The Divine Triunity of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, Chapter 7

The Divine Triunity of the Father Son and Holy Spirit · Chapter 7

p. 181CHAP. 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,foreign. Athan s. ad Scr…pionem. at which men and Angels stand amazed. How can three be one? (saith the Disputer of this world) or one be three? Can one be distinguished again and again from himself? O bold fools, (saith Athanasius) Why do you not lay aside your curiosity, and enquire no farther after a Trinity, then to beleeve that there is a Trinity? The Scripture saith there is but one God, and the Scripture saith that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are this one God; and yet the Scripture saith, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three, three and yet one: three Persons and yet one God. We have shewen above that the Godhead cannot be multiplyed; now we are to shew that the Persons are distinguished, and what kind of distinction there is between these three divine and uncreated Persons.

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

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

I1. These uncreated Persons have distinct and proper names in the Word of God.The Divine Persons distinguished by their proper names. The Father, the Son, [or the Word] and the Holy-Ghost [or Spirit] Now that we may not be Tritheites or Sabellians, let us consider that these three names do not signifie three different Natures, Negamus Deum esse unicam personam tribus nominibus appellatam contra Praxean Sabellium, &c. Negamus tres personas divinas esse tres Deos contra Tritheitas ad unum omnes. Vide Tertull. contra Praxean. Calvinum contra Servetum. & Aug. Haeres. c. 41.and yet they do signifie three different Persons, for p. 183it 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.

II2. These Uncreated Persons are Coequall,The divine Persons are equall, and therefore distinct. and therefore they are distinct; It is most absurd to say that the same Person is equall to himself. But the Son is said to be equall to the Father. Philip. 2. therefore the Son is not the Father.See the Treatise of Reverend Mr. Estwick in his Refutation of Mr. Bidles Argumēts pag 89. 92. 93. We do usually say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equall in power, to note a distinction of Persons; but then when we speak strictly, we do not say the power of the Persons is equall, but we say the power of the Persons is the same, to note the unity of their Essence. We say the Persons are equall in power. goodnesse, wisdome, &c. to note that one person doth not exceed another in degrees of wisdom, power, &c. because it is impossible that there should be any degrees in that which is infinite; and the power, wisdome, &c. of all the three Persons is the same infinite perfection, because all three have the same infinite Essence. And therefore when we look upon Power in a common notion, as referred to the divine Essence which is common to all three Persons, we say it is the same power. But when p. 184we look upon power in a singular notion as it is communicated after a singular manner to this, or that person, we say this person is equall to that in power, the Father equall to the Son, the Spirit equall to both, to note the distinction of the Persons, and not the distinction of the Power, because the self-same Almighty Power is communicated to the severall persons in a severall way; Power is in the Father of and from himself [that is] not from any other Person; the same power is communicated to the Son, but it is communicated to him by eternal generation, and to the Spirit by eternal procession; the …ame power then is communicated to different coequall persons in a different way, as we shall more fully declare before we conclude this seventh chapter.

III3. The Uncreated Persons are sufficiently distinguished by their number.Divine Persons distinguished by their Number. The nature of God is the first Entity, the first Unity, and therefore it is uncapable of number, because it is most singularly single, and actually infinite.Deitas est perfectio infinita simplicis sime unica Unitas ad essentiam pertinet, distinctio vero personarum non ad essentiam propiè & per se, sed ad rationem in essentiâ pertinet. Iunius contra errores Samosat. It is not proper (if we speak strictly) to say that God is one in Number; we should rather say, that God is one, and an only one. Deus non est unus Numero, sed unicus. But the Persons of the p. 185Godhead are three in number: the Scripture speaks expressely of three These three, 1 John 5. 7 Pater auditur in voce, Filius manifestatur in Homine, Spiritus dignoscitur in columbâ.1 John 5:71 Iohn 5. 7.

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

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

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

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

In the fourteenth of Iohn we have a plain Demonstration of this truth.John 14▪ 16, 17.John 14:16John 14:17 I [saith the Son] will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, Iohn 14. 16, 17. May we not safely conclude from hence that the Spirit is a distinct Person, Another Person from the Father and the Son? for the Text is cleare, the Son will pray, and the Father will give Another Comforter; we know the Holy Ghost is not Another God, he is the same God with the Father and the Son, and therefore we must confesse that it is meant of Another Person; he shall give you Another p. 186Comforter, 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 p. 187Witnesses, and he doth not reckon these three and the Godhead for foure (as they do who dream of a Quaternity) because these three are one and the same God blessed for ever. Let us then be exact in observing, since the Holy Ghost is so exact in making of the account. In the eighth of Iohn the Pharisees object that our Saviour did bear record of himself, and did conclude from thence that therefore his record was not true,John 8. 13John 8:13 Iohn 8. 13. Our Saviour answers in the next verse.Verse 14. Though I beare record of my self, yet my record is true; for I am not alone, Verse 16.but I and the Father that sent me. Verse 17.And it is written in your Law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that beare witnesse of my self, Verse 18.and the Father that sent me beareth witnesse of me. It is most clear and evident by this discourse that our blessed Lord did make a fair legall just account; for he cites the Law concerning the validity of a testimony given in by two witnesses; and then he reckons his Father for one witnesse, and himself for another. I am one saith he, and my Father is Another; I and my Father make two sufficient Witnesses in a just and legall account. There is Another (saith he) that beareth witnesse of me,John 5. 32John 5:32 and I know that the witnesse which he witnesseth of me is true, Iohn 5 32. There is Another saith he; he doth not meane another p. 188God; for when he speaks of his power and Godhead,John 10 30John 10:30 he saith, I and my Father are one, Iohn 10. 30. Christ and his Father are one God, but Christ and his Father are two distinct Persons, for they are reckoned as two distinct witnesses; and one Person must not be reckoned for two witnesses. There is Another that bears witnesse,John 5. 32. 37.John 5:32John 5:37 Iohn 5. 32. and the Father himself, v. 37. bears witnesse of me. Well then, Christ is one witness, the Father is another, and the Holy Ghost is a third witness, 1 Iohn 5. 7. we see the Holy Ghost speaks as plainly in this point as we do when we teach a child to tell one, two, and three. For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. If we peruse the Scriptures diligently as we ought, we shall finde that these Witnesses are three Persons, who are one and the same blessed God. They are one in nature, though three in subsistence, to shew that these three Persons are not to be reckoned as three men are, who have three distinct singular natures really divided and separated; for these three glorious Persons subsist in one another, and have one and the same single undivided and indivisible nature; and they are three Witnesses, three Persons truly distinct, Iohn 1. 14, 18. cap 5, 3…, cap. 14, 16.

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

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

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

Conclusions concerning the eternal generation.

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

You see this Mystery of the unbegotten Father, and the only begotten Son is held forth to men and Angels in order to worship that their worship may be directed to Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God, and to God the Father, as the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. God declared this truth after a glorious manner from heaven, that it might be more diligently considered.Matth. 3. 17.Matt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, Matth. 19. 5.Matt 19:5saying, this is my beloved Son Matth. 3. 17. when he was bapt…zed: and the like we read of when he was transfigured in the presence of the Disciples in the holy Mount. And the Apostle doth take notice of these solemne declarations from heaven, and layes them down as Fundamentals of the Christian Religion, 2 Pet. 1. from the 16. verse to the twentieth. All the glorious Miracles wrought by our Saviour, Iohn 5. 36 and his resurrection from the Dead bear witnesse to this fundamental truth, that Christ is the first begotten, and the only begotten Son of the living God; be pleased to compare, Acts. p. 19313. 32, 33. with Romans 1. 4. and it will be evident that he was not made, but onelyonly declared to be the Son of God at the time of his Resurrection.

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

3. The Father did beget his Son in the IIIunity of the Godhead; the Scripture speaks expressely that Christ is theggforeign. Iohan 5. 18. foreign Rom. 8 32. Proprium opponitur alieno quod est extra essentiam Act. 3. 12, Vide D. Alting Expli. Cacec. par. 2. q…. 33. pag. 177.Rom 8:32Acts 3:12 Proper or Naturall Son of God; he spared not his own Son, or his Proper Sonne; Rom. 8. 32. God is the Father of Christ, his own Father, Iohn 5. 18. the Iewes did well understand the importance and force of that expression, for say they, in that he said God is his own Father, he hath made himself equall with God; and therefore that Phrase doth import that he is the Naturall and Coessentiall Son of God, else he p. 194could not be Coequall with his Father, Iohn 5 18. Philip. 2. 6. All those Texts which prove that Christ is God, and that there is but one God, do prove that Christ is the Naturall and Coessentiall Son of God. God hath but one Coessentiall Son, to whom he hath given to have life in himself, Iohn 5. 26. because the Divine Nature, which is life it self is communicated to the Son by this eternall and ineffable generation. It is proper to living creatures to communicate their nature by generation in their low and imperfect way; but the great God who is not subject to imperfection, doth after the most glorious and perfect manner beget a Son in the unity of his own living Essence, who is therefore called the Son of the living God, that is the Naturall and Coessentiall Son of God, who hath the same Divine Life, Nature, Essence with the Father; and therefore Peter is so highly commended for confessing that Christ is the Son of the living God; Blessed art thou, saith our Saviour for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven; upon this fundamentall truth, Christ hath built the Christian Church as on a Rock, Matth. 16. 16. 17, 18. He who hath life in himself is the Naturall and Coessentiall Son of the living God: he hath the same Will, Power, Nature, Essence, Life with his Father, Iohn 5. p. 19518, 26. Iohn hhTotam habet essentiam Patris qui dicitomnia quaecun que pater habet mea sunt. Iohan. 16. 15. nisi velint haeretici etiam patrem duntaxat partem essentiae divinae habere. Et situt Pater habet vitam in seipso, sic dedit filio habere vitam in seipso. Iohan. 5. 26.16. 15. Iohn 10. 30. 1 Iohn 5. 7. The same single and infinite Essence is in Father, Son and Holy Ghost; the whole undivided and indivisible Essence of God dwels in the Son in its fulnesse and infinite perfection. Coloss. 2. 9.

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

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

p. 1981. Because Christ is begotten of God, v. 5.

2. Worshipped by Angels with divine honour, worshipped as God, v. 6.

3. He hath the Throne, Scepter, Kingdom of God, v. 8.

4. He hath the soveraign and proper Title of God, v. 8.

5. The Attributes of God, eternity, v, 8, 10, …1, 12.

6. He sits at the right hand of God, v. 13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. That the Prophet did foretell two particulars.

First, that a Virgin should bear a Son.

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

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

3. The Socinians put a Fallacy upon us by assigning that to be the Cause which is not the true Cause,Fallacia non causae, quum non causa pro causâ ponitur. [he shall be called] that is declared and acknowledged to be the Son of God. This Declaration or manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh was temporall, 1 Tim. 3. 16. but his generation was eternall, Micah 5. 2. The Son of God was sent, manifested, incarnate, in the fulnesse of time, Gal. 4. 4. but he was the Son of God before his Incarnation, and therefore his Incarnation is not the cause of his divine p. 207sonship, 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 p. 208the 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.

IIII. The second cause assigned by the Socinians why Christ is called the Son of God,The second false cause. John 10. 35. 36. explained and vindicated.John 10:35John 10:36 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.

p. 2093. Because he is the Naturall Son of God, and therefore might truly call himself God, v. 33. 36.

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

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

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

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

To which we answer,Genui Ps. 2. prop…iè significat generationem aeternam. Genui Act 13. significat Metonymi ce, hoc est genitu… patefeci ho…ie, cum te excitavi a …m r…uis, R…m. 1. 4. explici…è dicuntur verba ista Psal. 2. de generatione, implicitè & consequenter autem resurrectioni accommodantur; consequenter inquam non ratione consequentis sed consequentiae. Vide D. Gomari Analys. Epist. ad Hebraeos pag. 299.Ps 2Acts 13 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 p. 211eyes 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 p. 212forgivenesse of sins and all sure mercies by him who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification; this is the scope of the Apostles discourse in the thirteenth of the Acts from the 23 verse to the 39· The second Psalm is cited here by Accommodation to make good a remote and Implicite consequence; as those words, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, &c. are cited to prove a resurrection by an Implicit consequence, Matth. 22. 31, 32. Thou art my Son, mine owne proper Son, whom I own for my only begotten Son by raising thee to a never dying life.

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

I cannot but admire that the acute Socinians should cite every place where the second Psalm is named, to prove that there are so many severall causes of the divine sonship of Christ; but I do more admire that they should cite this Text of all the rest; for if their fifth argument have any force in it, doth overthrow and disprove their four first arguments. If Christ was p. 213not 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, p. 214and nature of Iesus Christ, and this truth is most evident from the connexion of the seven and eight verses of the second Psalm.

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

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

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

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

To which we answer. That the Spirit is the natural vertue of the Father no more then he is the naturall vertue of the Son, or of himself; for the vertue of God is the essence of God; the Holy Ghost is his own essence, and all three persons have one and the same essence; The Holy Ghost who proceedeth from the Father, is called the Power of the Father, Luke 1. 35. because p. 217the 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;foreign 1 Cor. 2. 11 foreign 1 Cor. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 5▪ 6. Acts 5. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 3. 16, 17.1 Cor 2:111 Cor 2:121 Cor 12:51 Cor 12:6Acts 5:3Acts 5:41 Cor 3:161 Cor 3:17 The testimony of the Holy Ghost is as divine as the testimony of God the Father. The Witnesse of God is greater, verse 9. must refer to the Witnesse of the Father, Word and Spirit, verse 7. though the testimony of the Father be specially insisted on in the following words; for all the three Witnesses in heaven give one and the same testimony, and that testimony is divine. The H. Ghost is the Spirit of God, and p. 218the Spirit which is of God, Rom. 8. 11▪ 14. 1 Cor. 12▪ 3. Isa. 6… 1. Isa. 63. 14.Rom 8:11Rom 8:141 Cor 12:3Isa 6:1Isa 63:14the Spirit of Elohim, Gen. 1. 2. the Spirit of Jehovah, Isa. 11. 2. the Spirit which is Jehovah and the God of Israel, as hath been proved at large in the fourth chapter from the 31. page to the fortieth. The distinction between the Father and the Spirit will be more evident when we come to treat of the personall properties; The Socinians are so confounded in this point,Vide Eniedin. in Explicat. loc. v. & N. T. p…g. 288. 289. Ca…e chis. Racov. cap. 6. Ostorod Instit. c. 4. Smalcium in …. Graweri. p. 6. Smalcium contra Wi…k. vesp. ad cap. 15. that they are forced to acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is no Accidentall vertue, no finite substance, no creature, but the uncreated and substantiall vertue or power of God, because whatsoever is in God, is the substance of God; as Eniedinus confesses. And Smalcius acknowledges that it may be granted that the Holy Ghost is God, because whatsoever is naturally in God may be called God. But I shall prove that the Holy Ghost is not only God, but a person of the Godhead distinct from the Father and the Son. Jesus Christ is called the Power of God, 1 Cor. 1. 24. and the Holy Ghost the Power of God, Luke 1. 35, Luke 24, 49. The Son is a distinct Person from the Father; and the Holy Ghost is as the Ancients used to call him, the Personall vertue or Power of the Father proceeding from the Father, by whom he doth declare and put forth his power; 1 Cor. 12.1 Cor 12and therefore the Spirit is said to work and distrioute all gifts and graces as he will; Father, Son and Holy Ghost have p. 219one and the same Will and Power; still we must bottome upon that truth, These three are one, 1 John 5. 7. That this Procession of the Holy Ghost is mysterious, and for the manner of it unsearchable we do readily grant; and therefore I shall not presume to define after what manner the Holy Ghost is breathed forth from the Father and the Son; but we are sure that it cannot be any corporeall procession. The Ancients did constantly distinguish between Procession and Generation; but the eternall generation of Christ being spirituall,Non omne quod procedit Nascitur, quā vis omne procedat quod nascitur. Vide August. contra Maximin. lib. 3. cap. 14. the procession of the Spirit must needs be spirituall; for the Spirit is not only Essentially a Spirit as the Father, and God the Son are, but he is Personally a Spirit. The more perfect and spirituall this procession is, the more evident it is that the Spirit was breathed forth in the unity of the Godhead. They who say the Son doth proceed from the Father▪ use that terme [Proceed] in a generall and very large signification:1. The manner of the divine Processions. but then they say that the Son did proceed by Generation, the Spirit by Spiration thereby endeavouring to distinguish the manner of proceeding. 2. They say the Son did proceed from the Father alone,2. The Principle. and therefore is aid to be sent by the Father only; but the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Father and the Son both, and therefore is said to be p. 220sent by the Son as well as the Father, Luke 24. 49. Iohn 15. 26. Iohn 14. 26. Iohn 16. 14. but Christ is sent by the Father only, because he is of the Father only, and was not begotten of the Spirit; and the Father is not sent by any because he is of himself; hereby they endeavour to distinguish the Principle of these Divine processions. 3. The Son did proceed as the second person,3 The Order. the holy Ghost as the third person of the Godhead, and hereby they endeavour to distinguish the order of these divine processions. We know this divine procession is

1. Spirituall.

2. Eternall, because divine.

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

Iunius answers;Iunius Cathol. Doct. de Trinitdefen. contra Samosat. pag. 36 Spiritus Sanctus procedit Naturalite…, hoc est actione Naturae, non autem voluntatis. Periculos… dicitur spiritum procedere naturâ quidē sed per actionem voluntatis: Non procedit actione voluntatis propriè, sed secundum actionem voluntatis procedere dicitur, id est secundum eamactionem, vel potius secundùm eum modum quo naturaliter procedunt voluntas & charitas. De hac re igitur possemus tacere, & rem Scholasticis defendendam permittere, aut ad libros eorum reijcere. If you oppose the will of God to the nature of God, we cannot say that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father and the Son by their will but by their nature, because the Father, Son and Spirit are Coessentiall; for as the Father did beget his Naturall Son by his Nature, so do the Father and the Son breath forth the coessentiall Spirit by their nature; nor is it safe to say, saith Iunius, that the nature of the Father doth breath forth the Spirit by an action of his will, but rather according to that manner (the infinite distance being observed between what is humane and divine) after which the will doth proceed in man: and this saith he is but a weak resemblance p. 223of 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 p. 224nature 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 foreign & foreign. 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 p. 225that 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 p. 226subject;Vide Athanasium 1. Dialog. de Trimtate Damasc. n. de fide Orthod. Modom Curiositati imponat Lector, nec molesta▪ & perplexas disputationes cupidiùs quàm par sit sibi accersat. Calv. Instit. lib. 1. cap. 13. but I consider what Athanasius, Damascen, and divers other reverend Divines who did long study these mysterious points, have after many perplexed debates acknowledged. The Son (say they) was begotten▪ and the Spirit proceeded; this we are sure of, because it is written; if you enquire after the manner how the one was begotten, and how the other did proceed, we answer that the Son was begotten▪ and the Spirit did proceed eternally, unchangeably, unspeakably.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are Inot Essentially distinguished: for Christ and his Father are one, Trinitas est. unus solus immensus naturaliter Deus, praeter quem non est alius Deus. Vide Fulgentium de fide Orthod.John 10. 30. and all three are Essentially one, 1 John 5. 7. The Synod of Calcedon determined, that Christ was Coessentiall with his Father according to his Divinity, and Coessential with p. 239us according to his Humanity; but the naturall Union between us and Christ doth only prove a specifical unity; but Christ and his Father have one and the self-same Divine and undivided Essence. He must acknowledge more gods, who holds that the Son and Spirit have another or different kind of Godhead from the Father. Essentiam divinam exinanire ut distincti onem personarum demonstre mus est impium; essentiam autē in ipsâ distincti one complecti absurdum.The Arrians did divide the Nature of the Trinity, and the Sabellians did confound their Persons; but Christians acknowledge and maintain that there are three Persons, and but one single divine nature in the blessed Trinity; only the second person did assume the nature of man that he might heale our nature, and save our persons.

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

p. 2403 These three uncreated Persons are truly distinguished; this proposition is fully proved already in this very chapter:Fulgentius lib. de fide Orthodox. ad Donatū. I know it will be expected by some, that I should say that these three Persons are distinguished Really; but I shall humbly desire them to consider, that some have by that expression taken occasion to exercise their wanton wits in cavelling against this deep and glorious mystery to the great prejudice of this weighty truth. If they be really distinguished, say some, then they differ essentially, or tanquam res & res, then they may be separated, say others, then there are three Gods, say a third. It is too well known what sport Atheists have made upon this advantage; and truly it is much at one whether men do professe themselves Atheists or Tritheites; for he who doth beleeve that there are three Gods, may when he pleases, beleeve that there is no God at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. They do not mean separably.

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

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

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

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

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

From what hath been said, it is evident that these three uncreated Persons are truly distinguished, but they cannot be divided; and it is not so safe to expresse the distinction of uncreated Persons by Termes of Art; They who say the distinction is Naturall, Vide D. Voetium de unica & simp. Dei natura pag. 235. En Mysterium quod nec capit Ratio, nec demōstrat exemplum Sola enim revelatione divinâ nititur, & proinde fide divinâ suscipiendum est & pieta…e suspiciendum. Vide D. Alting. de Cognitione Dei Relativa. Incomprehensibilis rei imaginem in rebus creatis frustra quaerin us. Aug. lib. 15. de civ. Dei cap. 13. foreign ▪ Damas. Orth. fid. lib. 1. c. 9Reall, 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 p. 248of 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.