes a Essentia in creatis est imperfectae actualitatis proinde perfectibilis Essentia autem divina non habet se ad modum potentiae perfectibilis nec persona divina ad modum actus naturam divinam infinitam simplicissimam perficientis Ratio quidditativa ratio Relativa in Deo tanquam diversae rationes Formales à nobis concipiuntur sed ambae illae rationes Formales sunt in Deo secundum ultimâ—m unitatem actualitatem propriam Nihil enim perficit essentiam divinam in actu quidditativo praeter ipsissimam essentiam nihil perficit personam in esse Personali praeter propriam Subsistentiam nihil perficit personam in esse Relativo praeter propriam relationem Pater per ipsam paternitatem perficitur in esse Relativo b In Deo est essentia tres relationes sed non sunt tres essentiae relativae Propriâ—ta tes personales praecisè formaliter sumptae non uniuntur inter se in se nam unio in cum essentiâ est in aliquo tertio c Vide Junium contra Bellarminum Controv. 2. lib. 1. Praefat. Ut res planior sit id praemittendum est personae considerandae triplicem rationem esse Communem in essentiâ quà Deus est Singularem Absolutam in Persona quà subsistit in unitate Essentiae Relativam in distinctione ordine personae unius ad alteram d Ratione Communis Deitatis communium essentialiumque attributorum nulla distinctio cogitari debet sed tantùm ratione Personae proprietatum personalium e Essentia notat naturam divinam cum proprietatibus communibus Persona notat naturam divinam cum proprietati bus dist inctivis sive istae proprietates sint Absolutae sive sint Relativae habere subsistentiam à seest quid AbsolutuÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est quid Positivum Nomen autem Personae nomen Relativum communiter dicitur originationis aut originis respectum includens quo Persâ—na divina à se vel ab aliâ subsistentiam habere significatur Habere autem subsistentiam à se quantum mâ—hi videtur non dicit respectum ad aliud vel alium f Tres sunt in eadem naturâ divinâ indivisâ Coexistentiâ Coessentialiter subsistentes tres enim personae inconfusè uniuntur indivisè discernuntur g Est aliquid in persona Ab solutum quod est Proprium est aliquid in Deo relativum quod est Commune Identitas similitudo aequalitas mutua praesentia personarum inter se propter inconfusam in se mutuò comprehensionem sunt relationes ad intra omnibus personis communes relationes auteÌ„ distinctivae sunt propriae h Omnis distinctio essentialis est realis sed omnis distinctio realis non est essentialis D. Voetius i Personae divinae non differunt realiter essentialiter nec realiter separabiliter sed proprietatibus realibus personalibus tales autem sunt istae reales proprietates quae essentiae divinae non superaddunt novam entitatem Vide D. Alting Problem X. The difference between created and uncreated Persons 7. Observations concerning created Persons 1. The infinite Nature of uncreated Persons The difference between created and uncreated Persons is Infinite k Vide Nazian orat de Spiritu Sancto Damasc orthod sid lib. 3. c. 5. Athanas. Dialog de Trinitate in Mat. 11. Nazian orat de pace Orat. 37 51. l Absurdum est personas coessentiales infinitas ad creatarum quae finitae diversae essentiae sunt modulum redigere m Natura creata est dependeÌ„s persona creata est Independens quia non est in alio per dependentiam ab illo tanquam sustentante Cum humanitas Christi consequuta fuerit personalitatem propriâ infinite perfectiorem nonest cur propriam personalâ—tatem amplius appeteret Si enim adhuc inclinaretur ad propriam persoâ—alitatem vi quadam detineretur in verbo ita status illius esset violentus quasi contra naturam Cajetanus The third difference n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damascen Orth fid lib. 1. c. 4. o Vide Irenâ—um lib. 2. cap. 16. Athanas. in decret Synod Nicen Naziâ—â— lib. de Fide Cyrill lib. 10. contra Iulian. Euseb. Praeparat Evangel lib. 8. c. 2. Athenagoram Talianum Augustin de Trinit passim p Vorstius Deum contemnendum pingit Corporeum visibilem mutabilem accidentibus subjectum in quo sunt plures res c. Vide Eglisem Cris. Hypocris Bogerman contra Grotium Synod Nat. Dodrac q Racov. Catechis de cognitione Dei cap. 1. r Remonstrant Conâ—ess Apolog. p. 41. 42. s Deus est Spiritus Joh. 4. 24. Jehovah Exod. 33. 19. Eheje Exod. 3. 14 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apocal. 1. 4. Summe perfectus Genes 17. 1. summeque unus Deut. 6. 4. proinde omnem de Deo compositionem imò quasi compositioneÌ„ de Deo negamus vide RhadaÌ„ Episcop Pact Controvers inâ—ter Thomam Scotum part 1. Controv. 4. append 2. pag. 82. 83 84. t Eglisem contra Vorstium v Maccov Mis. quaest Disp. 17. 20 23 24 25. 26. Vasquez disp 16. Deus est liber ab omni compositione etâ—am improprie dictâ qualis est ex essentiâ esse ex natura supposito seu ex essentia subsistentiâ ex genere differentia proinde liber ab omni distinctione in essentia suâ— Nam distinctionis multitudinis transcendentalis personarum atque adeo modorum relationum longe alia est ratio D. Voet. x Mareria Prima formae differentiae ultimae c. simpliciter simplices dicuntur Angeli sunt Comparative simplices essentia autem divina est Absolutè 〈◊〉 simplex Enâ—â— summum est 〈…〉 proinde essentitiâ— unitate unum simplicissimè unicum Vide. D. Voâ—tium de Natura Dei saâ—pl y Non deâ—emus proprietates Dei ab essentia ejus vel cogitatione scparaâ—e quia in essentiae forma virâ—ute omnes continentur Deus sine proprietatibus ejus cogitaâ—i non potest D. Wallaeus de Deo pag. 127. z Essentia divina non est iâ— potenâ—iâ quia est paras actus non est perfectibilis quia omnes perfectiones complectitur a Deus non depender à subjecto à â—a â—sis vel internis vel externis à principio quocunque priori aut superieri b Essentia divina non est in se composita nec aliquid ipsi componibile nec ipsa alicui componibili Essentia aeterna nec sâ—ipsâ nec ullâ realiâ posterior esse potest c Proprietates Deâ— non minùs 〈◊〉 sunt quà m ejus essentia◠〈…〉 non essent ipsissima Dei essentia simâ—l 〈…〉 Joh 5. 26. est
personam extra essentiam quia essentia infinita extra se fundi non potest m Tota natura divina est in tribus personis tota in singulis singularissime unica servatis tum essentialibus essentiae tum relativis personarum in unitate essentiae proprietatibus n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter in confusam in s◠〈◊〉 coÌ„prehensionem praesenâ—â—◠〈…〉 circum incessionem ut satis barbare loquuntur Vide Gomari Diatribâ— de Trinit Inconfuse uniuntâ—r indivise discernuntur The divin Persons subsisting in one another o Vide â—amascen lib. 1. Orth. fid cap 19. Vide 〈◊〉 in sent dist 19. q. 2. Thom p. 1. q. 42. atâ— 5. John 14. 10 11. The nature and Person of God the Father is in Christ. John 10. opened John 10. 38. John 10. from the â—5 v. to the 39. John 8 16. 18 29. John 14. 10 11 21. John 10 38 John 16 27. 30. 32. Joh. 17 21 The sixth difference betweene created uncreated persons a Ut autem difficillimum sit hoc credere naturam longè exâ—perat ita necessarium est adeo ad salutem ut sine fide illâ non sit salus Hinc sequitur quòd cum à naturâ alienum sit tamen necessariuÌ„ oportere nos ex naturâ exire supra na turam efferri ad hoc ut videamus Deum in Christo habitantem Rolloc CoÌ„ in Iohan. 14. v. 10 11 b Deus est ubique totus in seipso â—uoÌ„modo ubique si in seipso ubique quia nusquam est absens in seipso autem quia non Continetur ab eis quibus est praesens anqâ—â—aÌ„ sine eis esse non possit August Epist. 57. ad Daâ—danum c Qui ubi que est in seipso est qui in seipso est in omnibus sibi Coessentialibus necessario est volens tamen gaudensque d Naturae est in tribus personis non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per sonaâ—um non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi vas esset in vaâ—se sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neinaâ—qualitas inveheretur e Spiritus Dei dicitur esse in Deo 1 Cor. 2. 11. qui tamen est Deus ipse 1 Cor. 6. 20. nempe ad intimam inexistentiam trium personarum in seipsis exprimendam D. Wallaeus de Simplicitate Dei pag 128. f In processionibus divinis nulla est partitio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quibus tribus modis res creatae producuntur quia eadem natura singularis simplex indivisibilis infinita sine divisione vel multiplicatione communicatur g 〈…〉 seipâ—â—â—bique est Deus noster omnipraesentissimus totus in mundo totùs extra mundum totus super mundum totus unus in omnibus singulis nusquam inclusâ—s nusquam exclusus ubique immensus non per essentiae multiplicationem extensionem aut divisionem sed per infinitatem simplicissimam h Ante omnia Deus erat solus ipse sibi loâ—us muâ—dus omniâ— uti Tertulliâ—â—us contra â—â—ax i Essentia Dei non miscetur cuâ—splen didis nâ—c a sordidis contaminatur sed in utero virginis fuit hypostatice unita cum carne nostrâ sine ullâ commixâ—ione confusione contaminâ—tione vel diminutione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Si homo tantummodo Christus quomodo adest ubique invocatus cum haec hominis natura non sit sed Dei ut adesse omni loco possit Tertulian de Trinitate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anastasius Antiochenus Angeli sunt substantiae spirituales separaim per se subsistentes proinde sunt alicubi definitive k Tres personae sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non tantum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tres homines quibus una competit definitio sunt tantum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia natura eorum est finita divisa non enim tota estenâ—ia patris creaâ—i sed parâ— tantum filio communicatur hypostaseâ— eorum sunt separatae Non sunt itaque ejusdem naturae indivisae ejusdem naturae singularis proinde licèt communi ratione homines dicantur tamen reipsa non sunt unus homo Personae autem divinae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sunt propter unius communis tamen singâ—laris naturae identi tatem quam simul pariter totam habent Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus l Immensa Dei prae sentia non est accidâ—â—s vel modus essentiae ejus sed ipsamet essentia Deus non est alicubi sed ubique quod est Alicubi est in ubi Definitiâ—o Vide Aug. qu. lib. 83. qu. 20. lib. 8. Geres ad lit cap. 26. Chrysost. Homiâ— 5. ad Coloss. Dan. asâ—en Nazian orat 34. Basiâ— Hom. 16. Hieronym in Isa. 66. m Qui est ubique Repletive non est Alicubi Definitive Vide Scalig. Exercit. 159. §. 5. The 7th difference n Personae creatae differunt intelligentia voluntate potentiâ essentiâ operatione locorum intervallis imo propriâ accidentium congerie Vide Gomarum de Trinitate Tom. 3. pag. 24. o Personae divinae non dicuntur Relativae propter essentias Relativas sed propter modos sive proprietates Relativas quae quidem proprietates non differunt realiter essentialiter imo nec realiter separabiliter ab essentiâ divinâ Personae autem divinae sunt extra omne genus omnemque dependentiam p Vide Metaphys Fonsec lib. 5. cap. 15. Sect. 7. q Vide Scotum Estium c. in 1. sent dist 30. omnâ—s 〈…〉 respectiva concipitur in Deo ad creaturam est tantùm secundum rationem modum concipiendi nostrum quia divina natura est Absoluta in se ab omni ordine creaturarum independens sive creaturae existunt sive non Vide Suarez Disp. 47. Sect. 15. Num 25. The eighth Difference betwâ—ene created uncrâ—ated Persons is in respect of their different duration y Aecernitas proprie dicta est increata duratio itaque Angelorum non est vera aeternitas Aeternum dicitur quod est extra terminum ex se incapax termini quia in sua intrinsecaratione infinitatem in durando includit Angels are not coaeternall with God s Aliud est esse aeternum aliud sempiternum quia omne aeternum est immutabile Richard Victor lib. 2. de Trinitate c. 4. Ratio aeternitatis consequitur immutabilitatem sicut ratio temporis motum Th. p. 1. qu. 10. art 2. c. t Deus est aeternus imo sua aeternitas Deus enim est infinita perfectio proinde simul ex se atque immutabiliter habet totam perfectionem suam ratione cujus ex se sit sufficiens ad coexistendum omni durationi quantacunque illa sit proinde sicut Deus est sua essentia perfectio ita est sua aeternitat Vide Suarez Metaph Disp 50. Sect. 4. Th. p. 1. qu.
of the Lords day Eheu nec fictis lachrymis dolendaest ista profanatio quae sub praetextu Libertatis Christianae in diei Dominici celebrationeÌ„ tanquam torrens irrupit SabbathuÌ„ inter omnes mortales celebre Vide Theophil Antioch lib. ad Attolycum Joseph lib. 2. adversus Appion Phil. Iud. lib. 2 de vitâ Moysis The Iewish Holy days * Vide Aug. Ep. 68. ad Casulanum Chrysost. Homil. 10. in cap. 2. Gen. Phil. Iudae lib. 3. de vitâ Moysis Theod. Trad quaest in Gen. See Master White of the morality of the 4th Commanment Dr. Twisse Mr. Cawdry and Mr. Palmer Mr. Shepheard Dr. Ames Medulla Theol. Dr. Lakes Theses The grounds of sanctifying the Lords day The Iewish Sabbath Isa. 58. 13. The Christian Sabbath The Evangâ—licall Ministry The scope of the second and fourth Commandements Rabbi Agnon dicit hanc benedictionem transire super sanctificantes Sabbatum ante legem in Sina datam Cognitio celebratio Dei Creatoris consideratio seria operum Creationis ac Redemptionis ad CeremoniaÌ„ referri nequeunt D. Waelleus de Sabbatho pag. 583. How the Lords day is to be sanctified unto Father Son and holy Ghost How Christians do enjoy God upon the week-days Eminent holiness and Communion Read Mr. Shepherds excellent Treatise upon this Subject in his fourth part of the sanctification of the Sabbath Restorative Communion Constant Communion Soule-satiating communion Extraordinary duties Penitential meltings * The sad condition of the most ingeneous sort of unregâ—nerate men Motives to Faith and true Repentance The great difference between an ingenuous man and a gracious man How far an unregenerate man may be changed The Conversion of notorious sinners The greaâ—est sinners are welcome to Christ when they turne and submit to him No meritorious Praeparatives Luk. 24. 49 Magnitudo animi ad praedicandum â—vangelium necessaria ex alto promittitur D. Aâ—ting An etiam Abnegatio Christi quae fit corde in Epâ—cureismum prolapso sit peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum Vide Scultetum in Ideis concionum ad cap 6. ad Hebraeos Clamant Dâ—ificaâ—i Spiritus homunciones se nullum habere Deum sed usque adeo se sibi esse mortuos ac Deo unitos ut ipsimet Deus effecti sint vide Joh. Ruys broch in cap. 2. Apologiae Nobilissimum Marnixium in Tract contra Enthysiastas Calvinum de Libertinis in Gallia Merceunum contra Deistas De Atheismo subtili palliato vide D. Vedelium de Deo Synagogae Casp. Barth Adversar lib 10. cap. 6. Cornel. à Lapide Comment ad Act. 17. 18. Sladum nec non Eglisemnium contra Vorstium Atheus est qui fidem cultum Dei directe aut indirecte à se aut ab alâ—â—s removet D. Voetius de Atheismo Vide John Junium in Refutatione Praelect Socini cap. 2. D. Rivet in Psal. 10. D. Voet. de Atheismo Ignorans quis sit Deus ignorantiâ pravae dispositionis contra sensum numinis congenitum verum Deum negans Atheus certè nec immeritò â—â—cendus est Nulli autem sunt Athei qui certò persuasi sunt non esse Deum Vide Mersennum in Gen. 1. à pag. 235. usque ad pa. 279. Voetium in Ther site Sect. 2. cap. 4. de Atheismo parte secundâ parte quarta pag. 189. Wigandum de Arianis in Polonia Facilis est ab Atheismo Sâ—ciniano in directum Atheismum prolapsus Vide Bedae notas in Ephes. 2. 14. D. Vedelium de Deo Synagogae Atheismus interpretativè contradicens directè blasphemans ferendus non est in civili hominum societate quia bonum civile non consistit sine metu cultuque numinis Vide Calvin in Psal. 115. de Atheo blasphemante Vide Arist. de coelo lib. 1. cap. 3. Aug. in Psal. 44. Senec. Epist. 1. 7. Damasâ— de Orth. fid lib. 1. c. 1. Ciceron de naturâ Deorum The Father and his coequal Son are to be honoured with equal honour Christian communion with the Father in his natural Son by their co-essential spirit The largest bounds of Christian Communion We can have no Christian communion with such as deny the Godhead of Christ. Vide Epistolas Martini Seidelii Silesii apud Socinum de Adoratione Christiad versus Christian Francken Franciscum Davidis Catechis Racov. The Socinìans are blasphemous and Idolatrous Hereticks The Family of love H. Nicolaus Familiae Caritatis Pater dixit Ego sum Deus Vide Theodor Cornhert in Specimine injustitiae Deificati Hen Nicolai Praefat. Mr. Fry his Bellows pag. 16. Mr Fry his proud blasphemy The grand question concerning Christian communion with blasphemous Idolaters seducing Hereticks and base Apostates Vide Gomarum Voetium Zanchium Polanum de Trinitate Jod Cocâ— Thesaur Cathol lib. 1. Goldast in Imperial constit Tom. 3. Elmenhorst com ad Gennadium The Reasons why Socinians are rejected from Christian communion The common unity of the Christian Faith The Adequate object of Divine and Evangelical worship They who deny the Trinity are apt to close with Iews and Turks Vide Epistolas Seidelii apud Socinum de Adoratione christi Videl de Deo synagogae lib. 1. cap. 2. socinismus ex Mahumetismo oritur in eundem resolvitur Stegman Photin Socinismus est recta ad Judaismi Turcismi nec non Atheismi via Exempla dabant Neuserus Pafradus viri non indocti quorum ille minister in Palatinatu hic praeceptor Classicus Scholae Marpurgensis Vide D. Voetii Antidota Generalia adversus Socin pag. 437. 438. Abrah Caloviumâ— Mr Fryes blasphemy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. 2. 2. Error Personae fatalis error est The substance of the Gospel and the Covenant of Grace The Contents of the Covenant of Grace Gal. 5. 5. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Eph. 2. 18. Socinismus est haeresis pestilentissima divinitatem Christi spiritusque abnegans viamque per propriam vitae obedientiam ad coelum affectans Socinianism overthrows the Covenant of Grace Socinismus divinam Christi essentiam personam satisfactionem negans objectum fidei cultusque tollit Christianismum evertit We are quickned and cured by Christ and his spirit according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace The Spirit is given by Covenant as a bond of union Christ God-man is the only Mediatour of the Covenant Christ is God and man in one subsistence or Person The high importance of this truth Mr Fry in his Bellows printed at Addle-hill pag. 15 16 17. The nature of christian Communion 2 Cor. 13. 14. Eph. 2. 18. The Sacraments of communion Christian Baptisme Mat. 28. 19 Eph. 2. 18. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Act. 2. 38 39. 2 Cor. 6. 18 2 Cor. 7. 1. Rom 8. 15 Gal. 4. 5 6 The Lords Supper The growing saving communion The mystery of the Trinity is made even sensible to us in the hâ—ly Sacrament The special application The highest communion Sacramental knowledge Sacramental mysteries are spiritual and yet real Joh. 6. 55 63.