Hagnelion Jechidatho Ruahh Turak Jehovah Ehhad.  
OR, EYESALVE, Recommended to the World in a Short Essay, Occasioned by the sight of a Discourse set forth Since the King's Injunctions, CALLED, Some CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE TRINITY.  Ps. 8. 2. 
Out of the Mouths of Babes, and Sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thy Enemies, that thou mayst still the Enemy, and the avenger.  
LONDON: Printed in the Year 1696.   

The Author TO His Book on the Holy TRINITY.  
MY 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a most sad and lamentable Consideration it is, on which I can neither think, Speak, or write without great Concern, and Grief of Heart, that the present age being filled with Controversy about no less a matter than the Holy Trinity itself, the greatest Divines in the Church should be mistaken, as they are, in the most fundamental Article of the Christian Faith, the Profession, and Belief of which is formally, and essentially necessary to Baptism, to be Administered always in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost by the special Command, and Order of Christ himself, the great Apostle of our Profession; and that the Church should thereby be filled with Scandal as it is, not only to the Confirming of Deists, and Arians in their wickness, and Heresy, but also to the turning aside of God's People from the right way, who seeing their Leaders Contesting so hotly with each other, as they do, about the very springs of all Divinity, and Religion, cannot therefore but waver, and be brought to doubt of the Verity, and Sacro-Sanctitie thereof. Surely, to be feared it is, that Christendom is even now called to an Account and Recconning for this, and I am tempted, methinks, upon it, with Jesus Ananai in Josephus, to fill the streets of our Cities with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it. For what can be the Consequence, and Effect of such great Mistake, but that our Blessed Saviour (so little Faith being found in the Land) should come at last in Judgement against us, and that our Jerusalem should be destroyed? Is there any Remedy or Prevention for so great an Evil? There is one only, that the Mistake be rectified. Wherefore, I tell Thee, and Tell it Thou again to all that read thee, that the wrapping up the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which God hath revealed, and the Church in her Holy Creeds sufficiently Explained, in the Cloud of Misteriousness, has been the cause of this Evil, it being a Papistical Doctrine, which serves only, as it has been made use of, to cover over another Error, as bad, or worse, that of Transubstantiation. Must we look on now, and suffer this? let those, who are so Earnest to bear up the Grandeur of the Church, more than God's Holy Truths, making Religion to be a Scala ad Eminentiam, instead of a Scala Coeli, Consider of it. I, for my part, for the Truth's sake choose rather to take up the Cross of Christ, as a Donative of his, who took it up for me first, that I might obtain Eternal Life, and be Numbered amongst those blessed ones, who, having their Reward in Heaven, shall for ever praise him. Go therefore, My little Book, into the world dreadless, (fearing neither Kings, nor Princes; Pope, nor Cardinals; Arch-Bishops; nor Bishops; Conclave, nor Sanedrim,) and carry thy Eyesalve to them all, telling them, it's the Counsel of him, who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, to anoint their Eyes with it, that they may See. Go, and God Bless thee with good Success. So prayeth he, who beleiveth a Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity; but does not believe that Trinity Is Unity, or that Unity is Trinity; that is, Believes three Persons to be one God, so is no Tritheita; that Three Persons are one Person, cannot Believe, so, is no Sabellian.  
S●.   

THESE Three are One. OR, A Distinction of Persons in the Trinity, yet in Unity, clearly, tho' briefly, asserted.  
HATH this Church, the Church of England, at this Day need of Eyesalve? it appears by the many Errors, concerning the Trinity, which go abroad in Print, that it hath: yea, that it hath need of more Epistles yet from him who walks betwixt the Candlesticks, and holds the Seven Stars in his right hand. Wherefore, choosing to be under Hherem rather than Suffer the Truth to fail, for Sion's sake I shall not hold my Peace. Once have I written, and twice will I do it, making only this Apology for saying so little on a Subject controverted so much, that the less is said of it, if it be enough, it is so much the better. So, Aspirante Spiritu Sancto, into the Deep I launch forth, craving leave, in Order to what I shall say, to premise this little,  
That, as I do, and must grant, that there is but One God, which we are as sure of, as that there is but one Sun to rule the Day, and One Moon to give light in the Night; So, it be granted me likewise, that there were two more, before the Worlds were made, what ever we may take 'em to be, WITH THIS ONE GOD.  
This will be granted me, I presume, by all, because he that denies it, owns not Revelation, and 'tis Confessed by the Arrian. So that, The Questions to be regarded by us are, whether he, who is said to be begotten, the Other, who is said to proceed, in Scripture, from the One God, be truly, and properly, each of 'em, Themselves God? Further, whither these Two are, together with him, who is called in Scripture the Father, THE ONE GOD, or no?  
What, (to let go Socinus,) does the Arrian say to this? He, Poor Man, (I call him so, because he's a follower of Ebion,) denies, it utterly, yet in my Eye, not without reason, because of the Scandal that's given him. For, he knows as well as any man, that to say, that Three Distinct Infinites are one Single Infinite, as he is told, Implies, and is false; that, to say, a Mode, a property, or Faculty can Constitute a Distinct Person, as he's told likewise, Obtrudes on him an Impossible Notion. He says therefore, The Son, and the Holy Ghost cannot be God, which, we are sure, is false if the Holy Scriptures be true.  
What next does the Author of the Considerations, mentioned in the Title-Page, Say? He likewise, seeing the same Absurdities as the Arian doth, and very well perceiving the Son, and Holy Spirit's Characters in Scripture, Concludes, because he dares not go against his Creeds and Litany, that they are Persons; but that they are not so distinct as Three Angels are, etc. No; Saith he, it's an Impossible thing this.  
What, lastly, say I now? truly, what he averr's I cannot possibly grant him. Here, my Author wants Eyesalve. Consequently, in Opposition to what he Contends for so Earnestly, as if 'twere the Faith once delivered to the Saints, I lay down this for Truth.  
First, that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are Persons, and that, as Distinct as three Angels Persons, or as the Persons of Peter, James, and John, are. Secondly, That the Son, and Holy Ghost (Persons as distinct as I've Expressed 'em to be) are, in the Concrete, truly, and properly, God, and that each of 'em is Infinite. Thirdly, Forasmuch as the Godhead, in the Abstract, is, and can be but One, That the Son, and the Holy Ghost (their Personal Distinction notwithstanding,) are, together with the Father, ONE, and the SAME GOD.  
Will some say, (perhaps startling) is this the Truth? I answer that 'tis for certain the Mystery, and must be maintained, if any thing may be done, to Convince our Modern Arians, who are so rooted, and Confirmed in their Misbelief, that 'tis hard to move 'em; in regard they are so much poisoned by that Miscreant Bernardin: Odhinus, the Author of MO-CHRI MA, called so amongst his Friends, but set out under the Name of his Labyrinths; as also by that Spawn of his lately set out by an Anonym, who wrote Notes on the Creed of St. Athanasius; which by the way, is not, as, some would have it to be, falsely so called, but truly; witness that Arian, who wrote that Pestiferous Sheet, himself: he (viz.) tells us that the Greeks (meaning Arian Bishops, no Question,) said, that the Holy Father was drunk when he made his Creed, (then that he made it is plain,) Quoting for it Gennadius Bishop of Constantinople in his Catul. Illustr. vir. per 〈◊〉 Scholar A. which Gennadius lived in the next Century after the Death of Athanasius.  
It will be Objected here, must we then Maintain a Substantial Trinity? distinct Persons, we all Know, are distinct Intelligent Substances, and may we say, they are one Substance again? here's the Riddle, here's the Knot; is it to be untied by us? Yes, say I. For the Nature of Spiritual Substances is such, that, if they are Intimately in Unity, they may truly be said to be Vnius Substantiae, and are, sure enough, Vnum Totum Spirituale. If Spirit, Soul, and Body, for being in Unity, are one Individual Man, why should not the Persons in the Holy Trinity, being much less Different from each other, as all will acknowledge, than Spirit, and Body are, be One Individual God?  
Surely, Dr. Sherlock, the Reverend Dean of St. Paul's, in that he asserts a Substantial Trinity, is in the Right; what he is wrong in, is this; that he asserts the three Persons in the Trinity to be three DISTINCT INFINITES. For herein he is false, the Difference is so wide, that it Constitutes Tritheism.  
For my part, I deny Absolutely, that they are three DISTINCT Infinites, yet that they are each of 'em Infinite, I as positively affirm. Is it a Contradiction this? No such matter. St. Athanasius tells us, that the Godhead of the three Persons is but One, and that the Son, and Holy Ghost, be Co, that is to say, WITH GOD: Here is Distinction▪ than plainly, how can they be With God else? but then, he tells us also, that they are Equal with the Father: How, I pray, may this be? he says, for having the Father's Glory: So also that they are Coeternal; how again? for having he says, the Eternal Majesty of the Father: Is not this plain? surely, granting the Unity, (that the Son is begotten in Unity; that the Holy Ghost Proceeded in Unity with the Father's Glory, and Majesty,) I do not see how it is possible they should not be God Themselves, and the Same God, seeing that each of 'em is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clearly; for, what, I pray, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? It is, if we take the word, as the Nicene Fathers, (not as Paulus Saemosatenus) understood it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which is as much as, Another Person having the Unbegotten Substance of the Father Undividely, or, having the same Substance, which the Father hath, together with his Own.  
What's the sequel of all this? is it not, that they are, after the same Manner, Co-Infinite too, as they are Coeternal, and Coequal? surely Yes. Therefore, say I, The Father is Infinite: The Son is Infinite: And the Holy Ghost is Infinite: And yet there are not three Infinites, but One Infinite. The reason is, because they are all three Infinite, not by sundry, or divers Infinities, peculiar to each Person One; but, by One, and the same Infinity, Common to 'em All.  
The Convocation at Oxford should have taken Notice of This, when they Issued out their Decree irrespectively to what is suggested. Had they so done, they might have Escaped the Censure of those, who say, they trusted not their own Judgements in the sense of their Creeds, but Abetted only the Hypothesis of a Reverend writer, whose Learned Book no Man need be at the pains to Answer, because he has Answered what he himself writ, solving the Mystery at last by Modes, whereas before he had determined it (I wonder it was not Spied,) to be altogether unintelligable, and past the reach of human Understanding. But,  
To come close the Author of the Considerations, are the three Persons so distinct indeed, as three Angels, or, three men's Persons are? No, saith he; take heed of saying it, here's a manifest Implicat, so it's an impossible thing, and false. Is it so? we are undone if it be; but praise be to God, it is not so. I confess, it seems a Riddle somewhat difficult; but 'tis not so difficult, for all that, but it may be Explicated: I shall distinguish therefore between a Person, and it's Shechinah.  
What's a Person first? it is an Intelligent Substance, is it not? it is so. Is every Angel a Person therefore? it is surely. And is not a Soul, tho' distinct from the Body, a Person too? it is likewise. Yea, a Soul, tho' separate by Death, I aver to be a Complete Person, tho' it be not a Complete Man. For Man is a Person in Unity with Earthly Substance; he is Maden, or Man'e, that's his Root, for which he's called Man. Shall we call the Soul, being separate from the Body, but a piece of a Person? God forbidden. What is wanting to make it a Person? is it not Substance? is it not Intelligent? It must be granted this. A Person therefore it must needs be, or, we are to seek for its Definition, yea, it is nothing at all.  
What's a Shechinah next? it is that which a Person dwells in, is it not? it's the very same. For it cometh from Shachan, the English of which is, He Dwelleth, and the Constant word it is in Scripture, when the Sublime Mysteries of our Faith are spoken of there: yea, if rightly, and well Understood, I conceive, it would solve all Mysteries clearly. For that which I say, I shall refer, at present, only to the Eighth Chapter of the Proverbs of Solomon, where Wisdom, the same whom St. Paul calls the Wisdom of the Father, says thus: Any Chochmah Shachanti Cnormah, ('tis a Metaphor taken from the Mathematics, the Hebrew Gnormah seeming to answer Norma in the Latin, which shows that the Divine Counsel is the Rule of all things made,) I wisdom dwell in Skill; or, (because in the Latin 'tis in Consilio,) I wisdom dwell in Counsel. From which I argue, that by Shechinah we are to understand the Tabernacle, or Dwelling of a Person; in a word, that Substance which a Person is strictly in Unity with, or, dwells in by an Unitive Tie intimately, that's its Shechinah.  
What follows hereupon? verily it is that the three Persons in the Holy Trinity are truly as distinct as the Persons of three Angels: yea, as the Persons of Peter, James, and John are, and that these last differ in this Respect, that the Persons of Peter, James, and John have distinct Shechinahs, whereas the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have but one only, Singular, and Common Shechinah. Now applying this Eyesalve to our Eyes may we not see, that Peter, James and John (being both for Person, and Shechinah distinct) cannot possibly be one man, and yet that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (tho' as distinct Persons as they) can be one God? see it we may plainly, forasmuch as the Everlasting Substance of the Father, which neither is nor can be Multiplied, is their common Shechinah, for which it can't be otherwise. Not otherwise? No. For before the worlds were made, there was, as the learned Jews speak, but One Place, which they call, with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Emphaticu● Hammakom, The Place, meaning by it that there was but one Vbi, and that a Repletive Vbi having no distinct Rooms, no Apartments for ● Person to be in. That which follows, Consequently, is, that a Person, if Produced before the Worlds, must of necessity be in Unity with the Divine Substance, or, which is the same thing, in Unity with the Godhead of the fist Person, or else be not where. Is it so? then follow it doth again, that if the Unoriginated Substance cannot be Enjoyed per parts, that is to say, by Parcels, Parts, or Portions, in Regard it is Repletive, and fixed Substance, it must be Enjoyed, if at all, whole, and so I affirmed to be, as thereunto directed by St. Paul. For so he speaking of the Second Person, the Son, says, in Him dwelled (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Shachan are the same) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All the fullness of the Godhead, as much as, the whole Godhead of the Father, the will, and Understanding only of the Father, which are his own, not the Son's, Excepted. I add the Last words, because the Distinction is only Personal, the Son's Person, tho' emerging, in its begetting, out of the divine Counsel, and will, yet abiding still in his Father's Substance, and Bosom: Not emerging (tho') per modum Facturae, or, Creationis, which is of things ad extra, and belongs to creatures, but per modum Resultantiae, resulting just as the image of a Man's face does from a Mirror, yet Substantially, as if he were his Father's Effigies, for which he's called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the express, and engraven Image of God, himself saying of himself, he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.  
And have we not here found the true Alkaist? in my Conceit, we have; for the word is to be Understood, without peradventure, Symbollycally only. God's Substance, we may be sure, is the only Substance that may be called fixed. Therefore, with Reverence, may we not say, that when God begat his Son, he volatlised the fixed, and fixed the volatlised again? It may be said, as it seems to me, rationally enough. Lo then! Here's the true Alkaist, the true Tree of Life, the leaves of which are for the Healing of the Nations. But, to return; the Coelum, or, Domus Sacro Sanctae Trinitatis is the Everlasting Hammakom, Place, or Vbi, as aforesaid, and because that's the Blessed Trinity's mutual, Common, Shechinah, or, Dwelling, therefore are they, all three, but One only Everlasting God.  
That such as this was the sense of the Ancient Homoousians, or, Nicene Fathers I am very well assured, consequently, that the Primitive Church may bring the present Church out of Error, I shall endeavour to prove what I assert from Antiquity; that I may do what I say, laying down, among multitudes, three clear, and manifest Testimonies.  
The first shall be taken (that I may go upwards,) out of Venerable Bede, who in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. 4. Ch. 17. tell's us of a Council of Bishops held here in England about a thousand years since under Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury, and says that all of 'em to a Man Unanimously agreed, according to the Nicene Faith, as his Book will show, propersonis Consubstantiallibus, and, which is accurately to be observed, that they declared the Father alone to be sine Initio, and the Son, with the Holy Ghost, to be ante Secula only. An unbegotten Son, we see, was not in their thoughts in the least, but they confessed clearly, to believe in an only-Begotten Son, as he, who is the word, is called by both St. john's. Which accordingly Pamphilus the Martyr would never departed from, having It always in his mouth, viz. I believe in the only Begotten Son of God, for which we have the Testimony of Valesius. Vid. Vales. in Vit. Euseb.  
The Second Testimony shall be of Synesius Bishop of Cyrene, who in his Hymn on the Holy Trinity has such words as these,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
An Intellectual Section, or, Division is spoken of here, inferring Distinct Persons, or, Understandings plainly: One of which he supposes to be the Birth of the Father's Intellect, yet, Remaining in his Spiritual Bosom, to wit, the Son; the Other, viz. the Holy Ghost to be a substantial Spent, or Aporrhaea, as of a precious Ointment filling All Room, All Place, yet, abiding still in the great Name, even as the Scent doth in the Ointment from which it flows. Made good in both these is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Synesius; the Two Persons, considered as distinct, being separated from the first, but considered as Con-Substantial, still, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet, undivided. Here then, First, we have Hagneliôn, as in the Title-Page, as much as to say, the Most Highest, (viz. for Person,) that is the Father. Secondly, We have Jechidathô, his begotten, or only One, which is the Son in his Father's Bosom. Thirdly, We have Ruahh, or, Shemen Turak, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Scriptures call Unction, or, the Oil of Gladness, tho' powered out, yet remaining in the Godhead of the Father also. Lastly, We have Jehovah Ehhad, because the Son, and the Holy Ghost are uncut off from the Father's Substance, who with him consequently, are but one Lord. It is for this that St. Paul calls the Second Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Beam of God's Glory; being as a Beam of the Sun, which, tho' divided, is not cut of from the Body of the Sun.  
The third Testimony is of the First Christian Emperor truly August, by name Constantine, who, speaking, in his Orat. to the Convent. of Saints, of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which however the learned think of it, seems to be nothing else but the Translation of Mijmro in the Targum,) says, that in the Mystery of the Trinity there is a Disjunction-Conjunction: he means, as the following words show, a Disjunction performed Intellectually only, not Locally; or, a Disjunction of Two of the Persons abiding in Conjunction with the substance of the First; I say, abiding in it, as Eusebius speaks, (in which he accords with Synesius,) without Abscission, or, without Disruption.  
Many more Testimonies might I produce to like purpose, but I forbear, because I suppose these are enough. Yet forasmuch as many, with Erastus▪ and Hobbs, have more kindness for the Sacro-Sanctity of human Laws, that they have for the Holy Cannons of the Church, I shall add one Testimony more out of the Civil Law. It is in an Edict of Theodosius the Great called Filia ejus Primogenita, because set forth the next year after his Baptism, and it is, , secundum Apostolorum Disciplinam, Evangelicamque doctrinam Patris, Filij et Spiritus Sancti Vnam Deitatem sub parili Majestate, ● sub pia Trinitate credamus. Is not here Paritis, an Equal Majesty? Is not here, Pia, a Godly, or, divine Trinity? and is not here Vnica Deitas, be One Godhead all the while? Let them Judge, who cry out so much, 'tis Law, 'tis Law, which is the worst of the Two, in Earnest, Outlawry from the Civil Sanction, or, Excommunication from the Eclesiastical. And,  
What now, since these Testimonies make out the Mystery, so plainly, the way that I take, can we see any reason why we should check at the Subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Holy Ghost to the Father, and Son? For my part, I see none. What tho' the Arian says, impudently enough, 'tis a Derogation to one who is God to be an Underling, adding, how come the Son, and Holy Ghost to be sent, to be put in Office, to Minister? why is One said to be the Son of the Highest, the Other to be the Power of the Highest? if we anoint our Eyes with Eyesalve, we shan't be long without an Answer to this. For, that Two of the Persons are Subordinate (quà Persons) we may acknowledge freely, having sufficient warrant for't from the word of God. For why? The Son himself says, I came into the world, not to be Ministered unto, but to Minister; and, St. Paul, speaking of the Gospel, calls it the Ministration of the Spirit. Besides, we find, that as the Son Ministers to the Father only because He is of the Father alone; so the Holy Ghost is called, sometimes, the Spirit of the Father, sometimes the Spirit of the Son, because, as he Proceeded from both, so he Ministers to Both. I say therefore, that they are capable of Mission, and Commission; consequently, may be put in Office, tho' as in Unity, they are really and truly God. The reason of this we may Conceive well enough. For,  
We are taught by our Saviour himself, when we pray, to say, Our Father which art in Heaven. May we say therefore, that the Father's Godhead, which is the place of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is the Place of all Spirits too? for my part, I dare not do't, lest I should seem to Deify the Devils. With Aquinas, rather, Deitas est immobilis, say I; for where it is now, it ever was, will be, and Is immovably; of the Godhead there is no going forth, it is Quiescence, it is Everlasting Sabbath. The Totsaoth, or Go forth are of the Son, and Holy Ghost only, and they as they may, so they have, as the Prophet speaks of the Son, their Egressions, or, Out-going indeed; and, Blessed be God's holy name, we see the Effects of all, of their Subordination, I mean, and come forth in our Redemption, and Sanctification, wherein they Minister to the Father for our Salvation. Accordingly I shall lay down Two Querae's to be considered of.  
Whether the Second Person, the Son, be not the Illustrious Prototype of the Souls of Men, who beget their Like?  
Whether the Third Person, the Holy Ghost, be not also the Illustrious Prototype of Celestial Wights, or, Angels, proceeding, in their Creation, all at once?  
So it seems to be. First, because there are but two sorts, or kinds of Rational Being's to be called Persons besides the Trinity. Secondly, because any kind of Person, if it be Con-Substantial, or, in Unity with the Godhead, must needs be God of God.  
To speak of the Son first. If it Be not so, I ask, why is he said to be Begotten? why, as Adam, is he called the Son, and the Image of God? Why, as a nurse Child, or Foster-Babe, is he, long before God's Madeworks, said to rejoice, and to have his delight in the Sons of Men; and, when Incarnate, why did he call men, and women Brothers and Sisters? yea, since the Father, and Holy Ghost could not so be, by reason of the Ones Immensity, the Other's Ubiquity, why is He only Prophesied of to be a man, whom a woman, or rather a Virgin should Compass? and how could he say, I came from the Father into the World, and now I leave the World, and go to the Father? And, what tho' he be as the Arian says, but the Son of the Highest? I can tell him, that he notwithstanding is most High too, yea, as High as the Highest; for so the Holy Church in her Hymn at the close of the Communion Service Sings, Thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high; ask we how? She says, In the Glory of God the Father. What is't I hear? O Depth of Wisdom! O Abyss of Love, tho' faintly, yet, someway Comprehensible! On it, because he that is God's fellow, (being made man,) is my fellow also, my heart Exults, and Rejoiceth in Hope, that he'll be as kind to me, as to any Sinner else, and keep my wretched Soul from Hell. Whether this be true, or no, it seems to be a suitable, sweet, ravishing, and lovely Contemplation; for which, if I had Solomon's Wisdom, I would Compose another new Song of Songs, and, as an Higgajan, (which comes from Hagah mporting meditari, and Eloqui both,) with heart, and Voice sing it to my Beloved. For, what tho' he came forth from the Father, into the World, so, left his Glory behind him for a while, and appeared as a mere Man? 'twas in love to me, and such as I. But, was the Unity dissolved by it? no, nor did he thereby cease to be God. For the Holy Ghost, who is an Ubiquitary Spirit in Heaven and in Earth at once, and was Vinculum, & Nexus Vnitatis, as the Fathers tell us, came along with him, abiding with the Father at the same time. It was by the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost that the Son was conceived, and from him afterwards he never departed. Now,  
Next, to the Holy Ghost himself. He also seems to me to be the Illustrious Prototype of Heavenly Wights, or Angels. Is it asked, why? I answer, because, as the Son is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Only-begotten one, to distinguish him from men who are created Sons; so is the Holy Ghost called, with three dictinctive Articles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Spirit The Holy of The God, to distinguish him, as it seems to me, from Created Angels, who are called by St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, and in their nature are such. If so it be not, why are they called Ruchoth, i. e. Spirits, as the Holy Ghost is called a Spirit? Why are they said to be Gibbore coa●h, great in Power, and Strength, as, He the power of the Highest? And why Elohym, mighty Powers? for so are they called too, and by this Stratagem, I conceive, (Sc: fallacia aequivocationis,) did Satan deceive Eve, telling her, that She should be like Elohijm, meaning by't, like himself, and his forlorn Partners, the fallen Elohijm, whereas she thought of none else, but Jehovah Elohijm, counting that she should be more like her God than she was before, so by that means was deceived. In short,  
Whatsoever sort, or kind of Persons the Son, and the Holy Ghost may be thought to be, they are God for being in Unity with the Divine Substance, by which they have all the Noble, and Supereminent Attributes of the Father, over, and above the Communicable ones, which mere men, and Angels have, and these being as the Taches of the Curtains of the Tabernacle of the most High, they are One most High God, together with the Father.  
And here now I freely profess, that if the Papists could argue for their Hypothesis of Transubstantiation so rationally as I have done for this Mystery of Mysteries, I would not separate, for that at least, from their Communion. But, tho' I can easily conceive, that the Body of Christ can be present to Beleivers in the Sacrament, Mediante Spiritu Sancto, that is to say, Spiritually, just as he is present, as Head, to his Mystical Body the Church, the Holy Ghost dwelling in him, and the Members thereof; for which I except not so much against the Lutherans, who say indeed, that the Body is Ubiquitary, but say withal, 'tis Supernaturally, or, illocally, as the Holy Ghost makes it be: yet, since I cannot conceive, how Christ's natural Body should be every where, or, in all parts, and places of the Church and be whole, and entire in all such parts, and places, they of the Roman persuasion must pardon me, if I except against Them, notwithstanding the pretence of Tradition so much urged for it; and I cannot sufficiently admire at monsieur Malebranch, for that, having laid down his Excellent Rule, not to grant a full Assent to any thing, whilst Reason Checks, yet himself, reluctante ratione, gives Assent to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation upon such Tradition as is not Ancient, much less Apostolical. Is he a Protestant in this point? if not, it must be Interest, or, Fear that sways him; That Christ's Body is present in the Sacrament, I sincerely believe; 'tis what the Martyrs of our Church, before they suffered, acknowledged freely, in their Disputes with Cox Oglethorp, etc. yea they said, Ipsissimum corpus Christi est in Sacrimento Eucharistiae, as appears in Dr. Willet's Century's, but then they added still, that the Modus is Spiritualis, and, is it not true this? it is, and we must take heed of saying otherwise, tho' the Definitions of the Council of Trent for the Capernaitical way, are in nowise to be allowed. For, if the Church be the Body of Christ, because the Holy Ghost is with it, and in it, why should not the bread together with the wine, as the New-Testament Shechinah, be the Body, One; the other the Blood of Christ, for the Holy Ghosts being with Him, and with the Signs, and Symbols at once? is the Church the Mystical Living Body of Christ, for such reason, as Consisting of living Wights, living Members? why then should not the Sacrament, after the like manner, be the Mystical Dead Body of Christ, as by liveless Elements represented? such an ubiquity of Christ's Body if the Lutherans are for; such change of the Elements if the Papist will agree to, I am hearty with Them, and as the Jews called the Paschal Lamb the Body, so will I call the bread I eat at the Sacrament the Body too, even of Christ; (for Mystically or Spiritually it is so,) and, without making every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father's a Dogma, as they of Rome do, we may do it well, and truly enough. And,  
Here I shut up, hoping that this Eyesalve of mine, which for truth's sake, and with perfect Charity I have presumed to offer to the world, will be accepted by it, because 'tis wholly Compounded of Scripture, and Ancient Records going no further than Revelation leads, within which Bounds I've taken care to keep, as my Duty is. For secret things belong to the Lord, but things Revealed only to us, and our Children; and I humbly acknowledge, Let Arians flout at the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they please, that the manner of the Son's Generation, and of the Holy Ghost's proceeding a Patre Filioque, as not revealed, are above mine, and, as I believe, all others Comprehension.  
It is as Usual as 'tis pious to Conclude Discourses of this kind with Prayer. Therefore, with hearty good wishes to all whose hands this little somewhat shall fall into, I shall do the like, adding this short Prayer following, and Recommending it to the Devotion of such as are disposed to use it.  
O Almighty God, and most merciful Father in Jesus Christ, most humbly I beseech thee, for thy Mercys sake, and for that great lover of Souls sake, thy Only Begotten Son, in whom thou art well pleased, to open the Eyes of all those among us, who have imbibed false Notions of thy most Holy Faith, that, all Scandals being removed and cast out of the Church, and perfect Charity planted in it, Heresy, and Schism may be put an end to amidst thy People; and also, that Millions of Thousands, according to the Blessing on Rebecca, of Jews, Turks, Heathens, Infidels may come into thy Holy Church, and being made One Flock, together with us, Under the One great Shepherd of the Sheep, may obtain the End of the Hope of all the Faithful, even the Salvation of their Souls, and, at the last Day, rise out of the dust, to Sing with Angels, and Saints, everlasting Halleluijahs to Thee, O Holy Father, with thy Son, and the Holy Ghost One God, blessed for evermore, Amen.  

These Three are One.  
Father Jehovah.  
Son Jehovah.  
H. Ghost Jehovah.   
Je is the sign of a Proper Name, Proper Names are of Persons, Hovah is that Necessary Being, which is the Father's Originally; the Son, and Holy Ghost are God for being Consubstantial, or in Unity with the Substance of the Father, which substance being but one, they are all Three One God.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

Postcript, Containing a few Items not unworthy Observation.  
THE Word Trinitarian is a Nickname given to the Orthodox by the wretch Servetus. vid. Sixt. Seneus. Lib. 8. p. 789. It seems to come from Trinitare, and supposes Three Persons to be One Person. Quaere, whither Vnitarian be not a word of the same stamp, supposing more Persons, Indefinitely, one Person. videtur quod sic. Let the Arians consider this.  
The word Existence not suitable, or fit to express God by, because the Godhead is Necessary Being, and causes has None, whereas, Existentia in Actualitas Essentiae, as Essence, yet Naked, is Potentialitas Essendi. Neither, in Divinis, seems fit to be used.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with St. John, is but the Translation of Mijmrô with the Targumists, who wrote thus; Mijmrô daihovah, as much as the Word which is Jehovah; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Syriack, and Chaldee both, is, Qui est; but Daihovah, in reading, they skipped over, whither for Reverence, or some other reason, we can guests only. In compliance, St. John does the same, writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, the word Jehovah, in Greek Letters, being not capable of Pronunciation.  
Hammakom, with the Jewish Doctors, is the Name of the Godhead considered abstractly, by which is meant THE Place. It is Vbi Repletiour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as Trismegist, Centrum Vbique, sc. in see, to be Out of which is to be Nullibi. In respect of its Excelling, or Transcendent Greatness, the whole world is but as the drop of a Bucket; it Exceeds the powers of Imagination.  
Hashechijnah, with the Jewish Doctrine, is the Name of the Son of God, whose Shechijnah is not single, out Twofold. 1. The Everlasting substance of the Father, in which he is Begotten: Then the Temporal or Bodily Substance, in which Conceived by the Holy Ghosts Overshadowing. Seen this, Esai. 57 25. where himself says, (for 'tis he speaks there, calling himself the High, and lofty One, etc.) I inhabit Marôm, vekadosh, i. e. Height, and Holiness, viz. of the Father: also, êthdachche, ushepal Ruahh, (as made Man,) The bow'd-down One, humble of Spirit. Therefore a suitable Mediator betwixt God, and Man, to take Care for the Authority of God's Law's and to take Care also, and to have a Respect to Man's Infirmity.  
Follows an Item to the learned; so run, that ye may be Adepts, 1. Cor. 9 24. And, who is He that may be called an Adept? One that knows Him, who, to the Confusion of Grammar, is a Past, and Future, as well as a present Is: who, to the Confusion of Logic, is an Ineffable Syllogism, without Major, and Minor, yet has a Medium agreeing to Each: who, to the Confusion of Metaphysics, is True Personally, Good Personally, yet remains but One Substantially: who to the Confusion of Arithmetic, is truly Multiplied, yet is not to be numbered by Any: who, to the Confusion of Mathematics, is a Triangle, the Corners of which, like the Ends of the Colours, are to be found nowhere; who, to the Glory of Divinity, is Intellectually Three; Three, yet still Himself, One, and not Many; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of whom each is God, and all three the same God. Again,  
An Adept is One, who Believes in Him, who, tho' Begotten, is without Beginning; is without Beginning, yet Begotten, and has a Father: who, tho' he made All things, which are Made, yet was Made himself of that which he Made first: who, tho' the very Fountain of life to Men, yet for them died once, and was Buried: who tho' Always Within, and at Home, was found without, and gone abroad: who, tho' in his Father's Bosom, as Great as Heaven, was in the womb of a woman, small as an Embryo: who tho' in highest Glory, was wrapped up in most profound Humility, whose Name is God-Man, a Thing heard of but Once, will be again never, the Newest thing of All things called New, since the Birth of light on the first Day of the Creation. Again,  
An Adept is One, whose Eye, tho' he be on Earth, is where the Eyes of Angels are; whose Feet have Wings, and are washed with Milk, and Clean; who Begets with his mouth, Creates by his Example, and his Birth's are Virgin-Souls, being turned into the way of life by him, and Righteous: his life is All Praise; his Death is sweet sleep, being to rise again in the Morn; his Dust as the Odours of the precious Ointment of old, with which Kings, and Priests were Anointed. Here in the Psalmist Hayh who is Crowned with Ashre's, the Man whom this Honourable Name is to be Given to; for he is an Adept truly, and his Name is written in Liber Tsoar, among the Fulgeburt's of the Man dearly Beloved, and shine as the Stars of the Morning shall he, in the Future standing stillness, ever making Haste for Ever to Be, the Adepts only End its self without Conclusion.  
To The Father of an Infinite Majesty, His Honourable, true, and only Son, Also the Holy Ghost the Comforter Three Persons, 
Buy the Truth, and sell it not.  And One Eternal God Be All Honour, & Glory, Le-olam Olmijn, Amen.