Mr. BIDLE'S CONFESSION of FAITH, Touching The HOLY TRINITY, Wherein His CHIEF design To overthrow that SACRED MYSTERY And the DEITY of our Blessed SAVIOUR. IS EXAMINED AND CONFUTED. WITH VII. ARGUMENTS To Prove The DEITY of the SON of GOD. BY NICHOLAS ESTWICK, B. D. Sometimes Fellow of Christs college in Cambridg, And now Minister of Gods Word at Warkton in Northampton Shire. London, Printed by Tho. Maxey for Nath. Ekins, at the Gun near the West-end of Pauls, 1656. The Preface to the Reader. THe Lord our good God is infinite in all perfections, and incomprehensible by a finite Creature; the highest Angels may as soon lad all the water out of the deep Ocean with a spoon, as they can with their utmost abilities attain to the full knowledge of the great Lord; but blessed be his holy Name for his clear revelation of himself to us in his Word of Truth, to be but one in essence, most singularly one, and three glorious Persons, and that we may know so much of him, if we be not wanting in our search, as is necessary for our salvation. It hath been the sinful and industrious practise of the ancient heretics, as the laborious Magdeburgensians have observed, Centur. 2. cap. 5. either wholly to overthrow, or else to corrupt, at least to darken the Doctrine of the sacred Trinity, and to abolish the true apprehension of the Lord Almighty out of the mindes of men, to weaken the Article touching our blessed Saviour, and to entangle that saving Doctrine touching his Person and merits with many errors; but the vigilancy of the spiritual Guides, and Pastors of the Christian Church, even then, by Gods blessing, when they were not assisted with the sword of secular powers rooted up, or at least kept down those noisome weeds, that they did not much annoy the Wheat that grew in this happy Field: and notwithstanding the opposition of these, and all other heretics, Jerusalem, the City of God, was strong and beautiful, well compacted together, and in these main fundamental Articles harmonious and united together. It is not denied, as we find by the light of History, that the Heathen persecuting Emperours kept down the Church from carrying any pompous visibility in the world, and if the flesh had drawn her Picture( saith Luther in Psal. 10. Graduum) she would have been painted like a deformed and poor Virgin, sitting in a perilous Wood in the midst of hungry Lions and Wolves, and surrounded with furious Thieves seeking to kill her, and amongst venomous Serpents. To omit all the rest, in that last and bloody persecution, which continued ten years, begun by Dioclesian, was made a great Army of Christian Martyrs, a hundred thousand,& forty thousands in Egypt alone( to say nothing of the banished ones for the name of Christ) saith Scaliger de Emendat. Tempor. lib. 5.1. an. Dioclesian. If that little Province had so much innocent blood shed in it, who can without tears recount the infinite Ocean, which was spilled in all the Roman Empire? These good Christians had prayed long and fervently that the Woman, the Church, might bring forth a man Child, which should rule all Nations, Revel. 12. and our wise God and merciful Father( lest the Spirits of his Children should fail) gives them in due time a Christian Emperor, Constantine the great, to be a nursing Father to his poor Church, and happily to staunch the issues of blood, which the bloud-sucking Tyrants had wickedly shed. Jerusalem then, as was foretold, Esa. 19.23. increased on the right hand and on the left, until the Host of our David became great, as the Host of God, and his seed as the Army of Heaven which cannot be numbered; then there began to be a path from Egypt to Assyria, and one Nation communicated with another in the Worship of the living God. The devil, the enemy of God and his Christ, raged to see his first-born sons, the Heathen Emperours, which were open professed Enemies to Christianity, cast out of the imperial Throne, and Christians to sit in their seats: the devil, I say, this Mille-Artifex laboured to do mischief in another kind, and that was by seducing his ambitious and active Instruments to disturb the peace of the Church with damnable doctrines, and he found a choice Servant to promote this design, Arius Presbyter of Alexandria: whether he was moved to do mischief out of hatred of his Bishop Alexander, or out of ambition,& an itching humour to make innovations, or vain ostentation of his subtle wit, or for what other cause he was moved, the Lord knows; for certain, he introduced a new Doctrine, that Christ was only a Creature, and of him Constantine speaketh, and applieth a Verse of Homer to him: {αβγδ} Baron ad An. 319. alluding to his name, he is like to Mars, that bloody and pernicious God, but this wise and religious Prince, assisted by that famous council of Nice stayed that leprosy, that it did not spread dangerously to the infection of multitudes in his happy dayes. After the death of Constantine, and his happy exchange of a corruptible for an immortal Crown of Glory, the spark of arianism under Constantius the Emperour of the East, was kindled into a flamme, and this was that pernicious Doctrine which the Serpent cast out of his mouth, as a flood after the woman, the catholic Church to drown her, Revel. 12.15. nor was this wicked and malicious attempt without great success, as may appear by that famous Dialogue betwixt that heretical Emperour and Liberius Bishop of Rome, concerning great and blessed Athanasius; the whole world( saith he) hath given sentence of his impiety. thou alone dost embrace communion with that wicked Man, and disturb the peace of the whole Church; whereunto the Bishop of Rome at the time answered both truly and resolutely, The word of Faith is not made one jot the worse by my being alone. Theodor. Eccles. Histor. lib. 2. cap. 16. And Modestinus, a governor under Valens, another Arian Emperour durst triumphantly boast to Saint Gregory Nazianzen; What dost thou think( saith he) that thou alone canst resist? the rest are for the Emperour, and durst thou alone despise him? Gregor. Nazian. in Monod. It is true, as the same author speaketh in the life of Saint basil, that Athanasius and basil, and a few eminent stout Champions of Christ were as bright sparks kept alive, when he lived to see the multitude of the whole world, which had received and professed the Gospel to be defiled with Sects and Heresies, and which is to be wondered at, at last Liberius Bishop of Rome, and Hosius Bishop of Corduba in spain, that famous and old experienced soldier of Christ, and the greatest number, either through fear, flattery, penury, simplicity, were carried away with that tempestuous whirlwind, which extorted this complaint from Jerome more then once, That the whole world groaned, and wondered that it was become Arian, lib. de viris illust. Fortunatian. and lib. contra Luciferianos; and to him Saint Austin accords, saying; The godly which were most eminent were banished, and the rest in the whole world lay hide, Epistola 48. But this mist which for a time obscured the glory of the Church, was ere long scattered by the Truth, which shined forth most brightly, when the earth, the multitude of believers, Rev. 12.16. in their Synods, and by their Writings helped the Church, and swallowed up the flood, that pestilent Doctrine, as the earth doth water, and the Worthies of the Lord like Thunderbolts did confounded those heretics, so that they coul dnot in many generations lift up their heads to prevail any more in that kind, yet was the holy Doctrine, and pure Worship by degrees much corrupted, both with unwarrantable additions of mens devising, and with idolatrous and superstitious practices, and the further you go from the fountain, you shall find the stream more muddy and defiled, insomuch that the better sort much mourned to see the pollutions in Gods House in their dayes, and both longed, and earnestly prayed unto God for a Reformation. As in the time of the first Preaching of the holy Gospel to all Nations, when the Husbandman sowed good seed, the Envious Man sowed tares, to discredit the holy Truth: so also when new Light burst forth in these latter dayes, when Luther, and many Worthies were raised by God to reform the Church over-spread with Antichristian doctrines, as was foretold, especially by Saint John in the Revelation, Satan had his Apostles also, which taught damnable Doctrines, and( which is the cursed fruit of sinful Toleration) largely transfused their Socinian venom in Transilvauta, Polonia, and the Provinces subject to that Crown; to say nothing of many field Opinions in Germany, and other places which retarded much that blessed work of purging the Church from all pollutions: but, if I am not mistaken, a known professed Socinian in England was as rare as a poys●nfull creature in Ireland, and if a Legate appeared in that wicked cause, he must, and that justly, being obstinate, suffer for it: But since the beginning of our unhappy Divisions( our sins being ripe for a heavy judgement) men have risen up amongst us, and departed from the holy Faith, which they sometimes professed. and these like ravenous Wolves have not spared the flock, and by their perverse doctrines have drawn away many Disciples after them. I instance only in the Anti-trinitarians, which have done the Devil great service in dishonouring the Lord of Glory, and have not only corrupt judgements, but do argue also for a creature Christ only, yea, and do preach their blasphemies against Him, and which is the height of impudency, do expose in Print to the public view their Hellish heresies, such are Paul Best, Mr. fry, Mr. Knowls, Mr. Biddle, and others I fear, which I have not heard of: these men are not worthy the name of Christians, as Athanasius faith of the Arians, that they are not to be called Christians, Orat. 1.& 2, and Liberius when he had stoutly pleaded for Athanasius, and refused gifts offered to him by the Emperour, said to a great man, Go thou thy ways and become a Christian, Theodoret. lib. 2. Eccles. Histor. cap. 16. How should they be true Christians which besides many other Heresies, do deny the divine Nature, and the satisfaction of our mediator? Those that are fervent in Spirit, me thinks, should imitate that glorious Martyr Polycarpus, who was a Disciple of S. John, of whom Irenaeus his Scholar saith, if he had heard any such blasphemies, he would have stopped his ears, and as his custom was, have said, Good God! to what times hast thou reserved me, that I should hear such blasphemies? and he would not have stayed in that place where he had heard them, Euseb. Eccles. Histor. l. 5. cap. 18. Is this the fruit of that vast expense of treasure, and of the spilling of an Ocean of blood for Religion, as was pretended, and for our Laws? Is this religiously to keep the late Engagements of the Protestation and National Covenant? Is this acceptably to praise God for his owning our Armies, as is professed, and crowning them, as it is famously known, with great success, and many Victories? I do humbly conceive, that if this Land had been before these dayes, pestered with such hurtful Beasts( as sometimes it was with Wolves) the Governours which have the rule over us, should for Gods sake, their own, and the Churches good, have taken, not onely the old Foxes, but the little Foxes, that they might not without control destroy the tender Grapes of our Vine; but if we look back to by gone yeares, and recount with ourselves, that there was not, I believe, till these daies of trouble, the least number of professed Socinians in all the Land, and now may hear of many of these, and swarms in some places of schismatics and heretics, this is, and ought to be for a lamentation. I wish that our Rulers would have laid to their hearts, and considered the practise of great Amphilochius, who requested the Emperor Theodosius to banish the Arians, which spoken ill of Christ, from the City of Constantinople and other Cities: but when he perceived that he set light by his motion, having taken a sit time purposely, when Arcadius his Son sat in council with his Father Theod●sius, he gave to the Emperor that honour which was due to him, but to Arcadius he said no more, but God save you my Son, whereat the Emperor being offended, this holy man told him plainly, You being but a mortal man take it heinously that your Son should be slighted; do you think that God is not offended when his only Son is evil spoken of, Theodoret. Eccles. Histor. lib. 4. cap. 15. Very commendable was the zeal of the primitive Doctors, which would not suffer corrupt Teachers, as Thieves to break into the Fold, and steal away the sheep, but as watchful Dogs, they would bark and give faire warning to the sheep, and if possibly they could, scare away the Thieves, and as the industrious Historians say to maintain the integrity of the holy faith, they did not only pour out their prayers with groans to God, to prevent& remove Heresies; but they openly declared against such Priests, they confuted them, and with their grave Writings they condemned them, which were strengthened also by the consent and subscriptions of many pious Fathers: for as they truly say, impudent lies are not confuted with silence and dissembling, nor is the devil overcome and chased away by a sinful suffering him to do mischief without contradiction. I have hearty wished, and I doubt not but many thousands of Christians well affencted to the truth do concur with me in my desire, that some eminent Servants of God which have great abilities, and which are in respect of their gifts, higher then their brethren, as Saul was in stature from the shoulders and upwards, and which have both leisure and store of Books at hand to furnish them, would put forth their strength for Gods glory, the confusion of erroneous Spirits, and the clearing up of divine truths, and to encounter with heretical Authors: if these mighty ones would undertake the quarrel, which for ought I know is not yet done by them, I do conceive it might be said of their Writings, as Abishai, if they would smite them but once, neither they themselves, nor any others should have any need to smite them the second time. Truly this is a matter of high concerment, the Deity of Gods Son is denied, true Divinity is overturned, the faith of many is shaken, salvation is lost, and horrible impiety, to the grief of the godly, is pieced out of infamous, and long since condemned Heresies; if these valiant Champions of the Lord( and a thousand such may be found in England) would by the Sword of the Spirit and the authority of Gods Word in their hands, set themselves against these growing evils, and as Aaron when the plague was begun, stand betwixt the living and the dead, they would be a Buckler to Gods people to keep off these poisonful darts of their Enemies from hurting them, which are too much neglected by them. These experienced Souldiers probably have not entred the Lists, partly because they in modesty put it off from themselves to others, and do think that such an one is fitter for the work then themselves; or partly because they think the business concerns others more then themselves: or, which is more likely, because the Writings of these Adversaries are below them,& they are in their judgments, which is the truth, vain,& froathie,& of no solidity; but I wish they would seriously consider, that it hath been a great honour to many of the ancient Fathers to writ against those enemies which had less to speak for themselves then the subtle heretics have which live in our dayes, as against the Pagans, and those of the Jewish Religion, and all sorts of heretics, though some of them were but of a meancalling, as Hermogenes was a Painter, against whom Tertullian wrote, as appears at the end of the book. And besides the great service they should do for God and his Church in standing up for the defence of the sacred Truth, I do conceive they would be no losers thereby, but by the serious perpending of the holy Scriptures alleged by the Adversaries, they would have a clearer insight into them, and a deeper impression of them in their memories, then perhaps they have at present, besides their great reward from the Lord for their zealous labours: but now when this work is done by such a weak Instrument as myself, Truth shines not forth with such a bright lustre, the Enemy is not so clearly convinced, and his mouth stopped from gainsaying, nor are the seducers, and seduced in that faire probability to be reclaimed, or the lovers of Truth so fully satisfied, as all these would have been successfully done, if these Worthies of the Lord had shewed themselves in the Field with their arms in this Cause of God. I do confess the place of my Nativity was a great motive to me to study Controversies from my youth; and when I came fresh from the Universities of Cambridge was unexpectedly surprised by a daring jesuit, my Contemporary and Schoole-Fellow, as I hear, and in a manner forced to pled for Truth against Popish errors, and when a good part of some yeares had been spent in those Studies, and I had sufficiently tired myself and my adversary, and his silence had put a seasonable period to those cumbursome, and in comparison unprofitable Studies; I hoped then that I should spend the remainder of my dayes without distraction from that weighty employment, which did more properly belong unto me, I mean, the comfortable discharge of my ministry: twenty years and upwards were run out from that time, before I saw Mr. Biddles twelve Arguments against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and as I verily believe, I was moved by Gods exciting grace to examine them, and my utmost intentions were then to add something to a Discourse, viz. a piece of a Sermon which I had on that sacred subject; but by the persuasion of some learned friends they were published, and I see no reason yet, why I should repent of those labours. This present year Mr. Biddle hath printed again those twelve Reasons, and hath taken no notice either of my Answer, or Dr. Cloppingburgs to them: he shall give me leave to guess at his Reasons; to these he hath added a Preface against the most glorious Trinity, and six Articles of his faith, tending for the most part to disprove the Deity of our blessed Saviour: these, though I never saw them, nor so much as heard of them, were( as he saith) printed in the year of Grace 1648. but are much enlarged in this Edition. I have been encouraged by learned mens approbation of my former Treatise, once again in my old age to try the strength of Mr. Biddle, and by the good hand of God with me, have finished my Answer to the whole; I have omitted nothing of moment, and I have been very sparing to allege the testimonies of the ancient and later Writers, which might easily have been done, and have made those cited by me for the most part to speak English, being careful to represent the meaning, though not the very words of the Authors, and as Luther speaks, reconciling the Evangelist Matthew and the Prophet Esa. on Matth: 12. they do differ( saith he) onely sono Grammatico, but they do agree tono Theologico: and this have I done for no other end, but that the bulk of the Book might not grow too big under my hands. I am not so far in love of my labours, nor so ambitious to appear in Print, as simply to desire to have them come into the light, but I do cordially submit them to the judgement of my learned and religious brethren; and whiles they hang in the birth, neither born nor butted, I do hearty desire them which shall peruse these unpolished lines, for Gods sake, for Christs honour, and for the sake of Religion, and the Sons of the Church, to pass their unpartial censure; and if they shall think fit to strangle them in the womb, it shall be no grief at all to me, being very willing that all my labours should rather perish, then the honour of my Saviour should be in the least degree Eclipsed through my weakness; and I would be very glad to hear that a more able Pen was set on work for the vindication of Gods honour exceedingly debased by a sinful man: but if they shall judge them to be in any measure conducing to the opening of the great mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh, I shall neither be unwilling nor ashamed to make them public; but my Prayers to God are, that his blessing may fall on the heads and the hearts of the Readers, whose prayers he doth earnestly crave in the words of S. Paul, Rom. 15.30. I beseech you Brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ his sake, and for the love of the Spirit, strive in your Prayers that he may keep the faith, and finish his course with joy, who is an unworthy servant of Jesus Christ, Nicholas Estwick. O Most blessed Lord, thou art a glorious God, infinite in all perfections, and thou hast been a good God to me, since my first being until this present moment of time; but, O wretched man that I am! I do confess to my shane, I have not rendered to thee honour and worship, thanks and obedience, which are justly due to thy greatness and thy goodness: my nature is polluted with original sin, and my actual transgressions are innumerable, and I have much added to their number, in that I who am a base and a weak, a sinful and unprofitable Creature, have often in this Treatise mentioned your Name and Titles, O most glorious Trinity, and many many times without reverend, aweful, actually devout, and dreadful apprehensions, which are always to be yielded to your high sovereignty. justly, O Lord, most justly mayest thou speak to me in thy wrath for dishonouring thy Majesty, and make me a subject of misery to be pitied by all that know me, and after a few sad dayes on earth, thou mayest cast me into Hell sire prepared for the devil and his Angels. But good God, gracious God, merciful God, blessed God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I beseech thee, for the bitter agonies and bloody passion of thy well beloved Son, and my dear Redeemer, not to lay my errors and my sins to my charge; sanctify me throughout in my soul, in my spirit, and in my body; and leave me not, I humbly pray thee, in my old age, but guide me continually by thy blessed Spirit, and so bless me, that Grace may bee growing, and sin decaying in me, that my conversation may bee unblameable and exemplary, and that my poor labours may bee in some degree profitable for some of thy servants, and that I may be always qualified, and meet to partake of the inheritance of the Saints in light, for thy dear Sons sake. Amen. CHristian Reader, we are to advertise thee of our great mistake in prefixing this Title in the front of many pages: Mr. Biddles Socinian Catechism Examined and Confuted: whereas it should have been, A Confession of Faith touching the holy Trinity, according to the Scripture, Examined and Confuted: we took this his Confession of Faith to be his Catechism; but now wee understand that they are distinct Treatises, and of a different nature. To the RIGHT honourable EDWARD, LORD MONTAGUE Of BOUGHTON, Grace and Peace be multiplied. RIGHT HONOURABLE, IN these our dayes we see, to our great grief, that many which were in times past Members of our Church, have proved schismatics and Revolters from the true Religion, and are not only men of corrupt judgments, but have steeled their fore-heads to publish with confidence their blasphemous dotages. Mr. Bidle is a prime man in this infamous rank, and a Ringleader of the Samosatenian and Macedonian heretics, and pleads in print with all his skill for a Creature-Christ and a Creature Holy Ghost; and he also, to the great dishonour of God the Father, denies his Ubiquity and infallible prescience of future contingencies, and is justly charged with many more execrable Heresies. Nor have his Writings been enclosed within the confines of our Nation, but have taken their wings and have fled beyond the Seas, to the disreputation of our dear Country in the Reformed Churches, insomuch that Marecsius, professor of Divinity at Groningen, a City which gives denomination to one of the seventeen Provinces, is bold to avouch, I do not say either truly or charitably, that socinianism hath fixed its metrapolitical Seat here in England, and displayed openly the Banners of its Impiety. I have some years by gone held forth an Antidote against the poison of his twelve Reasons against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and I hope, not without all success; since the publishing of those Arguments, he hath as is usually seen in deceivers, grown worse and worse, and levied his Forces against the Holy Trinity, and the Deiety of our blessed Saviour. And although I am in many respects unfit to deal with Polemical Authors; yet not hearing that an able Pen hath undertaken this task to answer this Treatise, I have once again appeared in the Field against this most subtle Adversary, as Nicholas Arnoldus professor of Divinity at Franeker in West-Friesland, acknowledgeth him to be; and by the good hand of God upon me, have finished my Answer to whatsoever is material in it; and not relying on my own judgement, I have entreated some Divines, which are eminent for Piety and Learning, to peruse it, and pass an impartial censure upon it, which they have so far approved, that they have encouraged me to expose it to public view. And I am glad that I have a fit opportunity to make an open acknowledgement with all thankfulness to your Honour of one Signal and Eminent Favour( to omit all the rest) vouchsafed to me, and which was so much more acceptable, as it was altogether unexpected, by means whereof a great storm was averted from me, and I have to this day enjoyed the free exercise of my Ministerial Function where Divine Providence placed me. An Oath is a most Sacred tie, and a high part of the Service of our Great and Holy God; and although it be lawful in itself, yet if it be not apprehended to be lawful by him to whom it is tendered, that man without question must run any hazard rather then stain and disquiet his conscience with the guilt thereof; and this merciful act, I hope, was neither displeasing to God, nor a ground of repentance either to your Honour or those worthy Gentlemen, which were persuaded by you not to press me with the public Obligation of the National Covenant. I humbly crave leave to deal freely and faithfully with your Honour according to my duty, in reference to your eternal happiness. Yet I must request the Reader, that no illogical consequences be obtruded on me, from what I shall writ, to infer, That I conceive, you are destitute of Heavenly Graces, to which you are exhorted. No such matter: for there is no man that believeth in God, feareth, loveth and honoureth him, but he may be excited to believe on him, to fear, love and honour him; to this end, that he may use all holy means, sincerely and constantly, that heavenly Graces may not be weakened, and in the least degree impaired, and that they may be gradually intended, and more deeply rooted in his immortal soul. The Lord hath given you a large portion of outward Riches, and it is the Counsel of the Holy Ghost, which you ought to follow, not to set your heart on them, for they are external, transitory, unsatisfying Blessings, and common to the worst of men; and had you a greater Treasure then Solomon laid out in building the glorious Temple, and in the Furniture thereof; yea, if you possessed Mountaines of Gold and Silver, yet doth not your happiness consist in these things: the favour of God, pardon of sins, and Saving Graces with Poverty, are incomparably better then all the Riches in the world; but he requireth that you should make a return of proportionable thankfulness and sincere obedience to him, and to exercise liberal beneficence unto the poor Saints, and to pious uses. Nor hath the Lord only bestowed Riches upon you, but Honour also, and ranked you amongst the Great Men of this world; Seek, I beseech you, chiefly to be great and gracious in the eyes of the Lord, and great in the hearts of his servants, and then you have a fair Prospect to the best Honour; at length you shall be as great as you can desire to be, and in the mean time have more solid greatness, Honour and Reverence, then the Greatest men in the world, which are unholy and unjust, can have; which as the ancient Nobility of Rome, may deservedly wear moons on their shoes, as Plutark writeth; which are a lively emblem of mutability. God hath blessed you also with Stately and Sumptuous Buildings, be you sure to lay the foundation on the Rock Christ; If men ask( saith Chrysostom) why do such and such men build fair houses? it will be answered, to preserve an immortal memory; and that such houses may be called the houses of such Great men; but this is not( saith the golden mouth, Homil. 30 in Genes.) to procure credit but discredit to themselves: for you shall hear words of many contumelies; This house belongs to this man, to this covetous man, to this Robber of widows and orphans, to this Extortioner. If you desire to have an eternal name and memory, the way to procure it, is to be enamoured with the Celestial Jerusalem, which is above, and not made with mortal hands; it is to make your Sumptuous Buildings to be the Churches of Christ, and entertain him in your best Rooms: Provide for eternity by that which is transitory, and this will be the most compendious way to solid prosperity, and the perpetuity of your Family. And touching all outward things, my hearts desire to God is, that you may from a truly enlightened judgement say with Queen Mary, which was in her a commendable speech, I set more by the salvation of my soul, then by ten kingdoms, Fox To. 3. pag. 221. Besides, the Lord hath not placed you in the low condition of a servant, to be at the command of others; but he hath honoured you with the Title of a Master over many servants. Let holy Davids resolution be a standing rule to you, to walk with an upright heart in the midst of your house, to countenance, encourage, and reward those that are virtuous and of an unblamea●le conversation, and to use the wholesome remedy of reproof and admonition to recover such as shall in any kind be scandalous; if they reform, to restore them( as Pharaoh did his Butler) into favour; but if they remain incurable, to eject them as unprofitable to you, and dishonourable to your Family. I may not forget to put your Honour in mind of that necessary and excellent Duty of a Christian, to be adorned with Faith, and to live by Faith in all conditions. Let neither your Children, nor your Riches, nor Honours, nor frowns, nor flatteries of men keep you one hour from the blessed and sweet communion with Jesus Christ; let your soul be so ravished with his transcendent Beauty, that in some Degree you may say with Elzear Count of Arran,( my Author is Sales) if my godly wife Delphina, if any one will seek me, he shall find me( in the assiduous Meditation) on the wounds of my blessed Saviour. And with that honourable Confessor and Sufferer for Christ, Galeacius, One hours communion with Jesus Christ, is better then all the world. My Lord, All the spiritual sweetness of a Christian, is derived from his bitterness, and the life of the soul is from his bloody death: To enjoy him, is a Heaven upon Earth, and when outward Blessings do flow to you from the fountain of his blood, they are then indeed, as a field which God hath blessed. I add, That this will make you to live above all Creature comforts, and to be truly happy without the happiness of the world; this will be a cordial and a mighty supporter in the saddest affliction, and in the approach of death, the King of terrors; this will make you active for the honour of our blessed Saviour, who hath fulfilled the Law, and suffered the Curse due to you, for your salvation. Above all, my Lord, be careful whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, to do all to the glory of God: all other ends in all Actions, Natural, Civil, Moral and Religious must be subordinate to this highest end, which ought to be as the Master-wheel of a Clock, to set the inferior wheels on work. An Action may glitter in the eyes of men, yet if Gods glory be not stamped on it, it is counterfeit mettal, and no coin for the Lords Treasury, its not currant and approved in the Court of Heaven; 'tis as a fair body without a head, as Lactantius speaks: 'tis a dead work, and wants that which is the principal. godliness, as it is distinguished from Holinesse, is required hereunto, and it is a divine impression on the soul, whereby it hath a tendency to God, as light bodies do ascend upward: Although no credit nor profit would redound to a godly man thereby; yet he who is {αβγδ}, Godly and Religious, will move to God, as his Center and ultimate perfection. To move you effectually to act for God, frequently call to mind the glorious Majesty, and the transcendent Excellency of our great God, and this will be a heavenly Load-stone to attract your soul with great delight and contentment to draw nigh to him, and think also what great things he hath done for you; both your natural and your gracious being are from him, and when your soul is put into an excellent frame, and beutified with the Image of God, yet it is like to an artificial Jack, which moves not at all, not to a supernatural end, without the weight of his exciting grace, to give you a Will to work according to that Supernatural Principle, nor to affect without his co-operating grace what you do will, Phil. 2.13. And therefore as wise Solomon saith of Rivers, They come from the Sea, and return back into the Sea; So let it be with your Honour, as all the good you have comes from God as the efficient cause, so let him have the honour of all as the final cause thereof. I have no more at present to trouble your Honour withal, only my Prayers shall be to our gracious God for your true and solid happiness, and the happiness of all your dear relations, and do entreat you to accept of this Dedication, and to continue your favour to the Author, who is Your Honours most Humble Servant in the Lord, NICHOLAS ESTWICK. MR. BIDDLES PREFACE against the TRINITY. Bid. TRUTH is a Stranger in the Earth, in sundry points importing the good of human Society, and this wayfaring condition hath in nothing more disclosed itself, then in the knowledge of the true God; the Nations suddenly revolted to Idolatry, even the Israelites themselves declined, and could by no means be held close to the Lord their God: and this sickness of retaining God in knowledge hath seized on Christians also, as formerly it did on the Jews, as not only by-gone ages, but even the experience of our own times abundantly sheweth, that Christians are deeply guilty of making a defection from the true God, and are so thickened in their lees, that( did we not look upon the mighty power of God) we should conceive it utterly impossible to clarify them from the filth of their superstition: For though Luther& Calvin deserve much praise for their pains in cleansing our Religion from sundry Idolatrous pollutions of the Roman Antichrist, yet the dregs are still left behind, I mean the gross opinion of three persons in God, which error not only made way for those pollutions, but lying at the bottom corrupteth almost our whole Religion. Answer. Our good God at sundry times and in divers manners Heb. 1.1. graciously revealed to his beloved Ones those divine Truths which were necessary for their Salvation, and it is not denied by us, but readily assented to, that since the apostasy of our first Parents from God and their own happiness, innumerable multitudes revolted from the purity of Worship practised by Adam in his own person, and which he carefully taught his Children to yield as an Homage to the great God, who is the first Author and principal End of all things: And this unhappily fell out partly through the strong delusions of that cunning and malicious Adversary the Devil, partly through their own deceivable lusts, in pleasing themselves, and their fellow-creatures, and partly by their Religion, relying on their reason, which since the fall of man is much blinded; and as the Philosopher saith, is like the owl which cannot behold the lustre of that lovely Creature the Sun, the glorious and mysterious Truths discovered in the word of truth. The holy Scriptures do attest to this historical Truth; for instance; the generality of people before the great Flood were defiled, and when the besom of Gods wrath had swept that Generation away, and drowned them all in the over-flowing waters, only Noah and his Family were mercifully and miraculously kept alive; yet see mans mutability, their Issue was in a short time corrupted with Idolatry, and not only the Posterity of Japhet and Cham, but of blessed Sem also, soon turned their backs on God, and ungraciously refused to walk with God, as their Father Noah to his eternal honour had wisely done; and when God in mercy in that general corruption had made choice of Abrahams feed to be his peculiar people, and suffered all others to be guided by their own blind imagination, yet how prove they were to provoke the holy eyes of God to jealousy, by their adulterous carriage both when they were in egypt, Ezech. 20.8. when they were in the Wilderness in their passage towards the holy Land, Exod. 32. and when they were possessed of the Land of Canaan, lamentbale experience doth plainly demonstrate. Thus far I see no cause why we should not agree with you. Nor do we deny but the like inconstancy is found in some, though not in all, nor at all times in the generality of the Professors of the Christian Religion, for in the Apostles daies, which were happy Instruments to spread the light of the Gospel in all known Regions; there were some that made shipwreck of faith, and denied the Resurrection of the body, and blessed Paul, Act. 20. foretells that ravenous Wolves after his departure would arise from amongst themselves, which would not spare the Flock of Christ: and before the death of S. John, the longest lived Apostle, the Devil raised up Ebion and Cerinthus, from whom the Ebionites sprung, as good men were called pauperes de Lugduno as our learned Junius hath observed; Ebion was not( he saith) the proper name of a man, but signifies a man as poor in his outward condition, so poor likewise in his Intellectuals, as Irenaeus descants on his name: These Miscreants held that Christ was only a man, and not God, both to stop and confute that heresy, S. John wrote his Gospel, as Irenaeus l. 1. advers. haereses c. 25. Hierom in Catalogo Scriptor. Ecclesiast. August. praefat. in S. John Fulgentius, lib 1. cum Thrasin: ad others do bear witness, and long after these, Paulus Samosatenus the unhappy Bishop of Antioch, and after him Photinus the Bishop of Sirmium renewed the same heresy almost rooted out of the Church in their daies. Arius differed much from these Blasphemers; that subtle Presbyter of Alexandria denied with the former the Divine Nature of our Saviour and maintained that he was a made God, the first Creature, and by whom God made all things, and afterwards this Son of God was Incarnated; these Innovators in the rule of faith, were supported by Constantius and Valens two Christian Emperors, and by the Longobards, Goths, and vandals: The first name, I mean the infamous Ebionites, Mr. Biddles unhappy Predecessors, and the Arians like leprous persons were not endured in the Camp of Israel, but were recorded as Champions of the Devil in the black Bill of heretics, by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Caesar. Epiphanius, and others, as is to be seen in the Catalogue of the foresaid heretics; and I do further grant, as an undeniable truth made good by this and the former age, that notwithstanding the decisions of the holy Scriptures, and the determinations of venerable Synods. Arius and Samosatenus are unhappily revived, and many deluded Spirits are guilty of making defection from the true God, yea, and they are so obstinately bent to walk in crooked ways, that except our gracious God interposeth by his mighty power to change their hearts, tis not possible for men to clarify them from the lees of their damnable Heresies. That which you add concerning Luther and Calvin in imitation of your Symmists, that albeit they reformed much, yet the gross opinion of the Trinity, as you blaspheme, is embraced by them, and that it lying at the bottom, corrupteth almost all our Religion. Touching these Worthies of the Lord, I say, as Bellarmine did of Calvin, l. de Christo. Utinam sio semper erraret Calvinus. I do wish the Roman Antichristians would always, and in all other Controversies so err, as they do in the Doctrine of the Trinity, and your bare and positive assertion, that Romish corruptions in faith and practise, are deduced from that sublime and mysterious Article, as it is unanimously maintained by Protestants and them, is made good by no better reason then to say darkness is drawn out of light, could out of fire, and corrupt water out of a pure Fountain. This, Mr. Biddle which you peremptorily avouch, should have been soundly proved, and not as if it had been an Oracle dictated to us, demonstrate, if you can in your next, any Popish Error which is fitly built on that rocky foundation. I do differ from you, and am confident, that this holy Mystery was received as a divine truth in the Church of Christ, before Popery had any being in the World, and that it is religiously embraced in this, and the former age, where these defiling pollutions are wasted away. I do see that you are a true Son of the Anti-trinitarians your Progenitors, which were wont in the pride of their own proceedings to glory before the Victory, as it is to be seen in a Table drawn by themselves. My Witness is Bellar. praefat. lib. 1. de Christo, that the Roman Church is like a great ruinous Building: Luther with his followers sits at the top therof, and they do throw down the Tiles and the Roof. Zwinglius with his Sacramentarians do endeavour to cast down the Walls of the Popish Superstition, but the last and hardest work of all remained to be done by the hands of the Arians, Antitrinitarians, and such like, active Instruments of Satan, which being armed with Hammers, Mattocks, and such like Instruments of demolishing stately Buildings, do raze the very ground and foundation of Popery, meaning thereby the Doctrine of the sacred Trinity, and the Divine Nature of our Saviour, which, Sathanusius( for so it pleased that impious forsaken Miscreant, black in name, and black in mind, Gregory Niger, and Valentinus gentiles, as is related by Genebrard. praefat. to his Book De Trinitate) to speak of Athanasius) in that memorable Creed hath explained; which is as a Bulwark to guard the City of God from the approach of these Enemies, the prime Authors of that wicked Sect are dead and gone to their place, yet their wicked Doctrine now liveth, and Satan, as he hath with success done in other places, so doth he desire to infect our English air with the pestilential breath therof, as by many others more closely, so more audaciously by Mr. Biddles Pen. I will therfore by the help of God examine his reasons which he is not ashamed to expose to our view to overthrow the unshaken Doctrine of the blessed Trinity. Bid. First, The Doctrine of the Trinity introduceth three Gods, Bid. 1. Reason. and so subverteth the Unity of God so frequently inculcated in the holy Scriptures; neither is it enough for the salving of this absurdity to say with Athanasius, That though the Father be God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God: for who is there( if at least he makes use of reason in his Religion) which seeth not, that this is as ridiculous, as if one should say, Peter is an Apostle, James is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle, and yet there are not three Apostles, but one Apostle: If the word( God) be taken for the most high God( as here it is) be predicated of three, it is an universal, since not only Aristotle, but common understanding sheweth, that to be a Universall, which may be predicated of many, that a singular which cannot be so predicated, and consequently there are three Gods, as the word Apostle predicated of three, proveth unavoidably that there are three Apostles. Answ. Christian Reader, that I may proceed methodically, and avoid confusion, and unnecessary explication of the same thing, which frequently occurs, I must take liberty to premise two conclusions, and open them for weaker judgments, as well as I can, these are needful, and to be remembered throughout the whole discourse: they are commonly, I grant, in the mouths of all, but they are not well apprehended of the most, nor fully comprehended by any mortal man, no, nor by the most glorious Angels in Heaven, and the reason is invincible, for they are all of them finite, but our God is infinite, he cannot be seen, for he is Visu clarior, nec comprehendi, quia factu purior est, nec aestimari, quia sensu mayor est. Cyprian, tract quod Idola Dii non sunt, and then do we rightly esteem God, saith the holy Martyr, when we conceive and say he is inestimable; yet here is our comfort, though we cannot find him out in his perfection, yet may we find him out in Scriptures, so far as is needful for our Salvation, Joh 11.6.7. The first Conclusion, There is but One God. The second Conclusion, this One God is distinguished into three Persons. It is a grave saying of S. Austine lib. 1. de Trinitate, touching this point, Nusquam periculosius erratur, nec laboriosius aliquid quaeritur, nec fructicosius invenitur. It behoves us then both for the avoiding of the danger of error, and the benefit of finding out this admirable truth, to be diligent searchers for it. There is but one God, Conclusion 1. there are many ways of being One, I mean not one in genere, yet many in specie, as man and beast are one in regard of animal, not one in specie, as some Logicians speak, yet are many in Individuo, which do differ as Peter and Paul, in respect of man; nor one in Subject, but many accidents, as understanding, will, affections, in regard of the Soul: nor one in regard of the integral or essential parts constituting the totum, as the body and soul in regard of man: There are more ways of being One, but I will at present wave them. But One here is taken to be a most single, singular, and perfect Unity, one in regard of the most simplo and indivisible Essence, which is the most perfect way of being One, One in Ultima actualitate existens nec potest reddi magis singularis, nec per proprietates personales quoquo modo actuari& determinari, for this implies a contradiction, and supposeth imperfection and potentiality, which is inconsistent with the Deity, Scotus in 1. sent. dist. 5. quaest. 2. The truth of this Conclusion, the same One God witnesseth himself, I am the Lord thy God, thou shall have no other gods but Me, Exod. 20.2, 3. again, Behold now, I am He, and there is no God with me, Deut 32.39. This appears by the effects, I kill( saith he) and I give life, are not these the works of God alone? In whose hands are death and life but in Gods? Hath God only this power? Are there not others that have this power as well as he? No, verily, for as himself addeth, None can deliver out of my hands: Thus doth our blessed God speak of himself, and in like manner the Prophet Moses also which had the honour to talk with him face to face, speaketh of him, Unto thee, O Israel, was it shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God, and that there is no Other, but He alone, Exod. 33.11. Deut. 4.35.39. And S. Paul lends his suffrage to confirm this truth, We know that an Idol is nothing; Not that divine power which the Idolaters do fancy it to have: the Heathens have indeed many whom they call Gods and Lords, but to us Christians that are informed in the truth, there is but one God, 1 Cor. 8.4. Nor let Tritheises which dreamed of three Essences, or any like them fond contest and tell us such places are to be understood of the general nature of God, not of any One, who is only God. My reason is evident, the general nature cannot perform any particular actions, it is not the human nature, or man in general that reasoneth or speaketh, but Peter or Paul, this man, or that man, whereas our God of whom we do speak, killeth, and maketh alive, and I am he, and there are no Gods with me; which in their corrupt sense would be a speech to no purpose, as if it could be thought, that there was more then one general nature of any one kind, there is but one God only, for if there were more Gods then One, God could not say, there are no more; even as Adam after he was Father to Cain, could not say that he alone was man, and that there was no other man besides him. Many reasons might be alleged to prove the point, I will name but a few: 1. I do suppose that God is not finite but infinite in Essence Wisdom, Power, and that he alone is Jehovah the most High, Ps. 83 18. and therfore there is but one God; for if there were more then one, either they should be equally high, and then it could not truly be said of one of them, that he is the most high, and if one was higher then another, it will follow, that he that is the highest God must needs alone be the only true God: or we may frame the Argument thus, it is not possible that there should be more then One infinite being; for suppose there should be more then one, each of them should have some perfection peculiar ●o itself which is not in the other, but now certain it is that nothing is infinite which hath not infinite perfection, and which hath not a most perfect being. Schoolmen i●lustrate this point by letters: suppose A. and B. are two infinite things, if A. be infinite, then hath it the highest perfection, and therfore includes all that perfection which is in B. for if it hath not all perfection, then the want of that perfection makes it to be imperfect, and consequently that it is a finite being; but if it includes all the perfection of B. how can B. be distinguished from A. and by consequent there can be but one infinite being, the supposition of many Infinites is the destruction of them all. 2. Secondly, If there be many Gods, then either they must needs be subordinate, and one of them under another, as the Gentiles subordinated their inferior Gods to their great Jupiter, or else they must be Coordinate; first, of equal dignity, power, and perfection, not the former, for in causes subordinate, the inferior hath a more limited power then the superior, and hereupon we may conclude, that these inferior Gods are falsely so called, and no Gods at all, for God is apprehended to have an illimited power of working, to be infinite and independent; not the latter, for then either the World could not be governed by one of them, but by them all jointly, then the finite power in them singly, proves them to be no Gods at all, or if they be able, and by consent do divide the Government of the World amongst them; there can no reason be given why they should be multiplied, and better this is performed by one infinite God, then by many, {αβγδ}, And if there be more divine Natures then one, it implies no contradiction that one God should be at difference with another, and have contrary wills, then which nothing can be more absurd. 3. As God is the first Efficient of all things, so is he the last end of all, Prov. 16.4. and therfore there is but one God, for if there were more then one, there would be more then one prime cause, and one last end of all things, and they should be all of them referred to one, and then the alone is the true God, or else they are not referred to him, and then none of them should be the last end of all things, which is contradicted by Scripture. There is no need to add any more Testimonies or Reasons, when we and our Adversaries do jointly agree, there cannot be any more then one God. The second conclusion, 2. Conclus. This is the judgmen● of jo. Bickerfield Contr: Cl. desserta●●l 1. s. 2. c. 1. albeit there is but one God, but one Divine nature, yet there are three glorious Persons, the Father, the Son of God, and the holy Spirit: this assertion is implyed, though perhaps not convincingly proved by that Text, Deut. 6.4. The Lord our God is one Lord, Lord, God. are communicable to more persons then one, else there would be no reason for such a restriction, is one Lord. It is harsh to say, Abraham our Father is one Abraham; David our King is one David, because Abraham and David do denote those very persons of Abraham and David, and none other: and if the name Lord was determined to one Person, it would be frivolous to say one Lord, one God; but they are communicable to more Persons, albeit these Persons are but one in essence. The sense then is this, the Lord our God who is more then one in personality, is yet but one in essentiality. But there is no necessity to allege obscure testimonies, we have a plain proof which is beyond exception and contradiction in our imitation to visible Christianity, in our admission into the Church, where this mystery is placed in the fore-front, written in great capital letters, in the form of Baptism appointed by our blessed Saviour: we are baptized IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST: so that our Christian Religion depends upon the acknowledgement of this great mystery, and to deny this were not only to fall into heresy, but in effect to renounce Christianity. For the better understanding of this sublime Article of Faith, What is a Person. it is necessary to know what a Person is: take notice that the word Person is taken here in a a restrained theological notion, and may be thus defined: A Person is an individual subsistence in an inte●ectuall nature, or a singular incommunicable thing that subsisteth by itself in a nature endued with understanding. First, to the being of a Person, it is necessary that the thing which we call Person, be by nature endued with understanding, I say not with reason, for this properly belongs to men, Rad: contra Scot: contra 22. l. 2. otherwise it is not a Person. But Angels are complete substances, and properly so called Persons. To use a familiar instance; who will or can truly say of twenty Horses or Sheep, or any creatures of the like kind, that there are twenty persons? but if twenty Men, Women and Children are met together, we do usually and truly say, twenty persons are assembled together. Secondly we must know that the word Person signifies some individual of that kind, and not many collectively or considered together, for it is unreasonable to say, that the fore-mentioned men which are many in number, though they have use of Reason, are one person; therefore we mean by person any one singular of that kind: every Man, every Woman, and every Child is a Person, because every one of these is endued with reason& understanding,& is distinct by himself from all others, so that no other Man, Woman, or Child in all the world is, or can be the said Person. I add, that such qualities as can no where be found where Reason is not, as Justice, wisdom, Temperance, and such like, yet are not a Person, because they being accidents are not entire of themselves, but leave their being in a Person. Thirdly, it is required that a Person be incommunicable; it is true, that no singular thing can be communicated, as genus and species are to inferior substances, it being itself an individuum; thus, and on this account the divine nature, though it be most singular, yet is it not a Person, because it hath a double communicability, as the School-men speak, it's communicated to the three divine Persons, as quod, for every one of the divine Persons is the Deity, or God, and it is also communicated as quo, as the form whereby God is God, and every person is God. Fourthly, that which is a part of another thing, is not a Person, as the body is not a Person, nor the soul, because the immortal soul was created to be a part of man, and therefore the immortal soul when it lives in a state of separation from the body is no Person, because( as I said) it was originally created to be a constituent part of a Person, and it hath an innate propension or natural tendency to be reunited to the body; nor should the soul at any time have been separated, or existed without the body, had it not been for the sin of Man, for death which is the dissolution of the parts, is a fruit of sin inherent or imputed, so that the state of separation in itself considered, is a state of imperfection, and whether it be glorious or miserable, yet is it not so glorious or miserable, as it will be in the state of glorification, or destruction, of soul and body reunited. Well then to the being of a Person, it is required in general, that the thing called a Person be of such a kind, as is naturally endued with Reason or Understanding; more particularly, that it be one singular thing of that kind, and that it be such a thing as hath subsistence by itself, and doth not depend upon any other as a part thereof, the hand of Plato is an individuum, not a Person, because it subsists not in itself, but in the totum, the whole, which is more perfect and excellent,& on this ground also the human nature of our Saviour is not a Person, because, it is as it were a part of the second Person of the Trinity, and subsists in the union of that divine Person. Now albeit there are many vast differences betwixt a created and an uncreated person, and there are no fewer then nine recited and learnedly discoursed on by Dr. Cheynel chap: 6. of the Trinity; yet in this they do agree, that the eternal Father, and the eternal Son of God, and the eternal Holy Ghost are three distinct persons one from another, and opposed one to another, not with an adverse, but a mere friendly and relative opposition, so that there is but one Father, one Son, and one Holy Ghost; neither is the Father predicated of the Son, or Holy Spirit; nor the Son of God of his Father, or of the Holy Ghost; nor is the Holy Ghost predicated of the Father, or of the Son of God, which proveth that every one of these blessed Persons hath its subsistence of itself, I say not from itself, and therefore are alleged as three witnesses in Heaven, 1. John 5.7. every one of these is a several Person, and yet all three are but one infinite God, subsisting with all absolute and relative perfection, whence it will follow that we must according to the Athanasian Creed worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity. 1. These three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not essentially distinguished, but the divine Nature is one and the same in them all. Here is the glory of the mystery which dazzles the eye of natural Reason, the divine Person cannot be separated from the divine nature, or the d●vine nature from any one of the divine Persons, and therefore all the titles and attributes which do belong to God, do equally appertain to them all, as to be uncreated, eternal, Almighty: all these, and all the rest of this kind, which are in truth but one and the same infinite being, yet in regard of our weak capacities are apprehended as many, are common to all the three Persons; the Father is uncreated Almighty, and eternal; the Son of God is uncreated eternal, Almighty; the Holy Ghost is uncreated, Eternal& Almighty:& the reason is, because the divine nature of all the three glorious Persons is one and the same, and by consequence these divine Attributes are not really distinguished amongst themselves ratione ratiocinata, as School-men speak, when the mind of man in making a distinction of reason doth take an occasion from the different effects. Mercy and Justice are all one in God, and and they are no other then God himself, yet are there diversity of operations of God, as it is one action of God as terminated to the creature to punish a sinner, and another different action of God to show mercy on a sinner, here do we virtually distinguish these Attributes of God. His Justice and his Mercy, which a parte rei, are the same as vis califactiva& excicativa of the Sun, is but one indidivisible quality, yet hath a double operation, one to heat, and another to dry. Secondly, these divine Persons are not so distinguished, as that they really are, or can p●ssibly be separated one from another, as created persons of necessity must be; so that these three as they are coessential, so do they mutually subsist in one another without commixtion, or confusion: Joh. 14.10. The Father is in the Son, and the Son of God in the Father: this is not only true in regard of the divine essence in which they do subsist, which is not only indivisible but infinite, for then the Father should be in himself if that was an ordinary reason hereof, which propriety of speech will not admit; nor is the relation alone the adequate cause of the inexistency of one divine Person in another, because the relations of original are not of the same reason in reference to the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost: whereupon it follows, that they could not uniformly be one in another; but the adequate reason hereof includes both, I mean the identity of essence with the relation, both these must concur: as in the creatures nothing is like itself, but similitude hath reference to another thing, yet similitude is founded upon the unity, to speak logically, which is in quality: the diversity of the relatives, or the alone unity of the foundation is not sufficient to denominate things to be like, but both must concur in that Argument. Thirdly, these three divine Persons are distinguished each from other: the Father is alius, non aliud a Filio: there are three real Persons in the Godhead, and not three by a fiction of reason, but manifested to be three by plain Scripture, and they were three before any Scriptures were penned, and will continue three Persons to all eternity; nor is this distinction betwixt them grounded upon any offices or external dispensations in reference to the Creatures, but they are distinguished by relations and personal properties truly before mans apprehension thereof; these are called by the School men notional Attributes, because the divine Persons are made known and distinguished by them, and yet they are real relations, and real properties: I mean in opposition to the fiction of mans reason, this distinction makes not the essence of the Father another essence then the essence of the Son; nor is the divine essence compounded, for then there would not be a Trinity, but a Quaternity of Persons, but the distinction is called formalis which is betwixt the essence and the Persons, and this lieth in the midst betwixt a distinction called real, and that which is rationis ratiocinantis, made by mans reason; the divine essence is communicated to the person, but one person is not communicated to another. We may say the Person is the divine essence with a certain modification, or manner of subsisting: the incommunicable manner of subsisting, which each person hath proper to himself, is that by which they are distinguished, in all other things there is no real difference of one person from another; nor are the divine persons simply distinguished by relations, albeit Divines do often so speak, for then there would be four Persons, sith there are confessedly four relations, viz. Paternitas, Filatio, Spiratio activa, and processio: but they are distinguished by their personal properties, or the manner of subsisting, and when these are said to be distinguished by relations, it is not meant as they are relations, but properties, and the very names which are given to them in the word of God do point at the distinction which is betwixt them. The first Person hath the divine essence of himself, because as Scotus saith, there is nothing before the first Person by which it might be put there, but it is of itself immediately in the first Person, and the Father is God, not because he is either begotten or proceedeth, but because he hath the divine essence, which essence neither doth beget nor is begotten, nor doth it proceed; neither is there a greater essence in the Father begetting, then is in the Son begotten, and the reason is evident, because the essence is the same both in Father and Son: as the human nature makes an individuum to be a man whither he hath it by creation, or conveyed to him by generation. Adam was no more a man then Abel was, albeit he had the human nature by creation, but Abel had it by generation. The essence to speak properly is not the fountain of the Person or of the relation: Persons are produced of Persons, and Relations are not produced as they are Relations, but necessary per se do follow the production of the persons. Aquinas 1. par: q: 4. act: 9. The Father then( to speak properly and plainly) begetteth not the essence of his Son: but his Son in the divine essence; he doth communicate the divine essence to his Son by eternal generation, and neither is begotten nor proceedeth, consider we the Son as he is God, and nothing can be perceived to appertain to the Father, but it doth likewise belong to the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost, wherein then will you say lieth the difference betwixt them? 2. We do fully answer, the difference is in his manner of subsisting, or in being the Son of the Father, who though he be neither made nor created by the Father, though he hath not principium initiale, as Junius speaks, yet hath he principium originale, he is begotten by him, and so as he is the Son of God, he hath not his being of himself, but from his Father, and therefore in the manner of his subsisting, is really distinguished from the Father. 3. In like manner the Holy Ghost is distinguished both from the first and second Person, because he neither begetteth, nor is begotten, but proceedeth, and is breathed, as it were, both from the Father and Son, not as from two distinct principles, but as from one: in this regard albeit he agrees with the Son, in that each of them hath his being from a third, I mean from the first person of the sacred Trinity, yet in the particular manner of his being he is distinguished from him, for he is not begotten as is the Son, but proceeds both from the Father and the Son, it is in express terms of Scripture said, that he proceeds from the Father, John 15.26. and therefore is called the Spirit of the Father, Mat: 10.20. now that he also proceeds from the Son of God though it be not in so many terms expressed, yet is soundly inferred, not only because our Saviour saith, all things that the Father hath are mine, John 16.13.14.15. therefore said I, the Spirit shall take off mine, and show it to you; but more plainly because he is called the Spirit of Christ, Rom: 8.9. and the Spirit of the Son of God Gal: 4.6. as well as of the Father. Thus have I with as much brevity as I could, set down a short collection out of Authors, of all kinds, of the divine mystery which is sufficient for my purpose: if a man desires a fuller opening hereof, let him use the learned and elaborate Treatise of Dr. Cheynel, the divine Trin-unity, written in our Mother tongue where he may find full satisfaction. I will now take in my hands the balance of the Sanctuary and sanctified Reason, and will weigh Mr. B. Arguments against the Trinity and by Gods help shall discover them to be too light to bear down this fundamental and well grounded truth. Biddle. The Trinity introduceth three Gods, and so subverteth the unity of the Godhead, as Peter, James and John, are three, Apostles and three Men. Answer. The Trinity of Persons introduceth three Gods, say you; but how this is proved? by an Argument drawn from similitude: as Peter, James,& John are three Men; so Father, Son,& Holy Ghost are three Gods, the consequence is impious, and therefore the Trinity which introduceth three Gods is not to be admitted, to this I answer, it is a received rule comparison, in general, and particular similitudes have a good use for illustration, but not for a solid confirmation of a controverted truth, I answer distinctly to this specious argument( which may perhaps startle an ignorant man) by denying this consequence, if Peter, James, and John are three men, then Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods, this consequence I say is denied, and there is in the proof fallacia similium, three men are alleged to be like the Trinity, when they are most unlike▪ there is not the same reason of the Creatures and of God, mark the difference, there is one general nature common to all men, whereby they are men, and so are they men, as that every individuum is a several man. Peter, James, and John are three men, as well as three persons, but the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not three Gods, though they be three Persons distinctly subsisting, and the reason thereof is evident, taken from that vast difference which is betwixt the nature of God and Man: the nature of man is finite, and therefore it may be multiplied into several men of the same kind, and this neither is, nor can be denied, but the nature of God being most simplo and infinite, is altogether indivisible, and cannot possibly admit of many infinites. Peter, James and John are one in specie, in kind, but Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not one in specie, but in regard of the same most singular essence, not to be abstracted from the three Persons, and this essence is of none: for then God should be {αβγδ}, there would be a God above God, which to think is unreasonable blasphemy. Biddle. If we may make use of reason, it is ridiculous to say, there are three Persons, and not three Gods, for if God be predicated of three, it is a universal, as Aristole and common understanding sheweth, and that is a singular which cannot be so predicated. Answer, To this I answer, reason that is our understanding left to itself, and not enlightened and guided by the Holy Ghost, is a blind Guide in these high mysteries, and a great Patroness of unbelief to wrangle against them; nor can we, no nor holy Angels( as is confessed by natural demonstration) prove the distinction of Persons in God, and the School-mens ground is very strong, because our knowledge of God this way is by the effects, I mean by the creatures of God, by them we may learn that God is the Prime and first cause, and ultimate end of the Creatures, which are common to all the holy persons, according to that most certain and received Rule. The works of the Trinity in reference to the Creatures are undivided, and in regard of the things themselves, there can be gathered no difference, and if we make an impossible supposition, if there was but one divine Person, yet the whole Creation would have stood up out of nothing from that one, as it doth now from them all: nor do we expect a parallel example to illustrate this point in the whole Creation, to which exceptions may not be taken, for this one undivided essence, in which these three glorious and ever to be adored persons, do subsist; is an infinite essence, and confessedly there can be but one infinite, they then without doubt have a misguided reason, which do bring an instance from men to overthrow this sublime mystery, which is too high for the weak part and condition of frail man to understand: our reason then acts most rationally, when it piously submits to the unquestionable revelation of God in his Word, who is the prime verity, and if we meet with such a knot which our reason cannot untie, the sharpness of faith believing the unerring Word, cuts asunder; and as the unity of the Godhead is clear to the eye of reason, so the three g●orious relations in one God is as certain to the eye of faith. Now albeit the mystery of the Trinity is not demonstrated by natural reason, See below pag: 383. 4. which is not, when it hath stretched itself to the uttermost, proportioned to it, and some have gone too far in this point Scotus, 1. p. d. 2. q. 9. yet probable proofs a posteriori, some faint illustrations of it, some weak adumbrations are not excluded, as in metaphysic, the affections of Ens transcendens are, unum, verum,& bonum: now these three do not make three things really distinct or any composition in Ens transcendently considered, because then the most simplo and uncompounded being would lose its being, and of simplo would be compounded: they all three do signify one and the same being, though they differ in the manner of signifying it; nor is one of these predicated of another, truth is not goodness, nor formally one, and every one of these affections do connote entity,& do not mustard-seed a new entity, but ens as it is considered with reference to the act of understanding, is called true, as in reference to the will, is called good, as it denied division in itself, it is called one, semblably neither are the divine Persons predicated one of another, the Father is not the Son, nor are they separated one from another, nor do the three divine Persons mustard-seed a new entity to God: If I( saith a reverend Divine) should take out of a River several cups full of water, surely there is no difference in the nature of the water, but as it is distinct in several cups or vessels, which gives it several terms and several dimensions: again, this mystery is compared to the Sun in the firmament, where we may observe heat, light, and motion, three distinct and several things, the heat from the light, and the conveyance of it to us by the motion, yet all have alike continuance of being, not one before or after another, and all of them alike partaking in one and the same nature and essence of the Sun. But why should I make a compound of substances and qualities, when this mystery may be more fully expressed by spiritual substances? which as they come nearer, so do they better resemble the nature of the Deity. I instance in the soul and its faculties, if they are( as Scotus and his followers, Zanchius and Scaliger, and others do maintain) one thing, for then there is not a real composition betwixt the soul and the faculties of it: memory in the soul is the beginning of the knowledge begotten in it, and so it represents the Father; by intelligence is represented the Son, because he is as knowledge begotten of his Father; by memory and by the will is represented the Holy Ghost, because he is alone produced of the Father and the Son, these are distinct, yet one in essence, August: l: 15. de Trinitate cap: 20. Radu p: 2 controv: 13. Art: 2. this comparison I confess as well as the former, is too short, for neither are the faculties of the soul persons nor doth there appear in them such a strange and wonderful manner of production, as in the glorious Persons of the blessed Trinity: this doth our faith with admiration apprehended which our knowledge cannot attain unto. To conclude, the premises show that this great mystery is not against reason, though it be above reason, and it is an honourable employment of them which have the most elevated intellectuals, to disentangle these high points of faith, from the absurdities which their cunning adversaries would fasten on them, though they cannot display them in their full glory. Biddle. If the word God be predicated of the three Persons, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, then is God an universal, as Aristotle and common understanding sheweth. Answer. Behold the piety of this Socinian, to bring down the great God to the rules of Aristotle, and to common understanding, who is infinitely above the Creatures, and not subject to the Rules of logic, I do readily grant, that God is predicated of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in this manner, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, but mark and consider well, that he is neither predicated as the Genus is of the Species, thus, homo est animal, or as the species is of the individuum's,( as most Logicians speak) as Peter is Man, for in these there is always a composition of the genus, and the difference which imports imperfection; every genus is multiplied in the species, and every species is multiplied in the individuo, this being premised, I deny your consequence, for although in predication the word[ God] supplies the place of a universal, as Aquin: saith p: 1. q. 39. art: 4 s ad 1. and is enunciated after the manner of a common term, and is truly in the three divine and glorious persons, yet is it most singular: so that the name God denotes not one person alone determinately, as Father or Son, but the essential form of the Deity; but Person notes the individual whereby one of them is by a notional property distinguished from the other Persons, that which is essential is rightly affirmed of all the Persons, and doth truly appertain to them all, but that which is personal is not enunciated of the essence, and therefore we say, the Father is God, but we cannot rightly say, God is one Person according to essence, Jun: de Trinit: deafen: lib: 2.19. s. more plainly thus: the nature of God is singular, most simplo, and of highest perfection, it admits of no composition, no not logical, when I say then, the Father is God, the Son is God, I mean not that God is either Genus or Species, as the Adversary infers, because it signifies not a nature communicable to inferiors after the manner of that which we call Genus or Species, that is of a thing which may be multiplied into many particulars, nor is it an individuum of any species, because where there is an individuum, nature is one thing and person is another. We are for a Trinity, not a Quaternity. Peter is a man by his common nature, but by his singular nature he is distinguished from Paul. But when we speak of God, it is far otherwise, the divine nature is not communicated to the Son in a common notion, but as one and the self same infinite essence in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. August: lib: 7. de Trinit: cap. 6. and distinguished by relations without multiplication of the absolute perfection of God. Thus much in answer to the first argument. Biddle. The Doctrine of the Trinity hindereth from praying according to the prescript of the Gospel, for how can any man pray to God through his Son Jesus Christ as the Gospel directs us to do, if God be not the Father only? Did God consist of three Persons, would it not, when we invocate God, be all one as if we should say, O Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, give me what I ask through thy Son Jesus Christ: and so Christ be the Son, not only of the Father, but also of the Holy Spirit, yea of himself? Answer. I do deny that the Doctrine of the Trinity hinders us to pray according to the Prescript of the Gospel. 1. I ask if it be never lawful to pray, but only to God the Father through Jesus Christ? it is unanimously believed, and that from Scripture, that God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are the object of religious invocation, you will not stick to grant that the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, hath been, and is religiously invocated, Act. 7.59. 1. Thess: 3.11. The Lord Jesus Christ direct our way to you: and come Lord Jesus come quickly: and it was a Character to know a Christian by, that he called on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, is this prayer not according to the Rule of the Gospel? certainly by your loose kind of arguing, it would be all one as to say, O Son of God hear me for thy Sons sake: do you like of this Prayer as a savoury? and do you not renounce it rather as a senseless prayer? But we know that by religious invocation of the Son of God, his omnisciency, his omnipotency, and his love, and mercy are acknowledged, and he is much honoured by this religious service. Secondly, it is not absurd expressly to direct our prayers to the Holy Trinity, and this is implyed by the form in Baptism in part, baptizing Disciples into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and such a form of Prayer hath been in use in the Ancient Liturgy of S. Basil and S: Chrysostom, and in those of the latin Church, whence it was derived into the Liturgy of the Church of England, O holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us. Nor is it absurd as Mr: Biddle infereth, when we pray to the Father, or to the Trinity to conclude our Prayers, Grant these our requests for Christ his sake: for take notice that Christ may be consisidered by a relative opposition by two manner of ways: First, in regard of nature, which is a relation and opposition ad intra, as the School-men speak, as he relates to his Father, and the Holy Ghost in respect of his Person, as the Father loves the Son, the Son sends the Holy Ghost, &c. Now in this consideration, we do not conclude our prayers, Hear us for Christ his sake. But secondly, Christ may be considered with a relation ad extra, according to the mystery of grace, he is our Mediator by divine institution, and by a voluntary condescension to satisfy divine justice for our salvation. Consider Christ, as simply a Mediator, and so he is an inferior cause, in whose Name, and by whose mediation we have free access to God as the first cause, last end, and our chiefest good, and in this regard Christ may be a Mediator to himself without a third Person intervening, not as Christ is simply considered as the Son of God, but as he was the Son of God incarnated, and by his bloody passion satisfied the wrath of God for us miserable sinners, and thus Jesus Christ in his own Person satisfied divine Justice, which was common to the Trinity, and thus as our Mediator brings us to himself as God. Thus elegantly saith Junius defence. Trin. 2. Thirdly, I add what Mr. Biddle may not contradict: That it is not necessary that we should in all our religious addresses to God expressly make mention of Christ, and conclude thus: Grant these our requests for Christ his sake; for there is an absolute prayer directed only to God, and virtually to the Trinity, without any mention of our Saviour, and this kind of Prayer is most frequent in the Scriptures, and common use: it was a good Prayer of the penitent Publican, Lord be merciful to me a Sinner: a short prayer in words but sweet, and of large extent for matter, in the best prayer dictated by Christ himself, and that which is the Platform of all good prayers, I mean in the Lords prayer there is no such enforcement to further the Prayer by Christ Jesus, Our Father which art in Heaven: the word Father is attributed to God here not personally, but essentially; though all creatures are excluded by that title, yet all the three Persons are included, because they have one nature and will, are one and the same God, and all of them have a fatherly care of us; yea and many prayers of the Saints have been put up to God with such motives, that he would hear for his mercies sake, Psal. 44.26. for his own, for his truths, and names sake, though virtually I grant, the mediation of Christ our Saviour is not excluded. Fourthly, It is not denied, that our Prayers are most frequently directed to God the father, yet not excluding God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, who are co-eternal& co-essential, and this worship is absolutely due to the Godhead, yet is the Father name, because we may more fitly conclude our Prayers according to that general Rule of our Saviour, which we are carefully to walk by, to ask the Father in the name of Christ. Grant our Petitions for thy Sons sake Belar. l. 1. de Christi c. 17. I add, the Father is name, being the first principle of counsel, and first in order of reconciling man to God, but the Son of God hath the office of a Mediator, executing Gods pleasure by whom we go to the Father, and the Holy Ghost teacheth us what to pray, without whose assistance we cannot in a spiritual manner pour out our sighs and groans to God which cannot be expressed, Rom: 8.26. The brightness of Gods glory hath spread itself throughout the World by the ministry of his onely begotten Son, and in the manifold Graces of the Spirit, every way marvelous, and whatsoever is done to his glory, it is done in the power of the Holy Ghost,, and made acceptable to God by the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ: to conclude, it sounds well in our ears to conclude our prayers, O blessed God grant our requests for thy Sons sake our Mediator and Advocate. This Rule of praying to God in the name of Christ, is not generally true without limitation, and it doth demonstratively conclude that the Son of God is not the object of invocation, but that God accepts our prayers when they are presented to God and presumed with the sweet odours of Christs merits, and yet Christ is religiously prayed unto, and this is so necessary, that your Cracovian Catechism saith, he is no Christian that doth not pray to him pag. 150: Christ, by this means should not only be the Son of the Father, but of the Holy Ghost, yea of himself, I deny these loose consequences, which are only asserted, but cannot be proved by our concessions and practise in prayer: he was indeed touching his human nature conceived in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost. This will not serve your turn, but your drift is to prove, that the Son of God the Father is not true God, because of his act of Mediation for us to God the Father; this I say is inconsequent, and mark the reason, because he performs not this office as he is simply the Son of God, but as he was God incarnated, it was his gracious and voluntary act to be our Mediator, which presupposed our apostasy from God, whereas he was the Son of God before mans fall, so he was before the Creation of the World, even from all eternity; but how the Holy Ghost should( as you infer) be properly the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, because of his conception in the Virgins womb, which was in the latter times, is above, yea contrary to all sound reason and belief, for then of necessity he should have communicated the essence of God to the Son by eternal generation, which was not done, and it is yet more senseless and ridiculous to say, that then he should be Son to himself, why so? because he performed an act of mediation to God in our Names, for this was not always done by him, yea, and Socinians will say, that God for many ages together was worshipped, when the Son had no subsistence, and consequently could have no actings for us, but Christ was the Son of God before the beginning of time, and he is not our Mediator simply as Gods Son, but as God-man, notwithstanding we deny not, but do confess, that all the three sacred Persons did jointly concur in that outward Work, the production of the human nature, which was hypostatically united to the second Person, though by that kind of speech which is called appropriation, it is ascribed to the Holy Ghost. Bid. Again, how can any man ask the gift of the Holy Ghost, if God be not the Father only, or the Father and the Son? would it not, when he is invocated, be all one as if the Petitioner should say, O Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, give me your Holy Spirit, and so the Holy Spirit, should be the Spirit, not only of the Father, and of the Son, but of himself also? Answ. Mr: Biddle like a captious Sophister makes use of ambiguous ●erms to furnish himself with arguments, which by the use of a clear distinction are easily discovered to be of no validity, the fallacy is Cozen-German to the former: I answer, the homonomy is in the word Spirit, which is either taken for the third Person of the sacred Trinity, or for the gifts of the Spirit; observe, we do not pray for the Spirit simply, for as touching his divine nature he is every where present, a prayer for the presence of the Spirit in that sense would be a groundless and a senseless Prayer, that then is not prayed for, but we pray for the gifts and gracious presence of the Spirit: I grant the Scriptures hold forth examples, that sometimes one Person is invocated, sometimes two, 1 Thess: 3.11. and sometimes all three 2. Cor. 13.14. nor will I peremptorily deny, but as the Holy Ghost is simply God, and as God simply invocated, that he is {αβγδ}, that he hath esse suum a seipso, vel est suum esse: but consider him as a Person, then he is of the Father and the Son, and not of himself. It is true, we may pray to God the Father, or God the Son, to give us his Spirit, meaning thereby especially his sanctifying presence, nor is it absurd to pray to the Holy Ghost himself to vouchsafe his gracious presence to us, and to give himself, as it is expressly said of the Son of God to us. Bid. Let him that entereth into any of our Churches to partake of the public worship, but observe, and he shall find that the Ministers in their prayers do by God mean no other but the Father, for they usually close up their Prayers, desiring God to grant what they have begged, for the sake or merits of his Son our Lord Jesus Christ; plainly giving us to understand, that by God they mean the Father only: which very thing abundantly shows the falsity of their opinion touching three Persons in God, since after they have most virulently cried out against the opinion of one God the Father, yet they make use of the Son in their Prayers, and cannot do otherwise: thus do they contradict themselves also in another point; for having told us that once in Christ and ever in Christ, they do another while bid us take heed of back-sliding, and do show them the great danger of being drawn away from Christ. Answ. As Festus said to Paul, hast thou appealed to Caesar? to Caesar thou shalt go, Act: 25.12. so say I, have you appealed to our Ministers to decide the controversy? to the Ministers you shal go, and if you dare refer the decision of this matter betwixt us, or the argument to our Preachers, you are sure to be cast, for they will tel you truly, that they do religiously call on God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, albeit they do most frequently direct their prayers to God the Father, yet in the Father the other Persons are not excluded but invocated, as Tertullian shows in his book of prayer, and you may know their meaning by the close of their prayers; which runs thus: which liveth with thee, and reignest in the unity of the Holy Ghost. I have above shewed some reason why the Father is most frequently prayed unto, I add, because albeit all the three Persons are absolutely equal in all matter appertaining to the nature of God, yet if I may have leave to speak with others, the Father hath in some sort, as it were some pre-eminence amongst the divine Persons, both because he is the first in order, as also because he is of himself, so is neither of the other Persons, and as it is a holy zeal to pled for the Trinity, no poisonful disposition, so do we conclude our prayers: Grant for Christ his sake who entercedes for us, {αβγδ}, as it becomes God-man, because he is our Mediator according to both natures, the divine and human communicating the properties of their natures unto the Person of Christ. And as there is no contradiction betwixt our opinion and practise in the Doctrine of the Trinity, no more is there in the other point odiously name by you, for we grant a possibility of falling quiter away from saving-Grace, and which is more, a great danger of apostasy when we look upon ourselves, and I add an impossibility to stand in Grace, if left of God to our own strength, the grounds of the Saints perseverance are none of them from themselves, but all from our blessed God and Mediator, both Gods power, 1. Pet. 1.5. and his gracious promises, Jer. 32.39. are engaged for the Saints preservation: he is able to oppose and subdue all opposing powers, the Adversary doth ignorantly make an opposition, where there is none at all, for discovery of danger is a blessed means appointed by God to prevent it, to strengthen and settle the Saints in the faith; this is evident by S. Paul, Act. 27.22. no man saith the Apostle shall lose his life, yet saith he afterwards, except the mariners abide in the ship you cannot be saved, v: 39. doth S. Paul contradict himself? or is not his threat a means subservient to save them? Biddle. Let not the adversary say, to evade this great difficulty, that when they pray to God through the Son, the Father is meant: first, this is to beg the question, and to take for granted, that there are three Persons in the Godhead, and this is usual in the controversy touching the supreme Deity of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the answer is commonly by begging the question, and to take for granted, that Christ hath another nature besides his human nature. Answer. It is most true that the name God invocated sometimes one of the three persons is directly intended, as most commonly the Father, yet is neither Son or Holy Ghost excluded: and not to spend time and paper about such trifles. I do note at least, the ignorance of this Disputant, for it is not the fault of the Answerer to beg the Question, but when 'tis done, it is the fault of the opponent, of him that brings proofs, not of him that answereth proofs. We are now answering your Arguments( such as they are) and if our answers be invalid, it is the Opponents office to disprove them, which I know you shall never be able to do. I add, that in our disputations touching the high God, we do not always take for granted, that Gods Son and Holy Ghost are truly God, for himself must needs confess that our Arguments are produced, and he hath endeavoured to exclude them, and without doubt on our parts it is most clearly and abundantly done in many large Treatises by our Learned Divines, which can never be confuted. bid. Secondly, were it true, that there were three Persons in the Godhead, yet could not the word[ God] be appropriated to one of them, because all appropriation being founded upon some excellency and prerogative that one hath above all the rest, who are otherwise of the same sort, which here can have no place, because every Person( as the Adversaries say) is equally God with the other, and one of them is not before or after other, nor can be conceived how any one should have any excellency above him that is the most high God. Answer. First, I say this is, if my memory fails me not, a false charge, for I remember not that any of your Adversaries will say the word[ God] is appropriated to the first Person, it is dangerous to invent phrases which are not allowed by common use, it is not denied that all the actions of the Trinity( those only excepted which are of intrinsical relation, as the Father to beget his Son) are the joint and undivided Works of the Trinity, because there is but one divine and infinite essence, yet the blessed God in Scripture condescending to our weak capacities, not able to conceive distinctly the Trinity of the Persons in the unity of the God-head, but by a distinction of their operations to us ward, attributes the great work of Creation to the Father, Redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Ghost, not by way of negation, but distinction, by a phrase which is commonly called appropriation, Halons: l. 2. qu: 6. de Creatione Aquin: 1. par. q. 39. Act. 8. yet do not ours I suppose say, that the Name of God is appropriated to the Father which is frequently ascribed to the Son, and sometimes to the Holy Ghost, as I have proved: I deny not the name God is often attributed, I do not say appropriated to God the Father. 2. Besides your explication, of appropriated, saying it is founded on some excellency and prerogative above the rest of the same sort may be called into question, and warrantably denied, as sanctification is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, not for any excellency and prerogative of operation above the Father and Son, which do in as eminent and excellent a manner sanctify, as the Holy Ghost, nor doth the title Lord applied to our Saviour belong to him in a more excellent manner then to the Father, though for some special considerations sanctification is the work of the third Person: and Lord belongs to Christ, for nothing whereof the Father is Author can be done in a more excellent manner then by the Father. 3. Thirdly, if the Authors words be not taken in a short but a large sense. The very ground which he builds on may be denied, for albeit one Person is not before another in time, nor in honour, and albeit the Father as he is God simply hath no pre-eminence in regard of the divine nature, which is wholly and most singularly one, and in which regard these three Persons are one God, yet if the first be considered personally, being distinct from the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as he is in order before them, and as he is the principle of their Persons, I will not stick to grant, if that be the thing you pled for, that some pre-eminence belongs to the Father, whence he is frequently called God, and this is commonly acknowledged by our best Authors. bid. Thîrdly, were it granted, that the name[ God] is appropriated to one Person in the Godhead, yet could it not distinguish him from other Persons: how should a word equally common to three, not only be appropriated to one of them, but also be set to distinguish him from the other. I desire the Adversary to confirm this way of distinguishing by a little example, or some sufficient reason to show such a distinction is suitable enough. Answer, A word simply common to three, may in some places of Gods Word without any inconvenience in another respect be ascribed to one Person of the holy Trinity; thus for instance, Lord Saviour usually meant of Gods Son in the new Testament, yet are applied to God the Father, and Father is spoken often of the first Person, yet sometimes is taken essentially, and meant of the Son, who i● called the eternal Father, Esa. 9 6. and in effect attributed to the Holy Ghost, because he regenerates us, John 3.5. thus Creation is a common work of the Trinity, yet Creation is appropriated to the Father, and all the sacred Persons do sanctify, yet sanctification is a work appropriated to the Holy Ghost; the like may in a sort be said of the Son of God: the term is common to Angels, Believers, and the second Person of the sacred Trinity, yet in some places it is set to distinguish him from others. Here your Rule takes place, by way of eminency: the like do I affirm, that the word[ God] is frequently ascribed to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ being first in order of subsisting, and of working, the circumstances of the places where God is alleged, do clear it, that it is to be taken relatively; if not, God is taken essentially, for God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: nor doth it trouble us at all, that we have no example in all the Creation fully to illustrate these high mysteries, which are far above our reach and reason, left to itself without divine illumination; for such an excellency of God the Father above the Son and Holy Ghost as belongs to the Creatures, when they are for eminency singled out of the rest of the same kind, as to say the Philosopher( meaning Aristotle,) the Poet, viz. Homer and Virgil, the Orator, viz. Cicero, we do utterly disclaim in the divine Persons, and it abundantly satisfies us, that the holy Word holds forth a clear evidence of the unity of the Godhead, and of the distinction and equality of the most sacred and glorious Persons, and touching human reasons alleged against this mystery. I say with S. Austen, If our reason cannot confute, our faith can deride them, de Civitate Dei, lib. 12. cap. 7. the third Argument follows. ARGUMENT III. bid. Thirdly the tenet of three Persons in God prohibiteth us to love and honor God as we ought; for the highest love and honor is due to him, who is the most high God, but such love and honour can be exhibited to no more but to one person, because the highest love and honour is to be loved and honoured for himself, and all other, for him, as the highest good is that which is desired for itself; now the Father is the most high to be loved with the most high love for himself, and all others are to be loved for him, and if all others, then the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Answ. It is a true maxim, without all contradiction, that the highest love and honour is solely due to him who is the most high God, but to say, as our Adversary doth, that such a love and honour cannot be exhibited, but to one person, is absolutely denied, for all three having one and the self same divine nature, are to be honoured with one and the self same worship, both for kind and degree, for what degrees are imaginable in that which is infinite▪ if then there be no degrees in the ground of worship, surely there ought to be no degrees in the worship itself. Who can doubt but we ought to manifest our honour to God, as he is pleased to reveal himself to us in his holy word, and in those sacred lines it is manifest, that God is one in essence, and three in person, which were adorable, that is, worthy of divine worship, when there was no creature to worship them, because of their infinite excellency from all eternity. This Socinian seems to be very zealous for the honour of God the Father, and therefore he doth deny the Deity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost, that God the Father might have the highest honour, whereas in truth this Argument may be inverted, and not the true God but an Idol is acknowledged in his place, if one should seign a man to be destitute of a reasonable soul, none can say the worship of this lifeless fiction is an honour done to a true man. Socinians, because they rob the Son of his Deity, and do not worship the Trinity in unity, they device a worship of God not warranted by the word of God,& so tis rejected, as a fiction of their own brains: and this position will be made good, by denial of the Trinity, the glory of the true God is prohibited. The holy word teacheth us Philip: 2.11. that to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord doth exceedingly redound to the honour of the Father in that he is the first personal principle subsisting of himself and by himself, and gives subsistence to two glorious Persons which are equal to himself, nor doth the Father receive that honor, which is contumelous to his Son, John 5.23. when any one to the dishonour of the Son of God shal pretend to honor the Father, he doth really offend both the Father and the Son, saith Austen Ser. 56. de verbis Domini. Whereas in your amplification you say that the highest love and honour is due to the Father, being the most high,& all other things are to be loved for him, and if all other things, then the Son of God,& the Holy Ghost, I answer, your antecedent is granted, but I do deny your consequence. The highest love is due to God the Father, who denies it? but from thence to infer as you do, that the highest honor is not due to God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, is inconsequent. All creatures, I grant, are excluded thereby, even the human nature of our blessed Saviour shares not in that highest degree of love and honour, which is a peculiar prerogative due to God, but we may not exclude the second and third Person of the Trinity, who are coessential coeternal and equally to be honoured with the first Person of the sacred Trinity; and to make this good we shall in due place, prove, that the title most high belongs not only to the Father, but the Son of God he is most high, and the Holy Ghost is most high. Biddle. The Son and the Holy Ghost are beloved for another( as indeed the very appellations of the Son and Spirit of God, imply, that the one was begotten, the other breathed from God, and so are beholding to another for their being, and consequently for the love and honour given to them) then are they not loved and honoured with the highest love and honour, and so are not the most high God; otherwise some others would have a pre-eminence above him who is the most high God, which is a contradiction. Answer. Touching the substance of this Section, 'tis already answered, the Adversary incurs a double reprehension in these few lines. First in using the word[ beholding] in speaking of these divine mysteries, which is improper, dangerous, if not scandalous, and not used in this sense in the Scriptures, nor I think in classical Authors: most certain it is, that all creatures are beholding to God for their being, and for all the good they have which springs from the fountain of goodness itself, yet it was not a natural, but an arbitrary act of God in time to create and to preserve them, 'tis otherwise in these deep mysteries, the Father is an intrinsical principle of his Sons subsistence communicating the divine nature to him by eternal generation, and that not in a way of freedom, as if it might be done, or not be done, but necessary and in the unity of the self same single and indivisible nature, and upon this account the relation of the Father to the Son is a necessary relation, which never did begin, nor shall ever cease to be, if it were a possibility for the bright Sun to have been created from eternity, the light which breaks forth from it by a natural evacuation would have been eternal, and if I may have leave so to speak, contemporary with the Sun. Gods Son is called {αβγδ}, Heb. 1 3. that hath brightness from another, as beams from the Sun; a fi● similitude this is which holds forth that which to carnal reason might seem incredible, viz. the coeternity of the Son in his glory with the Father, the like is to be said concerning the personal act of breathing forth the blessed Spirit, it was not properly a voluntary act per modum voluntatis, but a necessary and a natural act sine potentia ad oppositum, as the Schoolmen speak: now then sithence it is most certain that the divine nanature is not multiplied in the Person, but is one and the same in them, and the three holy Persons are co equal and coeternal because they are coessential, they have all one essence, mind, will, power, and Godhead, therefore the highest love and honour is equally due to God the Father, to God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and the denial hereof by Mr. Biddle is high blasphemy, which his corrupt reason and wanton wit prompts him to, whereas divine faith relying on the prime verity admires and adores it. 2. The second thing which I justly do take exception to, is your inference, if equal honour be due to God the Father and the other sacred Persons, then they would have a pre-eminence above him, who is the most high God: mark his wild inference, which is added as truly his own, but not owned by his Adversaries. Verily there is a tacite contradiction in these words, to have a pre-eminence in honour, and yet to be equal in honour; we pled for equality of honour to all the sacred Persons, and are not so far destitute of understanding, as to give the pre-eminence of love and honour to the Son of God, or Holy Ghost above God the Father. bid. Blessed be God who hath not left us to an uncertainty herein, for he hath plainly told us that Christ is therefore to be honoured as the Father,( he saith not as much as the Father) not because he hath the divine substance, and so would be the same God with the Father, but because the Father hath given him all judgement, John 5.22.23. and also delivers this as a general Rule, that whosoever loveth him that begot, loveth him also who is begotten, 1. John 5.2. making the love of the Father, the ground and reason of love to the Son, and consequently the love which we bear to Jesus Christ to spring from the love which we bear to God the Father, who hath given him his being, and whatsoever else is lovely in him. Answ. Blessed be our God( say I also) for the many testimonies and arguments of the Deity of the Son of God, which are as glittering pearls in the sacred Scriptures, and for those which this fifth Chapter of John cited by you do hold forth unto us. First, because Christ calls God his Father, now by the law of Relatives, an eternal Father must needs relate to an eternal Son, and to deny the God head of the Son, is to deny the Fathers also, for the nature of this Argument, is, that both terms relatum and correlatum should be together, and consequently he that denies the Son to be true God, hath no God at all for his God, v: 17. Secondly because the Son of God doth the same works, and after the same manner the Father doth them, vers. 17.19.20.22. and therefore is equal with his Father. Thirdly, because he hath by eternal generation the life of God given to him, and not simply given, but after the same manner as it is in himself, for as the Father hath life in himself, vers: 25.26. viz. eternally and independently, so hath the Son the same life eternally and independently. Fourthly, Because the power of Christ is omnipotent, for by it all the dead shall be raised up to life at the last day, John 5.28.29. who, I pray you can do this great work but God? To your descanting on the Text, saying, the Son is not to be honoured as much as the Father, but as the Father. To this first I say, that this Scripture affirmeth not that a less honour is to be exhibited to the Son then to the Father. Thus far then you have no advantage. Secondly I answer, the particle[ as] is not always diminuens terminus, so as it should diminish the honour due to the only begotten Son of God, in comparison of the honour due to the Father, but it may be taken declarative, demonstrative, and identicè to declare to us, that he is to be honoured with the same honour the Father is honoured withall, in John 1. c. v. 14. we red, we beholded his glory, as the only begotten of his Father, which particle is omitted vers: 18. where he is simply called the only begotten Son of God. To return to the 14. vers. where it is said we saw his glory as the only begotten of his Father: 'tis like to that speech when we see a King sitting on his Throne in his royal robes, with a Crown on his head and a sceptre in his hand, we should say, now we see him as a King, now he is like himself, his state is agreeable to his majesty: even so were the glimpses of Christs glory, which the Apostles at times beholded agreeable to the Majesty of the only begotten Son of God. Our learned Junius hath observed this particle[ as] is taken three ways in Scripture, viz. for the same, for equal, and the like in similitude. Thus the foot adheres to the body of Man as doth the hand, I put not any great stress in this if logically examined, a fitter example is 1. John 14. tis meant of parity, as when I say Paul is as Peter in the Apostleship; and lastly and most usually it denotes similitude, be ye holy as your Father in heaven is holy: Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect, Mat. 5. forgive us our Trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. I answer then, Gods giving and Christs receiving argue not demonstratively inequality of honour to be exhibited to the Son, and less then that which is due to the Father, for as Christ receiveth honour from the Father, so doth he give honour to the Father, John 8.50. So that this giving and receiving is mutual, the Son seeks the Fathers glory, and the Father seeks the Sons glory, the words of S. John are not absolutely to be taken, but secundum quid, as is evident by the foreging words in the same verse, the Father judgeth none, viz. alone without his Son, as the Jews imagined, but hath given all judgement to the Son incarnated; he hath given it to his Son, but he hath not deprived himself of it, he governs all things now by his Son, and will judge all, men, and Dev ls by his Son; the Father will raise the dead and the Son will ra se them, tota individua Trinitas secundum authoritatem judicat, as the Sun enlightens the world by its refreshing beams, and neither doth the Sun without his beams, nor the beams without the Sun produce this desired operation in the air, our Saviour shall be the Judge according to both natures, each nature acting according to its innate principles: to know all secrets belongs to the Deity, but to pronounce the final sentence is an act of the humanity, that as all men do honour the Father, so should they honour the Son also, and adore his Divinity reigning by his humanity, with one and the self same religious adoration wherewith the Father is adored; the material object of divine honour is Christ our Mediator who is both God and Man, but the formal, proper and adequate ground or reason hereof is the divine nature and infinite excellency of our blessed Saviour, and it is not founded upon any temporary office, service, or benefit nor any external denomination and relation. The other Text cited out of the first Epistle of John, cap: 5. v. 2. doth not formally and in terms hold forth any comparison of higher love to one then to another, but positively sets down this general rule he that loves him that is begotten, loves him that doth beget. This then is impertinently alleged. Secondly, if the holy word had intimated or required greater love to him that begets, then to him that is begotten, yet would not your position have been confirmed by this Scripture, for I do yield according to the genuine sense of this Text, which is much mistaken by the Adversary, that the Father begetting is a great deal more loved& ought to be more loved then the Son that is begotten, for it speaks not of our loving Christ the natural Son of God, but of Christians the adopted Sons of God spiritually begotten,& the holy Text speaks in the singular number of one, because there is the same reason of loving one Christian as all: this is the meaning, if we love God, we will love his Children. The whole context holds forth this Exposition. bid. As for the Holy Ghost, though much love and honour is without question due to him he being the Person to whom under God and Christ, we are most beholding, as receiving from him the greatest benefits, yet are we no where in the Scripture expressly enjoined to love and honour him. Answer. First, I do justly except against your phrase, saying, we receive much good from the Holy Ghost under God. Do you red in the holy Scriptures, that the Holy Ghost is under God, I dare say, you cannot make this out by the rule that the Holy Ghost is under God. much less in your sense, viz. as a Creature is under the Creator. Secondly, I do observe your assertion: you say, without question much love and honour is due to the Holy Ghost, but towards the end of the Book p: 8. this is in terms contradicted, for in that doxology Rev. 5.8.9. set down purposely, as you say, for a Pattern to all succeeding ages, there is honour and glory ascribed to the Lamb, and to him that fits on the throne: mark what he adds and infers, were the Holy Ghost so much as to be worshipped, he would also have been praised and honoured: to the matter I answer. Thirdly, either honor and love is due to the Holy Ghost by the warrant of Gods word or not; if not, how can you truly say, without question much love and honor is due to his Person? is not the Word of God acknowledged by you an all-sufficient Rule to direct us what persons are to be worshipped, what are not capable of divine honor? and do not you tacitly intimate in these words, saying, that love and honor is not expressly enjoined in the Scriptures to his Person? if such religious offices are, though not expressly, and in so many terms, yet if it be founded on the word, and derived from those sacred fountains by necessary consequence this may suffice to satisfy us touching the lawfulness to adore him, the holy Angels confirmed in grace worshipped him, Esay 6.3.9. compared with Acts 28.26. the Church militant is exhorted to worship him as the great God, and our Maker, Psa. 95.6.7. compared with Heb. 3.8.9. and are not our bodies Temples of the Holy Ghost? and therefore he must be honoured and glorified with our souls and bodies; if spiritual sacrifices be not offered to him, the Temple will be polluted, 2 Cor. 6.16. 1. Cor. 6 19. If the Reader desires to see large proofs hereof, he may, if he please, peruse my Reply to Biddle, a Defence of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and a learned Treatise of Dr. Cheynel touching the Trinity, chapter. 4. and 9. Biddle. Many prefer such a doxology as was devised by men, before that which is proposed by God himself in his Word, and do ascribe honour and glory to the Holy Ghost together with God, which is the less to be wondered at, in as much as others stick not to ascribe honour and glory to the Virgin Mary. Answer, To the matter objected against us touching the doxology to the three sacred Persons, I answer, albeit the form of words thus composed is from man, yet the matter itself is divine, then which nothing doth sound more heavenly in the ears of faithful people, though it is to Socinians an eye sore, and a galling to their ears. Gods glory in itself is the equal right and possession of the blessed Trinity, and that without any real difference; and Gods people especially in matters of great moment do joyfully render honor and glory to the Trinity which we do all adore. The heretical Arians perceiving how this religious act of ascribing equal glory to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, did prejudice their cause, changed the doxology, whereupon contentions arose in the Church of Antioch about the year of Grace 349. mentioned by Theodoret in Ecclesiast. lib. 2. cap: 24. out of Great Athanasius, speaking of the subtle Arian, Leontius, and out of J. Sozomene lib: 3. Eccles: Hist. cap. 19. he laying his hand on his hoary head, said, This snow being melted there will be much di●t: he meant many jars and stirs in the Church of Antioch; the Arians I say altered the doxology, and said, glory be to the Father, by the Son, and in the Spirit, declaring thereby their dissent from the Concel of Nice, and that they held an inequality of the Son, and Holy Ghost to the Father, so that the ascribing of glory to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was an evidence and a Character of a sound Christian for matter of Doctrine, {αβγδ}, as S. Basil saith. Ep●st. 78. the Arian doxology, though devised by men, I suppose you will not repudiate. Touching honour and glory ascribed to the Virgin Mary with God, what is that to us? do we allow such blasphemous Idolatry? and do not we condemn it as much as the Socinians do? nay, her blessed soul abhors such undue worship, and the exhibiting thereof is neither pleasing to God, nor her: but doth not this imputation nearly concern the Photinians? for albeit according to their judgement, the Mediator is but a human Person, and mere Creature, yet do they religiously invocate him to the dishonour of God, which we do justly tax and charge with the sin of Idolatry, in giving that honour to a Creature, which is the sole prerogative of the great God. bid. What love and honour is to be exhibited to the Holy Ghost is with great wariness to be collected out of the Scripture, which not only saith he is of God, 1. Cor. 2.12. and so dependant of God for his being, but also glorifieth Christ in that he receiveth of his, and declareth it to the Apostles, Joh 16.14. and so is dependant not only on God, but on Christ for his knowledge in the mysteries of the Gospel and therfore is inferior to our Lord Jesus Christ. Answ. It is a true assertion, which we do with all reverence and willingness subscribe unto, that not only touching this particular now under debate, but concerning all matters of faith and worship we must neither add nor take away from the word of God, but faithfully observe it, as an unerring Rule of doctrines and worship: let us see whether it doth countenance your opinion. The first place is easy, and needs no explication, the first place, saith he, is of God, viz. the Father, and of God the Son: who denies this? do not we religiously believe and profess it? The second place is largely explained in my pneumatology, p: 54. the sum is, the Holy Ghost receives all by eternal procession: nor is it expressly said in this Text, the Holy Ghost receive all of me, but mine, viz. what is prophesied of me by the Holy Prophets, and that is when he gives a clear testimony by the powerful preaching of the Gospel, that Christ is our Saviour, and where he brings the doctrine home to the hearts of Heaven by effectual vocation; thus doth the Holy Ghost glorify Christ, both by washing away sins by the blood of Christ, and mortifying sins by virtue of the death of Christ: the Holy Ghost receives all, not as a scholar from Christ his Master, not by learning any new thing unknown to him before; to be sure it is a miserable perverting that text to say the Holy Ghost was ignorant of the mysteries of the Gospel till he was informed of them by the Son of man, and that must be above four thousand years after the Creation; for how was it possible that he which knoweth the things of God, 1. Cor. 2.11. and inspired the Prophets to foretell the particulars which in time befell him according to their predictions should be ignorant of them? this your bold assertion is a blasphemous dotage, and it is devised without any colour of reason or Scripture rightly interpnted, to support it. I cannot pass by that your phrase when you avouch the Holy Ghost is dependant on God for his being, and on Christ for his knowledge, and by consequence he is inferior to Christ, this term is no Scripture term, as applied to the Holy Ghost, nor can he by the Rules of metaphysics be said to depend on, for that is not said to be dependant on another, which hath his being from another, but that which is in propriety of speech an effect from another as the cause thereof, and which hath an essence distinct in number from him that communicates it, so that there is no dependency of Gods Son on his Father, though there is relation betwixt them; nor doth the Holy Ghost depend on the Father and Son of God, the reason is, because the essence is not myltiplied, but one and the same in them all, dependency is, I grant, an Argument of inferiority, it is an inferior which doth depend on the superior, thus do all the Creatures depend on God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and that as Suarez hath well observed in a fourfold consideration. First, because every finite thing hath received its being from God who is infinite, they are all in him and the workman-ship of his hands. 2. As they do depend upon God for their production, so are they also upheld by him by an act of divine conversation, Heb. 1.3. all creatures are subject to him in order to their annihillation, if he shall only suspend his divine conserving influx, they instantly return to nothing. 3. All creatures do depend upon him in regard of their natural or voluntary operations, our vital act ons and motions depend on the gracious or free concurrence of God, which enables them to act according to those very principles of actions& motions which are in them distinct from that concourse by which their lives and principles of actions are in every kind preserved, in so much, he we never so well appointed or prepared for action, in respect of created principles sufficiently disposed thereunto, yet without a particular influence or concurrence from God, which is necessary to support and excite the principle in its actions, there is none of them can act, or support its action. All creatures in my supposition are like the wheels of a Water-Mill, they cannot move without a fresh supply of streams of water, or like the Sails of Wind-Mills, which stir not at all without blasts of wind. 4. All Creatures depend upon God, and are in a potentiality to receive and do whatsoever God will have them, as he can make an ass to speak,& he can turn stones into bread. The Adversary can never prove that the Holy Ghost depends on the Father and Son of God in any of these ways, which do properly belong to the creature, which is in all respects finite, and not to the infinite Creator. Biddle. Which is further evident by the benefit which we receive from the Holy Ghost, for whereas he distributes to us sundry gifts, as tongues, Prophesies, miraculous Cures, 1. Cor. 12.8. Christ conferreth on us remission of sins, Acts 10.43. he is the earnest or pledge of our eternal inheritance, Ephes. 1.13.14. Christ is the bestower of the very inheritance itself, match. 25 34. and the Holy Ghost assureth us that we are the Children of God, Rom: 8.16 Christ giveth us the privilege to become the Children of God, 1. John. 12. he is given to us upon our repentance, Acts 2.28. Christ giveth us the very repentance itself. Answ. Touching all these actions of God, which are ad extra, and in reference to to the Creatures, they are in truth as hath been said, and is generally approved the undivided work; of the sacred Trinity, because they are one and the same God, notwithstanding it is granted they are ascribed sometimes to one Person, sometimes to another, yet not excluding any of the Persons from the same actions. This is clear both in justification, which is, or n●cessarily requires remission of sins, and in sanctification, as they are without doubt the actions of God the Father, who justifieth and sanctifieth; so likewise of Gods Son and Holy Ghost, ye are washed, and ye are sanctified; ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, 1. Cor. 6.11. which was typically represented by that ceremonial rite of sprinkling the blood of the sacrificed Bullock, and putting it on the horns of the Altar by the Priests finger, Exod. 29 12 this pointed at the efficacy of the blood of Christ, when it is particularly applied to Christians by the Spirit, which is the finger of God, Luk. 12.20. compared with Matth. 12.28. this was also intimated by the cleansing of a woman after the birth of her Child, she was to bring two sacrifices, the one a burnt-offering, the other a sacrifice for sin, Levit. 12.6 7. whereby was signified our cleansing by the bloody sacrifice of Christ, Heb. 9.24.26. by the gracious operation of the Spirit working in us that blessed disposition, whereby we do present our bodies a living and a holy sacrifice to God: some of these may be attributed to Jesus Christ, for a special reason, because his blood was the price laid down for remission of our sins and the purchase of his people, but the Spirit works in us those graces, whereby we are capable of pardon, and gives us the actual possession thereof: the Spirit of the Father rest on Christ the Mediator as head of the Church, and spreads himself abroad to every one of his Members to give them their proportion of Grace, as Christ our Saviour was conceived by the Holy Ghost, so is the holy Church and every mystical member of his body conceived a Christian: he as he is a Christian hath his conception and new birth by the Holy Ghost, but this and the rest are attributed to the Holy Ghost, as hath been formerly mentioned, by a form of speech called Appropriation: thus is it likewise in bestowing the gift of work●ng miracles, 1. Cor. 12. which is a gift of the Son of God, who did both work them himself, and gave the holy Apostles this honour and power to be instruments therein. In sum, all that you have said is so far from proving Gods Son and the Holy Ghost not to be the most high God, that it doth strongly prove their Deity, for who but God can do all these things? In the close of this Answer, I will put the Adversary in mind of his desperate blasphemy: he pretends much love and honour to the most high God, but in the mean time he makes Christ to be a mere man, and as much as in him lies, rob● the Holy Ghost of his Deity, and not content herewith, he doth most wickedly in effect dethrone the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and make an Idol of him, with the Epicureans limiting the holy one of Israel, and consining his essence within the circles of Heaven pag: 33. Tract. touching the Holy Ghost, and hinting it often else where, as in their places shall be observed, for mark his never sufficiently to be detested words; The Person and substance of God himself was not with David: and this he would prove by an unheard of Exposition: thou understandest my thoughts afar off. Psal 139.2. and not near at hand? go to then, and say as it is in Job, which cannot on those terms be soundly resolved, how doth God know? can he judge through the dark clouds? thick clouds are a covering to him that he seeth not, and he walketh in the circuit of Heaven, Job 22.13.14. might not you with the Orthodox expound the words thus, thou seest my thoughts which are a far off, not from God, but from myself, thou seest what thoughts I shall have long before I conceive them, and if you do not believe Gods knowledge of contingencies, learn a lesson subscribed to in all our Schools: God knows himself by himself, and he knows in one act, not successively; eternally, not in time; by his essence, not by reception of species; immutably not contingently; he knows all things that are, and those that yet are not, but shall be by the knowledge of Vision, being objectively present to him; he knows also those things that are not, nor shall ever be, scientia simplicis intelligentiae, so far forth as he knows whatsoever himself is able to do, and what by his permission may be done by every creature: and this is also called the knowledge of pure understanding by Aquin. par. 1.914. artic. 9 and by Zanchie de Nat. Deil. 3. c. 2.9.8. O England, England! how art thou degenerated, if thou canst endure such Atheism and blasphemy? mayest not thou justly expect that the Lord thy God by some remarkable judgement will vindicate his own cause and honour when thou wilt not stand up for him, but suffer it to be trodden under foot, and contumeliously to be dishonoured by a vile and wretched Creature breathing in thy air, and poisoning thy people with his pestilential doctrine? Thus much of the third Argument. ARGUMENT. IV. bid. Fourthly this Assertion of three God-persons, thwarteth the common notion that all men have of God; for our very understanding suggesteth to us, that God is the same with the first cause of all things, and this is further proved by the authority of Scripture. Rom: 11.36. of God, and by him, and for him are all things, they then go about to deprive us of our understanding in a thing of greatest importance, even in the knowledge of God himself, who bear us in hand, that other Persons beside the Father are also the most high God, when the very terms that are given them clearly intimate, that they have their being from the Father, and so are caused by him: can they then be the first cause of all things that are caused by another? Answer. This Reason against the Trinity may be thus framed: God is the first cause of all things. The Son and the Holy Ghost are not the first cause of all things, therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost are not God. The mayor is proved by a common notion in all men, and by Scripture, Rom. 11.36. The minor is proved, because the Son and Holy Ghost are caused by the Father. To this I answer punctually by a concession of the mayor: it is very true which the Adversary saith, and unanimously acknowledged by us, that God is the first cause of all things, but take God in the sense intended by him, then it is erroneous and impious, for power which produceth all things is not a notional attribute of the first Person, if we will speak properly, but an essential attribute of God, who is in essence most simplo, and singularly one in the three glorious Persons: it is not doubted by us, that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are the prime cause both of Creation, and all other things. But now this enemy to the sacred Trinity, opposeth God not to the Creatures, but to the Son and Holy Ghost, and in this sense the mayor proposition is most false, so that this Argument is grounded upon a false supposition, as though the acknowledgement of three blessed Persons in the sacred Trinity, did overthrow this common notion, which is imprinted on our souls by God himself God is the same with the first cause which was never denied by the Orthodox, and must we then take your bare word as a sufficient proof, without any convincing proofs at all, that by God the first Person is meant? The divine Nature and the divine Persons cannot be separated; the Scripture doth not present any such abstract notion to us of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but they are described as divine Persons, which have the divine nature, and not as the Adversaries say, behold a Trinity without God, we then do look upon every Person as God, and do aclowledge all the three Persons to be one and the same God. The Text of Scripture which you allege, Rom. 11.36. furthers not your cause, but it doth sufficiently confirm my former dist●nction, that God is taken essentially both by the whole context and by the words themselves: whatsoever man hath, he hath it all from God as the procreant cause, and by him, as the cause conserving, supporting and upholding all things, and for him, as the utmost end, for his glory; without the inscription of glory to God no work is coin to be put into his Treasury, and therefore God is debtor to none, but all are beholding to him for whatsoever they are, and whatsoever they have. How this Text should serve your turn, I shall never see, till you shall prove, which is impossible to be done, that Creation and preservation are not the undivided operation of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Adversary doth often, and much magnify Reason and Understanding touching this subject, I say, that Reason and Understanding in men are as different as their fancies or faces, nor is it constant, one and the same to the same man at divers times: 'tis a blind Guide now to us being fallen from God, a deceitful Rule, not able to show us the way to heaven: we converse here in a spiritual egypt, which is our natural state; no advancing towards, or getting into Canaan, but by a Pillar of fire supernaturally raised, and divinely moved to conduct us thither; these great mysteries are a business of more worth and weight, then to be admitted or rejected according to our understanding, whence it is that the Scripture doth frequently cry down the wisdom of the World, the judgement of the natural man, the vain deceits of Heathen Philosophers( who were the great Masters and admirers of Reason) and the darkness of our understanding in things divine, and in the mysteries of the Gospel. I am now to speak of the proof of your assumption, that the Son and Holy Ghost are caused of the Father, and therefore they cannot be the first cause: I will not deny that there are some eminent Divines, which make no scruple to say the Father is {αβγδ}, the cause, and the Son is the effect of his Father, which are not to be construed, as though they took the word cause in a proper notion, but in a large sense reducing him analogically to that topic, yet will not this concession be any advantage at all for Mr. Biddle, for the same Authors which call the Father the cause of the Son, because the Father communicates the divine essence to him, are resolved that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are the first cause of all things. I conceive the answer is more safe, if we will speak properly, as it is fit we should in disputations, to deny that the Father is the cause of the Son, that albeit he receives all from the Father( as the Holy Ghost doth the divine essence, and essential properties from them both) yet is not the Father to speak in rigor an efficient cause of the Son of God, nor ought we, nor can we truly so call him; for that is truly and properly a cause which hath a causal influx, so as the effect must depend upon the cause, according to the nature thereof, as it is in fieri, or in facto esse. the Son, I grant, receives all essentials from the Father, but not as from an external cause, but rather as from an internal principle, then a cause; he is the principle of his Son: a principle is of larger event then a cause; every cause is a principle, but every principle is not a cause, but when it is restrained to a causal principle which then is verified, when that which is from the principle depends upon it, which dependency, as I have shewed above, hath no place in the sacred Trinity, and as the name cause requires that the effect should depend on it, so doth it further impart, as usually it is taken, a diversity of substance or being betwixt the cause and the effect, and consequently a difference betwixt them in some degree of perfection; he that is a created Son depends upon his Father, and receives an individual nature distinct from that which the Father hath, and is actually separated from him: it is far otherwise in the divine generation, the same nature which is simply independent is communicated by the Father to the Son not in time, but before time was; not voluntarily, but naturally and necessary, and consequently the relation betwixt the Father and the Son is mutual, without any dependency of the Son on his Father: there is, I grant, an order betwixt the Father begetting and the Son begotten; the Father, though he be not the cause, yet he is, as some learned speak, quasi causa, and this order is without priority, or posteriority, because the essence is one and the same in both the Relatives, and as Relatives must needs be simul natura. I answer in a word to the Argument proposed to us, and do say, that the Father as he is God, and not as a distinct person only, is the only cause of causes, the prime and chiefest cause of all things, and consequently the Son of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost as one God, are the first and highest cause of all things. Thus much of the fourth Argument, the fift followeth. ARGUMENT V. Biddle. Fiftly, this error is the main stumbling block that keepeth the ancient people of God, the Jews, from entering into the Church of Christ; in so much as they conceive it to be the genuine doctrine of the Christian Religion itself, for they having formerly smarted for their Idolatry, are exceeding cautious of any Tenet looking that way, but this, as they well enough know( chiefly objecting against Christians the common doctrine of the Trinity) maketh three Gods, wherefore though the Jews have been justly punished by God with long blindness, and hardness of heart for not receiving Christ, yet this comes to pass not without the great fault of Christians, which quickly turning aside from the straight and easy way of believing in God set down in Scriptures, hunting after obscurities, have by the cunning of Satan lost themselves in the endless Mazes of error and superstition. Answer, To this weak argument I answer, First, be it a while supposed, which yet must not be granted, that neither the patriarches nor the Prophets had an explicit and distinct knowledge of this high mystery, and that the besotted Jews not acknowledging the authenticallness of the new Testament, do at this day, as in former ages believe as their ancient Fore-fathers did, and will not believe this mystery, which Christians now do confidently avouch and humbly adore, as clearly revealed to them, for we may take notice how God in natural things observes degrees, and that they do not at once arrive at ripeness and perfection. There is in Trees a blossom, and a bud, before the fruit, and a child begins first to learn his Letters, then to red, before he can attain exact knowledge: thus doth God make himself known by degrees; yet to be sure what at any time to his servants was revealed, was sufficient for their salvation: for he being a wise and a gracious God, will require no more of them, then what is given to them. Thus God revealed himself to the later Prophets more fully in many particulars touching our Saviour then he did to Moses, and Moses had more glimmering light of him then Adam had. God by Moses instituted Sacrifices, and abundance of significant Ceremonies which were never discovered to Abraham, and God instituted Circumcision in Abrahams dayes, which was a rite divine unknown to Noah, and all his Progenitors. Can it then seem to be a strange thing that God reserved some mystery to reveal by his Son in our flesh, which was not known by the Prophets? and what greater then the Trinity, which neither men nor Angels can comprehend; and both men and Angels must for ever adore. Nor do I think that all truths are yet revealed, but we shall have a further knowledge of God in the state of glory then now we have, and this stands well with the honour and Majesty of God, that as there was a Court-yard, a Temple, before we could enter into the holiest of holies, so should we also have our knowledge of God by degrees. Secondly, I may not so far wrong the patriarches, Moses and the Prophets, as to think they were utterly ignorant of this sacred mystery, though probably they had not such an express knowledge hereof as was by the good hand of God revealed in the Gospel, not in such clear manner and in such convincing terms, but in part involved in types and figures, and as those famous ones, so might the meaner Jews believe in the Trinity, but you Doctor-like have laid down their abhorrency of the sacred Trinity, which you should have soundly proved, and not barely asserted: your confident words are to us no authentical proofs; some of the rabbis concurred with Christians in the belief of the Holy Trinity, which are used by noble Mornaeus in his learned Book de Veritate Christianae religionis pag: 72. and the Hebrew Doctors have left Records of this sacred mystery, though at this day that Nation understands it not, saith Ainsworth on 1. Gen. 1. to name no more Authors; See the mystery of the word Aelohim, there are three degrees, and every degree by itself alone( that is, distinct) and yet notwithstanding, they all are one, and joined together in one and are not divided one from another, saith Rab. Simeon Ben Jochoi in Zoar. on the 6. Section of Leviticus, and if the later Jews do not believe this they are degenerated in this particalar from the faith of Gods holy servants; for Abraham saw Christ, and as touching his Person he was before Abraham, for he saith, before Abraham was, I am, Joh. 8. though not in our own assumed nature, and this was the faith of the holy ones: what means that so frequently inculcated Jehovah, Elohim. Jehovah is a name of essence Elohim notes plurality of Persons and that in Job {αβγδ} God thy Makers, Job 35.10. and remember thy Creators in the day of thy youth {αβγδ} Zac. 12.1. Broughton urgeth thus: and Esay 54.9 Thy Makers are thy husbands, Jun. if the mystery of the Trinity be not intimated, what good sense can we make of such expressions? It is an assertion of learned Gerrard lib: de Mysterio Trin. That the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary to be believed of all those that look to be saved, and that not only the negation, but the ignorance thereof is damnable: his reason is, because he that knoweth not God as he hath revealed himself in his word, doth err from the true God, and makes an Idol of a glorious God; nor can one Person of the sacred Trinity be known and worshipped without the knowledge of another, Joh. 14.1.& 15.23. and this knowledge( saith mine Author) was necessary also in the Testament, albeit in these days the new Testament is like the Sun, and the old like the Moon which borroweth her light of the Sun. Of the new Testament, as Luther would often say, I dare not, I confess, pass such a harsh sentence on all that depart this life without the explicit knowledge of this mystery this is to cover their graves with a ston of despair, on whose souls the Lord perhaps hath shewed mercy. All such do err, I grant, which are ignorant of the Trinity: but whether this be an error to death which infallibly damns, judicent peritiores. Thirdly, I add that you do falaciously argue, alleging non causam pro causa: it was not the great majesty of Christ, as he was God, which was a scandal to the Jews, for this they apprehended not, nor did they believe it, though they might have learned it, both by the Doctrine and miracles of our Saviour, for then they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory: they startled not simply at this, that the Son of God, and promised messiah should be equal to his Father. Moses and Elias, the Law and the Prophets did attend Christ when he was transfigured in the Mount, Matth: 17. intimating thereby, that they had Christ in dark resemblances, and that he must needs be the natural, and not the adopted Son of God, the Jews knew the Son of God must be of the very divine Nature, John 5.18.( as a Son is of the same nature with the Father) but they interpnted this to be blasphemy in Christ, whom they believed not to be the messiah, which presupposeth the great mystery of the Trinity; this offended them that Jesus should take upon him to be the messiah, that he whose Parents they knew, and saw to live in a mean condition, yea, and not long after to be put to an ignominious death, this, as, not I, but the Apostle sheweth was a stumbling-block to the Jews, 1 Cor. 1.23. the ground of their mistake was a deluded apprehension, that their messiah should be a glorious King in this world, and restore again the Kingdom of Israel, and set the captivated Jews into a free and happy condition, but missing of their expectation and worldly felicity, they wickedly rejected him, as the Papists this day do err concerning Antichrist, because they do erroneously describe that man of sin, with the characters of such an ugly Monster, as never was, or should be found in any man, and do not know their state to be Antichristian, nor the Roman Pope to be the head of that foretold apostasy, though he lives visibly amongst them, yet as the Doctrines and practices approved by the Church, do prove the Pope to be the very man which was foretold by S. Paul, and S. John, albeit the Papists are ignorant of it, and do not better esteem of the Publishers here of then to be blasphemers: so also did the gracious doctrine and powerful works of the messiah, demonstrate him to be in truth, though many of the Jews which conversed with him did not believe that he was the expectation of Israel, but those that are enlightened Christians will confess, as nazianzen some where saith, They cannot see one God, but they must see the glory of the three Persons; nor can they with the eyes of their souls see the three Persons, but they will see and aclowledge the one infinite essence and Majesty of God. Fourthly, I will reason ad hominem, and demand of you Mr. Biddle, whether is your Faith, touching the messiah, pleasing to the Jews or not? I suppose you have not the face to avouch the former, for albeit you hold him to be a mere Creature, and not the true God, and do wretchedly deny this satisfaction made to the divine justice for the sins of the world, yet you cannot, you dare not deny that he is a Saviour and no impostor, in regard of his cross, which was the Jews scandal, but Christians glory. Now if you will charge us with a fault in that our doctrine is displeasing to the Jews, are you to be commended for doing the like in reference to the offence of Jews? or if you have such a longing desire to gain them, or at least to be one with the Jews, why do you not Judaize and absolute renounce a crucified Saviour? why do you not with a Schoolmaster which became a Jew, and wrote from Thessalonica, that the reason why he revolted from Christianity, was because he could not digest the mystery of the Trinity, as Dr. Cheynel relates. Fifthly, I Answer, the great mysteries of our Salvation must not be renounced to gratify blind and sinful men, their scandal is taken by themselves, not given by us, if they willbe offended at heavenly truths, we must let them alone: they must, if they love their salvation, come to us: we must not, if we will be saved, go to them, {αβγδ} it's absurd and unreasonable to call on Christ, or to be called a Christian, and to judaize, for Christianity believes not in judaisme, but judaisme in Christianity, Ignat. Epist. ad Magnesios. besides to our comfort and the confirmation of our faith in Christ, their scandal and rejection of their messiah, and their blinding and being forsaken of God is foretold, Esa. 8.14.15.16. and Esa. 6.9.11. and 65.12.66.4. Dan. 9.26. Christ is called a ston of offence: and they thought they did God good service in putting him to death, but albeit they haled and martyred the Apostles, yet are they never called the ston of offence, and 21. v. Esay 8. it is foretold, that they should curse their King and their God: what God? not an Idol, then would they have said their Idol, but never is the Lord when he is called The God of Israel, said to be an Idol; besides, these words are not words of repenting sinners, for the Law forbids subjects to curse their King, but of impious freting persons, as the context shows: by the name God then is meant the Father or the Son, not the Father, the Jews never cursed God the Father to this day, but most fearfully have, and do curse God the Son, and this is further proved by the name King, for what King after this prophesy did the Jews curse, but Christ who was both the King and God of the Jews? and unless one and the same person had been understood by King and God, the name King, as is the Scriptures use, should have been set after God. They cursed God and their King, and as they delighted in cursing, so Gods curse, according to their fearful imprecation, hath most justly, visibly, and heavily fallen on them, and lies upon them to this day for shedding of the blood of the Lord of life: I do truly and cordially compassionate them, because they were once Gods people, of whom Christ came in the flesh, and their fault was, they did set up their rest, viz. in Moses, where God intended only a preparation, and as it is our duty, I do hearty pray for their conversion, not doubting but the time will come when they shall look by faith on the Son of God, whom they have crucified, and with godly sorrow mourn for their sins, as for the loss of an only Son, and be one in faith on the Son of God, with the Apostles and primitive Christians, and shall become, according to the Prophesies, a glorious Church. sixthly and lastly, the doctrine of the Trinity is the genuine doctrine of the Christian Religion itself, and the very same in later daies held forth to the Church, was published both by our blessed Saviours own blessed mouth, and his holy Apostles and others, and the generality of the Jews had then their eyes blinded and hearts hardened, as well as their unhappy posterity; can you show that the Jews then did not renounce Christ upon the same motives, that the accursed Jews have done in later ages? if their hatred of Idolatry now makes them to detest Christianity, I mean in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, Did not the same ground prevail with them not to submit to Christ, which lived in the happy dayes of our Saviour and his Disciples? It is true they have abhorred many ages outward Idolatry and the worship of a false God, but they are deeply defiled with inward Idolatry, in that they worship not God after his revealed will, that is, Trinity in unity: and I may truly say, the doctrine and practise of the Socinians themselves, is flat Idolatry in the judgement of the deluded Jews, for they do invocate and give religious worship to Christ, and stick not to call him God, and by this means you do put an excuse into the mouths of the incredulous Jews, why they should not believe in Christ, for they were taught by God himself, The gods that made not the Heavens and Earth shall be destroyed: this is an indefinite proposition and true at all times, was written by the Prophet in the Chaldee tongue, which they were to learn by heart as it were, Jer. 10.11 and always to remember to prevent Idolatry, the Jews then may thus reply. Lord, thou wouldst have this golden sentence deeply imprinted in our memories, that we should nor receive or worship any God that made not Heaven and Earth; he not, we beseech thee, angry with us, who being admonished by thy divine Oracle, shall renounce him from being God which hath not made the Heavens and the Earth? thou Lord hast forbidden that we should have any other to be God before thy face: this is the first, and the great Commandement, we cannot obey this Commandement if we take him to be God, which is a God divers from thee, if he be a God: thou Lord hast often inculcated this truth, there is no other God and Saviour besides thee; how then can we aclowledge another God and Saviour besides thee, and exalt his name with divine honors? I see not how the Socinians can stop the mouths of the Jews, unless they come to us and aclowledge Christ to be God which made Heaven and Earth. bid. Christians have erected a new Bibel, and confounded the pure language of the Scriptures with their Trinunities, co-essentialities, modalities, eternal Generations, eternal Processions, Incarnations, hypostatical Unions, and the like monstrous terms, fitter for Conjurers, then Christians, especially such as profess to reject the inventions of men, and keep themselves wholly to the Word of God. Answer. First I do observe your itching humour to be adding of your own, to make that which is pious in itself, but in the Adversiries judgement to be very odious, if possible to be more odous. You are b●●d in the plural number to charge us with Trin-unities, eternal Generations, eternal Processions, Incarnations, Hypostatical unions for who, I pray you speaketh in those terms, or can truly so speak? none, but enemies to the Truth. Secondly, I grant that strange words invented out of vanity and curiosity by the boldness of a private spirit, are to be rejected but not such words which have been approved,& long used in the catholic Church, and which warrantable and just necessity hath brought into the world; ●●one do wrangle about words but deluded men which do deny the mysteries signified by them, and are enemies to the Truth, saith S. Hilary de Synodis. I answer then and say: First this your argument drawn into the field against us is overthrown by your own practise, for if no words are to be used, but such as are the pure language of Scripture, how durst you so frequently as you have done throughout your book use the word Trinity? Do you find it once mentioned in all those sacred volumes? you must then either have a larger privilege then the Church of Christ, which is unreasonable once to think, or else your accusation in the ground thereof comes to nothing. Secondly, it is no fault to use words to make divine Truths plain and easy, provided, that the new words are not invented to cloath a corrupt doctrine, but the clearing up of the truth, not to withdraw any from the true sense of the holy Word, but to make it more easy to be understood, who can justly find fault with the word Sacrament, as it is applied to Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord? and if any shall object against this, and other like words, where is that word or the former objected in Scripture, so used? I will return the same answer as Luther did to Carolestadius lib. 2. And why dost thou forbid them to be called Sacraments, which Christ hath not forbidden in his word? Thirdly, I may truly say of these new words as learned Vossius did of explicated Creeds: Non licuit per haereticos— The heretics would not suffer the Church to continue in the primitive simplicity of the faith of words, de tribus Symbolis dissertat. 1. Num. 25. new words were devised to oppose new Heresies; novelty is from heretics, they do strive and contend for it, truth is on our side, and we do with new language at once both confirm it, and confounded the Adversaries to it; if Enemies shall device new inventions to do mischief, may not Gods Servants have new devised words to prevent their intended purposes? to deny this help is all one, as Hilary answered Constantius the Emperor, who said he would not have such words used which are not written: say also( saith the Father) if you think you can truly say it, I will not have new Medicines against new poison. Necessity then forced Christians to use such words; for heretics( saith ●renaeus, lib. 1. advers. haeres.) use Scripture Phrases, {αβγδ}, but not in the sense of the Scriptures, like Wolves they go to the Sheep-fold, and call out the shepherds by the words of Christ to destroy the sheep; these words the● do discover heretics, and do prevent their venom● yea, and distinguish orthodox Christians from heretics, and are as a Shibboleth to discover an Ephramite. Jud. 12.6. to make known whose faith is pure in these points, and whose corrupt. You say these terms are fitter for Conjurers then for Christians: More modesty might have become you Mr. Biddle; these terms are as the light to discover darkness, which these Owls, Bats, and Moles cannot endure to look on, new devices and stratagems of Enemies must be opposed with new terms, and they are as preventing physic, and a notable means to hander you from corrupting the faithful with your novelties, and do manifest the fraud used by you to spread your damnable Heresies; necessity, as I said, prevailed with the most sober Divines which have treated of these high mysteries to make use of them, and without these unwritten words and phrases they cannot fitly express themselves in these controverted Subjects: it is a bold imputation to compare them to conjurers, and bespeaks you to be a proud, a ●●gn●●ant, and a malicious Enemy, who having nothing but Bul-rushes, for no better are your reasons to oppose them, yet have you an impudent face, both faucily and bitterly to inveigh against them. These words I know are a torment to you, and therefo e your tongue runs at random against your tormentors. This, you say is a fault especially in them, who profess to keep themselves close to Gods word, the Word is, I confess, a perfect Rule to us; but in what? in matters of faith to be believed, and duties of piety and justice to be practised, to extend this sacred Rule further, viz. to words wherewith such truths are clothed, is false, and a slander contra●●cted by the unanimous vote and practise of Writers, and if you Mr. Biddle are peremptory to maintain Scripture words, according to the sound. Why do not you use Hebrew words, as did the Prophets? why not Greek in which language the holy Apostles and Pen-men of the New Testament wrote? why do you writ in English? do you find our English terms and phrases in the originals? We do conceive, if the subject matter be in Gods Oracles, though the very terms are not there to be found, that we do not violate the Apostles Rule of holding fast the form of sound words, 2. Tim. 1.13. Espencaeus hath written a large digression on th●s point with whole words I will conclude to this Argument: what other thing is it to contend about words, then as S. Paul saith, {αβγδ}, yea, {αβγδ}, especially sithence, they which find fault with others commit the same fault themselves. The sixth and last Argument against the Trinity followeth. ARGUMENT VI. bid. Sixthly, the Doctrine of the Trinity prohibiteth the accomplishment of that which God promised by Zachary chap. 14. vers. 9. In that day the Lord shall be one, and his name one: for so ought the words to be rendered, according to the Hebrew; and I the rather mention this, because our Nation hath by solemn League and Covenant engaged itself to promote this very thing, making use of the Prophets Words in the close of the second Article of the Covenant. Answ. Here is a great deal of empty wind, but no Corn is shaken off: I note first, your vain humour to be carping and cavilling at our Translation, and needlessly to pick a quarrel against it, for if the Order of the Hebrew words is exactly to be observed, they run thus: there shall be Lord one; why then do you vary from it? the truth is, the objection is not material, for the sense is one and the same in your and our reading the words. To the objected place applied to the Covenanters I do avouch that you do slander them, and your false accusation is raised from a false interpretation of the whole Text. First, who are better Judges of their own words then themselves who composed and approved it? are they not all of them( except perhaps some few Sectaries) unanimous that there are not three Lords, but one Lord? and are they not fully persuaded without wavering, as in charity I am bound to judge, that there are not three Gods, but one only God? What a forehead then have you, that shane doth not cover your face for an imputation of their breach of Covenant, when you have their protestation to the contrary? Secondly, I answer, that God in himself ever was, and always will be one and the same God, and not only in the latter times; Times and men may change, but our God is unchangeable. Can you or dare you contradict this evident truth? Thirdly, this comfortable text is alleged and applied corruptly by Mr. Biddle. Zachary's prophesy is as he truly saith a gracious promise and an infallible prediction, that the happy days should come, when all Idol gods should be abolished, and that the name of the Lord should he one; that is, shall be acknowledged to be one, which is one in itself, that good and enlightened Christians shall be of one mind and heart in Religion, and in faith, that God shall alone be acknowledged and owned to be the true God, that he alone shall be worshipped with religious worship, alone invocated, and by faith relied on for salvation. Consider now how wisely you do make use of Scriptures to serve your purpose? God in this prophesy is taken essentially for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and these three are one God, 1. John 5.7. Biddle. Go to now you that so much inculcate the Covenant, thundering out in your Pulpits the judgements of God against the breakers thereof, tell me whether ye of all men are not most guilty in infringing of it, and that in the most important Article thereof? do not you stiffly contend that the Lord is three, and accordingly call him Deum trinum, and that his name is not one, but three, even the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, am not I who maintain on the contrary, that the Lord is one and not three, and to that purpose allege express Scripture, Mark 12.29. harken O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one, for so should the place be rendered, both because the word one in Greek is set after the word Lord, and also because the Hebrew word Jehovah being a proper name, cannot have the word one construed before it, and that his name is one, even the Father, innumerable places of Scripture do witness, for how often doth S. Paul with Grace and Peace from God the Father? and where doth he, or any other sacred Writer, use such an expression as that, of God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, am not I, I say, the object of your hatred for doing thus, and so in effect for keeping the Covenant I and do ye not therefore go about to kill me? Answ. If the Covenanters can with a good conscience clear themselves in all the particular branches of the Covenant, as well as keeping close to that which you object out of Zachary they may lift up their heads with comfort even in the evil time, and at the day of Judgement, the place hath been examined, and the impertinency thereof, in reference to your cause shewed. You would make us believe that you are a Keeper of the Covenant, the Covenant is as it were a copulative axiom every part must be true or else the whole proposition is false( to omit the other branches thereof in some of which you do notoriously transgress) you cannot make it out that you observe that clause, the Lord is one, because you deny the Son of God to be one Lord, as the Father is, and the Holy Ghost to be one Lord, for there is but one Lord, not three Lords,& the Lord who is but one God in essence, yet three distinct Persons, and you cannot avoid this blow, as you may seemingly, what is objected out of Scriptures, and human Writers, because this charge is grounded with good reason upon a received maxim, that oaths and Covenants are to be understo●d according to the known meaning of the Contrivers and imposers of them, which, as you must needs confess, are opposite to your interpretation; the place alleged Marc. 12.29 is not so much to prosecute and confirm your argument, for that hath been already done in the former Arguments, as to show your skill in criticism, and to correct our translations. First say you, it ought to be rendered, the Lord is one, because the word [ one] follows Lord in Greek, see the vanity of this Adversary! if this be an unerring Rule, why doth he transgress it even in this place? For is not the word [ one] set also before the Verb [ is] thus, the Lord is one? if he stands so strictly in placing the words as they are in order placed in the Originals, why then doth he put [ one] after it, the Lord is one? who knows not that trnslations out of Hebrew or Greek in English ought to be agreeable to our English idiom? Secondly, it is objected, that the Lord being a proper oname, cannot have the word [ one] construed with it, and why cannot it I pray you? for mine own par● I know not any such Gramma rule, and some skilful Grammarians, which I have consulted with, are ignorant of it; why may no an Adjective be joynedwith a proper name for distinction and emphatical illustration sake? and I am the more confirmed in my opinion, because our Transl●tors, whom I look upon as no w●it inferior to Mr. Biddle in all manner of Learning,( yea, and Grammar knowledge) do not stick to construe one with a proper name, nor can it well be avoided by these two instances, one taken out of the old Testament, 2. Chron. 30 18. The good Lord pardon, &c. the other out of the new, Is not Lot called righteous Lot, 2. Pet. 2 7. Lot surely is a proper name: but I will not make any further search by alleging examples to overthrow such a trifling argument used only for ostentation of skill, and not for any advantage to the cause in hand, for the sense of that holy text. Whether it be said, the Lord is one, or one Lord, is all one, and if you know any of ours which will deny the Lord to be one, or one Lord, which I suppose you do not, let them that are so erroneous bear the blame, and take shane to themselves. This one Lord( saith the Adversary) is even the Father, as S. Paul prayeth for Grace and Peace from God the Father, and where is there such an expression. God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost? This one, I grant, is the Father, but not only the Father, not attributed to him by way of opposition to his Son, and the Holy Ghost. your proof is, because it is often said, Grace from God the Father is a needless proof, for do we deny that the first Person is God the Father? but why do you make a stop in the midst of the Verse? is it not immediately added in the apostolical salutations, Grace and Peace from Jesus Christ, Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.3. If you had dealt fairly, your own proof would have been a piercing sword to wound your cause: if the Son of God and the Holy Ghost be the Authors of Grace and Peace as is evident from sacred Writ, and shall be proved: tis all one in effect, as if it had been said in express terms, Grace and Peace from God the Son, and Grace and peace from God the Holy Ghost. Tis objected that Biddle is the object of the Ministers hatred for keeping the Covenant, and therefore they go about to kill him. None hate you nor go about to molest you for keeping the Covenant, but for violating of it. Ministers, which as you say, thunder out in their Pulpits the judgements of God against Covenant-Breakers, have not the cognizance of life and death in their Commission; the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual: it is the Magistrates office, who beareth not the sword in vain, to draw it out against evil doers, it was not Calvin but the Magistrates of Geneva, that put Michael Servetus to death; it was not Musculus, but the Senate of Berno which took away by their sentence the life of Valentinus gentiles, when all good means had been charitably used to reclaim them: these Ministers you say go about to kill you, perhaps you mean by their exciting those which are in authority to destroy you, not being a seduced Sheep, but a seducing shepherd, and a troubler of our Israel, after admonitions, convictions pertinaciously defending fundamental errors, and labouring to corrupt others with the impure leaven of damnable heresy: doth any one go about to kill you for believing the Lord to be one, and his name one? surely not for his faith; for what man is there amongst us which denieth the Lord to be one, absolutely one, ens indivisum, most simplo without all division and composition; there belongs not to him the logical, not the natural, not the metaphysical composition, being truly infinite, yet consider God relatively secundum processionis modum, in the unity of the same essence, Deus est trinus, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, though he be not Triplex; you are not then hated and persecuted for believing the Lord to be one, but for your blasphemy against the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost, for your destroying the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion touching Christs satisfaction, and the justification of a sinner before God, and such like horrid errors, for your apostasy, obstinacy, and your endeavouring to kill the souls of Christian people, for these may the Mag●strate out of a zeal to God, and true piety, take order to restrain you from doing mischief, and if they should put you to death, continuing intractable in your present condition, they have their warrant for out it of Gods Word, Zach. 13. v. 3. The false Prophet that speaketh lies in the name of the Lord, shall not live, so commendable shall be the zeal of true Worshippers in the Kingdom of Christ, that those of the nearest relation shall complain of the Blasphemer to the Judge, by whose sentence he shall die; but you are more gently dealt withall, you are yet alive to complain of persecution, yet he that is sincerely on Gods side, will wish that the Foxes which destroy the Vines may be taken, and that they which are as mad men may be so chained that they may do no hurt abroad, and if they will labour to poison their Keepers, another course may be taken with them. My meaning is, to banish them out of our Dominions: for my part I hearty wish that God would open your eyes, Mr. Biddle, to see and bewail your damnable Errors, and to be ashamed of them, repent and aclowledge your imprisonment to be just, as that false Prophet, in Zach. 13. acknowledged,[ and not burnt to ashes, as one John Lewis was of Norwich in Queen Elizabeths reign, 1583. and Legate in Smithfield in King James his reign:] and say with him, These are the wounds wherewith I was wounded in the house of my friends; Which by mildred punishment if you would have considered the greatness of your offence, might have occasioned your conversion. It is observed, that those which are the greatest complainers of persecution when they are in a low condition, if the wheel of Gods providence turns about, and they are raised to have authority and power in their hands, they are the greatest persecutors; and I have a large field should I recite all, to expatiate against the barbarous cruelty of the Arians against the Ornocusians, the Orthodox Christians, first of Constantius, the Arian Emperor relates by Athanasius, To. 1. Epistol ad omnes ubique solitariam vitam agentes, his imprisonment of Liberius Bishop of Rome, the banishment of Hosius Bishop of Corduba, the violence done to Women and Virgins, spoiling goods, breaking open houses, and they were so cruel, that they are rather to be called Murtherers, wicked doers, and any thing then Christians; and in an Epistle to all the Orthodox, he saith, There was never exercised greater cruelty against any then that of the Arians was against the Orthodox: the like and worse is reported of Valens that bloody Enemy; was it not a savage cruelty in that man of blood to command all the Christians which should meet in the fields of Edessa, a City of Mesopotamia to Worship God, to be put to death, had not the Commander by Gods special providence moved with piray and humanity prevented the slaughter of righteous men. ruffian. Eccles. Histor. lib. 2. cap. 5. by choosing rather to die himself at the Emperors command, then to imbrue his hands in their innocent blood. I will add but one example more, the Arians at Constantinople intolerably wronged the Orthodox, rightly pious ecclesiastical persons, made their humble supplication to Valens for redress, or Mitigation of this persecution, but all in vain, he commanded Medestus the governor of Nicomedia, where he then resided, to apprehended them, and to put them to death, which unjust command he unworthily obeied, by putting them all into a Ship, and burning it when they where in the Sea. Socrates lib. 4. Eccles. Histor. cap. 13. This your persecution then whereof you complain, is a mercy, if you compare it with the cruelty exercised by the Arian Emperor on Gods dear Servants. Bid. To further the enquiry after the true God, who is, and who is to be worshipped, I have here presented you with a confession of faith, touching the holy Trinity, exactly drawn out of the Scriptures, with the Texts alleged at large, that you may the better judge of them, neither have I other aim, then to restore that pure and genuine knowledge of God delivered in Scripture, and which hath for many hundred years been hiden from the eyes of men by Antichrist, who hath instead therof obtruded upon them absurd and uncoth notions, bearing them in hand that ignorance is the Mother of devotion, and that they then think and speak best of God, when their conceits and words are most irrational and senseless. Answ. All this is but a mere flourish, you are, Mr. Biddle too highly conceited of your own fancies and in love with the dreams of your own feverish brain, your arguments are weak, but your delusions are strong; you tell us that your confession of faith touching the holy Trinity is exactly drawn out of the holy Scriptures; I say as Athanasius To. 1. {αβγδ}, recites the words of the Scriptures, and steals from us their right sense, the Scriptures whereby you would prove only the Father to be God, are miserable perverted; that knowledge of God which you pled for hath been as yourself confesseth, hidden from the eyes of men many hundred years together, and you may truly add, had no authority from the Apostles daies in the Church, till after the Nicence counsel, albeit it was privately taught by heretics to trouble Christians, and most diligently confuted by the most holy Fathers: But the Adversary to make this Doctrine odious, saith, the truth was hide by the corrupt Glosses and Traditions of Antichrist; to this I answer, whatsoever Antichrist defendeth is not Antichristian: you slander us in saying, we make Ignorance the Mother of Devotion, and we think and speak best of God when our words are most irrational and senseless; touching such apparently false and slanderous imputations, which will come to nothing of themselves: I will retort nothing, but concerning the unity of the divine Essence and Trinity of the sacred Persons; I am confident that the faith herein, is the Doctrine which our blessed Saviour, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists taught, which apostolical men received from them, and believed, which the ancient Church and Fathers before the counsel of Nice justified by their Writings; in this faith I was baptized, and by the grace of God in this faith I will both live and die. I have now finished my answer to the Preface which is against the sacred Trinity, J will now by the strength of your six Articles of faith, and shall examine whether your great undertaking to restore the pure and genuine knowledge of God be Sensus judicii, or Morbi, and show by the help of God, that not Antichrist but Christ is the Author of the Doctrine of the Trinity which is propugned by us. Mr. Biddles confession of Faith. ARTICLE I. I believe that there is one most high God Creator of Heaven and Earth and first cause of all things pertaining to our Salvation, and consequently the ultimate Object of our faith and worship, and that this God is none but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the first Person of the holy Trinity. Answ. I do believe also with the catholic Church, that there is One, and but one most high God, Creator of all things, and first cause of all things pertaining to our Salvation; He is the first principal, the most universal, and as the Phrase of that burned is, Primordiatissima causa Ludov. a Dola, p. 1. c. 2. de concursu Dei cum Creaturis. Of all the Creatures, and of all things pertaining to our Salvation: In the next words taken in your sense begins the difference, your consequence is inconsequent; for this first cause, is not only the ultimate object of our faith and worship, if they be understood, as they should be properly, but he is the onely object of those divine acts, which cannot without dishonour to the great God be exhibited to any creature, how high and glorious soever he be, if he be compared with other creatures, for we have this infallible direction from the mouth of truth itself, affirmatively thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, there negatively no creature, for him onely shalt thou serve, Matth. 4.10. Your assertion that this God is none but the first person of the holy Trinity is against the faith; for Father Son and holy Ghost, are not three Principles, but one onely, one Creator, one God August. Tit. 5, de Trinitate cap. 14 and to restrain Creation to one of the sacred Persons, as the principal cause thereof, is opposite to the holy Scriptures: 'tis excellently said in the eleventh Synod of Toledo, These three are one thing in nature, not in person; nor can the Persons be separated one from another; none of them subsists or works before another, none after another, none without the other; for they are inseparable in that which they are, and in that which they work; they which ●ave the same individual essence, which is the formal reason of external actions, as the Schoolman speaks, have one and the same operation. Yet I deny not, there is a difference, as in the order of subsisting, so likewise of working. Scotus and his followers do speak harshly, yet is their sense orthodoxal, the Father hath primariam authoritatem causandi, the Son of God and the Holy Ghost have subauthoritatem in causando, not meaning thereby any imperfection or dependency on the Father; they expound themselves that the Father hath the formal reason of working from himself, not from any other, but the Son hath the very self same Principle of working not from himself, but from his Father, Rada B. of arragon, part 2. Cont. Scotiam Controv. 1. and although sometimes mention is made of three causes of divine works, yet are they in truth but one cause, and in a divers respect is called solitary in regard of the perfection and virtue of working, and a sociat cause in regard of union and communion of persons, and because one holy person cannot be without the other, neither can it work without the other, and yet in a sense, the Father is called the first of these causes, quasi inchoans, the Son the second as continuing it, and the Holy Ghost the third, as it were consummating it, or the third person may be called the next cause, the second the middle cause, not in regard of power to work, as the Adversaries pled, but in regard of the manner and order of working, and the first cause may be called the original cause, Bisterfeld contra Crellium. We will now consider, whether there is any validity or worth in your proofs. bid. John 17.3. This is life eternal, that they know thee the Father, the onely true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent: observe here in the first place, that our Saviour Christ setting down the persons in the knowledge whereof eternal life consisteth, makes no mention of the Holy Ghost, whereas if he were God, the knowledge of him would be as necessary for the attaining of Eternal life, as that of the Father. Secendly, he so describeth the Father, as that he makes him the onely true God, thereby manifestly excluding any other person whatsoever from being the true God. Thirdly, as for himself, he doth not say, that it is Eternal Life to know him, as eternally begotten and coessential to the Father( both which are Contradictions in themselves, and unheard of in the Scriptures) but onely as sent by the Father, and consequently such ●n one: as by his will and in his name manageth the business of our salvation. Ans. This holy Text of S John is placed by the Adversary, and by Crellius in the forefront, and looked upon by them as an invincible Argument, but without good reason, as I will demonstrate, the strength of the Objection lies in these words, The Father is the onely true God, and therefore neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost are the true God. 1. To this an answer is shaped by some eminent Divines by denial, for these words, the only true God, as many ancient and late writers do attest are referred not onely to the Father, but to the Son also, as if they had run thus, The Father and the Son are the only true God, and this is as they say, the logical order of the words, of this Judgement are these ancient Fathers, Ambrose, Cyril, Chrysostome, and Austine cited by Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Christo, cap. 17. S. Chrysostome allegeth a parallel Scripture, as he thinketh to illustrate the Meaning of that Sacred Text, 1. Corinthians chap. 9. v. 6. or I onely and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working, where the word onely doth not exclude Barnabas, but include him rather, and our learned Junius in three places at least, both in his second and third books of the defence of the Trinity, and in his annotations on the forequoted place of Bellarmine is positive for this exposition, and faith, that if the words be narrowly viewed, they will hold forth that sense, the article {αβγδ}( saith he) evinceth it) for he is also the true God, 1 John 5.20. if this exposition holds true, then is this text so far from disproving, that it strongly proves the Deity of our blessed Saviour. Secondly I answer, if( onely) be applied to the Father in this holy Text, suppose it had run thus, onely the Father is the true God, yet doth not that attribution exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost, from being the true God: it is a rule in logic, exclusiva particula subjecti non excludit concomitantia, or inclusa, id est, necessary accidents connexed, and necessary consequents, it is not simply exclusive, but secundum quid, that is, it excludes not the Son and holy Ghost from being the true God, but all that are out of the Father sc, which are not true gods, so that all false gods which have been, are, or shall hereafter be devised are opposed to the true God, and some of our adversaries are forced to make use of this answer, saying, when the Scriptures say onely, the Lord God is immortal, wise, these speeches do not exclude others from being wise and immortal, but that God is onely immortal and wise of himself, so Volkelius and Schlichtingius, see Placeus lib. 2. Disput. 20. Christus est verus Deus. Now this title onely God, is attributed to the Father, in regard of order, and that gracious dispensation, which by consent of all three persons was vouchsafed for our salvation, and therefore it is not said, 'tis life eternal to know thee to be God, but the onely true God,( and verily Christ is no idol god) to evidence that the gods of the Gentiles, are not truly but falsely called gods. If the adversaries Collection was good, Christ should be the onely true God, see Esa. 45.56 18.21. meant of him, when I say, the Sun onely enlightens the world, are the beams thereof excluded? no, onely such things are excluded, which are not naturally annexed to the Sun: now the Son and the Holy Ghost have the same individual nature with the first person of the Holy Trinity. Thirdly, observe it well, which is the most commonly received answer and clear in the Text, if the words had been an entire axiom of themselves, as they are not, the Father is the onely true God, that exclusio non est ex parte suppositi, said appositi, Hales de Trinit. q. 65. monitio. 3 artic. &c. then there is fallacia compositionis, and the word, onely, is not confined to the subject. The Father; it is not onely said, the Father is the true God. The Article is {αβγδ} shows it pertains to the predicate, the Father is the onely true God, and the sense is, that they may know thee to be that God, which alone is the true God, and the onely true God is not a proper predicate, but common to three, and this is a difference to be insisted on, the Father is the onely true God; therefore the Son is not the onely true God, I deny the Inference, for the son also is the onely true God, and the Holy Ghost is the onely true God, and the reason is convincing, because all the three persons have one and the same singular Godhead, and by consequence every one of them is the onely true God, as if I should say, this Plant is that onely true Acorus of Dioscorides. This Gold is the only true native Gold; and so in other examples, when the totum is simile, not excluding other individuals of the same kind, but those which are divers from it. I will communicate to the Reader the Exposition of Gaspar Erasmus, Brockmand lib. de Deo Filio cap. 2. qu. 1. which he believes may be naturally given out of the Text, it is plain( saith he) in what sense Christ calls the Father the onely true God. Our Lord lifts up his eyes to heaven, and calls him Father, which presupposeth he hath a son, by the phrase then he teaching the Father to be the only true God, implieth that he hath a Son, Omnipotent, Eternal, and which had glory with him, before the Creation of the world, v. 5. so that the very naming of God to be the true God, doth virtually infer the Son also to be true God, and take away the deity of the Son, and you have destroyed the definition of the Father: an eternal Father must of necessity have a Son, which is eternal, in this sense also is Jesus Christ, called our onely Saviour, which surely excludes not the Father from being our Saviour, and yet might the Socinians conclude this latter, as well as the former. This Text being thus cleared up, the Inferences will easily be answered. 1. Infer. Christ( say you) setting down the persons necessary to be known, if we look for eternal life, mentions not the Holy Ghost, and were he God, the knowledge of him would be as necessary as of the Father. To this I do answer, First that you do well to desert your rabbis, which do assert without mentioning of the knowledge of Gods nature, that obedience to Gods Commandements, and believing his promises, are the two parts of Christian Religion, and that in this Text, John 17.3. is not meant so much the knowledge of his being, as of his will; see Thornbeck, lib. 1. de script.& Religione cap. 9. Sect. 2. Secondly, nor can this Text well stand with the Principles of socinianism, which do willingly yield salvation to the Heathens, which conformed their lives according to the rules of their reason, in honouring a Deity, as well as they could, yea and to the holy ones in the old Testament without Christ, which utterly overthroweth the necessity of the Christian Religion, time was then and yet is, when this knowledge was not necessary. Thirdly, I grant this assertion is true, without the knowledge of God and Christ, men of years cannot ordinarily be saved, but the Holy Text saith not, that a man knowing the Father and the Son, without knowledge of any other person may attain salvation. These are necessary, but not onely these, a man must know himself to be in a damnable condition, which is not here expressed, and without which knowledge he cannot know God and Christ, viz. practically, which is here required, it cannot be proved, that all persons needful to be known should be mentioned in every Text. Fourthly, I add, it is very strange, that the Adversary having ascribed so much to the Holy Ghost, as he hath done, especially in the sixh Article, and third Argument against the Trinity, confessing him to be one of the persons of the holy Trinity, and frequently mentioned in Gods word, should not be the object of saving faith, and that he should assert the knowledge of him not to be necessary to salvation, being our enlightner and our guide, seeing the Creed commonly called the Apostles, is with an unanimous consent approved by the Socinians, as they would have the world believe, as Jonas Schlichtingius, professeth in the name of the Polonian Churches and names knowledge, as antecedent, and saith of the Trinity, naming God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Fiftly, I add more clearly, albeit the holy Ghost is not mentioned here, yet is he not excluded, the reason is, because he is not out of the Father, and the son of God, as false and Idol gods are but in regard of the unity of the divine Nature, he is both in the first and second person in an admirable manner, 1 Cor. 12.3. the Father is called God, and Christ Lord, the Holy Ghost is included implicitly, as in the old Testament, the faithful implicitly, though not explicitly called on the Father in the name of Christ, John 16.24. for as ex parte subjecti, knowledge is onely name, which is the primary and universal root of all saving knowledge, yet is not every knowledge sufficient, but that which is affective knowledge and practical, not onely in the head, but in the heart and life, as holy habits, repentance for sins committed, heavenly mindedness, a holy and humble walking with God, are necessary to attain salvation: so also ex parte objecti, for as the knowledge of our mediator and peace-maker is added to the knowledge of God, because we can have no access to the Father, but by him, nor can he be savingly known without the son, no more can the Father and the Son be known without the guidance, illumination, and sanctification of the Holy Ghost. Whereas you say, if the Holy Ghost was God, to know him was as necessary, as to know God the Father. I deny this Inference to be generally and at all times true. Christ speaks of the knowledge which he was pleased to reveal before his passion and Ascension; many things were reserved to be fully known by the pouring out of the Holy Ghost. Christ prays here as a Priest not yet entred into the Sanctuary; so that it was not needful to make express mention of the Holy Ghost; for in that state Christ manifested not the holy Ghost, but the holy Ghost rather manifest●d Christ unless I go away, the Comforter will not come; now was the time that the Son should be glorified; John 8.16 but the time of the spirits witness was not yet come, John 7.39 and consequently, that he should be in a special manner glorified. ARGUMENT II. bid. The Father( saith the adversary) is so described, that he excludes any other person from being God. Ans. This Objection, as I conceive, is fully answered in opening the sense of the Text, it is true onely, the either is God, neither begotten, as is Gods Son, nor proceeding as the Holy Ghost, and that you may not triumph in this Argument, I might prove by it, that Christ is the only God, and not the Father; for Isa. 45.5. I am the Lord, and there is no God besides me. 6. That all the world over, it may be known, that I am the Lord, and that there is none else. 18. I am the Lord, and there is none else, 21 v. There is no God else besides me. These several Texts are meant not of God the Father, but of God the Son, if you will compare Rom. 14.11 Phil. 2.10. with the 23. v. of Isa. 45. ARGUMENT. III. bid. Lastly, the Adversary comments, it is not said to know the Son, as eternally begotten and coessential to the Father, but which are contradictions in themselves, and unheard of in Scripture, but only as sent of the Father. Answ. I answer, all Fundamentals of Christian Religion are not plainly, no, nor by necessary consequence set down in every Text touching God, it is sufficient to settle our belief, if it be clearly expressed in, or soundly deduced out of other Scriptures, sundry truths are in several places recorded, which are so disposed by Gods wise providence, that our attention and diligence in comparing Scripture with Scripture might be sharpened. The whole divine Canon is the perfect rule of our faith; be it then granted, that Christ is not here said to be the only begotten Son of God, and coessential to his Father, will you fallaciously from thence conclu●e that these are now here asserted in other Scriqtures. 2. I further answer that you may palpably see your error, that as these are not plainly asserted, so are they not denied: see the vanity of this Observation by that ntu●re in Christ, which is not controverted. It is not said here, that Jesus Christ was the Son of Mary, that he was the Son of Abraham, of David, or of Man, will you say therfore it is not necessary to know that he was a man? 3. And whereas you say, it is a Contradiction to say, Christ was eternally begotten, this should have been proved, which you know is denied, for we are not now in hand with a corporeal Generation, nor of that which is called mortal, which is transcendent, and Metaphisicall, viz. of created spiritual substances, when the mind begets in its self rational conceptions, but the generation of the Son is Supreme and Divine, it is an Ocean which is an abyss to be admired, and cannot be fathomed in the created natural Generation. 1. The Son is after the Father in time, not as he is a Father, for so they are Relatives, but as he is a man. And 2. The Son is first unequal to the Father in stature, not so great as his Father, 3. He is unlike him in qualities and natural endowments. 4. And really divided from him, that these two, Father and Son, do and needs must subsist in distant places. 5. To say nothing, that what thing is generated in time, is corrupted in time, but such gross conceptions must be abandoned in this sublime generation, yea, the very naming of the Father to be the true God doth virtually imply, as hath been touched above: that his natural Son is the true God also, and so by consequence an eternal Father hath eternally begotten his coessential Son. Thus much of this Text. bid. 1 Cor. 18.5, 6. v. Though there be that are called gods, whether in Heaven or in Earth, as there are many Gods and many Lords, yet to us, there is but one God even the Father, of whom are all things, and we in, to, or for him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him: in this passage, Christ is excluded from being that one God of the Christians, and the holy Ghost in general terms excluded from being that one God, and one Lord: wherefore if we give such credence to the Apostle, as we ought, and had not rather harken to Athanasius then to Paul, we will confess that, that one God of the Christians is no other then the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Answ. This Text is parallel to that in John 17.3. the restrictive particle, one and onely are not to be taken simply, as Biddle would have them, but in a certain respect. The Text saith there is one God, who doubts of the truth of that Principle? one is joined to God, and it is evidently opposed to Idols and false gods, which are indeed nothing {αβγδ} far from being gods, Heathens indeed had some celestial and Supreme Deities, and others on Earth inferior and of a lower degree, which were as they supposed Agents and mediator between their highest gods and men. The Apostle excludes all those made gods, not the Son and the Holy Ghost, he saith, not only the Father is God, nor that Christ only is that one Lord, so that the Adversary commits his usual fallacy, A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The Apostle in effect thus argueth, an idol is not a God, why? because there is but one God, who is invisible and cannot be represented by any image, he prevents an object on of the Gentiles, which worshipped many gods, to which practise he opposeth the sound judgement of Christians, to us saith he, there is but one God, under that one God the Fathers Deity and sons Dominion are comprehended; to us there is but one God, who is described by this effect, that he created all things, this is ascribed to the Father, he that is one God, yet is he not all, that is, that one God this is ascribed to the Father, as being first in order of subsisting, and of working, for the manner of working is always agreeable to the order of fusisting the sum is, one God the Father is spoken by way of opposition and exclusion of other Gods but not in opposition to the Son and holy Ghost, for the Son and holy Ghost are not comprehended under the called Gods, but under the name of that one God. 2. Besides, 'tis not necessary, that the Father should be taken personally, relatively, and restrictedly, as I have hither to granted, it may be taken absolutely, commonly and essentially, and not contra distinguished from the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, but for the three divine persons; and the Apostle mentions Jesus Christ, because he is the mediator, by whom we are reconciled to God, by whom we have access to God, and by whose works all good things are communicated to us, which Office could not have been performed by our mediator, unless he had been God-man. How little advantage the Adversary hath from this Scripture, may appear by these Arguments grounded on the Text itself. 1. That which the Apostle removes, viz. Lords many and Gods many, can onely in reason be objected against the Unity of God. v. 4.5. that then which is not excluded, viz. The Father and Jesus Christ, that is not repugnant to the unity of God, and therefore Christ being no idol, nor any of the gods spoken of v. 5. is that one God is expressly mentioned, v. 4. 2. Christ is not a made Lord, as spoken of in this Text, but a natural, essential, and uncreated Lord, the reason is because all made Lords, as Angels, and Magistrates are spoken of v. 5. yet out of the number of these Christ is excepted, as all made Lords are opposed to the most high God. 3. The Apostle saith, Christ is one Lord, shall we from hence be allowed to conclude, that the Father is not our Lord! surely we may as firmly conclude, that God the Father is not our Lord, as we may infer, because we have one God the Father, therefore Christ is not our God, or to say, he is not God the Father, therefore he is not God, because he is distinguished from God, for why should not we as strongly infer, because the Father is distinguished from God, Hos. 1.7. I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, as the Adversary doth the former. 4. This is proved by the propositions of and by, and the effects, all thing are of God the Father, Christians have nothing, not onely as they are Christians, but as they are creatures, which they have not from God, and as duty requireth they render thanks to God for all temporals and spirituals, and the Apostle saith, all things are by our Lord Jesus Christ, and so by consequence he is the highest God: he makes the particle( by) to be of the same extent, and equally comprehensive in reference to its object, as the particle( of) Of the Father are all things, as if he had said, all things are of one God by one Lord, if some things had been by one God the Father, and other things by one Lord, the force of the Propositions and the order and connexion betwixt one God and one Lord would be lost, if that the Father create all things, by this Lord it shows, that this Lord is omnipotent, and the wonderful diversity of the divine unity, and the unity of diversity: if the Father creates all things by the Son, if the Son be a creature he must be an instrument of his own Creation, and he must be before himself, which is a flat contradiction, To conclude, albeit we do justly honour the memory of great Athanasius, for being in his time a notable instrument under God to batter down the wall of arianism, yet do not we build our faith upon his testimony, but on blessed Paul, infallibly assisted by the spirit of God, who taught us that same divine truth, which Athanasius maintained with an adamantine courage. bid, Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. There is one body and one spirit, even as ye have been called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and among all, and in you all, which passage clearly intimates the different nature, order and dignity of the three Persons of the holy Trinity, and that was written for that very end, for when he saith there is one Spirit, he must mean either one Created, or uncreated Spirit, for no other spirit is conceivable, not one uncreated spirit, for so there will be another uncreated spirit, besides God, which is absurd, since the spirit is here plainly and purposely distinguished from God, therefore he meaneth one created spirit, but if so, then there is simply one created spirit, or one created spirit by way of excellency, not so, for there are seven principal Angels, mentioned, rue. 1.4. in the judgement of Beza, Drusius, and meed, and all the Angels in general are ministering spirits, Heb. 1.14. it must then be one created Spirit by way of excellency, which is the Holy Ghost: in like manner when the Apostle saith, there is one Lord, he must mean either one made, or one unmade Lord, for there is no medium, not one unmade Lord, for then there will be another unmade Lord besides God( which is absurd) since this Lord is here plainly and purposely distinuished from God, wherefore he meaneth one made Lord, but if so, then there he is either simply one made Lord, which cannot be, for so there are many Lords, as the Apostle and experience testifieth, it remaineth therefore that he be one made Lord, by way of excellency onely, which is Jesus of Nazareth, who after he had been crucified by the Jews, was raised from the dead, and exalted by the right hand of God, and by him made Lord and Christ, as Peter Acts. 2.22.23.33.36. testifieth, wherefore since neither the holy spirits is an uncreated spirit, nor the Lord Jesus an unmade Lord, neither of them are truly and properly God, but onely the Father. Ans. The end and scope of those words is not as you pretend, to intimate the different nature, order, and dignity of three Persons of the holy Trinity, but to exhort the Christians to peace and concord by sundry Arguments and Motives. Three of them are taken from the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, as most men think. First, there is one Spirit; and this you take for granted to be one Person, but you shall find strong Adversaries, if I mistake not their meaning, which do not understand the Holy Ghost, but the Apostle exhorts, as they are one body and Society of Christians, that they may have one Soul, as it were one spirit of love to animate that body, according to the hoped for eternal salvation( Dr. Hammond) and it may be the order of the words, and placing the spirit with that which is not a person, imports so much, but I will not conclude, for this sense being unusual, nor will I rest in it. Well then, this spirit is an uncreated spirit, and the Apostle useth a rhetorical gradation, proceeding from the third to the second, and from the second to the first Person, and it may be, because the Spirit is the next Person of Unity; our Lord, as it were, the middle cause, and one original Father or beginning cause, as some Divines do speak. By the Spirit is meant an uncreated Spirit, and this I prove, because this Spirit is in all, and as the Soul is to the body, so is this Spirit to the Church; the Spirit quickens every member of the body of Christ, and governs it, which the most excellent Spirit being a finite substance cannot possibly do. Your Argument, this Spirit cannot be God, because he is distinguished from God, is as weak as water, for albeit in some respects he is called the Spirit, and by way of distinction the holy Spirit. yet this excludes not the Father and Son of God from being a spirit, and evident it is by the Text, that this Spirit is distinguished from God, viz. from God the Father, we are no Sabellians, but do maintain the distinction of Persons; the reason why the first Person is frequently in Scripture called God, is because he, as he is Father, is of himself, and the Principle of the Son and holy Ghost, in which respect many eminent Divines, as Calvin Tit. 1. Institut. cap. 13. s. 23. Zanch. sepe To ult p. 884. Jun. praefat. ad Controv. 2. l. nota 18. Sotonius Bisterfield, and many others do say, that he is called God {αβγδ} by way of excellency, not Metaphysically or Logically, for a greater excellency; for there is no real Prerogative or intrinsical Dignity, betwixt the divine Persons, but one extrinsical in regard of order and manifestation. Yet if the phrase is distasted, because there is Summa& unitissima essentiae identitas; origo essendi, nullam essentiae disparitatem, nullam dignitatis inaequalitatem introducit. They may omit it. That Discourse of the Adversary, to prove that the Spirit is not a created Spirit, might well have been spared for he knows well enough that none of us do hold him to be a Creature, and least some suspicion might grow from the Adversaries alleging some Protestants, as Drusius, Beza, meed, and I add Dr. Hammond, that they favoured his Exposition, I do avouch, albeit they disagreed to their Brethren in the exposition of that Text, Rev. 1.4. yet do they all agree that the holy Spirit is infinite in all perfection: That he is no Creature. but the Creator of all things; the Angels do attend and wait on God by an allusion to the Sanhedrim; they are Officers waiting on the head or chief President therof, to go abroad in all Messages, or as the Deacons in the Church to attend on the Command of the Governours thereof, and I do not deny, but there is an order in the celestial Angels, as there is also among the Devils, and that some have greater illumination, power and employments, then others have, though we are not able exactly to distinguish them. To the second, Christ is one Lord, I answer, Christ in respect of his person, is an unmade Lord: he is the Son of God coeternal, and coessential with his Father, he could not give the Spirit unless he was God, and if there were two Lords of Christians, the Father and Christ, the Apostle had not soundly argued to prove that Christians should maintain unity, nor can it be said, that Christ is one Lord simply by way of excellency, for according to Mr. Biddle, he hath the supreme God to be his Lord, but by way of co-essentiality, and Lordship with the Father, he is one Lord with him, and by consequence one God with him. It is said indeed v. 6. that the Father is above all, but the exclusive particle( above) appears not in the Text, for that is an honour belonging to the three persons equally, which are one God by nature, it is a rule, when that which is common to more then one is attributed to one person, that hinders not, but the same belongs to them also, and if it should be restrained to the Father, it would be no advantge to the Socinian, being spoken in regard of divine dispensation, whereby the Son of God became the Son of man, he that is above all as he is God, the same is made man the Son of Abraham, the Son of David, the Son of a Virgin, that he might redeem us by his bloody Passion, thus is he the head and husband of the Church, his body and Spouse, in which respect he is inferior to God the Father. You tell us out of Acts 2. that this Son is made Lord and Christ. I answer in the words of Beza, This Text is impiously and foolishly alleged by the Arians, against the Deity of our Saviour, for in the whole context the Apostle speaketh of Christ according to the flesh, as he was crucified, dead, butted, raised from the dead, as he ascended into heaven, and was highly exalted at Gods right hand, he was before a Lord, you call me Lord and Master, and you say well, for so I am. Joh 13.13. and he was Christ, Mat. 16.16. Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, and for this Confession, Christ blessed Peter, but the full manifestation& evident execution of his dominion was after his Ascension. You argue thus, Christ is a made Lord, and therefore he is not an omnipotent and an uncreated Lord. I deny your Inference, it is a common fallacy of the Adversary to reason à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, as if that was absolutely and simply to be taken, which is meant onely in a certain respect, and expounded by a limitation, he was not a made Lord, as he was God, the Son of God by eternal generation, this is granted, but the Adversary concludes because he was a made Lord, and had dominion freely given him, as man, therefore he is onely a made Lord,( and observe that his Text, saith not, nor any other Scripture, that he is a made God) this no way follows from the Text, for Peter takes away the scandal of Christs cross, by showing that he being raised from the dead, was made Lord, set at Gods right hand as the head of the Church, that God instated him in the Kingly office of the messiah, to conquer his enemies, to gather, direct, rule and protect the Church, as a King, and as a Priest to make intercession for his chosen ones, the Dominion then of Christ, which is freely given to him, and considered absolutely in itself, is less then that of the Deity, because it implies not an intrinsical and necessary perfection, but that which is extrinsical and free, but if it be considered according to its original, then is it equal to the Deity, comprehends it, and necessary supposeth it, and is nothing else but a singular manner of executing the natural dominion: the Adversaries fallacy is like this, a man is mortal and visible, viz. touching his body, Ergo he is not immortal and visible touching his soul. bid. Mat. 24.36. But of that day and hour of universal judgement knoweth none, no not the angels in heaven, but my Father onely. If onely the Father knew sometimes the day of Judgement, then neither the Son, who( take him as you will) is not the Father, and therefore openly confesseth himself to be ignorant of it Mark 13.32. nor the Holy Ghost knew it, and consequently, neither of them is the most high God, since he doth and ever did know all things. Ans. It is not for man to search into secret mysteries, and rashly to set down the time of that great day, Polunus in Daniel 12. v. 8, recites the folly of one who calculated not onely the year, but almost the hour of the general Judgement. Its a good rule of Austines, melior est fidelis ignorantia, quam temeraria scientia, faithful ignorance is better then rash knowledge. 1. To the objected testimonies, I have two answers in readiness, the first is of learned Junius, in two places against Samosatenus, and in his Annotations on Bellarmine on that Scripture, and therefore we may not doubt, but he spoken it as his clear judgement upon mature deliberation; the words of our Saviour are not( faith he) simply to be understood, but upon supposition of their judgement, which took him to be a mere man, though an excellent Prophet sent from God; if he was such an one as they took him to be, then certainly, he did not know of himself when the day of Judgement should be, so that in the name of the Son mentioned by by Saint Mark, there is a tacite opinion betwixt the truth of his person, and their defective and erroneous opinions concerning him, as though he had not been the eternal Son of God, and the most high God, but onely a divine man, and on this ground, God the Father is taken in opposition to all the creatures, and thus our blessed Saviour, checks the young man, Luke 18. for saying, good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life! Why( saith he) dost thou call me good? there is none good but God, the young man did not aclowledge Christ to be the God of Israel, and the good Mr. promised in the Law, and therefore Christ doth implicitly reprove his ignorance and flattery, and forms his answer agreeable to that opinion he had of him, as Basil. contra Eunomium. Ambros. Tit. 2. de Fide Chrysost. in Matth. 19. Hilar. l. 9. de Trinitate, do truly expound that Scripture, for in a true sense he not onely admits it, but calls himself the good Shepherd, John 10.1. and how should he properly deny himself to be a good master, who calls himself the light of the world? and this was his reason of the answer of that vain question of the mother of the sons of Zebedee, Grant that these my two sons may sit, one of them at thy right hand, and the other at thy left hand in thy kingdom, Mat. 19 They commonly then had a carnal conceit of the Kingdom of Christ,& he shapes an answer suitable to their apprehension, in this sense many other Texts of Scripture are to be understood, John 7.16. and 5.30.8.50. and 59. ex Bisterfeldio, this exposition I only propound to the consideration of the Reader, I omit the conceit of Grotius and Dr. Hammond, that the Chapter speaks onely of the Jews, and the forerunning signs of the destruction of that State by Titus, which if true, would not untie the knot, but tie it faster, as also many solutions; which are alleged by others, which cannot in truth stand with the Holy Text. 2 The Satisfactory answer is this, Christ represseth the Disciples curiosity of inquiring of that day, testifying, that neither he, the Angels, nor Christ, as he is man, but as he is one with the Father, knows when that day shall be, and therefore you are not to be inquisitive after it. Touching the Son, the Text is not meant secundum totam personam, but totum personae, knows it not. The person of Christ knows all things, but the whole of the person knows not all things, not when the end of the world should be, and therefore Saint Mark saith not, the Son of God, knows not, as Cyril out of Athanasius, well observes, but onely the Son knows not, viz. as he was man. Melancthon hath a rule, some sayings of Christ are meant of the office, some of the essence of Christ. This is meant of the Office, Christ came to exhort to vigilancy,& not to define the hour of Judegment to prevent security; the exclusive particle excludes all creatures, and the soul of Christ in itself considered, for albeit there was no privative, no sinful ignorance in the human nature of Christ, yet was three negative ignorance, as there was in Adam in the state of innocency, and as there is in Angels and Saints in heaven. Christ was like us in all things, but onely in sinful infirmities, Heb. 4.15. the nescience of that day of doom was no sin. Christ knew all things, which were requisite for him to know touching his present state and condition, nor is this convincing, because it is said onely the Father knows, for is it not said, that none know the Father but the Son, Matth. 11.27. Will you from this Text conclude, that the Father knoweth not himself? and doth not the holy Ghost know the Father? the Apostle saith, the things of God knoweth {αβγδ} none, but the Spirit of God. Might not you as strongly conclude from hence, that neither the Father himself, nor the Son of God do know the things of God. Saint Matthew adds not a higher degree then Angels, he saith not the Angels know not, nor the Holy Ghost, whence we may collect the Holy Ghost knew when the day of Judgement should be, and consequently Christ, as God, was not ignorant of it, and this is proved by Athanasius orat. 4. contr. Arianos and by others, because he made all things, and so knows all things, he is a searcher of all hearts, because he knew and foretold the signs foregoing the last day. He that speaks of his own glorious coming, how should he be ignorant of it. What Master going from his house, determines not when he will return, Mark 13.35, saith, Watch, because ye know not, he saith not, because I know not the hour of Judgement; besides, the Father knows the son of God, and all things of the Father, are the sons, and if Christ knows the Father, which is the greater? how can he be ignorant of that which is the lesser, viz. that day of Iudgement determined by God himself, so Epiphanius. We do distinguish the natures of Christ, and do ascribe to either of them what doth appertain to them, this is the Adversaries constant fallacy, the human nature knoweth not when the day of Iudgement shall be, Ergo he is not God, 'tis à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. bid. Rom. 15.6. That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Iam. 3.9. therewith bless we God even the Father, and therewith curse we men, who were made after the likeness of God, John 6.27. labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth to eternal life, which the Son of man shall give you, for him hath the Father sealed. In these places, God, that is, by confession of all, the most high God, is by the Scriptures themselves interpnted the Father, and therefore none but he can be God. Ans. To your objection, Rom. 15.6. the answer is, by discord God the Father is much dishonoured, and by concord he is much honoured, and 'tis the duty of Jews and Gentiles, unanimously to serve and worship, and hereby to glorify God the Father. What then? will it from hence follow negatively, that neither the Son of God, nor the Holy Ghost, are the most high God, in no wise, for herein all the holy persons agree, as we do maintain and you cannot be ignorant of it, this you should, but you cannot disprove, you may indeed from hence conclude, that God the Son is not God the Father, and that the name( God) for some respects, is attributed to the Father; which have been formerly name, and 'tis needless to repeat them, but no more can be justly inferred from the Scripture. To the second place, Jam. 3.9. it is answered, as to the former, it is a gross sin in a Christian, with the tongue to confess God the Father, and to revile Christian Brethren, who are for Gods image, which they are adorned withal, to be looked upon and used with all tender love and kindness. I add, the Father here, as often in Scripture may be taken, not personally, but essentially in opposition to the creatures, and not by way of distinction, betwixt the first Person of the Sacred Trinity, and the Son of God. To the third place, John 6.27. labour not, study not to gain and possess these external things, in order to your worldly ends, which are of a fading and perishing nature, but for that food, the Evangelicall promises, the food of the soul, which will make all of them that feed on it, spiritually both glorious& for ever happy, he dehorts from the one, and exhorts to the other, then follows a description of Christ our Mediator, who hath a Commission under Seal( as it were) from God his Father, being furnished with admirable gifts and wonderful power, and by sending the Holy Ghost on him, he had Gods mark, and character stamped on him, as was somewhere done by Masters on their slaves, and by owners of commodities, on their wears, Rev. 7.3. and that God owned him to be his servant, is as evident, as if he had set his mark on him in the forehead for his own: now this blessed Son of God incarnated for us, merited life, and all happiness for us by his bitter Passion, and efficaciously conferred saving graces on our souls by his holy Spirit, enabling us being otherwise unable to receive the benefits of his death and passion; this passage of holy Scripture religiously considered, makes much for us, and strongly proves our Saviour to be God, for who but God can give unto us eternal life? In these three places( saith Mr. Biddle) God the most high God, is interpnted to be God the Father, and therefore none but he can be God, not to contend about one of the places which is questionably, whether it be taken personally or not, I grant, that not only in three places, but in sixteen at least, God is expressly name with this exgesis, God even the Father; and 'tis said almost in as many places, if some learned have not erred in their account, without a conjunction copulative, God the Father, hence you conclude, that none but he can be God, which words may admit a double construction. First that God is taken as heis distinguished from all creatures? and in this sense we are not your Adversaries, but if your meaning be, as doubtless it is intended by this enemy of Gods truth, that there is no divine person in the Holy Trinity, but onely the Father, then do I peremptorily deny it, and he hath not yet substantially proved, nor ever shall be able to make good the soundness of this Inference. bid. John 8.54 If I honour myself my honour is nothing( saith our Saviour) it is my Father that honoureth me, when you say that he is your God, you see who was the God whom the Jews worshipped, namely the Father, and herein there is no difference, betwixt them and Christians, since the Apostle Paul testifieth, 2 Tim. 1.3. that he served God from his forefathers: that is the same God which he had received from the Jews his forefathers, See also Acts 3.13. and 5.30.31. and 22.14. in which three places, the Father is called the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and by that appellation distinguished from the Son, which could not be, if the Son was the same God with the Father, since common things do not distinguish, but such as are proper. Answ. Our Saviour, John 8.54. will say nothing of himself, for himself he will not honour and glorify himself only, as the Jews thought, and as false Prophets were accustomend to do, but the power which he hath he doubtless received from him, whom the Jews without controversy acknowledged to be greater then Abraham, and therfore he will not endure the contempt which the Jews cast on him: now the Father honoureth him, and demonstrates his approbation of him by Prophesies, by his Miracles, and by a voice from heaven, saying, this is my well-beloved Son, hear him, and therefore he doth not ambitiously arrogate any thing to himself; the Jews indeed made a profession that he was their God, but falsely, for they knew him not, v. 55. and is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Rom. 3.29. Do not they also aclowledge God the Father? nothing hence can be concluded for the Adversaries advantage, but if the words be not examined, there is a plain fallacy, the words run thus, My Father is your God: Father is the Subject of the Proposition: your God is the predicate, the one and the true God not distinguished in essence, but in persons, the fallacy is à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, that which is spoken in relation is understood, as spoken absolutely, or of the absolute Essence. Father notes relation to his Son, and God the absolute Essence, your reason is vicious, arguing from the affirmation of particular to the negation of that which is more common. The Father is God, and therefore the Son is not God, it is no better then thus to conclude, Peter is an Apostle, and, therefore John is not an Apostle; the words in the Text, are to be understood relatively, for it is the person of the Son, which speaks of his Father, and therefore to be taken relatively not absolutely, and the Context clearly holds forth Arguments for the Deity of the Son of God. 1. Because Christ calls God his Father, a Father truly and properly, and such a Father which doth communicate his Essence to his Son, which cannot be eluded, by telling us that God the Father is improperly called his Father; for in such a sense the Jews would have been offended with him, but he called him Father in such a sense as the jews envied him for his saying, and had thought to have slain him, because he called himself the Son of God, John 5. therefore I conclude they have the same Essence. Secondly, because it is said, in the Context, v. 58. Before Abraham was, I am, as God, he was a preserver of his Church, before Abraham, who saw my day and rejoiced, he received benefits by me and rejoiced not with an ordinary joy, {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} 56. he doth not say, as Socinians would corrupt the Text, before Abraham should be the Father of many Nations( according to his name) which are made his spiritual sons by the preaching of the Gospel, I am; for then Abraham should be the predicate of the proposition, I am, before Abraham was, this is to pervert the words, which are not before Abraham should be the Father of many Nations, and so he was according to the flesh, before Christ his incarnation by the posterity of Keturah and Esau, but they clearly import, that when Abraham was living in the world, Christ then was, and eternally he was. The second place may be granted without any prejudice to the truth of God, and that in terminis, as your inference intends, onely there is a question what is meant by forefathers, 2 Tim. 1.5. all the latin Fathers, saith Espenceus, do expound the Text of the ancient Prophets, and do ascend up to Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and if progenitors nearer to him are understood, those I mean, with whom he was educated; the meaning is plainly thus much, he served God without known hypocrisy, and was touching moralities unblamable towards men in his conversation, even when through ignorance he persecuted the Christian Faith, then did he follow the dictates of his erroneous conscience, doing, as he was persuaded he ought to do. I answer to your three places taken out of the Acts of the Apostles, by reducing your reason to this form, as you seem to argue. The God of our Fathers, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the Father of Christ. But the Trinity is not the Father of Christ, and therefore the Trinity is not the Father of Abraham, &c. 1. The Mijor in some sense might be granted, but because it may be incommodiously understood, I answer, It is not generally, and without exception true, it is faulty, because the Subject of the proposition is more large then the Predicate, which the Rules of Art, Axioms, will not permit, the Predicate is the Father of Christ, now th it is singular, one person, but to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is common, and belongs equally to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, if you will convert the terms thus, The Father of our Lord Christ, is the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who will then deny it. Secondly, There is committed the usual fallacy, a Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, he argues from the affirmation of one person which is singular to a negation of that which is more common, the Father is God, therefore you would infer the Son is not God, who sees not the fallacy, is this a good reasoning, Peter is a man, and therefore John is not a man. To your Argument then, I answer, though the term( God) taken simply and absolutely, without limitation, distinguisheth not betwixt the Father and the Son, yet God taken in a restrained sense, as it is frequently in the Scripture, for one of the glorious persons of the Holy Trinity, thereby one of them is distinguished from the other. The Father is not the Son, it is yielded, and yet to affirm one of the Sacred Persons to be the God of Abraham, and to deny it to be true of another, is a false assertion, Jesus Christ, who was truly man, though not as man, was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and he visibly appeared to them, yea, and Abraham might truly have said, as David did many generations after him. The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, Psal. 110. in effect then, this is your Inference, if the Son of God be not the Father, and Paul worshipped the same God, which his forefathers did, Ergo the Son is not God. This conclusion I say, hangs on the premises like a rope of sand. bid. If the Son be not the same God with the Father, much less is the Holy Spirit, since he is sent as the Scriptures do abundantly witness, and disposed of by him. Answ. As is the Antecedent, so is the Consequent. The first is not onely false, but blasphemous, and the second is no less erroneous. I do aclowledge that the Holy Ghost is sent( improperly) by the Son, for it is a Scripture phrase, but no subordination or inferiority is then concluded, for there is a coordinate mission, when an equal is sent by an equal, himself being the principal cause, why he is sent, and this mission derogates nothing from the honour and Majesty of him that is sent: but your other proof, that the Holy Ghost is disposed of by the Son, viz. as an inferior is by his superior, is not agreeable to the language of the Holy Ghost, and hath no other ground then teste meipso. bid. Nehem. 9.6. Thou even thou art Lord alone, thou hast made the heaven and the heaven of heavens, observe here, that the Levites do not say, ye are Lords, but thou, even thou art Lord, for the word( then) denoteth a single person, but if one person onely be the most high God, this Person of necessity must be the Father, since he by confession of all sides is the most high God. Answ. To this Text, I have largely answered in my assertion of his second argument against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, I will therefore make a short return to it in a few words. To say the word( then) doth always denote a single Person is onely asserted, but not proved; besides to say one person onely, is the most high God, as one person is opposed to all creatures, and made Gods, may in a qualified sense be granted, but in no wise as one Person of the Sacred Trinity is opposed to another, and distinguished from it. The Father I grant, is the onely high God, for there is but one onely most high God. If there were more Gods then one, then one of them of necessity, and not many must needs be the most high God, this attribution to be the most high God, is verified also of the Son he is the only high God and so is the holy Ghost likewise, the onely high God, and the reason is, because there is but one onely high God: the plurality of Divine persons introduceth not plurality of Gods, for all three have one and the same undivided infinite Essence, though they have it not after the same manner, as I have often shewed. bid. Neither doth that passage Gen. 1.26. Let us make man; any whit contradict this truth, for doth it follow from thence, that there are several persons in God? Might not I by the same kind of arguing, because Christ saith, Mark 4.30. Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? and John 3.11. We speak what we know, and testify what we have seen, therefore there are several persons in Christ. 2 Cor. 10.1.2. Some think of us, as if we walked after the flesh, therefore there are several persons in Paul. The utmost that can be concluded from this passage of Geneses is, that there was a person with God, whom he employed in the Creation, as of other things, so of man mentioned before, Gen. 1.2: The spirit moved on the face of the waters; and to like purpose it is said, Psal. 104. job 26.13. Observe by the way, that these Scriptures plainly intimate, that the Spirit was but the instrument of God in the Creation, since God is said to have garnished the heavens by him, and was sent by God to that purpose, and so ministered to him, and job 33.4. The spirit of God hath made man, which plainly sheweth, that the spirit had a hand in creating man; it was the Spirit therefore, and he onely to whom God said, Let us make man. Answ. It is not in the general denied, but most frequent both in Scripture and common use, to speak in the plural number, when a singular person is onely intended, albeit your Scriptures alleged, are no sufficient proofs thereof. Note John the 3.11. We know Christ discourseth with Nicodemus touching regeneration. The Father and the Holy Ghost regenerates, the holy Disciples were also witnesses hereof, John 15.27. and others, so that albeit the Son of God, the prime interpreter of the Father spake thus, yet is not his unity of Person onely meant thereby, but Christ together with these forenamed, are included. Note Mar. 4.30. whereunto shall we liken, viz. Christ and his Apostles and 35. he saith, let us pass over. Not the 3.2 Cor. 10.2. for albeit S. Paul speaks upon a particular occasion in reference to himself, yet is this intentionally applicable to all the faithful Ministers of Christ, who are no less uncharitably censured( as S. Paul knew full well) then as the blessed Apostle, I will conclude with the words of the learned Placers, p. 2. Arg. 37. it is an unusual thing amongst the Greeks and latins, for single men which are in authority and dignity to speak of themselves in the plural number, but it is unusual and unheard of amongst the Hebrews, whence this testimony is fetched. No man in the old Testament, no man placed in highest dignity, no Priest, no Judge, no King, doth ever speak of himself in the plural number. The Adversaies mistrusting the strength of this Argument, which is appointed by his brethren, and fortified by the alleged Scriptures and others also, confesseth that God speaketh to another Person. Well then, this divine Consultation, as Divines were wont to speak, or rather which is agreeable to truth, this Exhortation, for it is not said, What, Shall we make man? the other creatures being made, Gods glory, and the perfection of the world required the Creation of man, this Exhortation I say, argues plurality of persons, and that God doth not speak of himself for his great honour and Majesty in the plural number, we say that Gods manner of speaking is of great moment, and we have cause to magnify his wisdom for using such a speech as should be fit to express the mystery of the Holy Trinity, but the Adversary resolves, that God spake to a created Spirit, separated in nature from the most high God, and which was his instrument, in that admirable work of the Creation of man, but how do you prove it? by Psalm 104.30. and Job 26.13. I answer first, that these Scriptures do not bear witness to this wicked assertion, that the Spirit was Gods instrument in the Creation, but that he created the world by the Spirit, that is, say we, according to the Scriptures, the Holy Ghost acted by the same omnipotent power, whereby the Father made the world, because he hath the same infinite Essence with the Father and Son of God, although he hath it not in the same order and manner. 2. Your Argument taken from the particle( by) to prove the Holy Ghost to be an instrument of the Creation is very weak, and by consequence would reduce the most high God, so acknowledged to be by the Adversary himself, into the rank of an instrumental cause, for it is expressly said, Rom. 11.36. By him are all things, 1 Cor. 19. By whom we are called to the fellowship of Jesus Christ, and Paul was an Apostle by God the Father, Galatians 1.1. and therfore seeing all things are by the Father, and all things are by the Holy Ghost, they are the same principle of all things, and this particle according to divers subjects spoken of admitting various senses, can afford no sound plea for the Adversary. You tell us that the spirit was mentioned in the second verse of Gen. 1. true, and that he created man, no man amongst us doubts it, it would much have furthered your cause, if you could have proved( which is impossible to be done) that God created that Spirit, which is mentioned in that place, v. 2 there are not the least footsteps of any such matter; till this be done, our Argument on your concession remains unanswerd, you prove what is not denied, and take for granted what should be proved, that our fellow servant, and fellow creature, would be our creator; besides, God created all other kinds of Creatures at once, as Fishes, Beasts, Birds— What reason can you give, why he created not all Angels at once? it is true, Adam was first created, then our mother Eve out of him, but that was done for a great mystery, to show the great love which ought to be betwixt the Husband and wife, and the near conjunction betwixt them, which hath no place in the Creation of Angels, for they being immortal Spirits do neither mary, nor are given in marriage. Furthermore, if God created not all things but by the ministry of a Creature, it is either because he could not create without him, so to assert was high blasphemy, to deny the Almighty Power of God, and unreasonable also to think, that he who created the most excellept creature, viz. the Holy Ghost. I speak like the Adversary, could not he create those creatures, which are inferior to him, without an Instrument, or else was it, because God would not? whereas his very will to create was to make the creature. He spake the Word, and they were made: if you say, his will was by the Holy Ghost, to create other things, and so use him as an Instrument. Surely the Scripture hath no such language, either in terms or by equivalence, and how can we believe, there was any such thing without Scripture show your reasons, every wise man may justly expect,( if you will forsake the beaten road of Interpreters) that you should show fair evidences for your learning this beaten path, which is trodden generally by all the most eminent in parts and piety. Let us now consider the words of the holy Text, something it is, that the Jews. See Manasses Ben Israel, Conciliat. loc. in Gen. qu. 6. say, when Moses wrote these words, Let us make man, he made a step and said to God and the Lord of the world, wherefore dost thou give an occasion of erring touching thy most simplo unity, and some of them through their carnal wisdom, fearing lest scandal should be given to the Gentiles, did not red and writ, as it is in the Sacred Text, {αβγδ} but {αβγδ} I will make. Let us hear God with greatest reverence. The plurality of the persons in the Divine nature is intimated, in that he makes choice of Elohim, as a word of the plural number, which hath a singular number Eloah, yet the plural number is most frequently used, and this word Elohim is in the first of Genesis, and joined with a verse of the singular number, it is used two and thirty times, and in the second chapter, the name Jehovah of the singular number, is prefixed before it eleven times, is not the unity of the divine nature, and the plurality of the Divine persons concluded thence? its true sometimes, when the most high God is not spoken of, a word of the plural number is joined with a Verb or Adjective of the singular number in the first Commandement. Non erit tibi dii alieni, if you translate the Hebrew verbatim, the reason because all singularity or plurality of any other God or gods is prohibited, unless there be an ellipsis, there shall not be to thee any of the strange gods, and so Gen. 9.15. non erit ultra aqua ad diluviam, that is a flood overflowing by the conjunction of the waters above the earth and in the earth, nor doth a word of the plural number signify the many virtues or Operations of one Person— Sylla said elegantly there were many Marii in one Caesar, but no man for the many vertnes or works performed by them, would call them Caesars or Marii. See of this largely, Joshuah Placens, pag. 2. Argum. 37. Besides the Scripture no where affirmeth that man was created by an Angel or Angels, and which is stronger, the holy Word, {αβγδ} Attributes Creation to God alone, and in the Plural number sometimes, Isa 54.4. Psal. 149.2. and Job 33.10. Besides had a created Angel created us with God, then were we bound to exhibit honour to the Angel in that respect, which neither Prophets nor Apostles either did themselves, or exhorted any to do it, nor indeed can be done without the manifest peril of idolatry. Fourthly, the Text saith, Let us make man in our own likeness, in our own similitude, viz. in Divine gifts, in wisdom, in holinesse, and righteousness, in rule over the creatures: Antecedents and formalities in Divine gifts: and in Rule and Dominion over the Creature consequenter, the latter is asserted, the form, viz. in righteousness and holinesse is denied by the Socinians: whereas the soul of man was the Garden of God himself full of the fairest flowers, and of the most choicest and precious fruits, it was watered with the fresh springs of heavenly influences; and no briars, no thorns, no weeds to be found there. It is to be observed that God speaketh to the persons which are equal. Let us make man in our image, he saith not in the plural number, let us make man after our images, nor after my likeness, but our likeness, if then God had spoken to a created Angel, an Angel should be a sampler and an archetype, and we should be made not onely after the image of God, but of an Angel, its true, men and Angels are like in many things, yet is it no where said, that man is made after the image of an Angel, and Eve was like Adam, yet is she not said to be made after the image of Adam but of God, Gen. 1.27.32. yea beasts are like men in many things, yet are they not made alter the image of man. Further, the Text saith not in the plural number they made, but God made man, that we might take notice of the unity of the Godhead, and the plurality of persons. I conclude this passage with the Testimony of that ancient Father and holy Martyr Irenaeus, l. 4. c. 37. Angels did not make us, nor could they make an image of God the Son, his wisdom, and the Holy Ghost is always present with him, by whom he made all things voluntarily, and to whom he said, Let us make man after our image and similitude. bid. Had the Son of God, Christ Iesus been also employed in creating of Adam, would not he likewise have been mentioned in the History of the Creation? was it not as material, and altogether of as great consequence for Moses and the jews to have known that the Son of God was employed in the Creation as the Holy Ghost? but it is well that the holy Scriptures, whilst it attributeth Creation to Christ doth what by the nature of the thing itself, what by the circumstances of the places, what by express words signify, that it is meant not of the old, but of the new Creation, consisting in reduction of things to a new state and order. Answ. If the Son of God be not mentioned, doth it follow that the world was not created by him? a good reason to prove the Father created not the world, for is he I pray you as contradistinct from the Son name Genes. 1. Secondly, albeit he is expressly name, yet is he meant in every dayes work. Elohim God said, let there be light, that is, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, for Creation is a work ad extra, and belongs to all the sacred Persons, besides, if many learned men are not much deceived, the plurality of persons is implyed in the first verse {αβγδ} the words run thus, creavit Elohim, where are four things to be observed for the strengthening of this Argument. First, that the word hath a singular number Eloah, and there was simply no necessity to use the plural number in the Hebrew tongue, unless this mystery was implyed. Secondly, because there was danger of error, and offence to use the plural number, if there had been onely one divine person. Thirdly, nor can the like example and Enallage in all the old Testament be alleged of the like construction with the affixes and other verbs, as with Elohim compare Josh. 24.9. Deuteron. 5.25. Jer. 10.10. Gen. 20.13. Exod. 20.2. 2 Sam. 7.23. 1 Chron. 17.21, See Hornebeck de Deo. lib. 2. cap. 5. sect. 2. Lastly, because we retain the propriety of the word, which is of the plural number, Gerhar. Thirdly, the invalidity of this reasoning appears, because there is no mention in it, that the holy Angels were created in the first of Genesis, and yet other Texts say, that the heavens and the earth were finished and all their hosts, Gen 2.1. much less is it said, that the Holy Ghost, was made when as the Anglls are expressly said to be made by Christ, Col 1.16. but never in Scripture is it said, that the Holy Ghost was made. Lastly, albeit it is not mentioned in the first of Genes. that the Son of God was the creator, will it not suffiice, if it be expressly mentioned as it is in other Texts of holy writ, 1 John 3. Ob. To prevent an objection, when Creation is ascribed to the Son in the Scripture, it is meant saith the Adversary of the new Creation, to this I answer, 'tis apparently false, not onely because all the blessed ones from the Creation to the incarnation of the Son of God, were by him regenerated and saved, and not onely those which lived after his birth and Passion, which evinceth that he had a being before the Creation, according to that rule non entis nulla sunt accidentia, he that hath not a being cannot work at all, but because it is written( as it were) with the Sun beams, Col. 1.16. that all things visible, and consequently trees, beasts, fishes, and invisible also, angels and principalities were made by him, surely, Devils were not renewed, and good Angels needed no renovation? or shall we say, they had no being in the world, till the world had continued about four thousand years? bid. 1. If Christ had created Adam, how could he himself say, Mat. 19.4. Have ye not red that he which made them at the first, created them male and female? Christ then takes it for granted together with the Pharisees, that not he himself, but another created them. 2. Again, how could Peter say, 1 Ep. 1. chap. 20. that Christ was fore-ordained, before the foundation of the world, had Christ then a being, are not those onely foreknown that are to come? and are not already in being? Thirdly, how could Paul, Rom 5.14. say after the similitude of Adams transgression, who was the figure or type of him that was to come or to be? had Christ then not onely had a being, but created Adam? was Adam a type of him that created him? was he that created Adam, as yet to be? can it be said of any one that he is to be, whose person doth already subsist? Answ. The Case of Conscience propounded, Matth. 19. was, whether it was lawful for a man by a Bill of divorce to put away his wife, which by the Jews upon every slight occasion was usually done: Our Saviours answer is negative, showing the strict union and conjunction betwixt man and wife, the knot of marriage being tied is indissoluble, but by daeth and adultery. God made them male and female, to be one flesh. By this your concession then, the Holy Ghost a creature, was not instrumental to this work of Omnipotency; not a creature, but God, saith our Saviour, made them male and female; therefore you do infer onely the Father, as he is distinguished from the Son? have you the forehead, to say that we question whether God made Adam and Eve? if in every place of Scripture where God is mentioned, the first person is onely meant, you will have good store of Arguments indeed against the Deity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, but do you expect that your bare word should be taken for a solid proof? I answer then, that God in many places of Scriptures, and in this, is taken essentially, not personally, as the infinite creator distinct from all the Creatures, because the word is taken absolutely, and not as distinguished from the Son of God, albeit I grant the relation to the Father, is not simplo, but a mixed habitude, to wit of subordination, in respect of his human nature, and so he created not Adam, and co-ordination in regard of the Divine nature, and in this notion, he together with his Father created Adam and Eve and all things. To the second place in S. Peter, I answer by a distinction, that in some respects he was foreknown, and in others he was not, and so, this seeming absurdity and contradiction comes to nothing, he was preordained, viz. to be our mediator, in the fullness of time to become man, that he might expiate our sins by his bitter passion, and procure eternal life for the elect of God, and in this sense S. Peter speaketh of Christ, as both the Text and context sheweth, and thus I yield he had not a being till these latter times, but now consider Christ simply as a divine person, and as he was simply himself the Son of God, and in this respect I do deny that he was foreknown, for in this Consideration he did himself foreknow and elect, and had an infinite being before all times by eternal generation. To the third place Rom. 5. the answer is easy, observe that to be a Type of any person, is to prefigure him either by nature or institution, of God or man, Adam was not a type of Christ by nature, or the institution of man, but by Gods appointment. Adam was the author of death to all his posterity, not onely to men of years, but Infants also died in him, and herein he did prefigure Christ, who was by his free and rich grace the author of life to all believers, herein was manifested Gods rich mercy and love for ever to be adored, which wisely found a way to find in sin a blessed remedy, in death, life, and ●n a destroyer, a Saviour shadowed out, the glory hereof is manifested to us by the Gospel of our Lord; take notice that the type and the person typified hereby answered one the other in contrary effects. Adam in the comparison of dissimilitude is the opposite member to the second Adam, the messiah, as by Adam, sin and death entred as a ravenous wolf into the Fold, to destroy all the race of mankind, so by Christ the second Adam was righteousness and eternal life derived to all his mystical members, The first Adam was the root of all mankind in esse naturae, the second was the root in esse gratiae, we must then distinguish as formerly we have done, the natures of Christ, he was both perfect God and perfect man. Now Adam was not a type of him in regard of them both, not a type of him as he was God, for so he did pre-exist before him, but onely as he was a mediator in our human nature; Adam was created by him, as he was God, but he was after him as he was man: Adam was a type of him, as he was incarnated to save us, the person of Christ which is single, and but one, did always subsist, but not in the human nature hypostatically united to the second person. This then is the ordinary fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. bid. Gnes. 3.22. And the Lord God said, behold the man is become like one of us to know good and evil, Gen. 11.7. Let us go down and confounded their language, that they may not understand one anothers speech, Isa. 6.8 I heard the Lord say, whom shall I sand, and who will go for us, in all these places is meant the Lord with his spirit, seeing the Spirit is called the Spirit of knowledge, Isa. 11 2. and to give diversities of tongues, 1 Cor. 12.10, 11 Acts 2.4. and Isaiah saith, that both the Lord and his Spirit had sent him, Isa. 48 16. Answ. It is not doubted by the most Interpreters, that the Lord alludes to the words of satan to Eve, that by eating the forbidden fruit they should be like God, the words are very like, and satan by Elohim, no doubt, meant the same God, which said, Let us make man after our image, and reproves him for not being as good as his promise was, in that he was not made altogether after his image, because he knows not good and evil, being not permitted to eat of the three of knowledge of good and evil but if he should eat thereof he should be like God; he promised not to him equality with God he saith not, ye shall be God, but like God, not ●n all things and qualities, but in the knowledge of good and evil, no● like Angels,( as other Sociman● say) to which the Serpent alludes not their order, fall, or standing, being perhaps not known to Adam, or Eve, and therefore they could not be propounded to th●m, as a pattern for their imitation, nor had the Serpent. Argument been so specious to seduce man, in making him an Apostate from God, by proposing them as a sampler of imitation, as is that which is draw from God, for in corrupted nature men have affencted divine titles glory and honour, but none desired to bear the names of Angels, nor doth the divine author so much as intimate that God spoken to Angels, and joined them with his divine Majesty, or that he would be so understood; for why then is it not said, God said to the Angels, or at least thus, behold man is not like one of you, but like one of us, viz. which made him. The words are an ironical derision of an angry or sin punishing God, a serious and sharp reprehension, suitable to hisambitious presumption and an upbraiding him for his folly in yielding to Sathans deceitful promises, with a gracious intention to humble him for his great fault, but the Adversary can give no probable reason, why a created person should be one of the Persons, to whom Adam was like. For first it cannot be proved that God joins himself with Angels or any other creatures, so as to make himself one with them, or to say they are one with God: Secondly, it would be ambiguous and doubtful, if God had joined himself with a creature, wh●ther he meant Adam was like himself, or like that creature, and I red that before Christs time the Ch●ldee Paraphrast,( as Paulus Fagius on Gen. 3.22. relates) applies is to Christ, Gods word, the word of the Lord said, Behold Adam, whom I alone have created, as I am alone in the highest heavens; besides the efficacy of the Speech, which otherwise is lost, requires that it be referred to God, upbraiding man, saying, behold now how like man is unto God, and that he is now become like one of the divine persons! lo here lies a lump of earth, that would needs become like God: here lies the Glow-worm, that would needs become a Sun. Lastly, this sense is held forth by the whole context. Adam and Eve heard the voice of Jehovah walking in the garden, v. 8. and Jehova called unto Adam, v. 9. and he the same Lord said, v. 11. and always in the singular number in the foregoing Verses, Hast thou eaten of the three, which I commanded thou shouldst not eat of it, and v. 12. the woman which thou gavest me, &c. the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden, so that we adore the mystery of the Trinity, and the unity of the Divine Essence, and if we yield to the Adversaries, that the words are not spoken by an irony, but properly will this any way advantage them? for whom was Adam like unto? the Devils? who dares say God joineth the Devils with himself, saying by the pronoun Us, or like to the good Angels, but by eating the forbidden fruit, he became unlike them in knowledge, for he fell into error; unlike them in holinesse, for he became a sinner, unlike them in happiness, for he became miserable: or shall we say like to God absolutely considered? but by this fact he became most unlike him, God saith not, he is like the Angels, or he is like God, or he is like us, but he is like one of us, as Placens observeth; he is not like the Father, nor like the Holy Ghost, but like the Son of God, for Adam was a shadow and type of Christ, Rom. 5. which is like the body, and that which it shadoweth out. Adam became miserable, and knew good and evil experimentally, the Son of God that he might save us, took upon him our sorrows, that he might renew Gods image in us, and therefore Eve is not name, but onely the woman, till God had pronounced his Sentence against Adam, and this is also the reason why God so mercifully dealt with Adam, and testified it by saying, behold the man is not like us, but one of us, and why he spoken to Adam alone and not to ●ve, and why these words follow, lest he put forth his hand to eat of the fruit of the three of life, he was cast out of the earthly Paradise to till the earth: so the Son of God was sent out of the heavenly Paradise, to till and make his Church fruitful, with many more resemblances which I omit, which do not I grant demonstratively, prove this mystery at least not so convincingly, as plain Scriptures do. Gen. 11.7. Let us go down and confounded their language, in the former verse, the wicked are opposed to the sons of God mentioned cap. 6. v. 2: and they do encourage one another to build and finish that great and foolish work in hand. God the Father speaks to the Son and the Holy Ghost, these sinners wilfully persist in their presumptuous enterprise to finish it it, or by way of interrogation to this effect it is an unworthy work tending to our dishonour, should they not be restrained, or the holy Trinity mutually( as it were) exhorteth to blast the resolution of these wicked men, and to bring on them that evil, which they endeavoured to prevent, v. 8. and speaking after the manner of men determineth to overthrow the vain determination of foolish men. Let us go down and confounded their language, in which words observe first, that God speaks in the plural number, let us come, let us go down and confounded, where there cannot be an Enallage of the number, that the plural number is put for the singular, because as Keckerman sheweth, that this is not agreeable to the Hebrew tongue to speak in the first person, and because( one) will not bear it, God speaks here, and we never red in Scripture, that God said, come, let us do this—. Gostavius his Adversary could not allege a contrary example to either of the Arguments, but was silent. Observe further, that God speaks to more, as to equally by nature, as the builders, said everyone to his neighbour, let us build without having authority and power one over another, but as fellow-builders to their fellow-builders, so when God said, come let us go down, he speaks not as having power and authority over them to whom he speaks, but as one of their number, which should have a hand in that great work, or as if it could not be done, but without their consent and concurrence, there appears then in the words no command, he saith not in the Imperative Mood do you go down, do you confounded, but let us go down, let us confounded, so that he useth them not as servants, but as equals. Besides, those to whom God speaks have power to confounded languages, this is a peculiar work of God in an instant to make them forget their mothers tongue, without external violence, and at the same instant to teach them other languages, this is not the work of Angels, much less of one created Angel to do, it is God that taketh away speech, Job 12.20. thus then we argue. He that in this manner confounds the language is true God, others with the Father do confounded the language, Ergo others with the Father, are the true God. Besides, the word, let us descend, is to be taken in one sense as spoken of these persons; for God doth otherwise descend then an Angel or Angels, for he( who is every where) descends improperly, but they being finite may properly descend from heaven: besides the dispersion of men on the face of the earth, is in the following verses ascribed to God, and that three times, and spoken of him in the singular number, further to show the unity of the God-head: It is said, God came down, v. 4. and Genes. 19.24. which place the Adversary willingly omitted, the Lord rained fire and brimstone, from the Lord on Sodom, which as the Adversary confesseth in his Text, reason against the Trinity, is a proper name of God. The third parallel place, Isa. 6.8. Whom shall I sand, or who shall go for us, what service this can do the Adversary, I see not, nor can he allege any probable reason out of the Text for his turn, whom shall I sand? who sends Prophets but the Lord? there is the unity the Godhead, who shall go for us? here is the plurality, and by consequence the Trinity of the persons, for are not Prophets to do honor& service to the great God,& not to their fellow creatures? are they not to win souls for him and not for creatures? no not to the most enminent of all? this association of a creature with the great God is inconsistent with the Scriptures, Josh. 14.19. Joshuah saith, ye cannot serve the Lord, quoniam Dii sancti sunt, according to the original, he is a holy God, the reason why they could not serve God, is drawn from his holinesse, the Pronouns and eulogies are of the singular number, lest there should be thought to be a plurality, as of divine persons, so of God, 1 Sam. 7.23. What Nation in the earth is like thy people, whom Dii iverant, God went to redeem for a people for himself. In the former verse, There is no God like to thee, nor is there any God besides thee, and it follows, to redeem a people to himself, which cannot be spoken of creatures, and the purpose of the Holy Ghost is to show that he is God, and that there are none besides him, Deut. 4.35. I will but touch on the other alleged Scriptures, did ever any of Mr. Biddles adversaries deny this comfortable truth, that the spirit worketh knowledge. Do they avouch, the first Person without the third worketh knowledge? is not this a received axiom amongst them. Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa? so that on these passages, you do implicitly slander the Orthodox, and fight with your own shadow, for the saying, the Lord and his Spirit sends Prophets, do stronlgy prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost, but there is no colour at all in them, to prove him to be a created spirit. Biddle. It is also easy to conceive, that by wisdom, Prov. 8. is meant the spirit of wisdom, for so is the holy Spirit denominated by Isaiah, and in the History of the Creation, and elsewhere in the Scripture, and compared with what is spoken of wisdom, Prov. 8. especially if he adds what is more amply declared in the 7, 8, and 9 Chapters of the wisdom of Salomon, and in the 1. and 24. Chapters of Siracides, or Ecclesiasticus, will perceive, that as by wisdom is meant a most excellent creature, so that creature is the Holy Ghost. Answer. Confident boldness to assert, and weakness to prove his novel Expositions, are met together in Mr. Biddle: he doth, J grant, soundly prove against his friends the Socinians page. 52. that a person is a metonymy or transminution is called wisdom, as the circumstances of the place do put it out of question, nor is it possible for the wit of man, by any probability to device how that which is spoken in that chapter, should belong to that which is no person: if wisdom then be taken for a person, it must be either a created person, or an uncreated person and this person is the holy Ghost, this is a bold interpretationinvented without any colour of reason to support it and unhard of, if I be not mistaken, and not only against all the Orthodox, but also against the old Arians, which laboured in vain to disprove the Deity of the Son of God by the 22. v. of that Chapter. See Sixtin. Arianus in locum, and against most of the later Socinians, who by the wisdom of God conceive a divine Attribute to be meant, whereby the Father is formally wise, whereby he wisely createth and ruleth all things, By whom Kings do rule and make wise Laws, Gratian prosper. lib. 2. and Catechis. Cracoviensis page. 59. others do explain it as meant of the Doctrine of the old Testament, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but to assert the holy Ghost, is this wisdom to make the disjunction full. Now I think I have dreamed, to say this wisdom was created, and the beginning of Gods Creation before Gods works of old, is by consequence to assert, that the most excellent part of the Creation was then past. When in the beginning God made heaven and earth, as Moses describes it, the holy Ghost was made before, by whom all things were afterwards created, who taught at any time such strange Divinity? where is any such thing recorded in any part of Scripture? who is so shameless to say, he hath it by divine revelation, who is so senseless as to believe him that will say so? The Son of God is described under the name of wisdom, he is wise {αβγδ}, the abstract is put for the Concrete, as he is called Light, Life, Truth, Sanctification and Redemption, and he is called the wisdom of God, Luke 11.49 the wisdom of his Father, not that this wisdom is in him, as an accident is in a Subject, for Peter is not called wise, because his son which he begets is wife, but he is called the wisdom of his Father, as the Father is the Principle of the Son saith Rades, for he is wise and powerful by his own Essence, and so is also Gods son, because he is begotten of his most Wise Father, as Reason is produced by a reasonable understanding. 2. Because by his son, as a Prophet, he doth declare to men and Angels his wisdom, and his glorious Attri●utes John 1. The Son who is in his Father, bosom declares to us what we are to know of God, and as he is called wisdom absolutely in this 8. of Prov. and 9.1. v. so is this Title attributed to him in ●he new Testament, Mat. 11.19. wisdom is justified of her children, yea, and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge were hidden in his flesh, Col. 2.2. and veiled in the manhood. Christ is a fountain of wisdom, and as a mine, is the original of all treasure, so is he of all wisdom. That Christ is meant by wisdom, appears by the Text itself and parallel Scriptures, where the same is ascribed to the Son of God, which is spoken of wisdom, v 24. for {αβγδ} This wisdom was begotten of God, and therefore was the Son of God, and the Text undoubtedly proves the Deity of the Person there described, the Lord possessed him( as his Son) in the beginning of his way, before his Works of old, when he prepared the heavens he was there, and when he set a compass upon the face of the deeps; this cannot be meant of him, as predestinated, for so were all the creatures thus with him, yet he was before them, neither was he onely with him, but as a nourisher and preserver of all things, as it is said of the Son of God, Col. 1.17. Heb. 1.2. and his delight was to be with the Sons of men, v. 31. he for mans sake created the world and took on him the nature of man into the unity of his person to restore sinful man, Justin. Martyr Dialogo cum Tryphone, and Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. cap. 10 expound that 8. of the Proverbs of the Son of God, that you may not charge me with a novel interpretation. You would prove your Exposition, by Isa. 11.2. where the Spirit is called the Spirit of wisdom. To this I answer, first, that in the Proverbs is not mentioned the Spirit of wisdom, the Adversary then fallaciously compares Texts as like which are unlike. Secondly, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of wisdom, not formaliter, but effectivè, there is a great deal of difference betwixt these two, Christ is wisdom, that is, substantial wisdom, and the holy Ghost is the Spirit of Wisdom, that is, the author of wisdom this doth the Holy Ghost hold forth in Isa. and no more, Touching 7, 8, 9. Chapters of the wisdom of Salomon, and 1. and 24. of Ecclesiasticus, by wisdom is meant an excellent creature, and that creature is the Holy Ghost. First, I answer, these books are apocryphal, they are no rules of our faith, we are not then bound without better Authority to believe any thing upon the bare authority of these authors. Secondly, Not onely Christian Beckman, but learned Junius, a great deal more quick sighted then you are, hath proved from chapter 7. v. 21. and in the following verses of that chap. and in the beginning of the 8. the deity of the Son of God, and of the holy Ghost. Thirdly, Siracides speaks not of uncreated wisdom, but of created, viz. Gods wise ordering of things, created, and the Doctrine of the Law revealing supernatural knowledge, Acts Chapter 24.23. and the wisdom by which true wisdom may be obtained, he imitated Salomon but understood him not. 4. And when it was said that wisdom was created v. 8, 9. if this be not meant of created wisdom, which is a quality {αβγδ} a divine quality inherent in man, by Creation we may understand the production of the Son of God by eternal generation, for {αβγδ} & procreare liberos, is generate liberos, thus may the Son of God be said to be created. Lastly, if in a few places, and in authors which are not caconical, it were granted, that by wisdom was meant the holy Ghost, doth it follow that it must be so taken in the eight of the Proverbs, I suppose no wise man will allow of the Inference. bid. Lastly, this intimateth to us why Elihu speaketh in this wise, Job 35.10. where is God my maker( Heb. makers) the word makers implieth that more then one person made man, though in a different order of causality, but it implieth that whatsoever power of making was in any other person employed in that work, it proceeded from God, so that upon the matter God was the Maker. Answ. Creation to speak properly, as Scaliger, to name no more, defines it Exercit. 6. sect. 13 is the constitution or the framing of a substance of nothing, as the term à quo, I say of a substance, for Accidents are not created, but uncreated, and that a creature cannot be a principal cause of Creation is evident, because it requires an infinite power to make a being of no being, as the distance betwixt being and not being, is infinite, but neither a creature may create instrumentally, not to be sure by its own natural power, but when its raised up above itself by the supreme Agent, viz. of God himself, is variously disputed by the Schoolmen. The Thomists denying it, following herein their Master, 3 par. sum. qu. 13. artic. 3. and others in the former sense affirming it, and a third sort not fully resolved either way in the spirit, Schibler Meta. par. 2. l. 3. de Deo Art, 3. and others say, a creature may be a moral instrument of Creation; but not a Physical or natural Instrument by any virtue communicated to it, because to make an Instrument active its necessary that it should have( at least in the actual motion, whereby it is moved by the principal Agent) some form whereby it acts in its order, the reason is, the second Act doth necessary suppose the first Act whence it proceeds, but no active form communicated to the Creature can reach the term of Creation actively, as a principle of the creature, see Rada Controv. Sat. lib. 2. contr. 2. de potentia creandi art. 3. I grant that the word Makers doth suppose not many qualities in one person, but more persons then one, and I grant also, that as there is an order of subsisting, so is there likewise of working, and this is communicated to the holy Ghost from the Father and Son of God, not in time, as you say, but from all Eternity, he not making man, as you do blasphemously writ by a subordinate causality to the first person, but by one and the same infinite power, and if a creature had been employed at that great work, it would have been solely wrought by God at the presence of the creature, not by any innate or derived power of causality in a creature to that Production, and so upon the matter it would have been God alone, and no active motion of any creature which had a hand causally in that Creation. Thus much of the first Article, the second followeth. ARTICLE II. bid. I believe there is one chief Son of the most high God, or spiritually heavenly and perpetual Lord and King set over the Church by God, and second cause of all things pertaining to our salvation, and consequently the intermediate object of our Faith and Worship, and that this Son of the most high God, is none but Jesus Christ the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Answ. The Adversary saith, Christ is Gods chief Son, which in a good sense is undoubtedly true, though not in the meaning intended by ●im: he is the natural Son of God, and thus is he not the chief, but the onely Son of God, he is also the Son of God by the grace of hypostatical union, as he is the Son of man, propinquity of speech will not permit us to say, that a Father which hath an onely Son, as God the Father hath but one natural Son, that that Son is his chief Son, albeit in a latitude it is said of him Cant. 5. that he is the chief of ten thousand. M. Biddle, adds that Christ is the second cause of all things pertaining to our salvation, this in his sense is absolutely denied; we deny not an order in the working of the Trinity, in which respect and not in regard of a different power of working, the Father may be said to be the first cause, as the beginner, the Son the second cause, as the continuer of the action, and the Holy Ghost the next or third cause consummating it, yet all of them are truly but one solitary cause in regard of perfection and power of working, but social in regard of union and communion, because one cannot be, or work without the rest. Bisterfield against Crettius: but I deny that the Father is the principal efficient cause, as it is opposed to the less principal, whether it be instrumental or ministerial, as some distinguish, for the less principal requires these conditions. 1. That it be under a superior Agent by which it is ordered and directed, and the second is, that it hath a proper causality and influence into the effects of the first cause, for otherwise it is not an efficient cause. 3. That the causality be dependant and inferior as a second cause, for the first being is essentially, and quidditatively more perfect then the second: the distinction of first and second cause takes place in God, who is the first cause, & causa causarum, and the creatures which in respect of God are the second causes, but God the Father is not the first cause properly, and Christ the second cause, whether he be considered simply as God, or relatively, as the natural Son of God, and if we speak of his Mediatory works, wrought for our salvation, the Principle whence their merit and virtue of satisfaction ariseth, is absolutely, the Divine Essence which is one and the same in all the three Persons, and thus are the Persons coordinate in this work, as those magnificent titles import, that he is {αβγδ} the author of Eternal Salvation, Heb. 5.9. the Prince and Saviour {αβγδ}, and how could he pour out the holy Spirit, as he said he would do in effect, John 15.26. and 16.14. were he not the most high God? though he be subordinated to God in respect of the human nature, as the same man, may be a King and a Duke: thus were our English Kings, when we had Normandy in France, coordinate to the French King, as he was a King, and sub-ordinate to him, as he was a Duke of a French Province: the Divine Persons having one and the self-same Essence, are not three causes, but one supreme cause of every essential work produced by them, yet with a distinction of the personal order of working, which is answerable to the order of subsisting. The Father, as he is of himself, so doth he work from himself, and from no other immdiately by the Son, the Son from the Father, and both Father and Son by the Holy Ghost, not as by an instrument, a subordinate of, or second cause of the work, but as by a Divine Person, which hath the same infinite Essence, wisdom, Power, and other Perfections with the first and second Person, the works, as they are divine, are by the works of Jehova, of God, as they are attributed to this or that Person in regard of the special manner or order of working, so they are not ascribed to others, that as by the equal application of the works to the three persons, we may collect the Unity of the Divine Essence, so by the distinct order and manner of working we may observe the diversity of the Divine Persons. The Adversary saith, that the Son of God is the intermediate object of Faith and Worship ambiguously spoken, this should have been explicated and cleared up, how Christ, who in his opinion a mere creature can be the object of these Religious Acts, especially since he cannot be ignorant what sharp conflicts there have been amongst themselves touching this subject, as Franciscus, Davidis, Budnius, Christianus Franker, and others, which do determine, that it is flat idolatry to pray unto Christ with Religious Worship, for as they say well, this honour is most properly due to the most high God, and thus they strongly reason, as great as the distance is betwixt the creator and the Creature, so great ought that difference to be betwixt that honour which is exhibited to the creator and to the Creature, but their distance is greatest, whether their nature or Dignity and Excellency be considered; they then that take away the formal cause or Foundation of Religious Worship, The Deity of our Saviour, cannot justly thus worship him; See Hornbeck apparat. ad Controv. Socin. and the terror of that sentence, jeremy 17.5, 6. Cursed be he that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord, but blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, he that trusteth in man is cursed, but he that trusteth in Christ is not cursed, therefore Christ is not man, viz. onely, but God also: to say as Socinus, he that trusteth in man as the sole and prime cause of happiness, is cursed, but not he that trusteth in man, as the second or intermediate Cause, this is to forsake the wholesome words of Scripture, and to furnish all enemies with a shifting answer to elude Scripture, for what Christians, Jews, mahometans and Heathen people, which trust in the arm of flesh, will not call on God for help, and confess, that they look upon man as an intermediate or second cause to help them? if confidence in Christ, as the Author of good is prohibited, how happens it that the Scripture doth no where forewarn us of that sin, but doth most constantly require it and command it? and where saith the Scripture even in that sense, cursed is he that trusteth in Christ, for a malediction is to be shunned as much, as a Benediction is to be pursued. Besides, if Christ was onely a second cause, he was not to be trusted in, nor to be worshipped, because the second Cause is in the Power of the first, its being life, Knowledge, Will, Power, Action may be destroyed, changed and hindered at the Will and Pleasure of the first and principal Cause, and that heart that trusts in the second Cause, departs from the Living Lord, Jeremy 17.5. nor can this be safely done, for he in whom we trust, must be a Searcher a Knower of our Hearts, Prayers, Dangers, be able to help us in our greatest Straits, and be present with us in all places, and at all times: to ascribe these to any creature, is to rob God of the Glory due to his Majesty. I forbear to add more Reasons to confounded the Adversary. Jesus Christ is( saith Mr. Biddle) the second Person of the Holy Trinity, true, till Christ was conceived in his mothers womb, there was no holy Trinity at all, according to the Adversaries supposition, and the Holy Ghost, which was in nature a more excellent substance, created in time before Christ, and next unto God himself is put out of his place, and if I may have liberty to allude, he that came after him, is preferred before him, he is the second person of the holy Trinity, and the holy Spirit the third. bid. Luke 1.32. Jesus shall be great, and shall be called the son of the most High, where note, that the son is not equal to the Father, as the very Son himself professeth, John 14.28. where making a comparison not between any nature of his that was not a person, but between his own very person, and that of his Father, he saith expressly, my Father is greater then I. Note I say, that the son is not equal to the Father, otherwise the epithet of most high could not be appropriated to the Father, and put to distinguish him from the Son( as neither could it afterwards, v. 35. be made use of to distinguish him from the holy Spirit, if the holy Spirit was equal to the Father) for how can any expression, alike common to twain be apt to distinguish one from another? how is the Father, and that contradistinctly to the Son, the most high, if the Son be as high as he? Answ. In the ensuing discourse I shall have occasion frequently to mention the hypostatical union of the two natures in one person, it will not therefore be amiss, once for all to discourse of that, which without controversy is a great mystery. God manifested in the flesh, and that as fully and as plainly as I am able to unfold it, and then as occasion is, but to name it in answer to the Adversary. The Lord decreeing from Eternity to create a free and a rational Creature after his own image, which freedom is the subject and root of contingency, and the all-seeing God infallibly foreknowing what would become of man, being left to such and such temptations, and not willing that one of the noblest kind of his creatures should utterly be lost, he resolves as the Supreme cause, the wise and great Potter out of the same mass and lump of mankind, out of the whole race of man from the first to the last, to make some vessels to honour and some to dishonour. I will not dispute, what God might have done by his absolute power, by his free bounty and mercy, as Lord of all his own creatures, but seeing it was his Majesties pleasure to have his Justice satisfied, as well as his mercy delared, the salvation of the elect was without a sufficient ransom, a thing impossible not simply impossible, but impossible upon a presupposition of his decree, by this and no other means to effect its but who could reconcile us to God, and make up the breach, which was made upon the whole nature of man? who could deliver us from the guilt, the slavery and bondage of sin and satan, from Gods curse? this could not possibly be brought to pass by man or Angels, for they are not able sufficiently to be thankful to God for their own being, their own happy being, much less to deserve for others. Not to relate scholastical disputations, whether it is in itself repugnant to avouch, that either the Father or the Holy Ghost might have been incarnated, as well as the Son of God, and whether all three persons might not have assumed mans nature; Aquinas and Halensis are for the affirmative: certain it is, that none could be found but the holy Trinity, or one of the persons of the sacred Trinity, which in our nature could satisfy divine Justice and suffer the punishment due to sin, and free us from the inherent pollution thereof, in whom our nature was found in an excellent manner, it seems incongruous, that the wo●ld should honour any other as the Saviour, but him whom it honoureth, as the creator of the world, neither was it fit to admit any way of saving man, but by man himself, and by this means Gods love and mercy are become such a Spectacle, that neither man nor Angels can behold without divine astonishment. There are no doubt, many reasons which may be alleged touching this divine choice, though not such, as will convince an obstinate Adversary, why the Son of God, and not the Father and the blessed Spirit should become the Son of man, and this in our apprehension was most congruous for such reasons as these are. 1. It becomes not the Father, Lombar. l. 3. distin. 1. for Incarnation is a kind of mission into the world, for he being of none, could not be sent by any, to sand him is inconsistent with the most ordinate habitude and emanution of the divine persons, and the most natural order saith Bisterfield: nor was it fit for the holy Ghost to become the Son of man, but the name of Son should be attributed to two divine Persons in the holy Trinity, much less for the same cause should the Father become the Son of man, August. de dogmat. Eccles. cap. 2 Aquin. 3 par. qu. 3. and albeit the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet is he not the first proceeding Person, the first proceeding Person was fittest to reconcile us to God, and the second to give gifts to reconciled friends. Secondly, who was more fit to make us the adopted sons of God by grace, then he who was the beloved Son of God by nature? who fitter to make us beloved sons of God, then he who was the Son of his love? who fitter to repair the image of God which consisted in righteousness and Holinesse, then he who was Gods essential image! man lost Gods image, and the image of God takes up mans image; man cannot comform himself unto God, the Son of God conforms himself to man, and this seems to be most agreeable to that sin, which was the first motive of the Incarnation, it was a sin against the wisdom of God, our first Parents affencted to be like God; by eating the forbidden fruit, and God descending from heaven ironically upbraids him, Behold the man is like one of us. 1. Like the Son of God. and by Incarnation we may also say, behold, God is as one of us. Lastly, who was more meet to be a mediator of reconciliation, then the middle Person of the Sacred Trinity, who was the mediator of union, as Divines do speak in the state of Creation, and before the fall of Adam. Having thus far proceeded touching the necessity of a Saviour, and that the Son of God was designed to the office of a mediator. I am not to show that he took to himself our flesh, and by Incarnation made it our flesh, and by this means he had of his own, though from us, what to offer unto God for us: the manner of this divine mystery, no man is able to conceive fully, much less to express perfectly, God tries our faith by those things wherein our capacities are not strong, that is an object of our faith to believe that the human nature is united personally to the Son of God, and to make this as plain as I am able, I do conceive it is the readiest way to illustrate it negatively, first, to show what it is not, and then we shall the better conceive what it is. First of all, the two natures united, do not constitute a third out of them, as is done when there is no repugnancy, but mutual dependence as in the Union of the soul and body which makes a man, but this Union whereof I speak, is not the constitution of a third nature out of the parts united; for then that properly would be neither God nor man, as a man so constituted of soul and body, is neither soul nor body; the infinite person subsisting from Eternity is not changed by the human nature, which was in time united to it, this is illustrated by a human person, which subsisting hath in time teeth in the mouth, the man ceaseth not to be a person, nor is he changed into another person, nor doth he thereby grow up to a third, which is neither man nor teeth, and to speak properly there is not a composition, but as Divines do speak, quasi compositum, the person of Christ is not but in a very general sense, a compound person, and the reason is, because a Compositum is more perfect then the parts which do compound it, but nothing can be more perfect then the divine person; nothing can be added to it, which had from Eternity all the perfection of the humanity in a more eminent manner, then it is in itself. Secondly, God did not take upon him the person of man, but the nature of man, Christ is not divided into two persons, viz. the Person of the Son of God, and the Person of the Son of man, as Nestorius the heretic held, that he was a Person begotten of God before all worlds, and a Person born of the Virgin Mary in our flesh, its true, the essential parts of a mans body and soul being united, would have constituted a person, as they do in all other men, if they had been left to themselves, it was prevented and stayed from subsisting in itself, and was drawn into the Unity of the second person by divine and supernatural operation, whereby it was highly advanced, and subsists in a more eminent sort then it could have done if it had bacome a rational human person. The ground of the error of Nestorius was this, he took not heed to the first beginning of that admirable combination of God with man: the Son of God did not take to himself a man then existing and perfected, but the human nature and conjunction with Gods Son, began both at one instant: his making and taking our flesh was but one act; the Son of God did not assume a mans person to his own, but a mans nature to his own person; he did not advance any one person amongst men above all others, but wisdom hath built her house of that nature which is common to all men, she made not this or that man her habitation, but dwelled in us. Thirdly, as Nestorius believed well, that God and man are distinct natures, but erred in that he denied they were one person, so Eutyches did orthodoxically believe, that the two natures were united in one person, yet became unsound by denying the difference, which still continueth betwixt the natures: this conjunction abolisheth not, nor confoundeth the natural properties, but from the first combination, they have been, are, and shall be for ever inseparable; when his soul forsook the Tabernacle of his body, his Deity forsook neither body nor soul; the principal ground, which misled both these heretics, was one and the same; every nature, and perfect rational subsistence is a person, but Christ was perfect God and perfect man, therefore, both of them were Persons: So Nestorius, but Eutyches reason thus, in Christ there is but one person, therefore after Union, there is but one nature, of the different sorts of these Eutychians, both anciently, and in the latter dayes: See Zanchius de incarnat. lib. 2. cap. 1. Fourthly, the Union of the two Natures in Christ is not in the substantial indistance of these, for God is every where present, and if it consisted in this, not onely the human nature. but the most abject creature would be truly assumed into the person of the Son of God, nor is it simply in conferring admirable gifts and qualities, for then holy men and holy Angels, should be thus united to the Son of God, which is not to be admitted. Fifthly, neither the Divine Nature simply considered, nor as three divine persons subsist in it, is incarnated, for then the whole Trinity( which is not done) should take our nature, but as the divine nature is in the Son of God, as by his property he is distinguished from the first and third person, in Christ there is but one personal subsistence, and that was from Everlasting, and by his taking the nature of man, he still continueth one person, and changeth but the manner of his subsisting, which was before in the mere glory of the Son of God, and is now in the verity of our flesh Now whether this by a proper appellation, be called an influx, or illapsus arcanus of the personality of the Word, or any other singular operation of the Deity, by which the human nature of Christ, is, as it were, most intimately drawn to the person of the Son of God, or an extraordinary dispensation, as Tertullian phraseth it, or whether it cannot be expressed by a certain name, as some Schoolmen, 'tis not much material, but the manner hereof is, mirabiliter singularis,& singulariter mirabilis, and transcends the capacity both of men and Angels, saith learned Gerhard. To illustrate in some sort this great mystery, both ancient and later Divines have used divers similitudes, which are very imperfect, and not able to the life to express this Union, as that of a fiery sword, which doth both cut and burn, it cuts simply in regard of the sharpness of the mettal, but it burns as it is fiery: two actions here are produced from two natures, which are to be distinguished, yet there is but one sword, another, as the body and soul of man do make one man, so the Divine and human nature do make one Christ, or this mystery may be compared to one man, which hath two accidental forms, as to be a Lawyer and a Physician, one may say, this Lawyer is a Physician, and this Physician is a Lawyer, or the human nature of Christ is like to Missletow, which hath no subsistence of its own, to be by itself, but always in a three, yet herein the comparison fails, that such is the weakness of the Plant, that it cannot subsist by itself, no more then a mans arm can live out of a human body; that Resemblance which is most fit and cometh nearest the matter, to shadow out this personal Union of the nature of God and of man in one Person, is of a three. Suppose an Apple three grow up, into which the branch of another three is engrafted, which makes not the three to be of a compound or middle nature, but causing the branch, which being set into the ground, might have proved an entire three of itself to pertain to the Unity of the three into which it is implanted, and yet retains its own nature, and bears its own fruit, and as you may truly say, this Harvy three is a Pippin three, and this Pippin three is a Harvy three, and consequently this Harvy three beareth Pippins, and this Pippin three brings forth Harvies, so may we say of the Person of Christ, consisting of the natures of God and man: The Son of God, who was a complete and perfect Person hath added to it the human nature in the Unity of the same Person; as the Divine Nature of our Saviour, notwithstanding the personal Union is not capable of any human imperfections, no more is the human nature,( in that respect a finite creature) capabe of any divine and infinite perfection; the weakness and infirmity of man was not swallowed up in the Majesty of God, nor was Gods Majesty in the least diminished really by the assumption of man; the Union of the word, in regard of the persons subsistence graciously bestowed on the human nature, is not finite, nor the human nature infinite, and as the fore-named three is but one, and yet hath two different natures in it, and beareth two kinds of fruits, so the holy Son of God is but one person,& yet hath two different natures,& by them performeth the distinct operations pertainining to either of them, and as we say, this Pippin three is a Harvy three, so doth Scriptures teach us to say, the Son. of God is the Son of Mary, and this Son of Mary is the Son of God, so that both natures remain in Christ with their distinct properties; this Union adds perfection to the weak, to the human nature, but to the nobler part the divine nature accrues no alteration at all, there being nothing more natural to God, then not to be subject to any change, 'tis set down as a rule or Principle( saith our learned Hooker in his 5.6. of Eccl. Pol.) so necessary, as nothing more to the plain deciding of all doubts and questions about the Union of both natures in Christ that of both natures there is a co-operation often, an association always, but never any mutual participation, whereby the properties of the one, are infused into the other. From this greatest honour and highest grace that could be vouchsafed to human nature, that it should be united to the person of the onely begotten Son of God, whereby this creature is exalted above all creatures, and hath all creatures under it: can we conceive that sithence God hath made the manhood his own inseparable habitation, that the parts of our Nature, the soul and body of Christ, received no influences of Deity, no abilities of operation, no virtue or qualities above nature? no doubt but it had from the grace of U●ion, the grace of Unction, both for the ornament and exaltation of the human nature, and enabling it to go through with the work of our salvation which required an unmatchable degree of Perfection, proport onable to that high undertaking, to this purpose we red, that God anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows. Heb. 1.9. and replenished him with those graces, which are above the reach of our Capacities, so that he had fullness of grace, both for the Essence and virtue of it, intensivè and extensivè, as far forth, as may be had at least, according to the exigence of that oeconomie, which was agreeable to Gods own purposes, intents, and counsels, and to all services, the subject duly considered, whereunto grace doth or can extend itself, Aquin. 3 par qu. 7. artic 9. his graces were without measure, John 3.34. and of his fullness, we all receive our scant measures, John 1.16. The second Effect or Consequent of this personal Union is not as the Lutherans say, Kemnitius, Brackman, Gerhard, Cramerus, and others, a communication of the Divine properties to the manhood, so that it should be truly omnipotent and omnipresent, not to insist on the Confutation of this Heterodoxe at present, an instance shall suffice to show the contrary: the hand of man is joined with mans immortal soul, and informed, quickened and acted by it, will it thence follow, that wheresoever the sense is present, there the hand must be? verily no, the soul is in the foot, and in other parts of the body, where every one sees the hand is not, if this be not the effect of personal Union, what is it then? it is called the communication of the properties to the person, and that is, When the properties of either nature considered singly, and apart are attributed to the person, from which soever nature it be denominated; to understand this the better, we are to take notice of abstract and concrete terms, as Divines do call them, an abstract word denotes the nature simply, as deity, humanity: a Concrete term imports the person that hath the same nature, viz. God, man; we cannot truly say, the Deity is the humanity, or the humanity is the Deity, or the Deity is man, or the humanity is God in the Concrete; nor thus the humanity is uncreated, the Deity is created, the Deity is passable, the humanity is impassable, nor that the humanity is every where, and the Divinity limited to a certain place, but we may say, God is man and man is God; God suffered death, as well as he raised the dead from their graves; the Son of Mary created the world, we cannot properly say, that the Virgin Mary bore, or the Baptist did Baptize, or Pilate did condemn, or the Jews Crucified the nature of Man, because all these are personal Attributes, his person is the Subject of all these, and it is but one Subsistence, his Nature is that which makes his person capable to receive, so that of Necessity we must apply that to the Person of the son of God, which was spoken of Christ according to his human Nature, that he was according to the Flesh Born of the Virgin Mary, Baptized of John in the River of Jordan, and judged by Pilate to die and put to death by the Jews, because there is but one Personal Divine Subsistence, so that no Person was born of the Virgin Mary, but the son of God, no Person was baptized, accused, condemned and crucified, but the Son of God; all such Actions and Passions agree to the Person really; though sometimes in respect of one Nature, sometimes in respect of the other: when we say, God is Man, we mean, that two Natures meet in one Person, and man is God for the same Reason: And therefore this mutual Conversive Predication is not properly called Communication of properties, nor are they regular, but unusual and reciprocal, but when the Properties of the human nature, are attributed to the person denominated from the divine nature, these are called cross and circulatorie speeches, by reason of association of natures in one subject, 'tis said, the Jews crucified the Lord of glory, 1 Cor. 2.8. we must needs understand the whole person of Christ, who being Lord of glory, was crucified, but not in that nature, for which he is called Lord of glory, so is it said, that the Son of man came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which( being on earth) is in heaven, John 3.13. at the same instant. The Son of man is taken for the whole person of Christ, who being man on earth filled heaven with his glorious presence, but nor according to that nature for which he is called man, so that in these speeches there is mutual circulation, and the concrete names, God and man, do take interchangeably one anothers room and place; this communication of the properties is real in respect of the person, not verbal, and though the properties of either nature do really belong to the Divine person, yet are they not, as I said, really communicated to the other nature, but each nature retains its native qualities: Thus the Deity is infinite and the Humanity is finite, in which respect all things in Christ, excepting his person, are double, there are two natures, two wills, which are the cause and grounds of different operations, and therefore albeit there is in the Trinity, alius& alius, yet is there not aliud& aliud, there is diversity of persons, but not of natures, but it is far otherwise in Christ, for there is not alius& alius, that is, two persons, yet is there aliud,& aliud, diversity of natures, and hence it is, that the properties are affirmed of the person, albeit the denomination is from the other nature, and then to prevent scandal, and occasion of error, we are to add such an explication, as this is, this speech is verified of Christ according to the other nature, thus for example, when we say, Christ the Son of God is a creature, we add in regard of his human nature, much more might be added, but this which I have premised, is the principal to clear up truths, and to confute the Adversary, because I do observe, that he is lead into pernicious errors, and draws unsound Collections from the word of God for want of understanding of the premises, because what is spoken of the person of Christ in reference to one part, he takes it usually as spoken of our Saviour in all his parts, and thence deduceth his Arguments to the deluding of himself, and others, if I should thus argue a man is mortal, subject to be amnoyed by heat, could; and therefore the soul of man is mortal and subject to such hurtful passions. Will not every intelligent Reader discern the fallacy? I shall now by the help of God, tread in the steps of my Adversary, and return a punctual answer to his writing. bid. Luke. 1.32. Jesus shall be great and shall be called the Son of the most High, not equal to his Father, as himself confesseth, John 14.28. The Father is greater then I. The epithet most High could not be appropriated to the Father, and distinguish him from the Son( as v. 35. from the Holy Ghost, if the Holy Ghost had been equal to the Father) how can an expression alike common distinguish one from another? If a Son be as high as the Father, how can the Father be the most High? Answ. That Christ is the Son of God, who doubts? The Socinians fall short of truth, and do not speak so highly of his glorious Sonship as we do, for we maintain he was so the Son of God, that we do believe he always was Gods Son, and of the same infinite nature with his heavenly Father, and that he cannot as he was man, be called the adopted Son of God, because to be a Son, is a personal property; persons and not natures are born, and the human nature being assumed into the Unity of the person( as it were) a part of it, the whole Person, that is Christ in both natures, is called the natural Son of God; for so saith the Text, He shall be called, i.e. declared, manifested, and professed to be the Son of the most High, not the natural Son of the most high, by virtue of the Holy Ghost, for then the Holy Ghost should have been his natural Father, and the human nature should have been Divine, because that which is begotten is produced out of the substance of him that doth beget. As for that Title most High, it is attributed to God. Either in respect of place. 1. Because God dwelleth in the highest heavens, which are above all created Substance. 2. Or in regard of his Essence, because he hath the most excellent and highest nature, how low, how nothing are all creatures compared to God? 3. Or in regard of his Person, because both divinely inspired Scriptures, and reason sets him forth most truly, to be a person above all created subsistences, he being independent, and they all of them depending on him. 4. He is said to be most high in regard of exaltation, because he is exalted above all which are thought to be, and are called Gods. Thou Lord art exalted above all gods, Psal. 97.9. The Title most high, is taken I grant, for the Father in this Text, and he is distinguished from the Son of God, not simply by virtue of his Title most high, but by virtue of the Text, it is one thing to say by this Title in this Text, the Father is onely meant, and another thing it is to avouch absolutely that he is simply distinguished from the Son, hereby the word Lord in many places of the Scripture is limited to Christ, and yet by virtue of that title we cannot say he is absolutely distinguished from God, who is often called Lord; the utmost then that can be deduced from these words, is this, that Christ is the Son of the most high, i.e. of the Father, therefore he is not the most high Father, he is distinguished from him in regard of his person, but not in regard of his Essence, to be most high in itself is an essential Attribute of God; they are the personal properties, which are proper to persons, but essential Attributes are common to all the glorious Persons, for they belong to them, not as they are persons, but as they are Gods: the Father is most high, and the Son also is most high, and yet there are not two most high Gods, but one most high; in this sense it is often taken in the old Testament, I will cry unto God most high, Psal. 57.2. its spoken in opposition to the creatures, he is high above all, in power, in wisdom, in glory, yea Jesus Christ himself is styled Almighty, and his name is Jehovah, can there be any higher then the Almighty God, than Jehovah? to Christ every knee must bow, Isa. 45.11. compared with Rom. 14.9, 10. and men are to know, that he whose name above is Jehovah, is the most high over all the earth, Psal. 83.18. and this Title is not obscurely attributed by John the Baptist to the Sons of God, he that cometh from above, is above all, he that cometh from heaven is above all. Is not ●his verse 76. Zachary full of the Holy Ghost, said, that his Son John should be a Prophet of the Highest, meaning, as is most probable of our Saviour, whose forerunner he was, preaching Repentance, and so fitting men for Christ, equivalent to the most high? for the strengthening of the Argument out of the Psal. It is to be observed, that Christ is that person whom the Angels are commanded to worship, Psal. 97.8. and for the true God of Israel, the God of all the earth, and that Psalm, as the Socinians themselves do grant, is a Prophetical Psalm of Christ, for thou God art most high, for it is most fitly alleged, as a reason why he is called the God of the whole earth, is because he is most high above all the earth. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord; To return to John Baptist endowed with the life, zeal& authority that Elias had, he being his fore-runner, was to go before the face of the Lord their God, Heb. 1.16, 17. To turn the hearts of the Fathers to the children, Matth. 11.10. Mal. 3.1. Christs coming into the world, is the coming of God himself. To the Text, John 10.28. The Father is greatet then I, the same is to show, that he was to leave them, and go to his Father from whence he came, this should be no discouragement to them, but matter of joy, because it will be an advancing of him to a higher condition then he was then, and to comfort them, in that they shall be more safely protected by his Fathers greatness, then by his own corporal presence. I do observe that the Adversary would obtrude upon this usual fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, for though the Son be equal to his Father touching his Deity, and in this respect they are coessential and equal in essential properties, as wisdom, power, equal in Majesty, honour and glory, for he saith, the Father is in me, if the Son be lesser then the Father, how can the greater( adequably) be in the lesser, Greg. Nyss. orat. de Deitate filii& Spiritus sancti, and he proves it, because the Son of God swore to Abraham by himself, because he had no greater to swear by, yet in a threefold respect, the Son may be said, to be lesser then the Father. First, because the Father, as he is the Father, is Principle of his Sons Person, though he be not before him in nature, nor in time, nor in any Divine& Essential perfection, which is called perfectio simpliciter simplex seu absoluta, nor in a Relative pefection which is called perfectio in suo genere, which includes something, which belongs not to another, as the Divine persons are relatively opposed, yet with an equal perfection, yet as the Father gives& communicates the divine Essence to the Son, but the Father hath not his eternal Essence from the Son of God; so may he be called a Principle of his Son, greater than the Son, as a King that takes his Son to partake with him in an equal power of governing his kingdom is greater than his Son, as he is his Father, but equal to him, as he is a man, and as he is a King; so that when in the Athanasian Creed, 'tis said, no one in the Trinity is greater then another, 'tis meant in regard of nature and essential properties, but there was no meaning to take away the reason of the Principle of original; for we may not think that Athanasius contradicts himself, and he himself orat. 2. contra Arianos, near the end, acknowledgeth that in this respect the Father is greater then the Son, he is God by a kind of Excellency in a rhetorical not a logical or metaphysical sense, Bisterfield, the greater number of the Greek Fathers, which were opposite to the Arrians approve this Exposition: the Fathers of the Sardicane council Theodoret Histor. lib. 2. cap. 15. Basil Epistle 143 ad Caesar.& lib. 1. advers. Eunom. Damascen. lib. 1. de orthodoxa fide c. 9. and Gregory nazianzen prefers this sense of the Text in orat. 4. de Theolog. Object. 3. before the second which shall be mentioned. The second which is more easy to be understood, and preferred before the other by Chrysost. and Theophilact in loc. and generally approved by the Orthodox, is this, the Son is less then the Father, in respect of the human nature which was assumed, not into the unity of the person of the Father, but of the son of God, in this respect, the Father is simply greater than the son, for he is the Eternal son of God and creator of the humanity, nor is he in this Consideration onely less than the Father, but the Holy Ghost is greater and in order before him, yea further, in this respect is he less then himself, as God, he is both less and greater than himself, a servant and a Lord, subject, and not subject to himself, and this with great reason, because there is but one person, and these different attributions pertained to him in regard of the different natures, and I add that he was made for a short time lower than the Angels, Heb. 2. in regard of his sufferings; these words objected in saint John were spoken by Christ, as he was the son of man, and not simply as he was the son of God; the truth her of appears by the light of the precedent words, I go to the Father, in this respect the Father is greater than I am, for as he was the son of God, he was always with the Father, and to confirm this Exposition, it is no where said in all the Scripture, if I mistake not, that the Holy Ghost is less than the first Person of the Holy Trinity. Thirdly, the Father may be said to be greater than the son, not simply as he was God, nor as he was the natural son of God by eternal generation, for so they are equal, but in regard of his office of a mediator; the human nature is the foundation of this manner of speaking. I am my Fathers ambassador, and I go to my Father, as he is sent of the Father, he that sends, as such is ordinarily greater than he that is sent, the Son of God by divine dispensation became the son of man, died for us, sits at the right hand of God, and is exalted by the Father to the highest honour, far above all Principalities and Powers; in a word, the Father is greater than the Son, if not in regard of his Divine nature, for that was not capable to acquire any new perfection, but in regard of his Office, whereby he did more fully manifest his Fathers and his own glory. Was it never heard, that a man hath undertaken to be a mediator to another man? and must this man of necessity, because he may be said to be inferior to another in regard of this friendy office, be inferior also in regard of his nature and place? bid. The Son is not equal to the Father, for he is the most high, and this Title is put to distinguish him from the Son, for how can an expression equal to two, be apt to distinguish one from the other? how is the Father, and that contradistinctly to the son, called the most high, if the son also be the most high. Answ. To this Charge, I have as I suppose, returned a sufficient answer, which may be further illustrated, your reason may be thus framed. The Father is the most High, The Son is not the Father, Ergo the Son is not the most High. This is evidently a false Syllogi●me, as the meanest Logician knows, and parallel to this to make the fallacy appear. A man is a living creature, A Beast is not a man, Ergo a Beast is not a living creature. The assumption or Minor Proposition in this Figure must not be negative, as it is. If you frame your Argument thus, The Father is the most High, The Son is not the most High, Ergo The Son is not the Father. The Minor is materially false, and the Conclusion is yielded. The Father in this Text as I have shewed, is called the most High, and by this Title distinguished from the Son, because it is not taken absolutely, but with a limitation, a Synecdoche generis, as appears by the circumstances of the Text: the Father is sometimes distinguished from God Jehovah, Psalm 45.7. Heb. 18. shall we from thence conclude, that he is not God, not Jehovah? yea, and sometimes created Angels to speak in the sense of the Adversaries, and thereby to confute them, are called Jehovah: shall we therefore say, that the created Angels are onely Jehovah? though Christ is not the person which is in this place understood by the most High, yet notwithstanding, he onely is not the most High God; unless we shall absurdly say, there are two most High Gods, it is a fallacy somewhat like to this. Omnis Essentia Divina est Pater. Filius non est Pater, Ergo Non est Essentia Divina. Melanchthon shows, that there is a Fallacy à non Distributo ad Distributum: mayor non potest resolvi in hanc verè Universalem. De quocunque verum est dicere, quod est Essentia Divina, illud est Pater, for this is equally verified of the son and Holy Ghost, as well as of the Father, and this Text is so far from proving what the Adversary intends, that the Contrary thereto is fairly concluded, for he being the son of God, and by Conference with other Scriptures, the onely Begotten son, his onely natural Son, it follows, that he is coessential and coeternal with the Father, and therefore he is true God. bid. Some from that mistaken Text, Philippians 2.6.7, 8. would infer the Contrary, and so contradict the express words of Christ himself, whereas if the place be rightly understood it maketh against them, the words and sense being thus. Christ being in the Form of God,( for the Exercise and Demonstration of Divine Power, whereby he wrought Miracles in as free and uncontrolled a manner, as if God himself had been on Earth) thought it not Robbery( or a Prey) to be equal with God, that is, did not esteem this equality of his with God, consisting in the free Exercise of Divine Power to be a Prey by holding it fast, as Robbers art wont to do when they have got a Prey or Booty. Answ. Thou seest( Christian Reader) into what horrible Blasphemies, wanton wits, for not embracing the Truth in the love thereof, though Gods dreadful Judgement may fall both to to their own eternal ruin, if they repent not, and to the Destruction of others deceived by them. The Adversary doth here implicitly deny, and it is his corrupt Judgement, that God is not on Earth, but the holy Scriptures have taught us to have more honourable apprehension of the infinite God, Psalm 139.7. where the presence of Gods Essence is clearly asserted to be in places, which are most unlikely, if there were any such, that God be absent from them, as Hell, and the extremest parts of the Sea, yet God is present there, Jer. 23.23. all things are known to God. Am I saith the Lord, a God at hand, and not a God afar off? So Isa. 66.1. he is substantially present, as well to his Footstool, as to his Throne, Acts 17.27, 28. Ephes. 4.6. its a safe Rule to take Scriptures properly, unless manifest necessity enforceth to take them Tropically, Augustine de Doctrina Christiana, lib. 3. cap. 10.16. how else should God be infinite? How should he be the Cause of all physical natural Actions, if he be not present with them? For the transient Actions of spiritual Substances require the presence of the Agents; nor is God onely in the World, but without it also, for the World itself is finite, and Gods Essence if it were included in the World, could not be infinite, hence wise Salomon saith 1 Kin. 8.27. That the Heaven of Heavens contains him not, the highest Heavens do not limit him, he is higher than the Heavens, the Truth is, he is in all imaginary spaces, and nowhere in that respect now, where he was not from Eternity; this atheistical heresy is confuted by Fathers, Schoolmen, Tomb. 1. Senten. Distin. 37. and the commentators on their Master, and by the Unanimous Consent I think of Protestants, except that abhorred on Vorstius and the Socinians, from whom he seems to have sucked his poison. The holy Apostle, 2 Phil 6.7. sets down in a few words very much what we are to believe touching the Son of God before his Incarnation. First, That he was a person before the assumption of our flesh, for there was a time, so I must speak, when he had not assumed our flesh. Secondly, because holy Angels are complete rational substances, and therefore Persons, to show evidently, that he is not in the number of created Angels, he tells us, that he was in the Form of God. Thirdly, because the Father is God, and a divine Person by way of distinction from him; it is said, he was in the Form of God, the essential image of his Father. Fourthly, because there are many which are called gods, which are not so by nature, but in the opinion of Idolaters onely, or by grace and favour, as Angels, Kings and Princes, therefore it is said he was God, and thought it no prey or injury to be so, as Satan and Adam would have made a prey of the Divinity, a Son assumed by the Father to the Government of the kingdom, holds it not as a prey or robbery, for he did not forcibly take that honour on him, but the Father gave it him. Fifthly, least any should think that Christ, albeit he was God by nature, yet he was inferior to the Father, he adds that he was equal to the Father. Lastly, against Sabellius the Apostle shows, that the Person of Christ is distinct from the Person of the Father, for otherwise he could not be equal to him, equality is always betwixt two at least. Mr. Biddle with others, expounds not this Scripture of Christ, before the Assumption of our nature, but they contend it is to be understood of Christ manifested in the Flesh by his miracles to be in the form of God, and albeit the Lutherans do not abhor from this sense, that he had in his human nature divine Majesty communicated to him, which he might at pleasure most gloriously manifest, yet will not this be serviceable to the Adversary, because, as they say, this follows upon the personal Union, and presupposeth that this man Christ Jesus was true God, which Mr. Biddle denies: he saith, he was in the form of God, for the free exercise of the Divine power, others add in governing the world, and being worshipped, these are but consequences of the Deity, and he was God before the Creation, and when there was no Creature to worship him, and will so continue after the general Judgement to all Eternity. 2. Neither doth God simply rule, as God, but as Lord: God was always actually God, but not always actually Lord, he was not till he had Servants subject to him, for Dominus& servus sunt relata& simul natura. 3. If that be the form of God, then Christ was seldom in the form of God: What exterior form of God could the Wise men see in Jesus when he lay in the Manger? and others when he was poor, and had not a house to lay his head in? as a worm and no man. 4. And if this be the meaning, then were the Apostles in the Form of God, though in an inferior degree, and gradus non mutat essentiam, for they had the gift of working miracles. Lastly, nothing in all the world is said to subsist in its actions, but Christ should subsist in actions, if they were the Form of God. The Adversary asserts a monstrous piece of Divinity, that the divine Power was communicated to a Creature; this must needs be then either when he began to be a Creature, what needed he then have any created gifts above men and Angels? is not the light of a Candle superfluous, when we have the light of the bright Sunshine? 1. Besides, suppose this divine power was given to Christ at any time, this divine Power is either the same infinite Power which is in God, or divers from it; if the first, how can that which is finite be capable of that which is infinite? must not the Subject either by nature, or divine operation be proportionable to the Attribute? and how can the same infinite virtue be communicated to the creature, to the human nature, and not the Divine nature itself, when these are in truth all one? and how can the infinite Power of God which is in him, and which he doth retain be necessary and concur to effect that to the which the Person of God is not necessary, nor doth concur? This is to make a divorce betwixt the natural Power of the person, and the person himself, which implies a contradiction: if this Divine power be divers from that of God, there must be granted an infinite created power, which seems to be impossible; besides, it will follow, that there are two omnipotent and two infinite Powers, and why may not the in finite divine Nature be multiplied, as well as the infinite Power of God? and if the divine Nature is multiplied, there are more Gods than one? if two Gods, why not three, four, and so in infinitum? this must be granted, or else 'tis not the divine Power which the Creature hath, but the effect thereof. I add, is this Divine Power a substance, or an accident? if it be a substance, then are there two substances in Christ, which the Adver saries deny, the one must be finite, the other infinite: besides this infinite substance being complete and understanding, must needs be a Person, for it is not an infinite Person, if it doth not understand and will, and exist of itself: if it be an accident, then it is not infinite, for an infinite Power can create a finite subject, and that in an instant, and standeth not in need of a substance wherein it must exist, for if it was so weak that it could not subsist of itself, and preserve itself, how then can it be called an infinite Power? otherwise the virtue thereof is not infinite, but finite and limited. Furthermore, it implies a contradiction, to say a property can exist out of its subject, if it belongs to more than one, it ceaseth to be a property, and tis a common attribute, the property of the soul cannot be derived to the body, so as to inhere in it, as the subject of it, but the operation of the soul by such a property is in the body, nor is it easy to be understood how in the same subject, in the same part of the subject there can be a finite and an infinite Power, a Power limited and unlimited: its true, that the same Person at the same time hath that power which is both finite and infinite, but 'tis in divers natures: in the Divine, the Power is infinite, in the human, finite. Again, if one property of God is communicated to a finite creature, then are they all, for the Divine Attributes are the Divine Essence itself, his glory, his Godhead, but the human nature is not capable of eternity, properly so called, and therefore of none of the Attributes, Against the Lutherans it is thus argued, As is the union, so is the communication: but the union is reciprocal, thus man is God, and God is man, but the Deity cannot be said to be mortal, weak, therefore the humanity cannot be said to be immortal, this communication is an effect of union by emanation: we cannot say the human nature is God, therefore we cannot say the human Nature is Omnipotent. I am not ignorant that there are distinctions which are brought to salue and qualify the matter, which are thoroughly discussed by learned men: but to be short, it is ignominious to the Divine Majesty, that any creature should be equallized to him, and in truth to destroy the humanity of Christ who was like us in all things, sin only excepted; which could not be verified of him, if the Divine properties belonged to the human Nature of our Saviour, to say the Divine properties are communicated to the human, not formally, essentially, and subjectively, but per {αβγδ} is to speak without Book, for no Example in all the world can be alleged, that any thing is in another, but it must be one of those fore-named ways, and be in a thing either as a substance or as an accident. I grant in the Concrete( as I premised) that the Man Christ, or Son of Man, is not in the title only, but really omnipotent, eternal, most wise, and infinite, but the humanity of Christ is not so, nor can there power be given to the most excellent creature which is equal to the infinite power of the Creator. bid. But he emptied himself( in making no use of the Divine Power within him to rescue himself out of the hands of the Officers sent to apprehended him) and took upon him the form of a servant( in suffering himself to bee apprehended, bound, and whipped, as servants are wont to do. Answ. There are two things touching Christ, which are distinguished in this text, the one is the exinanition of his Person in some sense, who being in the form of God, emptied himself, or made himself of no reputation, not as he is God absolutely considered, for so he is most simplo, full of glory, power, Majesty: but as he is considered relatively, in regard of the manifesting of himself to them for their salvation; thus he lessened, and humbled himself from the condition of being Lord of all, to that of an ordinary man. Secondly, the Text declareth the submission of his Person thus emptied in these words: he humbled himself the Adversary makes no mention of the former, which yet in the first words is only meant, and confines the meaning of the Holy Ghost to the second: Christ emptied himself, when he who was the eternal Son of God, the true God, infinite in all perfections assumed our flesh into the unity of his Person, to be as we all are, truly, really Man, by means whereof he is capable of meaner offices, then were consistent with the blessed Deity: the only gain which he purchased to himself thereby, was to be capable of loss and detriment, for the benefit and salvation of sinful Men: the Lord possessor of all things conversed amongst men, as though he had nothing at all, his divinity was obscured in the humanity, not in itself, but as the brightness of the Sun is by the intervening of a thick cloud betwixt us and the body of that great light, or it was like a glass with a Candle in it daubed over with mire, or like a sword in a sheathe not yet drawn out of it: by these comparisons do our Divines labour to illustrate this high mystery. Mr. Biddles Exposition hath no savour in it, nor likelihood of truth, for who is so simplo to believe that Christ emptied not himself till he was 33. years old, and then being in the form of God, yielded himself to be apprehended of the Officers? Your Exposition of Christs taking on him the form of a servant to be whipped, is too short, he was indeed Gods servant, but not the servant of man, nor did he wear the ensigns of a servant to be known by, nor was he whipped as a servant, but as they counted him seditious: besides we red of the afflictions for Christ his sake, as Paul was apprehended, bound and whipped, yet is he not said to take upon him the form of a servant, yea, Princes have been wronged by their Subjects, apprehended, imprisoned, yet are they not said to take upon them the form of servants, nor is it the property of servants willingly to be whipped as Christs was for our sakes, and if some are not deceived, Pilate scourged Jesus, John 19.1. that he might be freed from the further cruelty of the Jews. I add, That it was no way necessary that a servant should be apprehended, whipped: is not a servant in the form of a servant when none of these evils do befall him? or is every one that is apprehended& scourged by the authority of a Magistrate, a servant? servants as servants are not so handled, but as they are judged to be offenders, as Christ spoken, Luke 22.52. Be ye come out with swords and staves to apprehended me as a thief? nor did Christ when he was apprehended, and on the cross lay down his divine power, for when they which were sent to take him, heard him say, I am he whom ye seek, they fell backward, and then he healed the ear of Malcus which Peter had cut off, and he commanded effectually, if ye seek me, let these my Disciples go their way, and on the across he converted the Thief: Christs suffering of himself to be apprehended, bound, as if he could no more resist than ordinary men, are not the form of a servant, but the consequents of it, without which the form of a servant may be continued as experience, and the name of form itself importeth. In the old Testament the Son of God appeared often, sometimes in the likeness of a man, he spake also to Moses out of the bramble Bush, which seemed to be on a flamme, and yet was not consumed: and he as a Conductor lead the Israelites in the wilderness by a cloud; but he is not therefore said to make himself of no reputation, but then did he take upon him the form of a servant when he became man, and was in that nature {αβγδ}, this is not an external, but a real form, he was really Gods servant in his human nature, and undertook an office designed him by God, and most faithfully obeying him for our salvation. I do grant that we do not say, that perfect Man in state of innocency was in the form, of a servant, or when he shal be glorious in heaven, these words belong to Christ in the state of humiliation, as God was made Man, so was he made a servant for man, and being omnipotent, he became weak; and being immortal, he became mortal, not simply as he was in the form of God, for so is he always equal to his Father, but because he became mortal to make us immortal, he took our nature, with all the natural properties thereof, and was like us in all things, sin only excepted. bid. Being made in the likeness of men,( that is, ordinary and vulgar men, which are endued with no Divine Power) and being found in fashion( or habit) of a Man( that is in his outward quality, and acting no whit different from a common Man) he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the across. Answ. The Apostle particularly explicates what he understood by the form of a servant, if any one should question what that form was? was it the form of a created Angel? or of a heavenly body? or of a new created thing? the Apostle denies all this, and tells us he was made in the likeness of man; that is, as is confessed, of ordinary and vulgar men; likeness here is not of imitation and representation, as Anabaptists do from hence collect, that he is not co-essential to us, but it is of identity and participation, as one Egg is like an Egg, and yet is an Egg in substance, and the Son is like the Father, Gen. 5.3. yet is he truly a man; Christ seemed not to be what he was not in truth, a man in appearance, but he was truly a man; he was like other men both in body and soul, both in essentials and accidentals, sin only excepted. From the adjunct the subject is proved, he was made in the likeness of man, when in the Virgins womb he assumed our nature, and not else properly, though it is true, he was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was visible, palpable, as an Infant now is, and yet is he not said upon that account to be made in the likeness of man, and mans nature in Heaven is without hunger and thirst, and such a state whereby a man is truly obnoxious to misery. The Exposition of the next words may pass, if rightly understood: He was found, namely, by those which conversed with him, in the habit in his outward condition, no whit differing from a common man. Many of the ancient Fathers do usually compare the Son of Gods taking our flesh into his Person to a mans putting on his Garments, Ambrose de fide contra Arianos cap. 8. Especially and most frequently doth Athenasius so speak, which holds truly in some things, that as we are not changed by putting on our garments, nor the garments themselves by being put on; so neither is the Son of God changed( he remains what he was) nor mans assumed nature. Christ by putting on man as a●garment, did neither change his own substance, nor the substance of man, Amb. and as by putting on our garments we do not really communicate the properties of our bodies to our garments, nor are the properties of our garments derived to our bodies, so is it with Christ, he by taking our nature doth not communicate the essential properties of the Deity into his soul or body: or on the contrary, the human properties into the Deity, and as garments do cover our bodies, so was the Humanity as a veil to cover the Deity, that the Son of God might familiarly converse with the Sons of men. 'tis true, there are many dissimilitudes: as, omne simile est dissimile, for the garment doth not essentially pertain to the being of man, nor can we be said to be born,& not till then when we are first clothed, nor can a man be said to be made his garments, as all these are verified of the Son of God in our nature: but suppose the Apostle alludes not to garments in this place, as I think he did not {αβγδ}, which often signifies external habit, doth here signify the outward appearance of man, which doth not exclude, but include the inward being, and the reality of his human Nature in his face and outward actions; he appeared in a body, which was truly such a one as it seemed to be: he was found, and undoubtedly known to be a true Man, they that conversed with him had the experience and good proof thereof as if one having the full trial of the honesty of a man, should say, I have found this man to be a good and honest man, I have found him to be such a one, that none can with reason doubt of his honesty. I have now by Gods assistance examined your weak and insufficient, yea erroneous paraphrase of this holy scripture, and will try your skill and strength in your worthy observations, which do level at this mark, to weaken the proof of the Deity of our Saviour, groundedly built on this text. bid. Now that this place doth not speak of an Incarnation, or assumption of human Nature( as they term it) nor of such an equality as is commonly conceived, is evident by all the circumstances, first the scope of the Apostle is to exhort the Philippians to humility, and that they would do nothing out of vain glory, to which purpose he sets before them the example of Jesus Christ, and therefore the act of Christ which he doth exemplify must be manifest, since examples are wont to be taken only from such things as are manifest, but to whom was or could that incarnation commonly talked of be manifest, when themselves say, it passeth the understanding of Angels to comprehend it? yea, that there was any incarnation at all made, the Scripture no where expressly affirmeth, nor can it be so much as proved by any good consequence from thence, as several learned Men have shown. Answ. There is no controversy about the general scope of the words, that it is to shane the Philippians, and to exhort them to humility, and to this end he allegeth the Example of Jesus Christ, which is an Argument a majori ad minus, the greater is his humiliation, the more convincing will his example be to move us to be humble. Here the Divinity of Christ is asserted, and that precedaneous to his humiliation, the rise whereof is much increased by this unparallelled pattern of greatest condescension, and yet nevertheless the greatest manifestation of Christ his glory: never so much of the Divine power and glory was seen on the earth, as in this example which was without example, the Son of God became the Son of man, and not in the form of a glorious King, as Solomon was, but of a despised servant, and albeit he contracted no sin, either by propagation or action, yet were our sins imputed to him, as our surety, to pay our debts, as the shadow of the Sun went backten degrees, that King Hezekiah might have a certain sign of his recovery to health and happiness, so hath the Son of God by taking our Flesh gone back many degrees, that our sick souls might be freed from sins, and eternally happy. This cannot be an example saith the Adversary, because it is not manifest, no, nor can the holy Angels comprehend it. What false and weak arguing is this? Who is so weak, that he perceives it not? It is plainly to confounded those things which should be distinguished: it is to us manifest, that the Son of God became the Son of man, and as Bernard, Serm. 1. de Annunciat. ventu Dom. he had a Father in Heaven, and sought a Mother on Earth; this do we steadfastly believe, because it is attested by the infallible Testimony of the Holy Ghost, who is the first verity, and we know, that this Sacramentum pietatis, is not Detrimentum veritatis. 1. This Assumption was {αβγδ} the natures are not changed hereby, as is a drop of water when it falls into a full vessel of wine, and it is {αβγδ} never to be separated. 2. Death dissolves the nature, and destroys the person of man, but in death itself, the body and foul were inseparably united to the Son of God, and albeit there is a greatly quickening virtue in God than there is in a reasonable soul, and without the separation of the soul from the body, man cannot die, yet follows it not, that God should be separated from the flesh, that it should die, because the dying virtue quickens not the Creature, as the soul doth the body, viz. formally and necessary, but efficiently, and therefore as Christ suffered when his Divine Power was not diminished, so did he die, when life itself was not actually separated. Well then, it is manifest I say, that Christ is incarnated, and not onely the holy Angels, but men of ordinary capacities do apprehended this Divine Truth, albeit, if all Angels and Saints in Heaven and Earth should communicate their deliberate notions one to another about this subject, though the {αβγδ} thereof be well known, yet the manner of the Union is mirabiliter singularis, and they would aclowledge this mystery to be not onely inexplicable and unspeakable, but unconceivable and incomprehensible; it is mysterious to have three natures, the soul, the body, and the Deity in one person, and the Tirnity of the Divine Persons in one individual infinite Nature, which though men cannot apprehended by natural Reason, yet can they submit to Gods Revelation, by his illumination; and besides this, there are many passages of Gods providence which are too great a deep for us to reach to their bottom, all which depths at the Revelation of Jesus Christ shall be cleared; Reason may be an Instrument to apprehended, but no Rule to judge of the Articles of Faith. Excellently saith Scaliger against Cardan, subtle. Exercitat. 365. against such who would measure immensos Religionis nostrae agros augusto humanae Rationis decempede, the immense Fields of our Religion by the short Pole of human Reason, Sec. 9. interest( saith he) & nostrae pietatis& Dei immensitatis ea sentire— quae sentire non possumus, sentire quidem in ipso per ipsum quae per nos sentire ne queamus: which is to this effect, our piety, and Gods immensity do require, that we should apprehended those things which we cannot apprehended, apprehended them in God, and by God, which by ourselves we cannot apprehended. By this discourse it is evident that the ground of this inference is false, for this condescension of Christ is manifest to us by the Eye of Faith, and the souls apprehension of it: and is not this sufficient to be an example to a reasonable creature? will you require that it must be manifest to our outward senses: how senseless a conceit this is may be shewed from Examples of men: Abrahams Faith is an Example for others, but no living man hath seen Abraham or his working Faith: and so is Jobs patience, and the Prophets sufferings Jam. 5.10. as also an Example of Gods severity in punishing the Divels, casting them out of Heaven, and reserving them in everlasting chains under darkness, that sinners also shal be punished, judas 4.5, 6. yea, and the holy Angels, who are to us invisible, are patterns of imitation for us, as we pray, Thy will be done in Earth, as it is done in Heaven, viz. by the Angels; yea, and the invisible God, for who hath at any time seen the divine Essence and glorious attributes? in regard of his visible works is an Example to us: do good to your Enemies; why? for God makes his Sun to shine, and the showers of Heaven to descend for the comfort of the worst men, yea, and we are exhorted to be holy and to be merciful, for our God is holy and merciful; to forgive one another, even as God for Christ his sake hath forgiven you, Ephes. 5.2. 1. John 4.11. Math. 5.48, Luke 6.36. The Question betwixt us is, whether the Son of God be incarnated or no: some learned men you say deny it, and yourself say, there is no Scripture for it▪ learned men say you, I answer scarce one of a thousand, and if you should grant this, the question was decided, and we should be agreed, and to us it is a truth not repugnant to reason, that an infinite God should unite to himself a finite creature, and though there be no equality betwixt finite and infinite, yet is there such a proportion, as is betwixt the first Cause, and the Effect produced by it, betwixt the Act and Power, betwixt an infinite Good, and some Good; there is no repugnancy betwixt them and Consequents, no Contradiction is implyed in saying, the Son of God assumed our nature, and if the Loadstone can draw iron to itself, and unite it to itself by moving iron and itself remains immovable, why should it seem incredible, that God who is infinite in wisdom and power should produce and draw our nature to himself, to be hypostatically and inseparably united to his Person. Scriptures we have many, both express and by Consequence to confirm this great mystery, God was manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. John 1. The word was made flesh. Christ is called man, and he is called God, he is called the Son of man, and he is called the Son of God, there is ascribed to him the form of man, and there is ascribed to him the form of God; he is described, as having the properties of man, and the properties of God also; the Actions of men, and the Actions of God, the infirmities of man, and the power of God, the sufferings of man and the glory of God, to die as a man, and to have the life of God, to raise himself from death, the reproaches of man, or to have glory divine, and to be worshipped as God, these and many more Arguments than these, are the grounds of our belief, that the Son of God was incarnated. bid. Secondly, The Apostle speaketh of our Lord as a man, in that he giveth him the Titles of Christ Jesus, both which agree to him onely as a man, for he was called Jesus, as he was a child conceived of the holy Ghost in the Virgins womb, and brought forth by her, Luke 1.27.30.31, 35. and Christ signifieth the anointed, John 11.4. and accordingly Jesus is expressly called the Christ of God, Luke 9.20. but he was anointed,( as the Adversaries themselves will confess) as a man, and not as God: See Acts 10.38. Answ. The Attributes of the totum, the whole, are twofold, some of them do appertain to the whole, as it is the whole; for example, a man consists of soul and body, and some in respect of a part, as a man understands, and a man is visible, the one in respect of the body, the other of the soul. Again, some things belong to the parts, as they are parts, as the soul understandeth, which are communicated to the whole man, other things belong to the parts, as they are in themselves considered, and which are not communicated to the whole by virtue of the Union, as the soul is invisible, spiritual, immortal, a man in respect of his body understands not, and in regard of the soul is not handless, mortal, to answer this charge distinctly, it is expedient to distinguish the various A●tributes given to the second person of the blessed Trinity, some things are predicated of Christ, in reference to one nature, which are called essential Attributes, some which are personal, those things which are predicated of Christ according to the Divine nature simply, do equally belong to the first and third person, as to be God omnipotent to have essential Dominion over all things personal, to be the onely begotten Son of God: other things are ascribed to Christ in respect of his office, and which do belong to him in regard of both natures, either of them always remaining distinct in Essence, properties and operations: now if we speak of the Actions and Passions of our mediator, as he is mediator, the Divine Nature is the principal cause of them, and the human Nature in reference hereunto, but the instrument all; these Titles of Christ Jesus belong to him in a different manner; to be called Jesus or Saviour; belongs to the Son of God, denoting the final cause, but to be called Christ, that is, King, Priest, and Prophet, appertaining to his Office by divin●●vocation, that he might save us: this latter is a suitable means to the former, as the end thereof, hence it is, that those Actions and sufferings of Christ, which were requisite for his Office, and that end for which his Father sent him into the world, as to die for satisfaction of our sins, to triumph over the Devil, do belong to the same person according to both natures, he who was highest became voluntarily man, that he might be a meet person to save us. Observe the perpetual error of the Adversary, that he doth not God also, which is the controverted question betwixt us, there is not doubt at all that Christ was true man, but that he was onely a man, neither the titles Christ Jesus, nor any circumstances in this sacred text, Phil 2. can evince, but the quiter contrary, these names and titles are distinct not confounded, and are of a different importance, though they do belong to the same person, as for those places quoted out of Saint Luke, to show that he was Christ, as he was a man anointed; we grant the person was anointed, but it was not touching his Divine nature, but in the human nature the Texts do speak of the Incarnation of Christ, and by Cousequence and logical Deduction, if not expressly of his Divine Nature, Luke 1.35. as it is true, that thou Mary shalt be with Child of the Holy Ghost, and so continue a virgin, notwithstanding this Conception, in that thou( carnally) knowest not a man, so is it also true that the Son which thou shalt conceive and bring forth, shall be the Son of God, the reason is taken from the prophesy of Isa. 1.7. v. 14. therefore in the Text is not referred to the Conception of Christ, as the cause of his Divine Sonship, he shall be called, i.e. declared and manifested to be the Son of God, which Declaration was in time, but he was the Son of God before all time, his name was Emmanuel, Matth. 1.20. not so called when he was circumcised, but it was nomen naturae& officii, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the Prophet Isa. Hence is the Virgin Mary called the Mother of God, not the Mother of the Deity in the Abstract, yea, and in this Text to the Philippians, 'tis said, he was in the form of God; he was not onely the Son of man, but he was also the Son of God; as in regard of his human nature, he was onely the Son of man, so in his Divine Person simply considered, he was onely the Son of God his Father, and albeit we cannot say, Christ as he is man, is the Son of God, yet may we truly say, this man Iesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and so all things in Christ, as I often said are double, natures and properties, persons onely excepted; the wisdom of Christ, as he is God, is infinite, the wisdom of Christ, as man, is tantum non infinita, far above the wisdom of men and Angels. bid. Thirdly, he doth not say, that the Son thought it not robbery to be equal to the Father, which words would indeed have plainly thwarted those formerly cited out of joh. 14. The Father is grater than I, but that Jesus Christ thought it not robbery or a Prey to be equal with God, which cannot be in respect of essence, for he must either have the same essence in number, or a different one, not the same essence in number, for then he will not be equal with God in essence, but the same for equality must be in respect of two things different at least in number, otherwise it will not be equality, but identity, thus he that is equal to another in stature, must not have the same stature in number with the other, but different in number, though the same in kind; but the Adversaries hold that the Father and the Son have the same essence in number, and not in specie or kind; if Christ hath an essence in number from that of God, if it must needs also be inferior thereunto, there being no essence equal to his, as every one will confess, wherefore equality aforesaid cannot be in respect of essence, but of something else. Answ. It is good to change for the better, time was when Mr. Biddle gave the sense thus, Christ did not account it a prey, i.e. he did not assume or arrogate to be equal with God, or seize upon equality with God, oh what corrupted and deceitful dealing was this, {αβγδ}, signifieth properly a prey or booty in war taken from enemies, and so 'tis holden fast say you, as men hold fast their lands and necessaries for this present life, yet Abraham, Gen. 14.23. as David 1 Sam. 3.26. held not fast the spoil of enemies, Christ counted it no prey, no robbery, no injustice to be equal with God, {αβγδ}, and to be looked upon as God, or appearing, like God, but to be equal with God, as may be discovered by Saint Luke 6. c. 34. to receive from others as great benefits, equally valuable, that is, the Son of God was of the same real power and Divinity with God the Father, the Adversary is now ashamed of the aforesaid interpretation, eton against Knowls, page. 141. and at the end of the book, page. 7. and now retracts it. The Lord was really and eternally God when he came down from heaven, and was in Majesty and all the Divine Attributes equal to the Father, for though the Father is not here expressed, nor the Son, yet both must of necessity be understood, for is not Christ the Son of God, and how can a Son be conceived without relation to his Father? besides, is there any other God( to speak ad hominem) but God the Father? if none other, than without all evasions, God the Father must needs be meant, nor can any made God take place here, for is not the Son of God above them all? surely he is not equal, but superior to them, observe, how by the Adversaries confession, if it had been said, the Son is equal to the Father, the words had directly thwarted our Saviour, The Father is greater than I am: But without controversy, Christ saith, he is equal to God the Father, we can readily untie the knot, and reconcile these seeming Contradictions by a Distinction, he is equal, as God, but unequal as man, but Mr. Biddles which denies the two natures in Christ can never do it, but he is entangled in the Briars and Thorns, and so scratched, that he knows not which way to turn him. The Father and Son I grant are one in Essence, albeit there is a difference in their manner of having the Deity: the Son is consubstantial to his Father, according to the Deity, and consubstantial with us men according to his Humanity, yet with this clear difference the Son of God hath the same individual nature with the Father, because it is infinite and not capable of multiplication but the Humanity of Christ being finite, is not one with ours in number( for every singular man hath his own individual nature) but one as they say in kind, but your Supposition if equal, then one in Essence, is a mistake, if I have not forgotten the little logic and skill in metaphysics which I had sometimes learned, for no Essence or substance, as Essence or Substance, can in that notion be equal to another. It is congruous to say, that upon the Unity of Essence is founded identity, upon the Unity of the Divine Attributes, is founded similitude, and upon the Unity of Divine magnitude is founded equality: magnitude in God, is not magnitudo nobis, said perfectionis essentialis, if essential perfection: there is I grant, the same Power, wisdom and Eternity in God the Father, and God the Son, for these do absolutely belong to God as God, in these the Father is not greater than the Son, for they are equal, equality is a property belonging to quality, or as Logicians speak to the same degrees of quality; it is true, as the Schoolmen speak, that the Divine esquality doth not in the formal conception thereof include the Essence, nor the Relations of original, but it imports the Essence fundamentally, and the personal relation of originals, praeexigitive but there is a most pefect equality in the Divine Attributes, which have the consideration of greatness, on which equality is founded, and this greatness is one in number with the three Divine persons, as by consequence, the Unity of equality is greater in this mystery, than the Unity of equality in the creatures, because in the former it is only numerical, but in the creatures it is specifical, there it is indivisible, but here it is divisible: there are three infinite eternal persons, and yet there are not three infinite creatures, & gubernantes omnium, be cause there is but one God, but one onely Divine Essence in wisdom, power and goodness equal in honour and glory, appears, because the Son as well as the Father hath life in himself, the Son searcheth the hearts and reins, as well as the Father, the Son quickeneth whom he will, as doth the Father: the Son hath equal power with his Father, both in heaven and in earth, and reigns with the highest authority, all men and Angels are bound to worship the Son as they do the Father, if then the Father be infinite, the Son is also infinite, else should there be that proportion and equality betwixt them, as we have shewed there is. bid. Let the equality consist in whatsoever you will, it must be simplo and absolutely or else onely in part, since Aristotle according to the common notion of men, acknowledgeth in his Categories, that equality admitteth more or less; not simplo and absolute, for then God would not be the most High, who hath another simply and absolutely equal with him. Answ. Equality to speak of that which is actual, and not potential, presupposeth always a comparison betwixt two at least, for nothing can be equal to itself properly, improperly it may, and as the same thing be diversely considered, as Scaliger de subtle. Exercit. 300 saith Equality in Mathematicis, est quasiquaedam unitas magnitudinum, at unitas ab unitate non differt, est enim quantitatm aequalitas idem quod identitas substantiarum, a man may be like himself in a sort, Why then not equal to himself, as Caesar said in an Epistle to Cicero, Nihil malo. quàm& me mei similem esse,& illos sui, the Apostle saith, that false Apostles measured themselves by themselves, 2 Cor. 10.12. and its an usual thing, such a saying was done by such a man like himself, that is, according to his ordinary practise, well or ill yet properly as nothing is sibi simile, so can nothing be equal to itself, nor can it be said,( if we will speak as we ought to doin disputation) as you do, that which is equal is absolute, because to be equal is a Relative Term, Aequale est aequali aequale, and it is a Contradiction to say, they which are equal do admit co nomine of more or less, there are qualities indeed which may be intended and remitted, but quantities caunot ex parte sui, and it is a rule in Aristotle quiter contrary to this Assertion, quamtitas non recipit magis& minus, for if the one be more or less in real or virtual quantity, then as Logicians speak, the comparison is drawn from unequals, either a majore ad minus, or contra in other respects, things compared together may be more or less, but you destroy equality, if the one in that comparison be greater or lesser than the other, for it is a rule in logic, mutatâ affectione mutatur Argumentum. Otherwise say you, God is not the most high, yet in comparison of all creatures, they are infinitely below him, but not most high exclusively, in regard of the Son and holy Ghost, as I have formerly shewed. bid. Besides that description would be superfluous, which the Apostle useth, saying, He being in the form of God, for if this Description be,( as indeed it ought to be and is) pertinent to the thing in hand, it intimateth that this equality of Christ with God ought to be extended no further, then as he was in the form of God, but the form of a thing, as appeareth from the common acceptation of the Word, and from that following clause, he took upon him the form of a servant, and also from those words, Mark 16.22. after that he appeared in another form unto two of the Disciples, is something visible and outward. Answ. This Description of Christ to be in the form of God, is so fat from being superfluous to prove his equality with the Father, that it is the most certain and infallible ground thereof, nor could he have been equal to God the Father if he had not been in the form of God, the Text saith not the form of God became man, that is, the Divine nature simply and absolutely considered, but he that is the person, which was the Son, being truly God became man, and by a natural and unavoidable consequence, he was equal to his Father, this is enough to overthrow all your building, this form of God doth not signify the Divine Nature simply and precisely, and notionally abstracted, but the Divine Nature with Divine Majesty, glory and power, and then this is the sense, Christ who was God full of glory and power took on him the form of a servant. Whereas you say, the form is something visible and outward, sometimes it is so, but not always; for form signifies not onely an external shape, but sometimes an inward form, of itself invisible, the forms of all natural things, as all Philosophers know, are internal, and invisible, and so is the form of God, the Divine Nature a most simplo infinite being, in●t self not seen, and yet in some sense Saints and Angels in heaven do see the face of God, and in such a sense the form of God 〈◇〉 s●●le, not onely to the sacred Trinity, and to those ceastial furstances, but in the effects thereof his form is delared and mainieffed ●t some times to mortal creatures, and in this sense he being first in the form of God assumed, afterwards into his person the form of a Servant, that is, the human nature, with the natural infirmities to which it was obnoxious. The place in Mark 16.22. proves nothing at all, sometimes the form of a thing is taken for the external shape thereof, therefore it must be taken so in this place, this Inference is apparently false, I add that this form supposed the true substance of a man. What was this form in which Christ appecare●? i● proves no real change that he had another form in regard of his colour, eyes, countenance,& stature like unto Polypus changing his shape often; this other form was onely in the apprehension of these two travellers, and it is spoken {αβγδ} according to their apprehension, and this appears by Saint Luke, which sets down more langely the same story, then S. Mark, and saith, Luke 24.16. That their eyes were held, that they did not know Christ. Why should their eyes be held? Doth not this imply, that their not knowing him, was not because Christs body was diversified from itself but because God by his providence so disposed and held their eyes, that they were ignorant and knew not that it was Jesus that talked with them, they saw a traveller that he came to them, journeyed with them, and discoursed with them, and therefore {αβγδ} in this respect signifies a true man with his outward appearance, and the case was then like this, a stranger walks with us, and converseth with us, suppose the space of an hour or two, though we know not his country, his name, his course of life, his form was the form of a man, and he is a true man, though we be ignorant of such particulars. bid. The equality is neither in the Essence nor power of any thing, but onely in the exercise and Demonstration of power, the Son of God was equal to his Father, in regard of the Divine power of working Miracles, and in regard hereof he was also in the form of God, as the Apostle John explaineth it, John 5.18. saying, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not onely broken the Sabbath, but in saying God was his Father, making himself equal with God, which is not so to be understood, as if Christ by calling him Father, made himself equal to God, for this is a manifest absurdity, since the very appellation of Father implieth a Prerogative above the Son, in that a son, as he is a Son is beholding to the Father for his being. Answ. The foundation, that is, the interpetation of this Text given by the Adversary being destroyed, how can such Inferences stand upright? First, I say these words are neither true, for you have not yet proved, nor can prove, that the Son of God is not equal to his Father in regard of the Divine Power, nor do they agree to your own words, page. 10. there you say, the Divine Power was within Christ; the Exercise then of his Power was visible I grant, but not the power itself, who sees that which is within a man, but by the effects? nor are they but short of what other Socinians hold, not limiting the form of God, to the Exercise and Demonstration of the Divine Power of working Miracles, but to extend it to the government of his Church, and to the worship which is exhibited to him. Your Exposition is so short, that if it be true, Christ should not now be in the Form of God( which you will not avouch) because no visible Miracles are now wrought by him. Secondly, The words agree not to the Adversaries Position and Exposition of the other words, the form of a servant denotes the human nature, with human infirmities, and by proportion the form of God must signify the Divine nature with Glory and Power, and the Exercise and Demonstration thereof when he pleased. Thirdly, the Adversary crosseth the words of the Article, saying, Christ in working Miracles was equal to God, for I would willingly learn of him, how the second and subordinate cause can be equal in working with the first and supreme cause? Where there is equality, there may be co-ordination, but no subordination, as you grant there is in working, and if they be equal in their Operations, why not in Power, Glory and Worship. This assertion of this equality cannot be satisfied, for this power exercised by Christ, was either finite, or infinite; for there is not, nor can be name a third, if you will say it was finite, I do then conclude, that it was not equal to that which is infinite; if infinite. I then demand, how that which is finite can be so far advanced, as to be capable of that which is infinite? can you show any probable reason for that which you boldly pled for, that any mere creature should make use of the infinite power of God when it pleaseth? is an infinite power instrumental to man? what is this else but to make a Creature the first cause, and Gods power, which is God himself, to be subordinate to him? To the exception of the Jews, John 5.18. they objected, not against our Saviour simply, because he wrought a miracle, but because trey in their superstitious rigor adhering to the Letter of the Law, thought he had violated the Sabbath days rest, Christ replieth to this. God my Father, whose example I do follow did not so rest on that day, but that ever since he sanctified it, he hath done works of mercy and preservation every day, and why may not I his Son do so also without reprehension? but the chiefest cause indeed why the Jews were angry with him, was, because he called God his Father; and made himself thereby, as they justly inferred, equal to him, and in the former verse he saith, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work: wherein we may note three things: first, that the work of the Father and Son is one work, the same work is common both to the Father and the Son, wrought by the same Divine power, in that he useth the present tense, doth work: this is proper to God, to whom all things are present. And thirdly, that he always wrought the famed works with his Father, he worketh hitherto at all times, the works are the same: and hence in the fourth place did the Jews infer, that he made himself the natural Son of God, and equal with his Father: the Jews truly conceived this to be the meaning of Christ, though they did not believe him; but Mr. Biddle is more dull then they were, and doth neither appprehend the meaning of the words so well as the Jews, nor believe them. To your Argument I answer, that there is a prerogative of a Father above a Son in human, but not in divine generation; this Arguing is falacia non parium, tis a matching and comparing things together as equal, which are in the main unequal; for it cannot be proved, that there is in Biddles sense a prerogative in the Divine persons either in nature, or divine Attribute, the Father( as is not desired) is a Principle of the Son, and yet to speak properly, the Son was not beholding to his Father, for his being, as by an uncouth phrase, the Adversary speaketh, as children are to their Parents, who do voluntarily, and in time beget them, but God the Father necessary and from his intrinsical Principle begets and could not do otherwise but beget his Son, and therefore from all Eternity begot his Son, and therefore is he co-eternal with his Father. bid. Again, the words would have run thus, thereby making himself equal with God, not simply making himself equal with God, but because by uttering those words, John 5.7.17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, he did both say, that Godwas his Father, and in working made himself equal with God. Answ. It is lost labour to spend precious time about such trifles, the Adversary seeks a knot in a bulrush, and being ready to sink by the weight of this clear Scripture, catcheth at a rotten stick, which will do him no service; for from whence I pray you did the Jews collect, that Christ made himself equal with God? was it not because he wrought the same works which his Father did, and chiefly because he called God his Father, his natural Father, and consequently, that he was not himself his adopted, but his natural Son? and it is a hard Task to show how Christ could be equal to God in working, if he was not equal to him in subsisting. bid. Furthermore, had Christ been simply and absolutely equal with God, how could he be exceedingly exalted by God, since by this reckoning he would become higher than God himself? which is not onely absurd, but blasphemous to imagine. Answ. The person of Christ, or whole Christ was equal to his Father, and thus, he could not really be exalted to God in regard of essential glory, yet in regard of the manifestation of that glory obscurd( as it were) and veiled by our flesh, as the Sun by a cloud, he may be said to be glorified by his Father, John 17.5. as Saint Ambrose observeth de Fide contra Arianos cap. 8. though whole Christ was equal to the Father, yet the whole of Christ was not equal, he had a human nature, which was truly inferior to God, and in that, and as he was a Mediator, he was highly exalted, and sits at the right hand of God, and gloriously triumphs over his enemies, protects and advanceth his loyal subjects, and is honoured and worshipped by them. Your inference, if Christ be equal with God, and exceedingly exalted by him, then he should be higher than God, who is most high, is both absurd and impious, this he seems to have learned from Paul Best, who strongly, as he soolishly thought, argued against us from our own Principles, if Christ be equal to his Father as touching his Godhead, then by the addition of the glory superadded to the human nature, he would be higher then the highest, chapter 5. for to add to equals makes them unequalls, I answer, this rule is good, and holds infinite things, but not when we do speak of the infinite God, for God contains eminently and virtually all created perfections, insomuch that the whole world adds nothing above Gods perfection, intensivè and whether it adds extensivè is not material, and I leave the decision hereof to the determination of the Schools, for as an imaginable addition of millions of years to Eternity, doth not make Eternity one jot longer than it is, so the assuming and glorifying of a created being, taken into the personal Union of an infinite being, can add nothing in greatness to the invisible, and indivisible God, What is a drop of water, that falls into the Sea to make it greater than it is? and suppose it should imperceptibly do so, yet would it not follow, that God could be made greater than he is by the addition of any created excellency for the Sea is finite, and God is infinite, and betwixt these, two there can be no equal proportion? bid In the fourth place, had the Apostle here spoken of the human nature, he would not have said, that Christ came in the likeness of man, and was found in fashion as a man, for if man,( as the Adversaries must hold, when they allege this place to prove that Christ assumed a human nature, and became man) be considered here according to their essence and nature, this would imply that Christ had not the essence and nature, but onely the likeness and fashion of a man, and so was not a true and a real man, by man therefore here are meant vulgar and ordinary men, for so this word is elsewhere taken in Scripture, as Psalm 82.6. Ye shall die like men, Jud 16.7. Then shall I be weak and become as one of the men, and verse 11. like other men. Answ. Take notice( Christian Reader) how the Adversary contradicts himself, and so palpably that he cannot salue it, and when he would hurt he helps us, he had not the Essence and likeness of a man, and so was no true man, and by men are meant ordinary and vulgar man. Are not these true men? He was like vulgar and ordinary men who denies it? As by the form of God, is not the Divine Nature clothed, if I may so speak with glory and Majesty? which is in itself nothing but the Divine Nature, albeit it is by a rational conception distinguished from it, so do we understand by the form of a servant the nature of man, with the ordinary infirmities thereof, nor doth it follow from hence, that he was not true man, but rather the contrary, for likeness here, is not of representation, but of identity and participation, he took on him the form of a servant, so un●ting the Godhead and manhood together in the unity of person into one Christ, as the reasonable soul the flesh is united into one man, a distinction there is of the Natures, but no Confusion of Substances. He was made in the likeness of man, the Apostles meaning is, he took not on him the Nature and qualities of Angels, but he took the seed of Abraham our nature into his person, and with our nature all the properties thereof, as the Faculties of understanding, willing, which are inseparable from the reasonable soul, and those accidental ones, which are separable from man, which belonged to him in the state of humiliation, all defects which are without sin, and which do belong to the condition of all men, as to be mortal, hungry, thirsty, weary, heavy; he was conceived in his mothers womb, like other men and continued in that dark place, the same length of time, that ordinary conceptions do, he was born in the fullness of time, and his mother gave him suck, as other mothers are accustomend to do to their children, he was obedient to his Parents, as all other children ought to be, he had all sinless infirminties, which are natural and not personal, because he took not the person, but the nature of man into his blessed person, so much and no more can be inferred from these words. bid. Fifthly, when it is said( but emptied himself, this implieth, that if Christ had not emptied himself) of that divine form, he had thought it a prey to be equal with God, which cannot be without the implication of a contradiction, or which is worse, of blasphemy, be affirmed of God, but Christ had thought it robbery or a prey, to be equal with God indoing miracles if he had not laid aside the Exercise and Demonstration of divine Power, and if he had not fallen into the hands of his adversaries, as a weak and vulgar man, for unless he had done so, he had disobeyed the commandement of God, and consequently thought his Divine form to be a prey, not a gift of God, and that it was to be kept on for his own Glory, not put off for the Glory of God. Answ. There is little sense or reason, much less sound Divinity in this long misshapen Consequence, and a false interpretation of Christs emptying himself, which imports that his manhood was not forcibly imposed upon him, but that he voluntarily descending from his Majesty, was partaker of our misery: the Angels which kept not their first estate were cast down from heaven, and reserved in everlasting Chains under darkness, unto the Judgement of the Great Day, but the Son of God, when he was equal unto God in fullness of Power, Glory, and Majesty, abased himself, and of Almighty, made himself full of infirmities, and of immortal, mortal. S. Chrysostome doth most excellently and copiously discourse on this Text, and saith, it is an active two edged sword, which cuts in pieces a thousand Enemies or ranks of men which oppose it, because nothing can withstand the sharpness thereof, of this force are the words of the Spirit, whereby he casts down the Heresies of Arius, a Presbyter of Alexandria, of Paulus Samosatenus, of Marcellus the Galathian, of Sabellus the Lybian, of martion of Pontus, of Valentinus and Manes the Lybian, of Apollinaris of Laodicea, of Photinus, of the Sophronii, and of us heretics, which are all cast down to the ground with one blow: it is a comfortable Spectacle to see all Enemies, and the Power of the Devil overthrown with this Sword of the Spirit; after this General he runs over the Particulars, what Paul speaks of Christs emptying himself is not spoken, but in reference to what follows( it is not in those words specified how he emptied himself) he was in the form of God, as the precedent words declare,& had he so continued for ever, it had been the loss of our happiness, but no diminution of his own Glory, and least any Christian should conceive, that albeit he was glorious, yet was he not so glorious as his Father, but unequal and inferior to him. The Apostle wisely prevents such erroneous conceits, and informs us in express forms, that he was equal to his Father, and if one should further inquire, whence this equality betwixt them should arise, he tells us, that he hath it not by violence and unjust usurpation, which to be sure could not possibly be attained by unjust means, as our first Parents by a proud disobedience endeavoured to be like him Gen 3.5. S. Chrysostome argues acutely, if Christ was far inferior to God, how could he possibly snatch power, and forcibly raise himself to be equal with God! a man cannot by any rapine make himself equal to an holy Angel, nor can a horse, if he would attempt it, raise himself up to be equal with man, shall we commend a private mans low estate, when 'tis apparent he cannot be a King? he is then equal by nature and eternal generation, and albeit he had never been made flesh, but remained always in the form of God, yet the son of God, without any unjust usurpation or robbery( which is done by them which ascribe equality of any thing with God,( as you do Mr. Biddle) which is not God) the son I say, had been equal to his Father then follow those words, but he emptied himself, viz. by being made man, to suffer and die, to make a reconciliation betwixt God and man, for which condescension and obedience, his Father highly exalted him, whereas had he been a mere creature, and the Father his Lord by Creation, his humbling himself to death, could not have been satisfactory and in reference to the Father, would not have been thanks worthy; his obedience was onely in the human nature, but he emptying himself to become flesh, was a voluntary condescension, full of glory, wherein the Fathers will concurred with his, to glorify both justice and mercy towards God and man, which plainly proves that Christ did not by compulsion but voluntarily veil his glory in our flesh. for he pefectly knew his own greatness, and his equality with the Father, and that he might if his pleasure had been so, have retained it without cover, as he had formerly done in heaven, and that from all eternity, or openly shewed it to all with whom he conversed on earth, if he had pleased so to have done, but out of his surpassing Charity to man for his salvation, he as it were laid aside his glory for a time of his own accord, I mean the m●n festation of it, knowing that it should break forth again, as the Sun out of a cloud, and shine in his full brightness. This is a cle●r Paraphrase of this Text, but the Advesaries offer violence to it, and is irrational, and confounds those things which are to be disjoined, wherein is Christ equal with God, it is say you, in the exercise of a Divine Power, 1. In working Miracles, and this was the form of God, but Christ was in the form of God, before he was in the form of a servant, as the Socinians grant, but he was in the form of a Servant, as soon as he was man. 1. Subject to infirmities, hunger, thirst. 2. Subject to the Law, as Circumcision, Gal. 4.4.3. and of a mean condition. Besides, form is sometimes so taken for an accidental, and often for a substantial form, but never for an Action which is exterior, as Saint Chrysostome observes, and 3. if working Miracles was to be in the form of God, then the Apostles which had the gift of working Miracles, were also in the form of God, which is never in Scripture said of them. 4. I add Saint Chrysostomes Reasons, The form of God is opposed to the form of a servant in this place. Now what is the form of a servant? Is it not to converse with other men like them in an exterior form? it signifies not a work, but the nature of men, in appearance like other men: 5. and it is not onely a Contradiction, but blasphemy to say, that a Creature can be equal to the creator, in any imaginable perfection, to say, that Gods Poweris communicated to him, either this must be intrinsically, so that the man Christ should be omnipotent, which is impossible, or extrinsically, because the omnipotent God dwelleth in him, the Apostle then had spoken nothing touching the singular excellency of Christ in kind, for on this account the holy ones should be equal with God, for they are all of them the Temples of God, in which he doth dwell, we may observe that Christ is said, to be made flesh, but never to be made God, This form of God say you, is a gift of God. I do distinguish of gifts, a gift is either accidental to him to whom it is given, as faith, knowledge, Ephes. 1.2, 8. faith is the gift of God I have given thee ( Salomon) wisdom, or essential; God giveth to every seed its own body, 1 Cor. 15.38. this form of God may be called a gift actually given in time for us, John 3.16. but not a gift in your sense, as he was in the form of God, for he was so before all time, the Divine Nature being communicated to him by eternal generation. I add, that it is against experience to think a man cannot have a gift from God, and know it to be so indeed( as in the extraordinary gift of tongues and working miracles) but he must think it to be a prey and not a gift of God, if he useth it not to his honour that gave it; it is true that the holy One in all miracles wrought by him, and when he manifested his Glory to his Disciples, sought not his own glory, but the glory of God; yea many gifts are held forth and held fast which are not a prey, as Eloquence, Beauty, Strength, Houses, Friends, yea, when some of them cannot be kept at some time without Gods dishonour, and that in suffering times. Further, seeing, as you say, he was to lay aside his Divine Power, that he might suffer according to the Will of God, it is consequential that this gift was not equally in God and in him, but that he was in the use thereof subject to God, and would not act in this kind in as free and uncontrolled a manner as God himself, which is contrary both to your own Exposition and the truth. Mr. Biddle concludes his long and tedious discourse and sinful pains, to corrupt this precious Text by false Glosses, with an admiration, and in a triumphing manner, as if he had quiter discomfited his Adversaries, and clearly won the Field, and yet let the Reader well observe, that notwithstanding all his shifts, he hath not brought one instance, nor possible can he do it to show one instance, that form is taken any where for an external and visible action, which yet of necessity must be done if he look to win any credit to his wretched forgeries, Biddle. I can never sufficiently wonder at the stupidity of men, because Christ Jesus thought it no robbery to be equal with God, do conclude, that he is therefore God; for is it possible for any man to be equal to himself? must not he that is equal with any one, be supposed not to be he with whom he is equal. Answer. And I do also wonder with you, and at your wonder, and do tell you-that were you not hardened with affencted ignorance, with the power of prejudice and self-conceitedness, you would not shut your eyes against the lustre of the brightness which shines forth out of the Text, to prove the deity of the Son of God, you would not take such groundless fancies as you have done for real truths, not unlike herein to a child which takes the raiking of the clouds to be an Army of men; it is true, as you argue, one cannot be equal to himself, because every comparison requires more then one, God the Son is not equal to God the Son, we are not so stupid to avouch it, but to God the Father, God the father, and God the Son, are one in Essence, not in personality, are you a writer and pretender to Learning and know not this? May not he that runs red this in Gods Word, and in all orthodoxal Writers? but it seems, that you to make an impression on ignorant souls by the help of a word, viz. God, which is of various significations, will profess at least not to see that which one would think you cannot avoid to see, that God is taken essentially, when it is said, Christ was in the form of God, and personally when it is said, he was equal with God. I will close up this Discourse on this Text, by recollecting& representing to the view of the Reader, the Arguments which this singular Scripture holds forth to prove the Deiy of our blessed Saviour. He that is equal to God, is God, The Son of God is equal with God, Ergo No accidental form can infer equality with God, for whatsoever God is, and whatsoever is in God, is the Divine essence, which is always one and the same. 2. The form of man which the Son of God assumed, was not essential but accidental then Christ was not true man, as in this member true man is described, so by the same reason, by the form of God is proved, that the Son of God is true God, Tertul. contra Mar. l. 1. c. 20. ●3. The concession of the adversary evinceth it, for whosoever represents God the Father in Power, Life, and Works, he must needs have the same nature with the Father, for none can perform the proper actions of another equally which partakes not of the same nature and essence, and which hath it equally or eminently, as common sense and reason demonstrate, if Glory and Power which is simply Divine, should be communicated to the human nature, then that which is infinite should, as it were, be trausfused to that which is finite, and that which is finite should be advanced to an infinite being or an infinite property, would cease-to-be infinite and become finite, now sithence the Divine properties are really the same with God himself, the human nature in this concession would be omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite, which is to overthrow the nature of a Creature. bid. Let us now proceed to other Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 8.6. To us there is but one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we through him; by all things here are not meant all things simply, but all things pertaining to our salvation, as is evident both in that he speaks to Christians and also putteth an Article before the word( all) in the Greek, which implieth. a Restriction. Answ. This Text hath been fully discussed, page. 99. and defended against the Cavils of the Adversary, and retorted against him, by sundry Arguments out of the Text itself, God as considered without persons, is not a person, not precisely Father, Son or holy Ghost, but signifies the Divine Essence, which subsists in three Persons, but here its taken for God the Father, who is described by his proper effect in opposition to Idols, he creates and governs all things, which idol gods cannot do, and the very same things are ascribed to God the Son also, as all Creatures are from the Father, so are they also by the Son: the latitude in the Text is equal to them both, but( saith he) all things not simply are by Christ, but all things pertaining to mans salvation, because he speaks to Christians, this reason is confuted by the Text, for doth not he speak to Christians also, when immediately before he mentions God the Father, and may not Chhristians to their great benefit be informed of the great works of our Saviour, in creating and governing the world? must they hear of nothing, but what directly appertains to their salvation? The second reason, is, because the Apostle puts an Article before( all) {αβγδ}, which implies a general restriction, to this I answer in a few words, why is there a restriction more in this clause, than in the former, where all things are referred to God the Father, or will you exclude him from having a principal hand in our salvation? Articles have many uses, and are not always taken by way of restriction, but as in this place by way of amplification? to this effect, there is one God the Father, who is without condescension of his Person, in the oeconomie of our salvation, from whom are all things. First of all in regard of the order of working, and his Son who makes all things, and by whom they do subsist, emptied himself to be our Saviour, and as by the absolute Power of Christ over the Creatures, the Father is not excluded from the Government of the world, no more can it be soundly inferred from those words, we have one God the Father, the Son is excluded from being God. bid. Acts 2 39. Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made this same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ, Philip. 2.9.10. he humbled himself to death, wherefore God hath highly exalted him above every name, 1 Pet. 1.21. God raised him( Jesus) from the dead, and gave him glory, John 12 44. he that believeth in me, believeth not in me( onely) but in him that sent me, Rom. 1.8. I thank my God, through Jesus Christ, that your faith is spoken of through the world, Rom. 16.17. To the wise God through Jesus Christ be glory for ever. These five places last quoted, show that the Glory and thanks we give to Christ, and the trust and hope we place in him, do not rest in him, but through him tend to God the Father, and consequently, that the Son is not equal to the Father, but subordinate to him. Answ. These five Texts are alleged to little advantage of the Adversaries, as appears by the particulars. To the first Text, I answer, 'tis to be observed, that 'tis not said, he made him God, which is impossible, but Lord and Christ; there is a double Lordship of Christ, the one is eternal, as was his Essence, so was his Lordship communicated to him from all Eternity: as Christ is God by nature, so is he also Lord by nature, for Dominion cannot be separated from Deity, hence is he frequently called Jehovah, and the Lord God Almighty, and in this sense he was not made Lord, Secondly, the Lordship of Christ is official, and this Lordship belongs to him, as he is our mediator; he was made Lord, as he was mediator, this is not a necessary, but a voluntray Lordship, which sometimes was, and might have been always separated from the Son of God, this was assumed, and by Counsel( his Fathers and his own) and taken up in time, as the Office of a mediator was, and this appertains to Christ as he is God-man, depends upon the former Lordship, is exercised by virtue of it, and it declarative of it, he was truly Lord before his Resurrection Ye call me Lord, Lord, and ye say well, for so I am, John 13.13. And he saith, all things are delivered to me of my Father, Matth. 11.27, and before his Ascension, he saith, all power is given to me, both in heaven and in earth, Mat. 28.19. and from his Nativity, he was Gods Son, and born a King, Gal. 4.4. John 18.37. and by his Miracles, which he wrought, his Divine Power was declared; so that by his being made Lord in that Text, is not the conferring of Lordship on him simply, but the more clear manifestation and execution of the Acts of his Dominion. The Scriptures alleged, Phil. 2.9. 1 Pet. 1.21. and that Acts 2.36. do show, that Christ had laid down all our natural infirmities, and a Sacrifice made to offended Justice, and a ransom paid for offenders, he acquires novum jus Domini,& novum jus Imperii, as sovereign Power over the World, or at least the Power which he formerly had, he now fully makes use of, {αβγδ}, which he could have demonstrated before, as appears. John 18.6. he struck down the Jews with a word as with a thunderbolt this dominion then was given unto him declaratively or by way of reward,& he was advanced in his human nature to the highest degree of glory that a creature was capable of. God made this God man the Prince of the Church, that he was exalted in our nature above Angels, Principalities and Powers, for the Name above every name respects every name of creatures, and not of Christ himself, for he had a greater Name, as God-man, tobe called a Saviour, and none else could be called a Saviour in that sense as he was called, and this Name he had, not onely as the Son of God, but as God and man, for whole Christ is our Saviour, it was then above every Name the Creatures had, yet it was not a greater Name than Christ himself had before this time, for he was called God, and the Son of God, which are Names of Essence, and do naturally imply Lordship, this Name in the Epistle to the Philippians was given to him in time, and there is a greater belonging to him, which he had before all time, none of these quoted places do prove that Christ was onely man, and not truly God, which yet was necessary requisite to bee done by the Adversary. Can this Writer show, that any of ours do not aclowledge all this to be true? Christ doth at this day, sitting on the right hand of God retain the Properties of the human Nature, and what ever accrued to him by his Exaltation, was onely in a finite manner. It is true, the Glory of the Son redounds to the Glory of the Father, Philippians 2.21. and that we believe in God through Iesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1.21. and Christians by believing on Christ, do not depart from the living God, but do indeed more firmly depend on the Omnipotent God, who hath raised him from the dead, Iesus Christ cried and said, He that believes on me, believes not in me, but in him that sent me, John 12.44. Where there is Antanaclysis i e. one word in the same verse is used in a different sense, if this be not granted, there is a plain Contradiction, which is not to be admitted, believeth on me, believeth not on me, viz. onely or according to the false opinion of the Jews, who believed he was onely a man, yea, an impostor, and had no Commandement from God to teach, and by consequent they were not bound to believe in him. This Scrcipture is no Disadvantage to us, but strongly proves Christ to be God, and one in Essence with the Father, in that he saith, He that believes in the Son believes in the Father, whose Commission he had, and whose Doctrines he taught, both persons equally are the Object of a Christians faith. To the last Scripture, Rom. 16.27. To God onely wise, I answer, God the onely wise God, infinitely wise, the Fountain of wisdom, and by his Son being made flesh and dying for our salvation, Gods wisdom is revealed to the World, if the first Person had been meant, the Son and Holy Ghost had not been excluded, but the creatures onely, as Saint Chrysostome hath well observed; the word onely is taken, diversely, sometimes to exclude all other persons, as Elias complained, I am left alone, 1 Kings 19.14. sometimes to exclude strangers, as Balaam prophesied when the people shall dwell alone, and Job 31.17. If I have eaten my morsels alone, and the Fatherless have not eaten thereof. In the former sense, the Father alone begets the Son, in the latter the Father alone is to be glorified, how is he simply alone when the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Holy Ghost, John 14.17. I am not alone, but the Father is with me, John 16.32. and therefore the Fathers being the onely wise God, excludes not the Son, because of the identity of the same undivided Essence both of the Father and Son. This is the most common and received answer, there is another related by learned Iunius. The Text evinceth, not that the name of God is to be taken personally, and that the Father by reason of the mention of Iesus Christ is onely meant, for Christ in a relative opposition, is considered in a twofold consideration, either according to nature or a gracious occonomie; according to nature, and so the Opposition is ad intra, as the Schoolmen speak, when the second person relates either to the first, the Father, or else to the third Person of the Sacred Trinity, and when so, God is taken Personally, but the Relation in regard of the mystery of Grace, is ad extra, when Christ hath reference to the Church, being as the head to the members, for their incorporation and preservation in the mystical body; in this respect the person of Christ is taken singly by himself, or with his Members jointly, 1 Cor. 12. and called Christ; so is Christ in this sense, the words run thus, that Jesus Christ, who is God in the Unity of Essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost, is the head and Saviour of his body by the dispensation of graces, and by virtue of the head the Church, gives Glory to him who is God alone, working in his Members effectually, Fphes. 3.20.21. It is confessed, that as we have all spiritual blessings from God the Father by the hand of our mediator, so all our returns of Prayers and praises to God for all, if they are acceptable, are by Jesus Christ, Col. 3.17. without whom none of our Sacrifices can please him, but this doth not prove, that Christ is not God, and by consequent as you say, subordinate to God, but that he is our mediator to God, and in that respect, as he is man, and mediator, inferior to him, and not as he is God, for the Glory which is due to God the Father, is due also to his Son, being author of the grace for which he is to be honoured. bid. 1 Cor. 15.25.28. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all Rule— for he must reign until he hath put all his Enemies under his feet, and when all things shall be subdued, then shall the Son himself be subject to him, that put all things under his feet, that God may be all in all. It is here said that Christ shall reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, which done he shall deliver up the kingdom to God the Father, and become subject to him, but how could these things come to pass, if Christ were the most High God? certainly by so doing, Christ should cease to be the most High God, for without controversy he to whom any one becometh subject, is higher than he that becometh subject. Answ. The sum of this Argument is to this effect, He that shall give up his kingdom, and cease to reign is not the most high God, but Christ shall do so, as the Text shows. For answer to this, we must take notice, that God hath three kingdoms in specie, over mankind, whereof the two first are in earth, and the third in heaven( though they may in regard of the same sovereign and Subjects be called one) these are grounded on a threefold right of propriety and government, Gods creating redeeming, and glorifying us, the first is natural and essential, and the other is according to the voluntary dispensation of grace, the first belongs to the whole Deity, in which kingdom the three sacred Persons do rule with equal power, Majesty and Glory, in the Unity of Essence, in all things and above all things unchangeably for ever and ever, in this sense there is no end of his kingdom, for as the ruling of God the Son doth not exclude the Father from governing the world and the Church: so the giving up the kingdom into the hands of God, doth not absolutely exclude him in other respects to reign for ever. Some Divines do make another Distinction or explication of Gods kingdom over Mankind by right of Creation, and that was over perfect man, which kingdom is never called the kingdom of the Son or redeemer, or mediator, this endured but till the fall of man, Baxter against Crandon. The second kingdom is the kingdom of the Son or Redeemer, distinguished from the other by the foundation of right, viz. redemption by it Ends, Laws and State of the Subjects, this is called by Divines oeconomium, vicarium, dispensativum regnum, for by such phrases is this kingdom of grace usually expressed: this kingdom is temporary, and belongs not to Christ, as he is God, but as he is one mediator by a voluntary condescension. Saint Paul speaks expreslly of this latter kingdom and not of the former; he that had from the beginning reigned with equal power and glory with his Father, did voluntarily humble himself( yet preserving the natural right of his Dominion over all things) to effect mans care and recovery, and to bring the lapsed disobedient Creature to a conformity and obedience to God again, and to perfect the Saints, our blessed Saviour and head doth now govern, as he useth his power to call the elect effectually,& to protect his Church in the midst of hisenemies,& at last to exalt them to a glorious condition; this Monarchy of Christ can never totally be subdued, as terrene Monarchies are, and have been from time to time, and other new Lords have sate on Thrones and ruled them, neither force nor fraud, nor the gates of hell can possibly prevail over the Church; this rule and Dominion our mediator hath received from God, and doth most holily govern at his commands, and shall continue to Govern till he hath put all his Enemies, the Devil and his Angels, all the wicked of the World, sin and death under his feet, and having completed this blessed work, he delivers up the kingdom, as having no longer any enemies to disturb these happy Subjects, this is not unlike to the fact of a King, who sends his Son with Authority and Commission to protect his good Subjects against impious Rebels that molested them; this Son when he hath by Gods blessing quelled and conquered them, and settled his Fathers people in a quiet and secure habitation, returns triumphantly to his Father, and resigns up that powerful Commission, which he had vested him withal. The Case is not unlike in this great work of mans Redemption, and when our Saviour at the end of the World resigns this kingdom he doth not simply cease to govern to all Eternity, as the Father at this present rules by his Son, so shall the Son for ever rule with his Father; this resigning then, is not meant in respect of the Divine Nature, for in this respect the Son of God is equal with his Father, nor is it understood of the human Nature of Christ, for that hath been, is now, and shall be always subject to the Father, but this is meant of Christ, as he is our mediator: this way of government, when all enemies are subdued, and all the Saints glorified, will be useless, he will then openly resign it into the hands of his Father, from whom in time he received it. In a word, to close up this Section, Christ was always and ever will be the most high God, although he shall not always reign in such a manner, and by such means as now he doth. bid. Neither let any one say, that this is spoken of Christ, according to his human Nature onely, for( to omit, that this goodly Distinction is no where found in Gods word) first, this is to take for granted, that Christ hath more than one Nature, and so to beg the question, whereas it is a sign of a desperate cause, not to be able to answer Objections without taking for granted what is in controversy. Answ. It had been more for your credit( Mr. Biddle) to have passed over that well grounded Distinction of the two Natures of Christ, than by a rhetorical preterition, to have affixed an unworthy scoff, calling it in scorn a goodly Distinction, and erroneously professing, that it is no where to be found in the word of God, if this could not be made good out of that unerring Rule, we do profess that we have no reason to own it, but we are confident, that it is there,& evidently there, see Rom. 1.3 4. Joh. 1.14. 1 Tim. 3.16. 1 Pet. 3.18, 19. as hath been already& shall be more fully in due place proved. 2. Whereas you say, it is a sign of a desperate cause, to take for granted what is in controversy, I answer, to do so when a man is an Opponent and not a respondent, is a shrewd sign of a very bad or a weak Disputant, but I say, if the Adversary writes his very thoughts, he may be ranked with egregious sophisters, and fallacious Disputants, but he is to learn the very Principles of Disputation for mark my friend, you are now in hand to prove your heresy, by Objections against a most necessary and comfortable truth: the answerer bath done his part, if he can with reason deny a Proposition, or clear it up by a Distinction, or show in what Respect the Proposiitions are true, and in what Respects they are false, if the answerer will give a reason of his denial, or Distinction, 'tis done ex abundante, and more to avoid confusion, then by the strict Laws of Disputation can be required. bid. Secondly, The Apostle here speaketh of Christ as a Person, in that he speaketh of him as reigning, since none can be a King, and reign, but a Person, and that as a Person, all offices being proper to persons; wherefore they must grant, either that the Person of Christ, which they hold to be a Person of supreme Deity, delivereth up his kingdom, and becometh subject, or that his human Nature, as they phrase it, is a person, and consequently, lest there should be two persons in one and the same Subject, and so Christ not to be one but two, that he hath no other Nature or Person, the latter of which subverteth the opinion of the Adversaries, the first also itself. Answ. You have brought us as you think by this Dilemma into a great straight, but the horns thereof like those of Zedechiah, 1 King, 22.11. have no strength to push us down, and you will prove but a false Prophet. I answer then, that without contradiction of any, a person is meant by him that rules, and not the nature or natures in abstracto: but in concreto. I do yield also, that the human nature of Christ is not a person, and that( which will be no advantage to you) he resigned up the kingdom to God the Father, but I do peremptorily deny your Distinction, there is not a full enumeratition of the parts, as there ought to be, one member is wanting, either he must cease to be the most high God( which is impossible) or else( say you) his human Nature must be a person, this is inconsequent, for that person which was true God, was also true man, and the giving up of his kingdom was not the diminution of his natural and infinite power, as he was God, nor in regard of his person simply, but partly by subjection, which was evidently seen in the human Nature, and chiefly by laying down his Rule, as mediator, his work being done as a physician, that hath finished his cure, now as I have often said to the accomplishment of this medicinal work, there was necessary required the concurrence of both Natures, in the Unity of one person. bid. 3. It is worth observing, that the Apostle saith, then shall the Son himself be subject, if only a human Nature added to the Son, and not the very person of the Son, how can it be said the Son himself is subject? certainly, this place, which is so full and clear, that sundry being convinced with the evidence thereof, have abaudoned the common gross opinion of two natures in Christ, seemeth purposely fitted by God, to stop their mouths, who would go about to elude what is here spoken, to show the subordination and inferiority of Christ to the Father, by saying that the Son shall be subject according to the human nature onely, for the Apostle most emphatically saith, that the Son himself shall be subject, so that if there be any nature in him better than other, according to which he is chiefly the Son of God, even according to that shall he become subject. Answ. The scope of the Apostle is to be observed, he had proved by sundry Arguments, that the dead must be raised; he meets with an Objection, which for Substance the Sadduces, made use of against our Saviour, If there shall be a Resurrection, whose Wife shall she be, that had seven Husbands? You err( saith our Saviour) not knowing the Scripture, nor the power of God. There will be no marriages in heaven, as there are in this World, but there will be an end of the state of this World: other men which knew not the Scriptures, are ready thus to think of men when they shall be raised, what confusions will there be in the World? every one will go to the place of his former habitation, and lay claim to their Lands, because they judge the other world will be like this: the Apostle to prevent such surmises, saith, the end of the World shall be after the Resurrection, not simply, as I conceive, in regard of the substance, but the state and condition of it, and that will be when Christ shall give up his kingdom to God, that is, all the Elect shall be advanced from faith to vision in heaven, this Vicarium Regnum, is in the hands of our mediator, who is both God and man, the Father will have no communion with Creatures polluted with sins, but onely by the Mediation of his dear Son: this holy Son, as he is simply God, remaineth always the natural and eternal Lord of all things; but now, as he is God-man, the same Person of a mediator, He had all Power given him, by his Father, both in heaven and Earth, Mat. 28 and he is said to reign, as he useth that Power, to convert, protect, and advance the Elect, to clarify them from all their sins, to bridle and to subdue all his Enemies: this kingdom must continue so long, as any Enemies can hurt his Members, which being fully vanquished, he gives up this kingdom, that is; all the Elect, or his Office and government, not simply, but as he was our mediator, for he hath done the work for which he was sent into the World, as the roman dictators, when the war was ended, laid aside that Dignity and acted in their former Offices, and Christ having done his work, enjoys the fruit of his Passion, and reigns most gloriously and peaceably with the Father, and the Holy Ghost most pefectly without the least contradiction, and immediately without the holy Word, Sacraments, Discipline, without the Spirits working in the Saints, as in this life, and without a Med●atour betwixt God and us, as the Father by giving the kingdom to Christ, did not cease to be King of the Church, so Christ by giving up the kingdom to the Father, doth not deprive himself of all government, but together with the Father rules for ever, in this reasoning then of the Adversary, there is his usual fallacy, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter; the Son shall be subject to the Father; the Divine Nature simply is not subject, for that is common, as the Name of God, but the Divine Nature of the Father denotes the Essence itself, and the manner of having it, is the Father, the Divine Nature of the Son, is the Son, for it is considered, not as commune indivisum, but as determinate and subsisting in the persons, with the manner how; he is then subject, not in regard of his Divine Nature, but as touching his voluntary subjection, whereby he emptied himself, and took into the Unity of his Person the form of a servant; nature is the Principle of natural actions, but this subjection is in regard of his voluntary condescension, which is the Principle of voluntary actions, who knows not, that men of equal rank may voluntarily submit themselves to others for some good? Now that which is subject by nature, is inferiou● to that which subjects it, but not that person which voluntarily submits himself, as our blessed Saviour did for our salvation. It is one thing to say, the Son is inferior to the Father, subjectivè i.e. in the Divine Nature, another to say he is so causaliter, i.e. ex conditione naturae, See Junius against Bellarmine, Controv. 2. l. cap. 16. The Son himself shall be subject, as he was always in his human Nature, being created obedient to and depending on the will of God, and thus is he likewise inferior now in heaven, he shall be subject in another manner, because this kingdom of mediator, which though not formally, yet virtually and fundamentally is contained under the Natural kingdom, being laid aside, God shall no longer reign by the Humanity of Christ, but by himself, he shall be all in all, and this kingdom is so much more perfect than the kingdom of the mediator, as such, as the utmost End is more perfect than the Means, which are Divinely ordained, to attain that Glorious End, and as Eternal things are better than temporal; now God rules by Christ, but then, not onely the Saints, which are the Members of Christ, shall be subjected to God, but the Humanity of Christ shall no longer act in the management of this Government for the Elect as formerly, but there shall be another reason of subjection than there is at present, so Glorious shall be the Majesty of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, from thenceforth for ever, that all the happy ones shall see the blessed God reign solely, not onely over all the rest of these Holy ones, but over the Humanity of Christ itself, in the night the Sun rules, but it is by the Moon,( saith Zanchy) because the moon shines by the borrowed light of the Sun, in the night it doth not appear evidently that the Sun rules, but when the Sun is risen, then the Moon her self enlightens not the earth, but is subject to the Sun, but how? not by any new subjection, but by a manifestation to others of the former subjection, and that the Sun doth excel that Planet in glory, thus is it likewise true of our Saviour touching his humanity. Whereas the Adversary saith; the best part of Christ is subject to God, this should have been proved, which is both fallaciously and falsely spoken, logic might have taught him, that there is no good consequence from the person to the nature, from the whole to every part thereof, Will any wise man yield this to be a good reasoning: A man sleepeth, therefore the best part of a man sleepeth, that is, his soul, it follows not, or thus a man is mortal, therefore the soul of a man is mortal, a man as subjectum quod, understandeth, therefore the body of a man understandeth, a man groweth in stature, and is sometime sick, therefore the soul groweth in stature and is subject to diseases; a mans person may be in bondage, and tyrannized over by a cruel Lord, therefore his soul is not free, but in bondage, where there is no inquisition, can there be any jurisdiction? Will any reasonable man allow these consequences? and will not every one plainly perceive, the weakness of the Adversaries disputing by these few Instances? Have you never heard, that by reason of the Union of two Natures in one Person of Christ, how that is ascribed to the Person from a Denomination, which is peculiar to one Nature onely? as that which is finite, and not to the other which is infinite? Well then, when Christ shall cease to rule in the Elect, as our mediator, in which respect he is inferior and subordinate to the Father, and as man he is a part of the Church, though he is the head and most eminent part thereof, even as the first Adam was both a Root of Mankind and a Part thereof, in this respect I say, shall God deal immediately with him, as with the whole Body of the blessed ones, which shall have immediate access to his Majesty, and without a mediator partake of his Glory, and happiness, then shall our Union with God be immediate, yet so, that the Glory and Praise thereof, shall be for ever peculiar to Christ, who was the sole Procurer, and all-sufficient Purchaser of this our happy Union with the Glorious Trinity. Before I leave this sacred scripture, I will propound a question to the Adversary, and desire to know his positive resolution thereof, whether Christ in the interim now reigning in the midst of his enemies, be not truly inferior and subordinate to God the Father, and whether he be not in your sense the second cause of our salvation; if you shall have the face to deny this, then besides a contradiction to yourself in the body of this ARticle, how can you make good your Argument against the deity of our saviour, i● which you so much triumph? God is not the most High, if the Son of God be equal to him, will not this reason upon this concession fall flat to the ground? if you yield he was always subject to God, what singular thing is here to help you foretold( unless in the meaning which I have formerly mentioned) which was not always in being in the kingdom of the messiah? This Text is so far fron socinianism, that it affordeth an Argument against all sorts of Arians, and those many learned ones, which you say were converted by it, I do truly say, they were perverted, and the Spiders have sucked their poison out of this sweet Flower. bid. Rom. 10 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, that Jesus is Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, the Apostle here sets down a brief symbol of the Christian Religion, declaring what is to believed with the heart, and confessed with the mouth concerning the dignity of Christ, and which if we believe and confess, we shall obtain salvation, but how could it be, that if Christ were the most High God the Son with the Father? and had raised himself, from the dead, and that by his own power, the Apostle should affirm, if we confess with the mouth, and believe with the heart, not that he raised himself, but that God raised him from the dead, we shall be saved. Answ. All this in terms( excepting your Inference) the orthodox Christians do believe, and by so doing we are it seems in your judgement in a safe condition touching our salvation, if the bare assenting to that holy Text will serve the turn, how are we guilty then,( as you falsely accuse us) of making defection from the true God, and that we hold gross opinions touching three persons in one God, which made way for pollutions in worship, and lying now at the bottom, corrupteth almost our whole Religion in the Preface, page. 2. 2. It follows then, the Adversary himself being Judge, that a bare acknowledgement of these words abstracted from other Principles of faith, will not be sufficient to save us, for himself allegeth, John 17.3. This is life eternal,( the way to happiness) to know God the Father, as well as Jesus Christ whom he sent, and Mr. Biddle asserts another Article, that the holy Trinity consists of one God, of one Lord, and of one Spirit, and he adds the holding of this Trinity, doth nearly concern Gods glory and the salvation of man, so that to speak fully and properly, 'tis not a sufficient faith to save us, to believe and confess that God raised Christ from the dead, but this portion of Scripture must be taken in the full latitude, and many other particulars under this are to be understood, and are virtually implyed, which in other Texts concerning our Saviour, are expressly mentioned, and from thence to be supplied. Thirdly it remaineth then, that we search out the true sense, and if we grossly fail in this, which is the main and principal thing, notwithstanding a verbal profession, and a saying in general terms, you believe on Christ with your heart, and profess him to be Lord, you may be far enough from salvation, what Christian else would be damned? we say to profess, that Christ is Lord in spite of all dangers and persecutions that will attend on the profession of the Christian faith, and to believe on him with the heart, which is the original and Principle of Christian practise, our forsaking sin and the actions of a new life, in imitation of Christs Resurrection, is to profess that he is the Son of God, our Lord and Saviour, not onely by right of Creation, Preservation and Gubernation, in which respects all creatures, even the very Devils, are forced to be subject to him, but by virtue of redemption, and under the resurrection of Christ by a Synecdoche, his Conception, Birth, Life, Death and burial, which preceded his resurrection, so likewise the Consequents thereof, his Ascension into heaven, his glorious advancement, sitting at the right hand of his Father, and many other Articles of Faith, there are besides these to be distinctly and explicitly believed, but one reason why this touching Christ is specified, is because he is properly the object of a saving faith, as it is saving, now we do constantly avouch, and you can never disprove it, that this could not be done, but upon supposition that Christ was the true God, and that the infinite excellency of the Deity, made his sufferings meritorious and satisfactory to Divine Justice for us; but your confession of faith, that Christ is a mere creature, robs God of his glory, and a christians soul of true and solid comfort. Fourthly, you say, God raised up Christ, and that he raised not up himself, herein you discover how grossly ignorant you are, or wilfully bent to pervert and deny the Principles of religion, clearly set down in holy Writ, John 2.19. Destroy this Temple, that is this my Body, as is afterwards cleared, and within three dayes, I will raise it up, when you have killed it, John 2.19.21. by this miracle his Doctrine was to be confirmed, John 10.18. I have power( voluntarily) to lay down my life, otherwise it is not in the power of man forcibly to take it away, and I have power to take it up again, I am able to raise it up again, for he is Almighty, John 5.19.6.54. Revel. 1. and Apocal. 18 this is a strong Argument against the Socinians, which may be thus framed. He that can raise up himself from death to life is God, for to raise up the dead, is a work of omnipotency. But Christ raised up himself from death to life, as the alleged Scriptures do prove, Ergo he is God. Your Argument to the contrary is, he raised not up himself, because God the Father raised him, is inconsequent, the reason is because the raising of Christ to be the first begotten of the dead, Rev. 1.5. and the first fruits of them that are raised from the dead, 1 Cor. 15.20.23. is a work as they say ad extra, common to all the Persons of the holy Trinity, the Father by his omnipotent Power raised him, and the Son by the same Power raised his dead Body lying in the Grave, as the Father gave his Son to die for us, Rom. 8.32. and the Son gave himself, Gal. 2.20. the Father makes the Enemies of Christ his footstool, Psal. 110 3. and Christ himself puts all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15 25. the resurrection of our Saviour is often ascribed to the Father, not onely because he is the fountain of the Deity, and by consequence of the operations thereof, but also because of the Office of Christ, for Christ is not onely considered as dead, but as justly dead for our sins; therefore God raised him not onely as God, but as Judge, who accepted his perfect satisfaction for us, and lastly for our Christian comfort, for they are by the resurrection of Christ assured that their sins are expiated, and God is well pleased with them. bid. Certain I am that Athanasius in his Creed, is more peremptory, for he saith, except we believe, that Christ is of one and the same Essence, and consequently one and the same God with the Father, he cannot be saved: whereas the Apostle speaketh of that faith which is necessary to salvation, and intimateth that it is sufficient, if we believe Jesus is Lord, now whether Paul or Athanasius be rather to be credited, I leave it to all Christians to judge. Answ. Albeit this Creed was the composure of one man, if so it were, yet doth it not rely on the Testimony of one single Father who composed it( though famous in his time, and in all ages since amongst the orthodox professors) but on the Testimony of the catholic Church, which hath retained it in her Liturgies, and commended it to all her children, as the Buckler of the true Christian faith, as touching the Divine truths and strict exacting of belief of his Creed from all Christians that look to be saved, it is to be remembered, that it was written in a zealous opposition to the troublesone Arians, so that it doth not involve under damnable guilt, the pure ignorant, but the stubborn heretics, it doth not condemn the bare nescience, but the stiff negarion of the catholic Faith, especially in these two main points, which he so much insists upon, viz. the holy Trinity, and the mysterious Incarnation of our Saviour, the Vision and fruition of the blessed Trinity, being the chiefest happiness of man, and the incarnation of our Saviour, with the consequents thereof, being the direct means to attain it, so that there is no contrariety betwixt Saint Paul and Athanasius, albeit Athanasius out of his Fatherly care of the Church, hath a more full and exp●esse Declaration of the necessity of the catholic faith oppugned by heretics, to awaken the Sons of the Church diligently to entertain it by the terror of his Preface, as well of the Apostles Creed, page. 246. Nescit, planè nescit vitam suam, qui Christum ut verum Deum ita ut verum hominem ignorat, Hilar. lib. 9. de Trinitat. he plainly knows not his life who is ignorant that Christ is so the true God, as he is true man, the Scriptures quoted again, John 17.3. Ephes. 4 4. have been fully discussed in the first Article, and therefore ●omit them. Thus much touching the second Article. ARTICLE III. bid. I believe that Jesus Christ to the intent he might be our brother, and have a fellow feeling of our infirmities, and so become the more ready to help us( the Consideration whereof is the greatest encouragement to Piety that can be imagined) hath no other than a human nature, and therefore in this very nature is not onely a Person( since none but a human Person can be our brother) but also our Lord, yea our God. Answ. In this Article the Adversary discovers his meaning most fully, and that he dissents from the old Arians, which disturbed the Church, especially in the dayes of blessed Athanasius and at other times, which though they agreed not in all things amongst themselves, yet in this they were unanimous, that the Son of God had a created being, that God first created him before he made any other creatures, and that under God by him all other things were made, Epiphan. Tom. 1. contra haeres. lib. 3. haer. 73. who in these last times came down from above, and was conceived in the womb, and born of a pure Virgin, according to the Scriptures, and was made man, the mediator between God and men, and they believe the Articles which follow in the Apostles Creed, as is professed in a Synod at Antioch, in the dayes of Constantius the Arian Emperour: See also Socrates lib. 2. Histor. c. 14 and in the Synod of Arimine, saith the same author c. 19. the like Confession of faith was proposed and allowed in the Synod of Seleucia, idem cap. 32. And as Mr. Biddle discusseth from these Arian heretics, touching his opinion of the Son of God, so in this doth he forsake his Masters, the Macedonian heretics, which albeit they denied the Deity of the Holy Ghost, yet did they resolutely maintain the Deity of the Son of God against the Arians, and for this their Belief were persecuted by Valens the Emperour, and by the Arian Bishop eudoxus, and fled to Valentinian the Emperour in the West, and Tiberias Bishop of Rome for succour, and they exhibited to them this Form of their saith, confessing that Jesus Christ was begotten of the substance of his Father, that he was not made, but was consubstantial to the Father, and as for those who say of the Son of God, that there was a time when he was not; a time before he was made of nothing, or had any other substance then that of his Fathers communicated to him: such as these the catholic Apostolical Church doth curse, Socrates Histor. lib. 4. cap. 11: but Mr. Biddle against all these and all catholics avoucheth, that Christ hath no other but a human nature, and that he is not onely in that nature a Person, but also our Lord and God, which is ambiguously spoken with a Design to delude the people. That our blessed Saviour was true man, we to our great comfort do aclowledge, but that he is onely man, it hath been hitherto our business, and shall be in that which follows to disprove; the denial of his Deity hath a malignant influence upon the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, and overthrows where it is embraced, the unshaken Foundation of our dearly purchased Redemption: our great Adversary satan, knows full well where the greatest strength of Christians lies, Who then can marvel, if he to the utmost improves his skill, and as much as is possible to take away the lowest foundation and corner ston, that our precious faith, and hope built on him might fall to the ground? Yea, and we do further openly profess that the son of God deigning to become man for our salvation, and Eternal God is a greater encouragement, both to Piety and Humility, than if he had been onely man. Whereas you say, Christ in this nature is a person, that is, a substance which subsisteth of itself without the subsistence of the Son of God communicated to him, this Nestorian heresy we do with the Church of God detest, the Nature of man, although it be a totum essentiale most perfect in regard of Essence, yet it is not totum personale, and as they speak suppositale, nor doth it act as principium quod, said ut Principium quo, because it wants the proper, personal subsistence, and is a part to be perfected by another part, the Deity, the human nature indeed is substantia prima, the first substance, as it is called, and an understanding being, yet because it is not a substance completely incommunicable, ac ultimo subsistens, it is not a person, as it follows not, a mans hand is a living substantial body, therefore it is a person, or the reasonable soul joined to the Body, is a living and understanding substance, therefore it is a person, it is such a totum, as is a part of another totum, and therefore no person. That the Son of God took the nature and not the person of man is thus proved. First, because if the nature of man had subsisted by itself, before it had been assumed into the unity of the person of Gods Son, if it had been conceived out of the person of the son of God, then that word could not have been made flesh, as Saint John saith it was, John 1.14. Nor secondly, could it be truly said, according to the Articles of our faith, that the son of God was conceived by the Holy Ghost, besides, if the Son of God had assumed the person of man, the Son of God would be two persons, the one created and the other uncreated, but it is impossible for one and the same Son to be two persons, if the human nature had been a person, it would follow in the fourth place, that the word could not be truly called man; for one person cannot be another, nor predicated of another, Peter is not Paul, but this eternal word is man, and truly called man, and in the fifth place upon this account, it is also that the Properties of the human nature, as for example, to be born to die, to be butted, &c. are attributed to the person. God is born, God shed his blood, &c. and so on the contrary, the Properties of the divine Nature are ascribed to the man Christ, as to quicken the dead, and to give eternal life, which could not be truly verified, if there were two distinct persons, if the same person was not both God and man. Lastly, they could not be one Lord, if one of the persons was created, and the other uncreated, one of the persons finite, and the other infinite, but he is one Lord, 1 Cor. 8.6. Eph. 4.4. nay one and the self same Lord to descend down from heaven, and to ascend up to heaven, to have the form of God, and at the same time the form of a servant, to be God blessed for ever, and to be of the Father, according to the flesh Ephes 4.10. Rom 95. and therefore the Son of God assuming the Nature of man, did not take the person of a man, and consequently he is onely one person, and not two, these Arguments are strong against the Nestorians, and they do also, being taken out of Scriptures, confute Mr. Biddle, in saying the Lord Christ hath onely the Nature of man, and that this is a person; he is a true man, albeit he is not a human person, for a man is not a a man by his personality, but by his human nature, for by it be is formally a man: as a man is wise by wisdom, so a man is a man by his human nature, and God by his Deity, materially I grant when we speak of other men, the human nature doth denote a person, or that which hath the human nature. The Adversary adds, that none but a human person can be our brother, this is denied, and cannot be proved, for Christ having the same specifical, albeit not the same numerical nature with us, being conceived and born with our natural infirmities, hath learned out of his experience of sorrows to be a merciful High Priest, Heb. 2.17. and to take pity upon us in our miseries, had his human nature been exempted from the condition and properties of other men touching natural infirmities, something I confess had been spoken, but not enough, for they that have one Father, are brethren Angels, which have not a human person are the Sons of God, Job 38, 67. and so in that respect are brethren, but to wave that, sithence as Scriptures hold forth to us, that Christ was not free in the dayes of his flesh being in the World, from infirmities, which are natural: Your Argument comes to nothing; nor was it any disparagement to the human nature, to be so prevented, as it was from being a person of, and by itself, as is the singular nature of all other men, but a higher honour to be assumed to the person of the Son of God, where it is more eminently then human nature can be in a human person, as it is for the vegetative and sensitive faculties to be in the soul of man, though not the forms of man, as they are of Plants and Animals. bid. 1 Tim. 2.5. There is God, and one mediator of God and man, the man Christ Iesus, John 3.13. No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man, which was in heaven, as the Greek particle not onely may( in that it was of the Preterimperfect, as well of the Preterperfect Tense) but must here be rendered otherwise, these words will contradict these immediately going before; for how could Christ still be in heaven after he descended from thence? Again, he would as man( for he here styleth himself the Son of man) be in heaven and on the earth at the same time, which is confessed to be false, John 6.62. Answ. There is one God in Essence( opposed to all created and name Gods) who denies this? surely we pled not for many Gods, but do all of us religiously believe,& sincerely confess this fundamental Article, now God is taken either essentially, as in the third verse, Pray for all men, for this is good and acceptable in Gods sight. The Apostles Argument may thus be framed, they that have one God ought to pray to this one God ( the giver of every good gift) for one another, and therefore all Christians ought to pray for all men, for Rulers, &c. but if the name of God be taken persona●lly, as it seems to be by the restriction in the Text, whereby God is distinguished from Christ, which notes a personal opposition, and a personal signification, the scope is to show, that there is a God of all the elect,& he names God the Father, the note of Unity, but doth it therefore follow that only the Father is God, I deny the sequel, for this not only against ●he custom of the holy scriptures, but the first rudiments of rhetoric who will not allow of such an argument, as this is, when I say the Poet, I mean Homer, when I say the orator, I mean Cicero, when I name man, I understand thereby onely Adam, or the King, for onely David, therefore onely Homer is a Poet, onely Cicero is an orator, onely Adam is man, onely David is King. As we may not conclude, the word man is put for Christ onely, therefore he is onely man, no more can we justly infer. God is here put onely for the Father, therefore he onely is God. I will recite Bisterfields sense against Crellius, which he borrowed from no others, but out of his own observation, and he tells us that the natural order of the words are inverted, and thus to be placed, the man Christ Jesus is one God, and one mediator betwixt God and man, the man Christ Jesus is as the subject of this Proposition, and to be one God and one mediator, a copulative consequent thereof, as Zach 14.9. if this be the sense of the Apostle, the Deity of our Saviour is directly confirmed by it, this I onely name, let the impartial Reader judge. As there is one God, so saith the Text, there is one mediator, and this one mediator and Peace-maker, is opposed to all mediators, which are barely and nakedly creatures. This holy Scripture, as the rest recited by you, proveth that Christ is a man, but it proves not, which is the controversy, that he is onely man. The Office of a mediator is to reconcile parties that are at variance, and is commonly called a mediator of Redemption, or to unite them in a league of friendship, which formerly had not friendly intercourse amongst themselves. In this gracious mediator, both extremes do happily meet in the same person: the word which was one with God by ineffable Unity, became one with man by admirable Union; this truth doth the holy Word of God teach, this doth the Church of God believe, and this do we before God and the world religiously profess. The order of the Apostles words are to be observed, he saith the man Christ, not Christ the man; there is a difference betwixt these two, when( man) precedes, and Christ is added thereto by way of limitation, he sheweth of what man he meaneth, homo Christus notes the Person of Christ, and we may truly affirm such Propositions as these to be true, the man Christ is omnipotent, the man Christ is every where present, though the human Nature be not omniscient, omnipotent, and every where, but whatsoever Christ hath in that created Nature is finite, and he is circumscribed in a certain place as he is man; the reason of this difference is because the concrete word denotes the Person, though so denominated from the abstract, I mean the human nature: but you may not say, Christman is every where essentially present, for that is all one, as to say, Christ as he is a man is every where. Nor can we Logically infer as the Pontificians do, that Christ who is God, is our mediator onely in the human nature, I will not digress and enter the Lists with those Adversaries at this time, however both by them and us it is not doubted, that this Person whereof we speak, is both God and man, that he might be able to save us to the uttermost, that he might satisfy Gods Justice, appease his wrath, take away the sins of his people, pull down the Tyranny of the Devil, and the power of death, that he might restore Gods image in us, conser and preserve our graces, and bring us to glory; these great evils could not be removed, nor could those great mercies have been bestowed on us, unless he had been both God and man. This place then makes nothing for the Adversary, but if it be well observed, it makes much against him, because it is said, he is the mediator betwixt God and man. What shall we say onely of those that lived since his Incarnation? no verily, Christ is like the Sun in the Firmament, which casteth beams and Influences; as well backward as forward, he is a mediator for man, implying that he was not onely a mediator for men that lived since his Nativity, but that all the Elect from Adam till that joyful time were reconciled to God by him, for of necessity it must follow, that either these happy ones had no mediator which lived and died before his Nativity, which is a gross error, contrary to Gods Word, for all of them were saved by believing on the promised seed, which was to come, who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the World, and was always the same, yesterday, to day, and for ever, or else Christ was their mediator transacting the affairs of his people by virtue of his future Incarnation, and meritorious passion, which he could not possibly have done, if he had not been God, a divine person, Non entis nullae sunt operationes. Those saithfull ones, eundem habuerunt Christum in persona, non in carne assumpta, they and we had the same Christ in regard of his person, Deity, and Humanity, though not after the same manner, the faithful which lived before his Conception firmly believed, that he should come in our flesh, we in these latter times do believe that he is already come, that he hath perfectly done and suffered whatsoever was requisite for our salvation. I may further add, which is observed by others, that man is mentioned not to exclude the Deity, but because the Apostle is delighted with the elegancy of speech, for having told us in the former verse, that God would have all men to be saved, he adds, there is one mediator, betwixt God and man, the man Jesus Christ, or which is another reason, because he was presently to treat of his passion, he gave himself a ransom for us, that we men in regard he was man, might have strong consolation, and by him go boldly to the Throne of Grace in this act of Mediation, the Natures of Christ are not separated, but yet they are distinguished, none can be a mediator according to substance, that is not a mediator according to operation, nor can any be a mediator according to operation, who is not a mediator also according to substance, Camier Paustral de officio Mediatoris, lib. 7. c. 5. Your next place is Joh 3.13. No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man, which is in heaven. 1. This Text proveth( which we do not deny) that Christ is true man, but will it from hence follow, that he is not true God also? No verily, its not said, as Anabaptists do dream, that this flesh came from heaven, Angels have descended from heaven, and have assumed bodies, but it follows not the Angels brought those bodies from heaven with them, and 'tis said, the Holy Ghost descended from heaven in a bodily shape, Will it follow, that this was a celestial body? 2. I say, it is the Adversaries mishap to allege such Scriptures, which do directly overthrow his own Tenet: the scope of this Text, is to show as appears by the Context, that Christ was in the bosom of his Father, intimately acquainted with his secrets( an allusion perhaps to great Moses, that went up to God in the Mo●nt Sinai to know his pleasure, and went down from God to the Israesites to acquaint them with his holy Laws, as learned Camere guesseth). Christ being in heaven came down from heaven, was made man, to publish his fathers pleasure; this is a transcendent Prerogative, which cannot belong to any creature, the meaning is, Christ was in heaven, descended from heaven viz. the Son of man in the person of God, Synech. integri pro Membro, the cross and circulatory speech, called communication of properties takes place here, when that which belongs solely to one nature is attributed to the person denominated from the other nature, the cause whereof is the association of Natures in one Subject; or else it is an effect of the personal Union: he came down from heaven, how? by assuming our human nature, and in revealing Gods counsels to us, when he before that time, as he was God, is said to dwell in heaven, 'tis added, the Son of man which is in heaven. How in Heaven? not as he was the Son of man, that is not in his human Nature, for that was at that very time, and had been always onely on earth, and never before in heaven, behold he was here, saith Saint Augustine, tract, in johan. and he was in heaven, here he was in the flesh, but he was in heaven, yea every wh●re in his Divinity, but this was verified, if we ascribe to both natures in the person, what belongs onely to the Divine Nature, he was then at once, both in heaven and on earth, and consequently every where, and from thence fairly conclude, that he was not onely man, but God also. As for your novel criticism, whereby you go against the streams. I think of all Translations, {αβγδ} say you, may and must be rendered, was, being as well of the Preterimperfect as the Present Tense. I would gladly see an example in Scripture, where the word is so taken( unless Tropically) do not you observe how clearly these two are distinguished, {αβγδ}, which is, and which was, Rev. 18. &c. 4.8& 11. ch. v. 17. might not the Spirit, if you had been in the right, by using {αβγδ} have prevented a general mistake. 2. Besides, when had our Saviour been in Heaven( being in your sense only a Creature, before these words were spoken by the Redeemer of the World? must this man go up to Heaven to be informed there of Divine secrets, and could not the God of all the World receal them unto him without his ascention into the highest Heavens? Shall we without the warrant of Scripture say, that he was taken up thither, whether in the body or out of the body, God knoweth: This is a groundless and senseless Fiction, devised without any col●ur of Scripture, or reason to support it. 3. The words of the Text are against the Adversary, and do prove that Christ was first in Heaven, and in that he ascended thither, he came first down from Heaven, he then first came down from Heaven, which is contrary to Biddle, before he ascended thither. Wheres you give your reason, why the Text must be Translated was, otherwise there will be a contradiction, for how could he still be in heaven when he descended thence? could he be both in heaven and earth at the same time? To this we can readily and easily answer, and make it appear that there is no contradiction at all in these words, nor any necessity why the Adversary should corrupt the Text with a false and unheard of Translation; mark then Christ speaking to Nicodemus, saith that he at that time was in heaven, viz as he was God, and to show the Divine relation betwixt the Father and the Son in the unity of the same Essence, and the ineffable communication of the Father to his Son, especially in his dealing towards the Elect, be viz. Gods Son manifested his presence on earth by assuming our flesh, and even then he being the true God ceased not to be in heaven, albeit he was not included either in heaven or in earth, but within these, and without them too. The Son of man descended not from heaven as he was the son of man, that is, in regard of his human nature, for then it would follow, which implies a real contradiction that he was a man before he was a man, a man in heaven before he was a man in earth. Nor is it a contradiction to say the same person is at the same time both in heaven and earth, this is verified of God always; and to speak to the matter in hand, in reserence to Christ, it is a received rule in contradictions, that they are to be understood in the same respect; mark then the words. The Text saith not that our Lord, as he is the son of man descended from heaven, or that he came down from heaven in regard of his human Nature, but thus the son of man descends; the Reader must remember that there is a vast difference betwixt these two expessions; the one of them is true, and the other false, for the son of man denotes not the Nature but the Person, the person of the son was at once both in heaven and in earth. The Person which is both God and man is every where essentially present at the same time, but now, as he was the Son of man, that is, taken in the notion of the human nature so had he not at all been in heaven, nor descended from heaven, nor was at that instant in heaven, nor is it now being exalted to glory in earth, for a finite nature cannot be infinite, but is limited to a place. The next objected place out of the same Evangelist, John 6.62. what if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he may be free: this place is not parallel to the former, nor a confirmation of it: the same Tense here is not in the original, he that was in heaven and descended from heaven, is not in heaven, but Christ was in heaven before, and therefore he( being on earth) is not now in heaven. I deny the mayor, it is false, Christ was in heaven, but it followeth not that he is not in heaven: see your error by other examples taken out of Scripture; the world was in the beginning, therefore the word is not now, the word was with God, will it follow therefore the word is not with God: that word was God, therefore the word is not God, is this sound arguing? in him was life, therefore life is not in him, can you say so? he was in the world, therefore he is not in the world, are these Inferences taken out of one chapter of Saint John 1. to name no more Scriptures tolerable? just of this stamp is your proof to justify your corrupt translation, John 3.13. Seven times is it said in this sixth of John, that Christ descended from heaven, and by consequence he was in heaven before, the drift of our Saviour is to withdraw the Capernaites from a gross conceit of a carnal eating of the flesh of the Son of man, which as in nature was incredible, so was it not possible for them to do, if they would advisedly consider of the great distance betwixt his body and those which should feed on him, which is as great, as betwixt heaven and earth, as is betwixt the beginning of the world and the end thereof, and his end and drift was to raise up their hearts from the thoughts of a corporal to a spiritual eating thereof by faith, which cannot be hindered, by distance of time and place, and which was also in a heavenly manner done, when Christ was not incarnated, for all the holy ones which lived before his Nativity, did verily and in truth feed on him, and were in their souls nourished by that blessed food of life, for this is the strength and excellency of saith, comfortably to rely on those precious promises in Christ, which were not then accomplished, as well as on present truths; Christ then mentioning his bodily Ascension into heavean, where he had been before, though not in his body, but in his Deity, and showing also, that he shall not always touching his corporal presence converse with them on earth, and moreover declaring that he always hath been and shall be ever the food of his people, doth clearly evince the verity of his two Natures, which the Adversary doth peremptorily oppose. bid. John 8.40. Now you seek to kill me, a man who have told you the truth, John 3.14. He is called the Son of man, Matth. 9.6, 7, 8. The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, John 5.27 the Father hath given him authority to execute Judgement, because he is the Son of man, 1 Cor. 15.21.22. By man came the Resurrection from the dead, and 45.41. the second man is the Lord from heaven, Matth. 24.30.31. they shall see the Son of man come in the clouds, Matth. 16.27, 28. The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father. Dan. 7.13, 14. One like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven. Answ. The Adversary heaps up many Texts of Scripture, to show that Christ was man, the Son of man, but to no purpose, for we all of us do willingly subscribe, and do make an open profession to our solid comfort, that Christ is man and the Son of man, urge them us much as you please against such fantastics, which deny Christ to be a true man, or that he had not his flesh from his blessed Mother. I will not spend time to examine the sense of all the particulars, but will try the strength of your Inferences deduced from them, onely, I shall acquaint the Reader with the mind of Bisterfield, touching that 7. of Daniel, 13, 14. he saith, Christ is not meant by one like the Son of man, but some glorious chief King, by whose hands Christ shall destroy his enemies, verse 26, 27. because it is said in the Text, he comes to the ancient of dayes, yea is brought to him, this belongs not to Christ, he is not brought to God, and by the ancient of dayes is meant Christ, because a form and figure is given to him, but not to the Father, and because Christ is so described, Rev. 14. bid. Observe now in the first place, that the most excellent things attributed to Christ in Scripture. are attributed to him, not onely under the notion, but also under the name of man, as to be a mediator: to have ascended and been in heaven before his death and Resurrection, to have heard the truth to be believed on unto eternal Life, to forgive sins, to have all judgement, and therefore to be honoured as the Father, to be Lord of the Sabbath, to be the author of the Resurrection, to be a quickening Spirit, to be the Lord from heaven, to sand his Angels, and to gather his Elect to come in his kingdom, and render a reward to every one according to his doings, to have an everlasting Dominion given him, that all Nations may serve him, why then should we imagine another nature in him, besides his human to sustain his Dignity? Answ. Glorious things indeed are spoken of Christs humanity, but I do deny that the most excellent things are spoken of Christ under the notion of a man, for some things are attributed to him, which were merely Divine, as the Attributes of God, and the Decrees which are immanent acts, and some works, as creation, gubernation and others, which do not appertain to the human nature, at least not primarily, as to give grace, forgive sins, &c. but onely instrumentally, not that it is a separate instrument, as a Saw an Axe is to the Carpenter, but conjunct, as the human body is to the reasonable soul: this and the like to these most glorious things are truly verified of him who is the most High God, nor can they truly appertain to any created person. Now that you may not complain, that we do vilify the human nature of, our Saviour; be it known unto you, that we do warrantably pled for many glorious privileges, which you do unwarrantably deny to his great dishonour. First, that he was conceived without the seed of man, not apart from the person of the Word, and Secondly, that it alone was assumed into the Unity of the person of the Son of God. Thirdly, that the properties of either nature are really attributed to the other in the concrete, that is, to the person by virtue of that Union. Fourthly, that in the Offices of the messiah, each nature hath its proper operation, with communion of the other, the properties and differences of each nature being entire to itself. Fifthly that whole Christ, God and man, in both natures is present with and governs the Church, as the head is present with the members: these are Prerogative and glorious things spoken of the human nature, which you Mr. Biddle will not in a true sense ascribe to him. Besides, glorious things are spoken of Christ, in regard of the grace of Unction, which albeit, it is not in its own nature infinite, but a concreated being, yet in the nature of grace, it had no limitation, the reason here of is, because grace was given to Christ, not as to a particular, but to an universal cause, whence it was to be derived from him to others, for of his fullness we all receive grace, 1 John 16. our light is from his Son, our water is from his unexhausted fountain, our sap from his root, and congruous it is because of the grace of Union, the human nature being united to the word, that he being nearer the fountain and prime cause of grace than any other creatures, should more abound in the degree and quantity of grace than all others: the nearer any one is in blood to a King the fountain of honour being taken in that consideration, the more honourable he is, so that in respect of God, these graces were most meet for our Saviour: 1. That he might most exactly do his Fathers work, and glorify him. 2. In regard of himself, that he might be a meet and all-sufficient mediator, and 3. In respect of his chosen people, that they might receive all good, both spiritual and eterna from him. To your question, why should we imagine another nature in him beside his human to sustain his great dignity. First, I must tell the Adversary, and I desire the Christian Reader, to observe it, that he doth not fitly speak as it becometh a Divine, nor agreeably to the language of Gods holy Spirit; we do not say, nor hath Gods word taught us to speak in that manner that the nature of man is sustained in another nature, for the divine nature as simply and absolutely such considered, was not made flesh, for then no doubt, all the three persons should have been incarnated, which to affirm is not consonant to Scripture, and the catholic faith, but it was onely the Son of God, or the Divine Nature of the second Person of the holy Trinity, which did sustain the human nature, and the great Dignity conferred on it. 2. Do you Christian Readers, abstract the human Nature of Christ, I do not say that this can be really done, but let it be done in a mental consideration from his blessed person, and then I do avouch, that all the graces, which were plentifully bestowed on the human nature, could not have enabled him to be a King, a Priest, a Prophet, our Saviour, our Judge with qualifications, to perform those sacred Offices for our eternal happiness, he might have been I confess a happy man in regard of himself, but considering that it was Gods pleasure, that his Justice should be satisfied, or else man should never be saved, he could not have been a happy Saviour for us: besides it must not be forgotten, the Man, and son of of Man do note the Divine Person, though so demoninated from the human nature. bid. Secondly observe also that the Scriptures in the aforesaid quotations, whilst they call Christ a Man, speak of him as of a Person, in that they speak of him as a Mediator, ambassador, Saviour, Lord, Judge, or King, all which are the names of persons, all actions and offices belonging only to Persons as such, wherefore Christ according to his human Nature is a Person, and consequently( unless we will absurdly hold with Nectorius, that he hath two persons) he cannot be a Person in the Divine Nature. Answ. Thus may this Reason be framed. If the Scripture calleth Christ a Person, naming him Mediator, King Judge, and speaketh of him as man in these offices, then he hath only a human nature: the former is true by the inspection of the Quotation: Ergo, he hath only a human Nature and Person. To this I answer by granting that all these recited titles which are predicated of our Saviour, do denote a Person, and not simply Nature, Person is that Quod est, as the thing that is, and the Nature is that Quo est, whereby it is such a being: the condition of personal being, addeth to an individual nature, a negation of dependence, or of being sustained by another, every individual ra●ionall Nature, which is in and for itself is personal being; to be this or that in and for another, is to pertain to the Person or subsistence of an●ther: these titles then attributed to our Saviour Christ do plainly proclaim that he was a Person, and this you will yield; yet I deny this inference, therefore Christ according to his human nature is a Person, they are glorious expressions of such a Christ as we do pled for, but altogether inconsistent to a Creature; Christ which is your vilifying assertion, whole Christ according to his Deity and humanity, is a Mediator, a Rede●mer, a King, a Priest, and a Prophet, a Lord, and Judge of all the World, and which is more then another kind of Adversaries the Pontificians will grant, who yet do soundly prove both his Natures; he is our Mediator according to both Natures, as the nature of man was truly given and communicated to the Person of the Son of God, and hereupon he is truly and really man; so the Person of the Son of God was as truly communicated to the Nature of man, that it might subsist in that Divine Person, that so it might not only be holy, but the holiest of all, even the Son of God, yea, and truly God. Hence is there ( as I have often said) a communication of the Divine properties to man, not by physical communication or effusion, as the heat is from the fire, which is inherent as an accident in the water; for if so then would there follow a confusion and conversion, and an equalling of the natures, and natural properties, but this communication is personal, whereby the human nature subsists in the Person of the Son of God, and it is called the Grace of Union, which is in regard of the thing that is, the personal subsistence graciously bestowed on the human nature in the Virgins womb, was infinite; yet observe that the relation of dependency founded on the human Nature, whereby it is {αβγδ}, united to the Person of the Son of God, is a finite and created being. Whereas you say all actions are of Persons, this is not true, unless it be understood with caution, hath the soul of man no distinct actions when it informs the body, and when it is separated from it? We do believe, that as there are two Natures in Christ, two Wills, two kinds of properties answerable to their natures; so that there are also two kinds of operations in him, all such are double in him. Divines do call the actions appertaining to the office of our Mediator, Divinely human, or Humainly Divine; the Person, I confess, the Quod that worketh is but one, not two, and {αβγδ}, the work which is produced by the actions flowing from two principles thereof, is also but one, and called elegantly {αβγδ}, in reference to God, the principle is Divine, and as man is an inward principle, 'tis a human action, and upon this account it is, that the works of our Mediator performed by both Natures, are otherwise ascribed to the Person in respect of the Divine Nature, for instance, in miraculous works, and to give the Holy Ghost by his efficacious power, the divine is the sole efficient principal, otherwise to the human, viz. by intercession, impetration: the conclusson is, you have not by all these texts proved the human Nature to be a Person, or rather to have a human personality, but they do effectually prove that it is united to that Person which is infinite, and which hath all perfections eminently in it, and consequently that it is a high honour for the human nature to he there, when it would never have been in, and for itself in such a transcendent manner of excellency, as now it is, whence it is also that the actions of the human Nature have in them a greater perfection then can be found in the actions of any mere man, arising from the assistance of the Deity, which dwelleth {αβγδ}, personally, and essentially in him, Colos. 2.9. bid. Deuter. 18.15. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, out of thy Brethren like unto me, unto him shall ye bearken.( You see here, that Christ for this is a prophesy concerning him, as Peter testifieth, Act. 22) was to be a Prophet; whom the Lord God of the Israelites should raise up unto them of their Brethren like unto Moses, and therefore did not already exist in the time of Moses, much less was he the Lord God, unless any one will be so absurd as to say, that the Lord God can raise up himself for a Prophet. Answ. This Section may either be true or false, as it is capable of a various interpretation, if the Adversary meaneth, as he must according to his own principles, that the Person of the Prophet did not subsist in the dayes that Moses Prophesied of him, as in some sort future, then it is false and justly denied by us, for The Word was in the beginning( of the Creation) 1. John 1. and himself, whose witness is undeniably true, saith of himself, Before Abraham was I am, and then of necessity it must follow, that it was also true, Before Moses was I am, and he was in a comfortable way always, the Prophet of the catholic Church: and this is one Reason among others, why he is called The Word, the ambassador of his heavenly Father, the Angel of the Covenant, counselor, and by such like titles. But how? this office he powerfully and savingly performed from the beginning, but it was done in reference to the human Nature to be assumed into the unity of his Person, he always by his Spirit repeated the Divine Truths which were to be believed and practised, and that for the most part by the Ministry of his Servants deputed to that office, and he was the person that always enlightened his people in all ages with saving knowledge and other sanctifying Graces. It is very true that he did not subsist both God and Man, till many ages after this prophesy of Moses, we are far from such a dotage to assert that the humanity of Christ was eternal; but we say, that he was only in the form of God, till the fullness of time when he took flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary, Gal. 4.4. and whereas you infer much less was he the Lord God that raised up himseife to be a Prophet, this is granted in a sense. he raised not up himself totaliter to be a Prophet in both Natures; nor was he the Lord God that raised him up: but it doth not from hence follow, that he was not the true God, this work being a work ad extra, excluded no Person of the holy Trinity from the production of that nature, but terminatively, this appertained only to the Son of God, which assumed this human nature into his Person. Besides, consider Christ in that respect, as he was really raised up, to be a Prophet in time, which was accomplished in the human Nature, and so is he not formally the Lord God, for who will or can assert the humanity of the Son of God to be very God? bid. Acts 2.22.23.26. God by Jesus wrought miracles among you, as yourselves know, being raised from the dead, and exalted at the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father: he hath powred out this which you now see and hear, and God hath made him Lord and Christ, The words of S. Peter, as well as those Ephes. 4. formerly discussed, give clear and full evidence touching the several natures, order, and dignity of the three Persons of the holy Trinity, for first in that Peter here calleth Jesus a man, and saith, that God wrought miracles by him, this sheweth that he was not God himself, nor wrought miracles in his own proper power, but was only the instrument of God in working them. Answ, That Jesus Christ was truly man none of ours do make any question, and that he did also work miracles as he pleased, and when he would; the History of the Gospel doth clearly hold forth, as also that God by him wrought those wonderful Works, but for better understanding hereof we are to take notice that Christ is a Receiver from another by three degrees. First, as he was the Son of God, he receved his Divine Nature by eternal generation; and thus he hath one and the self same numerical substance with, and from the Father only, the Father is alone originally that Deity, which Christ is not originally; whatsoever Christ thus receiveth, he hath it naturally and eternally, and tis not bestowed on him by way of favour and benevolence in this respect Though God the Father works miracles by the Son, and an order is observed in working them, yet is not the Son of God subordinate to him, or an instrument of these glorious works. Secondly, Christ is a Receiver in this particular, that the human Nature hath had the grace, the greatest grace that man was capable of, to be united to the Person of his only begotten Son, in this he differeth from all men, because he is that man of whom God is himself a part. Thirdly, from the Grace of union is derived the Grace of Unction, by means whereof sundry eminent Graces have followed as effects from the Deity into our nature, which is joined with it, enriching our nature with such degrees of grace and influences of the Deity, both into the soul and body proportionable, to the great employment of our Saviour, and to his own purposes, ends, and Counsels, and we will not stick to grant, that God by Christ in respect of the human Nature was the principal, and our Nature the instrumental cause of working miracles. We do further from these miraculous Works conclude, that our Saviour is the true God, for God alone works wonders, and our Saviour convinceth the Jews his maligning opposers, that because he hath power to work miracles, he had power to forgive sins, Mat. 9.5. which none but God could do, for the clearing whereof we may take notice of three kindes of works wrought by Christ our Saviour, as Sophronius in that notable Epistle of his doth distinguish them in the sixth general Synod, Activ. 11. First some are merely Divine. as to create the world. Secondly some are merely human, as to eat and sleep, and such like natural actions, the formal principle whereof is the human Nature, yet to be considered as existing in the person of the Son of God, and not without it: these were actions of the Mediator, because they kept him in the being of a Mediator, but not parts and actions of his mediatorship, as the Israelites eating and drinking in Egypt, was no part of the task of brick imposed on them, but qualified them to perform their task. Thirdly, some actions are partly Divine, and partly human, I instance in most of the miracles of our Saviour, as one is, to walk upon the waters, for as simply to walk on them was a human action, yet to give firmness and solidity to the liquid waters( if the miracles was in the waters) to bear up the weight of his heavy body, or if the miracle was in the body of our Lord, by holding it up, or otherwise that it should not sink; this I say, was an action of the Deity: thus was it also touching other miracles wrought by our blessed Saviour, both the Deity and Humanity concurred to their production; but in different manner, as in healing the sick, giving Sight to the Blind, Hearing to the deaf, Raising the Dead: the efficacy of the Spirit of the Deity, as the principal cause was seen in working the miracle, and the human nature concurred instrumentally both in respect of his body and his soul, in regard of the former, that he touched them, or they him that were to be healed, or spake to them as to Lazarus lying in the grave, Come forth, or commanded the Devil to come out of them that were possessed by him; in respect of his soul, that he desired, approved, and rejoiced in that supernatural work, which the divine power brought to pass, this shewed that the human nature neither had, nor possibly could have that Divine power residing in it to work miracles, but it was onely the Instrument of the Deity in these words of wonder. Bid. Secondly, When he saith, that Jesus being exalted at the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Ghost from the Father poured it out on the Apostles, this argueth, that he gave the Holy Ghost as a man, since he neither could be exalted by God, nor receive the promise of the Holy Ghost from the Father, for according to the supposition of the Adversaries themselves, the holy Spirit proceedeth from Christ, as he is God, as well as from the Father, and consequently the holy Spirit himself is so far from being God( in as much as it is absurd, yea impossible that God should be received by promise from any one) as that he is not equal to Christ, as man, since his exaltation, because he that is given and disposed of by another, must be inferior in Dignity to him that giveth him. Ans. The Son of God, which did first humble himself by taking our nature upon him, descended afterwards much lower, and in regard of his flesh became obedient, so far as to suffer even the cursed death of the cross for our salvation, hecause it was his Fathers will and pleasure that he should do so, he thus dying and being butted, was brought to the lowest condition, insomuch that his wicked enemies thought, as the brethren of Joseph did, when they had sold him to strangers, that they had so taken him out of the way, that they should never again be troubled with him; but see to our unspeakable comfort how much they were deceived? as Christ by his manhood had glorified God on earth, in his suffering, so God hath glorified that human nature, and exalted him in Dignity, far above all Angels and men, and he now sitting at the right hand of God, hath fullness of power over the whole world, and fills the Church with the gracious and happy fruits of his saving presence, and exerciseth the Dominion, wherein the humanity o● Christ is inseparably united to the Deity of the Son of God, but doth this concession touching the human nature infer a denial of the Divine? in no wise, this is done by no better logic, than by our asserting one constituting part of a created person; to think it convincing, that there is no other, as if I should say, this man hath a body, and prove plainly that he hath so, therefore he hath not a soul, and suppose it onely without proof. You infer that Jesus Christ gave the Holy Ghost, as a man, this quatenus and Inference is denied, this follows, he that gave the Holy Ghost was a man, and his manhood was inseparably united to the person of the Son of God, and is no where actually severed from him but the conjunction with the Deity is extended as far as the Deity, though the actual position thereof is restrained to a limited place; the infinite word is not divisible into parts, and therefore could not in part, but wholly be incarnated as the light in the beginning, which was created by God did enlighten the Creation, but after the Sun and stars were created, the world was illuminated by them, so in our present case, the Deity which before our Lords incarnation wrought all things without man, doth now in the affairs of the Church work nothing wherein the assumed nature of man is absent, or not in a sense co-working with it: the promise then of the holy Ghost( to clear the meaning thereof) is the holy Ghost promised,& it is in another place called the promise of the Father, Act. 14.5. or the promise which Christ gave the Disciples from the Father, which was meant of the liberal gifts of the spirit,& this comforter he promised to sand to the Apostles, Joh. 14.16. and 16.7. now Ss Peter allegeth this promise, and 33. c. 2. that the Jews might undoubtedly know that this great gift of speaking with tongues was not suddenly given but that our Lord Christ was faithful and true to perform his promise made to them, the Father of our Lord Christ poured out the holy Ghost on him, not as he was God, for that was not possible, but as he was our mediator, to prepare& furnish him with gifts for that high office, the human nature of his divine person must have eminent graces conferred on it without measure, not simply infinite, because that nature is simply finite; observe then, Christ receives this promise from his Father, as he is our mediator, and he sent the Holy Ghost on the Apostles as he was God; it is the office of our Mediator, as he is our Mediator to reconcile us to his Father, and to confer on us his servants in some degree, what he receives from the Father, so far as is expedient for our salvation. Our supposition is a true position, that the Holy Ghost proceeds both from God the Father, and God the Son, in an ineffable and provable manner to us, but not from man, nor is this procession properly in time, but from all eternity, whereas you say that Christ gave the Holy Ghost, as he was man. You mean by his human glorified nature, this we do absolutely deny, and we are sure you can never prove it, the Son of God which is our happy Mediator, gave him to his Disciples? but how was he given? in regard of the plentiful gifts which he bestowed on them; he was from the beginning given to the Elect to sanctify them, and in regard of common Graces to Reprobates also, but not in that ample and great measure as he was given in the latter dayes; the Holy Ghost thus was not given, because Jesus Christ was not yet glorified, John 7.39. which is clearly meant of the Holy Ghosts visible descending upon the Disciples in the appearance of cloven Tongues like fire, Acts 2.2.33. by which he should give testimony of the truth of all that Christ had said unto them, John 15.26. and secondly testify also to others, that whatsoever they should teach was also the will of God. and so authorize them to give solemn testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and give them commission and graces to discharge their whole ministry, as choice Witnesses now designed by him to declare to Israel, and not only to Jews, but to Gentiles also what Christ had done, and preached in their presence, and that he was risen from the dead. Dr. Hammond on Act. 1. Note is, see also John 6.4.7. He that was man gave the Holy Ghost, but not as he was man. Mr. Biddle that sits doth writ, but not as he sitteth; he sitting doth eat, but not as he sits, for then every one that sits should writ and eat: This is a transparent fallacy. You tell us( in a Parenthesis) that it is impossible that God should be received by promise from any, 1. Consider well, and this will prove the Holy Ghost to be God, because he is at once received of many, and of those which are distant one from another; 'tis a strange creature to admiration that can be in this Apostle; and in others essentially as far remote a East from West, in this place and not in that which is contiguous to it. 2. Secondly, it is no absurdity at all, no false assertion, but a Divine Truth full of heavenly comfort, that God the Father by his Son should give the Holy Ghost, who was essentialy every where, and in all times present to be in another way present, that is, according to promise, graciously present, and in a special manner to dwell with his Servants: See my answer against Biddle in defence of the Holy Ghost, 7. Reason. The Holy Ghost( say you) is not equal to Christ as man, since his exaltation, because he gives and disposeth him. To this first I answer, that the Holy Ghost is so far from being inferior to the human Nature, that he is in that respect superior to him, not only because in that consideration he sent Christ, Esay 61.1. This is a strong Argument against the Adversary, because he would by this prove the Holy Ghost to be inferior to God, but because he received his created being from him: He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Mat. 1. as also because he was corporally raised from death by him, Rom. 8.11. and Christ himself saith, It was a greater sin which is committed against the Holy Ghost, then that sin which is committed against the Son of Man, Mat 12.31.32. 2. But the Adversary seems to grant that the Son was not greater then the Holy Ghost. till his exaltation. First this crosseth his Exposition of Phil. 2. when he was in the form of God, and equal to God, was he not then the second Person of the holy Trinity, and greater then the Holy Ghost? 2. I deny that in his human nature he was, when exalted greater then the Spirit of God; the Argument is too weak to prove it, and false, for the human Nature gives not the Holy Ghost to the Servants of God, but tis the blessed Father by the Son of God; it is the Person of the Son, and not the human Nature in a separated consideration that gives him. Thirdly, although the Holy Ghost be given in regard of his Graces by the Son of God, yet doth it not follow that he is inferior in dignity to him that gives him; the Son of man gives himself for us,& is given for us, yea and the holy Ghost doth give himself to us, because his grace is from his free and absolute power, The Spirit blows where he will, John 3. and divides to every one his Gifts as he pleaseth, 1. Cor. 1.2. See of this largely my answer to his 7. v. against the Holy Ghost. Touching the word ( disposing) The Spirit is disposed by Christ, we do utterly disclaim it, being no Scripture-term, and apt to misled the ignorant. bid. Finally whereas he saith, that God hath made this Jesus whom the Jews crucified Lord and Christ; this intimateth that Jesus as a man for neither could any other but a Man be crucified) was made Lord by God, and therefore that his human Nature is a Person( since nothing but a Person can be made Lord,) so that we need not feign to ourselves any other nature in Christ besides his human to sustain his Lordship; wherefore by this passage it plainly appeareth that the Trinity, which the Apostle Peter believed consisteth of God the Father, of the Man Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the Holy Spirit the gift of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Answ. The Text hath been fully discussed above p. 1067. which doth well prove that the human Nature was a Person, but that he was a Person that was made Lord, which none of us deny, and that he was raised and honoured by his Father, not simply, as he was the Son of God, and really in the Divine Nature, which is most high. But that he was in his human Nature annoynted to be King, and to have the regency and dominion of the Church, which is so to be understood, not that he in his manhood was simply before that time without possession of the same power, but because the full use thereof, and the exercise of this power was suspended, till the state of his humiliation, which veiled Divine Majesty, was laid aside, and this also shall cease, when there shall be no Church militant to govern, no enemy to subdue and annoy his chosen ones. Touching the Description of the Trinity feigned out of your own brain, I say at present, the Son of God by being made flesh, hath changed the manner of his personal subsistence, which before was solitary, but hath now associated the human Nature to his Person, without any alteration accrueing thereby to the Nature of God: the Son of God I say is the second Person of the glorious Trinity, though not so denominated by his human Nature highly exalted, for upon this account the blessed Trinity should not have been at all till above four thousands of years after the Creation, which is irrational to conceive: the Holy Ghost is now and ever was the third Person of the holy Trinity called a Gift, but not such a gift as is subject to the command of a superior, nor such a gift which is in the power of another to dispose of at pleasure, betwixt God giving and this gift given, there is co-ordination, and no subordination, and consents with the Father that gives him, and gives himself graciously, it is consensus amicitiae non imperii, he is denominated a gift in time. bid. And shall I never thelesse be induced by I know not what forced consequences of men repugnant to reason and the stream of the Scriptures, in despite of so signal admonition proceeding from the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to believe that Christ as to his Nature, is not only a Man, but that very God which did these Miracles by him, and made him Lord and Christ? far be it. Answ. Mr. Bidddle might boast of himself to this effect: Shall such a one as I am, enamoured with the strong delusions of satan, and embracing carnal Reason, an empty shadow in stead of solid soul-reviving, and soul-refreshing truth? shall I who am so highly conceited of myself, that I do slight the judgement of the ancient Fathers, of modern Writers, and of the catholic Church, albeit grounded not only on immediate, natural and necessary consequences of Scripture, which are the objects of divine faith, but on many clear and express Texts of holy Writ which I have sweat and laboured in vain, as the Disciples which fished all night and cought nothing, to elude with my cursed glosses and forced interpretations? shall I so far abase myself as to writ Retractations, and cry mightily to the Lord to pardon me for dishonouring his dear Son, and doing injury to his Church, by seducing unstable souls? shall I who yet have not learned to put a difference betwixt Person and Natures, betwixt concrete and abstract terms stain my cheeks with the blushings of Recantations? far be it from me so to do. The Adversary cannot apprehended how the human Nature should be united to the Divine,& I can as little conceive how at once it can subsist in the same subject, which you will have to be but a mere Man, the greatest Power, and the greatest Infirmity; the Fountain of life, and Mortality, power to raise up the dead, and the weakness of Nature, which is subject to hunger, thirst, fear, and to death itself. It's true indeed that Reason after all its advancements and improvements, must stand far off in Atrio Gentium, it cannot by its own principles enter into the Temple of God, and discern these abstruse mysteries, yet by divine help and revelation it may do something this way, nor should it seem absurd to the Adversary, that the Son of God should be incarnated, for themselves confess, that God by his Grace dwelled with Christ in a peculiar manner, whereupon he is called God; why then may not the Son of God right himself in a singular manner according to essence, to the humanity of Christ, who is essentially present to all things. Nor is it a strange thing, but usual and lawful to confirm Articles of faith by consequences deduced out of holy Scriptures: thus did our Saviour Christ confute the saducees, and proved the resurrection of the dead, Math. 22.23. by a consequence out of Exod 3.6. and Paul proved, that Jesus whom he preached was the Christ, by opening the Scriptures to them in the Old Testament, Act. 17.2.3. and Act. 26.22.23. genuine consequences are to be credited, as the plain word itself. bid. Esa. 9.6. Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called wonderful, by reason of his exaltation, which is so strange and wonderful, that even the greatest part of Christians cannot believe it, and therefore imagine another Nature in Christ, besides his human Nature, as thinking a man uncapable of so transcendent exaltation. Answ This is a slander groundlessely raised against the Orthodox, both in regard of his human Nature, and Divine; in regard of the human Nature, for none of ours do deny, but do profess the great and transcendent exaltation of our Saviours Humanity to be far above principalities and powers, above all Angels and every created Name; in regard of the Divine Nature your slander is insinuated, as if we believed not that it was simply infinite, and altogether uncapable of exaltation. Secondly, the Adversaries Exposition is without any Warrant, nor is it full, but by much restrained, for he is wonderful in regard of his Person, being both God and Man in one Person, he is wonderful also in his Conception, Nativity, and wonderful in all his Offices, &c. bid. counselor( in acquainting us with the counsel of God) a mighty God( by reason of the Divine Empire over all things) both in Heaven and on Earth conferred on him by the Father, agreeably whereunto Paul calls him a God over all, blessed for ever, Rom. 9.5. Answ. Christ is called a counselor, not in a Passive, but Active sense, not because he was made acquainted with Gods Counsels, but for giving counsel, Esa. 40. who as a counselor hath taught him? he was joined in Counsel with his Father from all eternity; yet will I not deny, but he was also a counselor in your sense, because he acquaints us with the Counsels of God, by what means we may attain eternal life. A made God is not a mighty God El Gibbor is a mighty God in a proper sense appropriated to the most high God of Israel. I reason thus: The strong God is truly and properly the most high God, the God of Israel, Iesus Christ is the strong God. Ergo. The mayor proposition is so evident, that no instance can be alleged to weaken the truth thereof: this epithet of strong doth not weaken or change the strength and signification of the word God, no more then the like titles, by calling him the great God, the living God, the just God, and the like, but it hath use to distinguish him from made Gods, who are not mighty Gods but weak men, or Angels, and at the command of this mighty God, albeit separately, El God is attributed sometimes to Magistrates, Psal. 82.1. and Gibbarim, mighty to the Captains of Nebuchadnezzars Army, Ezech. 32.12. yet in this Scripture, these two jointly are never attributed to any but to the God of Israel. Thus is God described, The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob to the mighty God. Nor doth this title only distinguish the true God from all other Gods, but it is added to the name of God, when he is described in his glory and magnificence, Deuter. 10.17. The Lord your God is a God of gods, a great God, a mighty and a terrible God: the like also Nehem. 9.32. and Jerem. 32.18. Thou art the great the mighty God, the Lord of Hostes is his name: yea, and it is added to the name Jehovah, for the greater Emphasis; who is this King of glory? the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle, Psal. 24.8. The Minor is proved by the words of the Text, and Christ is declared to be a mighty God by his working of Miracles by his own power, by sending the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and raising up the dead. Who can think this man was well advised, and not rather void of common sense, that he hath the face to allege this Scripture to prove our Saviour not to be true God? bid. A Father of the Age, as bring the Author of the Age to come, as both the Septuagint and the old latin Interpreter expounds it, or else a Father of eternity, in being the author of eternal life to all that obey him. For to render the word as the English Translators do, who here call Christ the everlasting Father, is to confounded the Person of the Son with that of the Father, and so to introduce Sabellianisme. Answ. How could a child be called the Father of eternity, if he was nothing else but a child new born? and if he be so called because he is the Author and Fountain of Eternity, how can he be so called who was a mortal child? you say he is so called, because he is the Author of the age to come of eternal life to them that obey him. I grant that he is so indeed, both by the merit of his passion, which you do impiouslly deny, and by efficacy also, both which depended on the worthiness of his person being God, there can be but one Author of the glorification of the Saints, which is the most high God, and do you intend by this Title to exclude the first Person of the sacred Trinity from being the Author of Salvation? Doth he so leave this work to his dear Son, that he himself is not the principal Author thereof? Is not the future Age more excellent then that which is past or present? It is a greater honour to be the Father of the future Age, than of that which is past and present, that then which is less is ascribed only to God, and that which is greater and more is ascribed to Man only, and is he called the Father of eternal life in the abstract, and not in the concrete? Is he not a Father of them which have eternal life communicated to them by him? Is the Church called the Mother of us all, Gal. 4.26. and shall not the Spouse and Husband of the Church be called the Father of us all. The word {αβγδ} taken absolutely, and by itself, as here it is, doth never precisely signify the Age to come, but it is a Divine Title of God himself, who is said to inhabit Eternity, Esa. 57.15. and it signifies properly re●petuity of being, without beginning, without any succession, 〈◇〉, or ending, go as far backward as you will, and his Name is {αβγδ} yet; and as far forward as you will, and he is Father yet; tis a title that properly cannot belong to any creature, and proves in truth Christ to be the high God, for how can he who by nature is onely a man, be the Father of Eternity? God always is one and remains the same; this divine Eternity, which is an Attribute of him who is by nature the true God, and in time manifested himself in our flesh, is considered either in regard of God, and so it is simply without parts and succession of time, we do illustrate this to help our understanding, by comparing it to an indivisible point, or to a moment of {αβγδ}, God doth co-exist with all things that are, he is totus& totaliter with them, and Creatures do co-exist with the whole eternity of God, yet not totally, but by parts and succession. You cavil at our Translation which loseth not the sense of the place, by turning it everlasting Father; it is the idiom of our English congue to translate the Substantive in the original by the Adjective, Gen. 21.33. The God of Eternity ●s turned, the everl●sting God: The God of Antiquity( Deuter. 33.27.) is translated, The eternal God, and Arms of Eternity, eternal or everlasting Arms: and who would carp at this Translation but Mr. Biddle? Lastly, whereas be faith this Translation confounds the Persons of the Trinity, and introduceth Sabellianism: I do deny the consequence, the Adversary takes advantage of the Homonimy or various signification of the word Father; for Father hath relation to his Son, this is Relatio ad intra, and so in this consideration the Son of God is not the Father, but distinguished from him. Secondly, Father is taken for the Creator of all things, and the God of Nature, Job 38.28. Hath the rain a Father? none but God, or who hath begotten the drops of the due: as if he had said, None but I myself. Thus not onely the first Person of the Trinity, but the Son and Holy Spirit are Father of all created things. Thirdly, a Father is taken for the author of spiritual graces, as the Divine persons are one in essence, so are they one in Fatherhood, and the Son is called the Father of Eternity, not onely because he with the Father created all things, but because we are by him the adopted sons of God, elect and regenerated to inherit eternal life. bid. He is the Prince of Peace, when the Prophet here saith, that the child which was to be born to us, and the Son that was to be given to us, and the Son that was to be given for us, should be called a mighty God, he sufficiently intimateth, that Christ in his human nature should be a mighty God, so that we need not fancy any other nature in him. Answ. Is Christ the Prince of Peace. Doth not this title demonstrate him to be the most high God? he might have been called and acknowledged to be the way and means of Peace, but not the Prince of Peace, who can at his pleasure give Peace, unless he had been the most high God? Nor doth the Text say any such matter as you do intimate, that he was the great God, in that he was a child: it is manifest that these titles belong not to a child as a child, but to him that was a child, and such a child as was more than a child, more than an ordinary man: there is a great deal of difference betwixt these two, Christ in his human nature is a mighty God, and the Person that was a child, is a mighty God: by calling him child it is declared, that he in time was to be born of his Mother, but in saying, a son is given,( this is not a needless repetition of the same preceding thing) he points with his finger to the eternal generation of the Son of God, Cramer. Schola prophetica in locum: there is a double Nativity of our Saviour, the one is temporal, in that he is called a child, this from his Mother, the other eternal, in that he is called a Son, he was born from the deep beneath, as he was a child, and from the height above as he was a Son, Isa. 7. and this is from his Father; the same person which was an Infant in regard of his Mother, is also an eternal Son in regard of his Father, council of Trent, 2 Can. and this Person doth exercise in both natures, albeit in a different manner, the threefold offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, for our salvation. bid. John 20.28. Then said Jesus to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing; and Thomas said unto him, my Lord and my God: observe how Thomas here calleth that man Iesus, whom he saw and felt, his Lord and his God, but directeth not his speech to I know not what second person or subsistence of God, which he neither saw nor felt. Answ. Who can imagine that this Adversary will at any time want proo●, that Christ is onely man, when he allegeth a Scripture to this purpose, approved by the Lord himself, which directly and in express terms asserts him to be his Lord and his God? Thomas Didimus suddenly by a kind of holy admiration, and not without taking shane to himself, for his former incredulity was convinced, partly by his Resurrection from the dead, and partly by his perfect knowledge of what Thomas had spoken privately to the Apostles, that he was not onely man, but Lord and God, the omnipotent God of heaven, yea, his Lord and his God; he alludes, as Zanchie guesseth to the Text in the Law, Deut. 6.4 where he is called the Lord our God, the Evangel●st turns Jehovah, following the Septu●gints by {αβγδ}, Thomas spoken the Hebrew then in use, and called him Jehovah, nor might the Jews call any, but onely the most High God by that name, and the enlightening understanding of Thomas carried him from the sight of Christ-man, to believe on Christ-God, and by what was wrought in the Humanity and discovered by the Lord to Thomas, he acknowledged h●s Deity, as Calvin speaks to this purpose excellently, and do not we red how Moses and the Israelites, when some visible sign of Gods presence was exhibited to them directed their Divine Worship to the invisible God which they saw not. bid. Joh. 10.34, 35, 36. The jews answered him, saying for a good work we ston thee not, but for Blasphemy, and because that thou being a man makest thyself a God,( and so it is in the Greek) Iesus answered them, is it not written in your Law, I said ye are Gods, if he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? had Christ been endued with a Divine nature besides his human, and did his Godhead consist therein as the Adversaries affirm) it would have been necessary for answering the jews here to have declared it, they objected unto Christ the crime of blasphemy, for that he being a man, made himself a God, doth he therefore to decline the imputation of blasphemy, resort to an eternal generation, or hypostatical union of natures saying, if he call them Gods to whom the Word of God came, say ye of him whom the Father eternally begot out of his substance, so that he is very God, co essential, equal with the Father, and in whom the human nature is hypostatically united to the Divine, thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? nothing less; but on the contrary he sheweth, that he is therefore the Son of God, because the Father hath sanctified him, and sent him into the World, and so not for having the Divine nature united to the human, but for the sanctification of the Father. Answ. Our grand Adversary the Devil cannot endure the Doctrine of the Deity of the Son, whereby his head was chiefly broken, and therefore he provoketh his choice instruments to accuse it as blasphemy, tending to the dishonour of the most high God, and they that have this his mark upon their foreheads, openly profess their abhorrency from it, and in their hands do writ against it, and labour to vent their sophistical wears to delude ignorant and unstable fouls. First, the Jews inferred, and that very soundly, which Mr. Biddle cannot see, that Christ professeth himself to be God, by his saying, that Christ and his Father are one, and this their Collection is not denied by our blessed Saviour, nor doth he blame them, and tell them plainly, that they were mistaken, and that he was not very God, as John the Baptist told them ●●●nly, that he was not the Christ, whereby he satisfied the Jews, and cleared their judgement in that point. Secondly, our Saviour sheweth that the Jews ought not to take offence for his calling himself the Son of God, albeit he had been onely man, for be it granted, that I am onely man, yet ought you not to judge this my speech a strange language, for in your Law( the Divine word in Psal. 82.) Magistrates who were but ordinary Judges of those times, which were chosen by men, and advanced to that office, have their Authority from God, and are Gods Vicegerents, yea and have the Title of God put upon them, I said ye are Gods and Sons of the most high: how much more may I who have a commission, immediately from God the Father, and who sent me into the World to be a Mediator betwixt God and men, without blasphemy say, that I am the Son of God? this being granted, yet will it not follow that Christ is no otherwise the Son of God then Kings and Magistrates are denominated his Sons, but our Saviour vanquished the slander of the Jews by that divine testimony, and proveth thereby, that it was no blasphemy in him, nor dishonour done to God to call him his Father; to this I may add with learned Camer. that the knowledge of Christs Divinity was not clearly revealed in those dayes as it was after his resurrection and ascention into Heaven, nor doth Christ so evidently call himself God, as he was afterwards famously known to be, but this he leaves to be collected from his gracious words& miraculous works, that he was the natural Son of God, and by consequent that God was his Father, which relation lifts up Christ above a●l creatures. Thirdly, I may clear up this testimony as other Writers before me have done in this manner. Christ shakes off the imputation of blasphemy unworthily charged on him, and proves himself to be the true God by an argument taken from a comparison of the lesser to the greater, as the Logicians speak, and that is drawn from the example of the Magistrates. which in Psal. 82. are called gods: thus may the Syllogism be formed: If the Magistrates are called Gods, much more am I a God. No, but the Magist●ates are called gods, Psal. 82. Ergo, if to that which is less a title proportionable less is attributed, then to the greater a title proportionably greater is due; if to a subject which is less the title of gods belongs, then to a subject which is greater that is to Christ●, who is the Lord of all Magistrates a greater title is due. 1. The name of the Son of God, or the chief God; the consequence is proved, because Christ was sanctified, and set apart to be a Mediator and Saviour of the World, and he sanctifies himself for the sake of his Disciples, John 17.10 sanctification is a most holy destination of a most holy Person, that he sanctifying himself might sanctify all the Elect He was sanctified, and he sanctified himself; he was given, and he gave himself; the Father and the Son jointly acted in that gracious work, and he being sent must really exist before he was sent, and this office, as I have often said, he could not form, had he not been God as well as Man: this is a better testimony to show what Christ was, and a better Warrant to call himself God, then Magistrates have which had Gods word, that is authority from God, and commandement to deal justly betwixt man and man, and this will more evidently appear, if we consider that God, 1. Christ speaks, and Bisterf. observes that many of the psalms which have this title, To Asaph, do treat of the kingdom of Christ, at or after the conversion of the Jews, and 2. the words of this Psalm do prove it, God said, You are the Sons of the most high: had it been meant of God the Father only, it would have been said My Sons, v. 6. and v. 8. Arise O God and judge the Earth( that is the Office of our Saviour) for thou shalt inherit all Nations: all shall in time become Christs, who is the King of the Saints, Revel. 15.3. and in John 10.34. is it not written in the Law, I( the messiah) have said ye are gods? Lastly, Christ doth appeal to his Works, ver. 37. that the Father was in him, and he in the Father, that they were one, which none of the Prophets ever asserted, from that which is more known, Christ teacheth that which is less known, which proof is most popular, and most efficacious: this Scripture then( all things prudently considered) is strong against the Adversary to prove the Deity of the Son of God, bid. Matthew 1.20. Joseph thou son of David fear not to take unto thee Mary thy Wife, for that which is conceived of her is of the Holy Ghost; had Christ had a divine Nature in being the eternal Son of God, the Angel would not have told Joseph, that, that which was conceived in the womb of his Wife was of the Holy Spirit, otherwise not only the human Nature of the eternal Son of God, but the very eternal Son himself( for the Adversaries hold that he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary) would be of the Holy Spirit, and so Christ not onely as Man, but as the eternal Son of God be caused by the Holy Spirit; the latter of which( though flowing from their opinion touching the nature and conception of Christ) is yet denied by the Adversaries, and so should the former too, since he that was the eternal Son of God coessential with the Father, if he would be incarnated, needed not the assistance of the Holy Spirit to furnish him with a human Nature from a Virgin, being himself able to produce it of her, unless you will say that his own Divine Nature was in the mean time idle. Answ. The design of the Adversary is to entangle us with a contradiction, out of which we can easily extricate ourselves: I say it is no contradiction to say Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, and to say again, he was not conceived of the Holy Ghost nor born of the Virgin Mary, if these seemingly opposite propositions be not spoken in the same respect, though they spoken of the same person; no person was born of the Virgin but the Son of God; no person was baptized but the Son of God, no Person but the Son of God was condemned and crucified. Hence is it that the Jews are said to have crucified the Lord of glory, death is ascribed to the Lord of glory, whereof the divine nature was not capable,& therfore we must needs understand the whole Person of Christ, who being the Lord of glory was crucified indeed but not in that nature for which he is termed the Lord of glory, which one only point of our Christian Faith( the infiniteness I mean of his Divine Person) is the ground of all things believed concerning our happiness, by that which Christ either did or suffered as he was man in our behalf. Upon this ground I deny your consequence, if Christ had a Divine nature in being the eternal Son of God; the Angel would not have told Joseph, that what was conceived in the womb of his wife was of the Holy Spirit, otherwise the eternal Son himself, would be by the Spirit, and be caused by the Spirit, these are loose, groundless consequences easily blown away with the breath of the truth, and by the light of the former discourse: mark then the Son of God simply, as he is God,& solely the Son of God is not conceived by the holy Ghost, nor born of the Virgin Mary, but the Son of God in respect of the human nature, which was hypostatically united to his sacred person, his human Nature I say, was by the powerful operation of the holy Ghost, by which the blessed virgin was pregnant, as Justin Martyr saith Apolog. 2. Secondly it was the work of the Holy Spirit, that the virgin should conceive without the seed of man, and that he should not have a Father immediately on earth. Thirdly that the mass which the Son of man assumed, should be purified and that corruption should not be derived to him by the channel of natural generation, 4. And that the Divine and human nature, should be in an admirable manner united in one person; this Son of God was begotten of his Father by eternal generation before the Creation, yet became also man of the substance of his mother by temporal generation, this was wrought in a moment, and wonderfully the power of the Holy Ghost shall overshadow thee, Luke 1.35. as it is true, that thou( O blessed virgin, shalt conceive by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost, and not by mans seed, and therefore thou shalt be a Mother virgin, so is it as true, that that which thou shalt conceive and bear, is the Son of God, yet is it not an orthodoxal expression to say, Christ as he is man, or according to his human nature, is the Son of God, for in this consideration he is onely the Son of man, of David, yet may we by the warrant of Scripture language say, God manifested in the flesh is the Son of God, or this man which is called Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, begotten by his Father, by eternal generation, and is therefore called the onely begotten Son of God. You add, had Christ been the eternal Son of God, he needed not the assistance of the Holy Ghost to furnish him with a human nature, being himself able to produce it, unless you will say, his Divine nature was idle. I answer, all this is spoken both ignorantly and blasphemously, for the holy Ghost had no efficiency or causality in the incarnation of our blessed saviour, which was not common to the Trinity, for as Father, son and holy Ghost are inseparable, touching the Divine Essence and power of working, so likewise are they inseparable in their operations. The persons of the holy Trinity, have one absolute, entire Essence and existence, and therefore being one and the same God, it followeth that their transient and outward actions in reference to the Creatures, are undivided and common to them all, as one formal Principle of them; albeit, I deny not that power by a phrase of speech, called by the Schoolmen appropriation, is ascribed to the Father, wisdom to Gods Son, and holinesse to the blessed spirit, so that to speak properly, all the three persons, which are one essential and absolute God, blessed for ever, did without any peculiar efficiency to any one of them frame the human nature of Christ, though it was terminative( as they say) assumed onely by the second person, which denotes the dependency of that human nature on the Divine Person, without any difference of causality betwixt them. Tis a common comparison to illustrate this truth; three Vergins do jointly make up a garment for one of them onely to wear, so all the three persons as one cause did produce the human Nature, yet was it taken only into the Person of the Son of God. Christ became Man, not in regard of the Divine Nature simply, which is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but as it subsists in the Son of God, tis true if we respect the original of working there is a difference, the Father as he is of himself, and from no other, so doth he work from himself, not from the Son, and the Son as he is from the Father, so he doth also work from the Father, but because there is no distinction of the Persons in regard of the formal, essential principle of working, it follows there is no distinction or separation of the Divine Persons in the work itself. It was therefore both an absurd and a blasphemous inference, and that, as you say, from our principle, either that it was needless for the Holy Ghost to frame the body of our Lord, or else that the Divine Nature of the Son of God was idle: will you grant then( which by this your reason must needs follow) because Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, therefore God the Father was idle, and not the prime Worker of this marvelous conception, unheard of in the world ti●l this time, that a Virgin should be Mother to a Son, by this instance to enlarge no more on this subject, at present you will I suppose see your error. bid. This consideration is so forcible that Justin Martyr pressed with the difficulty thereof saith in his Apologic to the Roman Emperor, that by the Holy Spirit which came upon the Virgin, and caused her conception, is at no hand to be understood any other then the Word or Son of God, contrary to the perpetual usage of the Scripture, which by the Holy Spirit always is meant, not the second, but third Person of the holy Trinity. Answ, To this I answer, If Justin Martyr in his second Apology( for in that and not the first, there is some thing to be found tending that way) takes the Holy Ghost for the Son of God, his Exposition is singular, and we own it not, nor are we bound to maintain it; they which do seem to the vulgar sort to value the Fathers Writings at a high rate, yet will not defend, but reject a single testimony, when it is opposite to all, or the greater number of the Ancients, and do answer, One Swallow makes not a Summer: Sextus Senexsis Biblioth. lib. 5. Annotat. 247. yet albeit Justin Martyr might fail in his Exposition of that sacred Text, his judgement notwithstanding is clear against you for the Deity of the Son of God; yea, and this very place might have informed you to say now no more. For how should he be able to make of the Virgin, and assume our nature, had he not been God? the Virgin Mary said, How can this be, seeing I know not a man, Luk. 1.34. doth not the Angel confine her by saying, Nothing is unpossible to God, v. 37. If the Virgin Mary then conceived by the Son of God, it follows that he was God. Secondly, I do not a little wonder if that Ancient Father and blessed Martyr should take the Holy Ghost in that sense, that he is alleged by the Adversary; my reason is, because he often mentions the Holy Ghost, both in that Apology and in his other tracts, as distinct from Father and Son, and never confounds them, and why he should in one place so mistake, I see no ground; this I am sure he did not, because as you say he was pressed with any difficulty in the Text. Thirdly, the Martyr possibly may mean the Son of God, not as he is distinguished from the Holy Ghost, but spoken of him in opposition to the Creatures, that no Angel or Man had a hand in that wonderful conception, but not denying the same miracle to be wrought by the Holy Ghost, nor indeed could he exclude him, because he asserts in the Treatise of the Exposition of faith that the three Divine Persons are but one Essence which powerfully works by all three conjunctim. Lastly, if thus he meant not, then perhaps he mentions the Son of God in regard of the term ad quem, in what this Nature was assumed into, and depended on the Person, not of the Father, or Holy Ghost, but of the Son of God, in this regard it is erroneous to ascribe the work terminative to any but to the son of God, whose person, wee grant was complete and perfect in itself from all eternity, nor was there any thing wanting to the perfection of it, yet in regard of the perfection of one end, I mean the Salvation of the church, there was wanting the human Nature, which must be assumed by the Son of God, that the Elect amongst the Sons of men might be saved. bid. Moreover were the opinion of the Adversaries true that the Son of God came down, and took a human nature of the Virgin, the Angel Gabriel, when the Virgin demanded of him, how she should conceive? would not have answered, Luk 1.35. The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall over-shadddow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God; but the Son of God shall come upon thee, and the eternal Word shall overshaddow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, being assumed into the unity of the eternal Word, shall be called the Son of God. Answ. Who sees not the sauciness and presumption of Mr. Biddle to prescribe to the Holy Ghost how he shall speak? in the former discourse I have shewed, that this work of framing the body of Christ, albeit it be in regard of appropriation ascribed to the Holy Ghost, being a work of holinesse to free it from original sin, yet it is a common work of the Trinity, albeit the Son only assumed the body into the unity of his Person. Touching the place objected in S. Luke, it doth not follow that Christ was not the Son of God before the conception, but the contrary rather is implied by that particle {αβγδ}, also to intimate that Christ was in another respect the Son of God, viz. as he was begotten of the substance of his Father, then that which is here alleged, that he was not conceived of mans seed in regard of his manhood, and so he was not in that regard the Son of Man, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, this is observed by Epiphanius; so that this is no good consequence, the Angel allegeth one cause why Christ is called the Son of God, which was agreeable to the present occasion, and therefore there was no other cause why he should be so called, this then is a fallacy, a non causa ut causa, not that there are two Persons in Christ, and two Mediators, and two Sons, the same Christ is the Son of God as begotten of his Fathers substance as he is God, and the same Christ as he is conceived of the Holy Ghost as he is Man, and in regard of hypostatical union with the Word is the Son of God, and yet there are not three Sons, but one Son: besides it is not said in the Text simply, therefore he shall be the Son of God, but he shall be called, that is, acknowledged, and Christians shall profess him to be the Son of God, the fallacy here is a Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, because in this respect he shall be c●lled the Son of God, therefore he was not till now the Son of God, and not simply before, though as a Man, and as conceived by the Holy Ghost, he was not in that respect called Gods Son till now. Lastly, you have learned Adversaries which do refer the particle therefore not to the conception of Christ, as the cause of his divine Sonship, but to the prohelie of Isa. v. 31. Matth. 1.22. bid. Act. 10.38. God anointed Iesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healed all that were possessed with the Devil, for God was with him, what need was there that the holy Spirit should be given to Christ to enable him to do miracles? Could not he that first created the world do miracles, without being empowered by another? would it be said of him that had the divine nature, that he did miracles, because God was with him, and not rather because he was God. Answ. It is no difficult matter to answer both the Text of Scripture, and the questions inferred from it, for the first, albeit Christ was God, yet was he also man, and the anointing him, the consecrating him to the office of a mediator, the largest gifts bestowed upon him, and setting him over the Church, and above all his fellows both men and Angels, was by the graces of the spirit, which not by small drops, but( as it were) buckets full were poured out on him in a high degree, which was requisite for him that should be our mediator, but he was also anointed, i.e. marked out by a voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son and by the coming down of the spirit upon him, and was demonstrated thereby to be the promised messiah, Isa. 61.1. Luke 4.18. what makes this for your purpose? surely nothing at all. 2. Now to your questions, could not he that created the worll do miracles without being empowered by another? he was not enabled to do miracles by another essentially differing from him. The Son of God, as he is the son of God, creator of the world was not empowered by the Holy Ghost to do miracles, but the son of God by the holy Ghost, which you will not see, gives virtue to Christ in his human nature instrumentally to work signs and wonders. 2. To the second, he wrought miracles, and it would not be said, because God was with him, but rather because he was God. I answer, 'tis not for us to teach the Spirit of God how to speak, but I answer, both these might be truly said of him, God was with him, as and was with God, John 1.1. and as this is most certain to us, so doth the Adversary unawares, attest to this truth, by the words of Thomas, he was God, and God was with him, as he was a man, and our mediator. bid. Luke 22.48. And there appeared an Angel to Christ from heaven strengthening him, Why should an Angel appear to strengthen him in his agony? would not the Divine Nature of Christ at this rate, be in the mean time idle and useless. Answ. Christ was truly a man, and acted at present as a man; the presence of his Disciples was a comfort to him, and when they had forsaken him, and outward comforts failed, a holy Angel from heaven, an invisible comforter seasonably acted, and strengthened him, most probably this was done by representing to him such considerations and benefits of his death, as might make him at that time to bear the heavy burden cheerfully. Your Objection, then the Divine Nature would be idle and useless borders at least on blasphemy, the Son of God as touching his Divine Nature, being a most free agent, may suspend some actions, as to his human nature, and as to our head Christ Iesus, so likewise to us his members, and not always communicate those ravishing rays and those liberal influences, to which joy is inseparably annexed, the inference: then the Divine Nature is idle and useless, is both false, scandalous and blasphemous, for nothing is idle and fruitless, but that which works not when it ought to work, and which bears not fruit in its due time and season, as Scaliger de subtle. Exercit. 6. sc. 9. doth well define it, is a three to be called fruitless, because it bears not fruit in winter, by this reason God himself being from all Eternity most happy, by the infinite knowledge and fruition of himself, without and before the Creation, might have been truly said to be idle, God is a voluntary and a most free Agent, and hath good reason for whatsoever he doth, and for whatsoever he doth not, and it is high presumption for a silly creature to say, by way of finding fault with him, why dost thou so, Dan. 4.35. or why dost thou not so? Bid. Mat. 27.46. Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why should he so earnestly expostulate with God for forsaking him, had he had a Divine Nature, and was God himself? could he that was very God himself cry out thus? was he his own God, and had he forsaken himself? Answ. These specious Interrogations which seem to have much strength in them, are in truth very weak and easily answered, by distinguishing, as often we have done, of his Natures; thus he that was very God could cry out in his human Nature directly to God his Father. Was he( say you) his own God? an uncouth phrase: we must now look upon Christ voluntarily humbling himself as our Surety to a cursed death for the sins of his people, and being in this condition, he not only might be forsaken, but it was expedient that he should be forsaken of God in regard of the Divine economy, and the work he was to finish for our salvation. I will take liberty to expatiate on this comfortable Text, which argued then an uncomfortable condition of our Lord and Saviour: How could he expostulate with God( say you) if he were God? to this I answer, he did not expostulate with God by way of reprehension of him for his present state, as it is taken John 8.44. Why do ye not understand my speech? nor by way of murmuring against God, as the Israelites did often for want of water, and for want of flesh, Numb. 11.18. nor because he was ignorant and forgetful of the reason of his passion, which is the usual ground of our Interrogations. How should there be forgetfulness in him, when he should most of all remember why he suffered? even for the working out of our Redemption. What then? shall we say that this is a question of admiration, like that in the Psalm 36.8. How excellent is thy Mercy O God! Can it be that thou shouldst so love the World, that thou shouldst forsake me thy dear Son to redeem the world? or shall we say that Christ debateth the matter with his Father familiarly, reverently, and holily, which Interrogation ariseth from a filial confidence in him, as David did in his misery, Psal. 42.9. Why hast thou forsaken me? Why go I mourning? or is it not sciscitandi, but instandi& vehementiùs asserendi gratia, Quintilian l. 9. cap 2. as Naomi said to Ruth, Shall not I seek rest for thee my Daughter? Is any thing hard to God? and such like, or is it Vox flectentis aut provocantis Deum ad misericordiam: He complains for want of comfort to move God to have mercy on him, as Exod. 32.11. Deut. 5.25. these last are the most probable reasons of the interrogation. Touching the matter of his complaint, that he was forsaken. Negati●●y thus: he was not forsaken really by the withdrawing of his essential presence from his Son, and no marvel, for he is every where present, and absent from no place, nor was this done {αβγδ}, he complaineth not in the contemplation and commiseration of other mens miseries only, but in the sense of his own want of comfort, and feeling of his own sorrows; nor was this dereliction the dissolution of the hypostatical, when once flesh or nature of man was {αβγδ}, it never after became {αβγδ}, but was as a Garment put on, never to be put off again; nor was he forsaken in regard of that influxus conservativus of God, there was no loss or impaiing of his holy Graces: his grief was intolerable which constrained his holy nature, without prejudice to the fullness of his sanctity to cry out and groan for these great evils which he endured. Thus Adam in the state of innocency, or a blessed Angel would have done, by necessity, not by corruption of nature, if a burden too heavy for them had been laid upon them, this was not unlike the shaking of pure water in a crystal glass, which hath no settlings in it, it remaineth pure. Lastly, in this complaint he wanted not the assurance of full deliverance after a short suffering, how else could he have said in the same period, my God, my God? how could he pray with strong cries as he did to his Father, who heard him always? how else could he say to Caiaphas, thou shalt see the Son of Man coming in the Clouds of Heaven? how could he have promised to that converted thief which was crucified with him, that he should be that very day with him in Paradise? how else could he have commended his soul into his Fathers hands? Thus was he not forsaken: how then positively was he forsaken? first in that the Father did not protect him, and rescue him out of the hands of his cruel, bloody, and merciless enemies, in this sense David prays to God Psal. 38.2. Forsake me not O Lord. Secondly, God may be said to forsake Christ, because he with-held that solace and comfort from him which he formerly enjoyed, for albeit joy doth naturally flow from the Vision of God, as light doth from the Sun, and heat from the fire, yet as the Sun sometimes, as now in our Lords passion lost his light, and the fire burned not the three noble Confessors, Dan. 3. Sic deitas cohibuit redundantiam beatificae visionis, saith the Canarian Bishop Melchior Canus loc. lib. 12. cap. 13. and Maldonate calls this Compressionem Deitatis, Christ did not only see, but enjoy God for the present, as a man in great distress may eat of the fruit of his own three, and look upon his dearest Relations without delight, the Sun goes down to him at noon day. Nor is this all, we are not yet come to the Pillars of Hercules; the Father poured on him the infinite Sea of his wrath, the due defert of our sins, as he was our Surety, and as he was to be our Satisfier; this was done to him, so far as it might stand with the dignity and worthiness of the Person, the holiness of his Nature, and the performance of his work of our Redemption. Christ-suffered great tortures in his body, but greater in his soul; Gùm sit tantus dolor exterior, interior tamen planctus gravior, the anguish of his soul far exceeded the tortures of his hody, and the invisible cross did more afflict him then the visible; and he having experience in his own feeling of the bitterness of his cross, hath learned experimentally to have compassion on afflicted Spirits, which is a misery of miseries. Hence were made those deep impressions in all the faculties of his soul, natural, vital, animal, and rational, which, as is thought, hastened his death as an inward cause of it, so that he was dead sooner then the Thieves which were crucified with him, yea, so soon that Pilate himself marveled, Mark 15.44. how else happens it that Martyrs have rejoiced, and in their sufferings, and at their death? Miles poterit, imperator non audebit? Austen, doth the soldier that is to be crwoned rejoice that death is at hand? and shall the Prince and Captain of our salvation who is to crown him, be very heavy in his soul when he is to die and sweat drops of clottered blood? Briefly we must here distinguish, that what befell our Saviour was not criminis, said conditionis effectum, it was {αβγδ}, not {αβγδ}, as Damascene saith, lib. 3. de Orthod. fide, cap. 25. If we look upon Christ in regard of his H●mane Nature simply, as he was united to God affectione justitiae, by the affection of virtue; as he did love him, fear him, trust in him, and obey him, as he gave him the glory which belonged to his Name; look upon him, I say, in such a formal consideration, and the Father did not forsake him, no not for a moment; but now look upon him as he was our Saviour, our Advocate, as our sins were laid upon him, being our Surety as he was made sin, a Sacrifice for sin, so was his human Nature left for a short time to grapple with the wrath of God, to make an atonement, and to procure reconciliation with God, that we might enjoy pleasure, and have ineffable delights in the presence of God for ever more. I have contracted and presented to thy view, Christian Reader, part of a larger discourse on this Text the product of mature deliberation preached before a learned Auditory many years ago, not necessitated to do so by my Adversary, but to mind him, by this example if he be ungracious to reason with himself, how will he be able to bear Gods wrath? and where shall be at the dreadful day appear, when his sins shall be deeply charged on him? did God deal thus with his Son? how will he deal with sinners? how will they be able to dwell with everlasting burnings? if the reader be in Christ, to provoke him to be thankful both to God and him, and to learn by his sufferings how hateful a thing sin is in itself, how odious to the holy God look upon it as a most ill-favoured thing, and never so long as we live to have a liking of it; and if God shall forsake us as he did now his dear Son, yea, if we can see nothing but war in his face, if his fiery Sword be drawn against us, yet not to despair but still to trust in God, as our Saviour in this case did, saying, My God, my God, and as Job did resolve, Though he kill me, yet will I trust in him. Job 13.15. with assurance that ere long they shall in this black cloud, see the bow of the Lord that at last God himself will appear to them with a Rainbow about his Throne, with a tokenof his Covenant of grace. bid. justine Martyr( saith Mr. Biddle) in the margin) is exceedingly puzzled with this Objection, in his Conference with Tryphon. Answ. So you say but I do not find any such matter in him and if he was ●puzzled, and could not readily untie all seeming knots, what is that ●ou●? nay rather, this argueth that he was sound in the main now in controversy betwixt us, but as for us, we considering the present state of our Saviour Christ, and his undertaking by his passion to reconcile us to his Father: do not wonder, that he having a human body and a reasonable soul, and forsaken both of men of Angels, and God himself, should cry out in his bitter passion, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? bid. These things have I set down here out of zeal, to the true Son of God, the man Christ Iesus, that the adversaries may by this means be brought to bethink themselves, and not substitute a false one in his stead, namely an Eternal Son, begotten out of the Substance of God the Father, wheneas there is no place in the Scripture, that either saith or intendeth any such thing. Answ. Our blessed Saviour stands not in need of any false titles to honour him withall, but for you Mr. Biddle, to pretend zeal to the Son of God, and to struggle against his Eternal Deity, and his satisfaction to Gods Iustice for mans salvation, 'tis no better then if a vile slanderous tongue, accustomend to disgrace the eldest Son of a royal King, should say, he was a base beggar, for in denying his Eternal Deity, you rob him as much as lies in you, of his highest excellency. bid. But they will say, that if Christ were not God, he could not satisfy for our sins, which reason overthroweth itself, and sheweth their opinion concerning the divine Nature of Christ to be fictitious, For how can God satisfy God? Can any one make satisfaction to himself? Answ. The Adversary proceeds in his ingratitude and impiety against the Son, and endeavours to show that there was no reason of the hypostatical Conjunction of the Divine and human Nature, to make satisfaction for us, the necessity whereof we believe, and without it there could be no hope of reconciliation, betwixt God and man, there were indeed many other causes why this conjunction was necessary, besides that of satisfaction, Socinians hold that Christ was our chief Prophet, Priest, and King, in regard of the prophetical office, he was to be our doctor and Teacher in the most perfect way, his human nature was needful to teach us both by his gracious words and unblamable example, it was needful also, that he should be God, that he might be the most excellent Teacher, and who is such a Teacher, as God? and this is the most excellent way of Teaching, when God assuming the form of man doth vouchsafe to teach familiarly talking and conversing with us, as he taught Abraham, Gen. 19. which is most profitable and honourable for men, and this will appear, if we particularly consider what he taught, he promised eternal life, and that he would give it to them that believe in him, he promised the Resurrection of the dead, and that he himself would raise them. Is it not necessary, that a holy unerring Prophet, which teacheth in this manner, should be God? and how did he teach? unheardly he spake to the ears, as man, and as he was God he enlightened the minds and opened the hearts of such believers, as he was pleased to convert, Luk. 17.5. and 24.45. Act. 16.14 and when the Apostles prayed Lord increase our Faith, he returned not an answer unto them, as Jacob did to Racbel, when she said Give me children: am I( saith he in anger) in Gods stead? As it was requisite our chief Prophet should be God, so is it likewise needful as he was our King, which Office he could not perform without an infinite power, how else could he efficatiously overcome all our enemies, the devil, the World, Sin, and Death? How could he subject all things to himself, raise up the dead to life, govern and protect, and provide for his Members all the world over? how could he do whatsoever he pleaseth both in Heaven and Earth, without an infinite omnipotent virtue? Lastly, it was necessary that he should be God as he was Priest, that he might herein answer the type of Melchisedech, who is said to be without beginning of dayes; and end of life, Heb. 7.3.16. He had no● been a sacrifice if he had not been man; he could not be Priest, and act all as he did, had he nor been God, as Moses the typical Mediator had a typical Tabernacle, Exod. 26. which he made, so the true Mediator had a true Tabernacle, which he was himself to make, Heb, 3.34. and no marvel if he who made all things should make his own Tabernacle of flesh, his human Nature to dwell in: by what hath been spoken, and much more which might have been added, evident it is that there were other causes besides the sati, faction of Christ, why he must be the true God: but now to the point. Gods revealed will was made known to Adam and Eve, At the day thou eatest the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die the death: this Scripture must be some way fulfilled, the Socinians do hold that death is not a punishment of sin, but the condition of our Nature, and that man should have died albeit he never had sinned; and they seem to maintain this error, which the catholic Church never held, saith S. Austen Epist. 106. that they with the Pelagians, August. de Haeres. c. 88. might be the better able to defend this heresy, Infants are not born with original sin, experience taught them that many of them dyed before they were in a capacity to commit actual sin. Secondly, because they make this a singular Argument of the Divinity of Christ, that he was the first Author and publisher of immortality, given and promised to Man, and that it is an injury done to Christ to say, man in the beginning was immortal, Smulcius de Divin. Christi, c. 17. Thirdly, because they deny the satisfaction of our Saviour for our sins, and the reason is, death is not a punishment, say they, for if it be a punishment, it must be a punishment of sins; if so, then because Christ had no sins of his own, it must be for the sins of others, and by consequent, his death must be satisfactory. This is the catholic Faith, that as in Adams standing in grace, all Mankind in his loins stood; so in his fall all his posterity fell with him: all our estates( as Mr. shepherd saith) were ventured in this Ship, therefore if we will partake of his gain, if we had not made shipwreck of his graces, 'tis but equal we should partake of his losses too: In Adam we all sinned saith S. Paul, Rom. 5.12. and by his sin Death entred into the World: Adam was the Head of all mankind, and all his posterity are naturally Members of that Head; if the Head plots Treason against a State, the whole Body is found guilty, and the who●e Body must suffer; Adam was the poisoned root and fountain of all Man kind, now the branches& streams being in the root and fountain originally, are therefore tainted with the same poisoned principles, and the wages of sin is death, Rom. 6. ult. not only temporal, but that death which is opposed to eternal life, which is in justice as due to a sinner, as wages is to a hireling when he hath done his work Our good God( presupposing his immutable Decree, and revealed will to the contrary) could not receive sinners to grace by a free condonation●, without a satisfaction and price given and paid for mans sin; for he being a just Judge, neither will nor can pronounce a sinner just, without righteousness. What, shall not the Judge of all the World do right? now it is all one to be righteous without righteousness, as to be learned without learning, wise without wisdom, and holy without holiness, which are impossible, and as we must have righteousness if we look to be happy, so must we have that righteousness also which will satisfy the justice of God in this great business of Mans Redemption Rom. 3.25. by R●ghteousness in that place is not meant that Righteousness which God works in us, onimputes to us, but the righteousness which is in God, for it followeth v. 26. to declare his righteousness, that he might be righteous, appear to be just● the exercise or effect of this righteousness depends on the free act of God. which will punish the sinner in himself or in his Surety, and as it is their righteousness which are subject to the Law, to comform their actions thereunto, so is it the righteousness of a Judge, as he is Judge to pass sentence according to his comminations and threatenings, which are the Rule of his proceedings. I grant, a few small sparks of grace may make a good satisfaction to an indulgent Father, for the great offences of his Son, but he is a graceless child that will misconstrue his Fathers good nature and actions, as to judge a few tears a full ransom for great offences: the Lord our God being not only a merciful Father, but a righteous Judge, requires not only a satisfaction of complacency, or an interpretative compensation founded on divine favour, but a satisfaction of condignity, or a full and complete payment for the debt of sinners; but where is this righteousness to be found? surely not in a bare creature, for how should a finite Good cover an infinite Evil, is not this too short a garment which will not cover half the body? is not this a plaster too narrow for the wound? and how should the best men which were poor themselves make others rich? how should they which needed righteousness themselves, impart their righteousness to make others righteous? the only means then to make an atonement for us, is the Lord our Righteousness. Jer. 23.6. Et sic Deus justitiam exequendo misericordiam non evacuat,& misericordiam exercendo justitiae suae nihil demit: and so to God being infinitely just; Christ being infinitely good, hath satisfied for man being in a sort infinitely sinful: Christ hath paid a price of ransom, and a price of purchase, to merit Heaven for us, by standing in the room of the Elect as their Surety, Hebr. 7.22. 2. By taking from them the eternal guilt of sin, and assuming it to himself, 2. Cor. 5.22. hence Luther saith, Christ was the greatest sinner, viz. by imputation of our sins to him. 3. By bearing the curse and wrath of God due to the sins of his people, he drinks up their Cup at one draft, which they should be drinking and tormented with to all eternity. 4. Gods justice required perfect righteousness to the whole Law, Rom. 5.11. these four things Gods justice required, and Christ satisfies justice by satisfying them all, and was the number of Believers never so small, they would stand in need of this total satisfaction of Christ, and was their number never so much multitiplied, as millions of Believers for one, they should all of them by Christ find a full satisfaction for their sins, which is fitly so called, because it hath the same effect in and for us, as a full and complete payment hath, for the good of the Debtor; the Son of God being made man and suffering for man, it is evident that man in him was punished as Gods Justice required, and that being performed, which the Lord had threatened, his truth was justified, the offender was pitied in mercy, and God and man was reconciled in the Lord our peace-maker, in whom Mercy and Peace are met together, righteousness and Peace have kissed each other, Psal. 85.12. I will not enter into that question disputed by some of ours, and by the Schoolmen themselves, the Thomists,& the Scotists, whether the satisfaction of Christ be infinite in the formal intrinsical Nature of it, as the Thomists hold: We must distinguish of the sufferings of Christ, which if we take them Metaphysically, in regard of their Entity, simply considered, and so they were finite, and neither could nor ought they to be infinite, yet if we do consider them forensiratione& aestimatione, so are they esteemed infinite by the reason of the personal Union of the human nature with the Divine Person, and so sins, albeit in regard of their Entity, are finite, yea sometimes they have no Entity at all either formally or materially, as sins of omission, yet as they are against an infinite God, they are in a sort infinite, and thus are we to judge of the sufferings of Christ, the dignity of the Person being God, makes his Sufferings in Gods Judgement and the Court of Heaven infinite, as also in respect of the price offered, which was himself a sacrifice for our sins. Esther had not her nature increased, when she married to Ahashuerosh, but her honour and dignity was much increased thereby, albeit this conjunction was neither personal nor natural, nor indissoluble, who then can doubt, that the human nature of Christ was highly exalted, being joined to an infinite Person in a most perfect Union, which is both personal and perpetual, and consequently his sufferings are to be looked on, as of an infinite value, especially considering, that actions and passions are of persons, as is commonly said, and not of natures. This being supposed 'tis questioned next, whether the divine acceptation there of be not required, and the favour of the creditor, so that he was bound in rigor to accept it, how precious soever it was for the Remission of our sins, and whether there be not a relaxation of the Law, which is not to be denied, not onely because Christ our mediator is Gods gift, it was his grace and favour to appoint him to that office, and God was not bound to accept of a surety in our stead, but might have charged, the debt on our persons, and this relation I say, is not to be denied, when compensation is annexed to it, because by this means the authority of the Law, is very little diminished, and the reason and end of the Law is attained, as if a man be bound to restore a pledge, if he gives the value of it, he is not chargeable with injustice, Hugo Grotius de satisfact. Christi c. 5. the decision hereof, as to our present controversy is impertinent, I will therefore say no more of it, but omit it, and answer the Cavils of the Adversary. How can God satisfy God? Can any one( say you) make satisfaction to himself? To this I answer, why not in a sense? it is not needful that the person satisfying should be separated from the person satisfied? for who says so? doth God? Where is such a saying to be found? The Law requires, that he who sustains the person of a sinner, whether he be separated from the Judge or not, satisfies the Law, and consequently the Judge. God the Son our mediator can satisfy God our Father, and when God the Father is satisfied, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are satisfied also, and he in his own person satisfied Divine Justice, which is common to the Trinity, and therefore in our assumed nature, as he is our mediator, he satisfles himself by himself, and so brings us to himself as he is God. He that is a testator of the Testament, which is a Covenant, he is the chief author of the Covenant but Christ is so, Heb. 915, 16.& so he is concerned in the breach thereof, and in that respect to be satisfied, to be a Mediatoar is a name of Office, and not of nature, and requisite it was, that he should be both God and man, and no other person did or could satisfy Gods justice. You say, that none can satisfy himself. Why may not a man satisfy himself, may not a man be a Law to himself, accuse, judge, and condemn himself, yea and punish himself? as he in Terrence {αβγδ}, may not a man be revenged on himself for his idleness, by doubling his ordinary labour, for his excess in meats, and drinks by abstinence and fasting, and course, spare diet, 2. Cor. 7.11.? nay, may not the Judge himself be a breaker of the Law, and as a guilty person condemn himself, and punish himself? I say not that he can satisfy himself, by paying money to himself, but by submitting himself to be punished in one kind or another, as Attitius Regulus went voluntarily to Carthage, though he knew he should undergo exquisite torments to satisfy and make good his oath, and his faith promised to the Carginian●. But I need not insist in this answer, I assert there is a difference betwixt the Son of God as simply considered, and as the party offended, and considered as the Son of God incarnated, who became our Mediator; the Person is one and the same, but variously considered: this satisfaction diminished not the dignity of Christ, but exalted his mercy: the act of a Mediator usually hath reference to another Person, as the act of justice also hath, I mean then where the Mediator is a middle Person betwixt the party offending and the party offended, but as a man analogically may do justice to himself, so likewise may he perform the act of Mdiation, which tends to the Reconciliation of himself with the party which hath offended him, if he be pleased graciously to descend, and to remit of his own righ●. I grant, if there be a third Person vigrously to mediate, 'tis rare, for one of the parties to do the office of a Mediator, when another is willing to undertake that employment, and able also to effect the business. But now if there be not a third person to be found,( as in this case there is not) then either one of the offended Persons must be a Mediator, or else we must perish everlastingly; for instance, suppose a King of Bohemia elected and crwoned to sit on that royal throne after his Fathers decease, should equally with his Father be offended with his Subjects for their rebellion, and that he should become a Mediator for them to his Father, with a purpose to pardon them, if they will submit, and prove loyal for the time to ●●me, and should moreover bestow many favours, and grant ample p●●●iledges to him, having regard both to his Fathers honour, and the peoples safety: is this impossible to be done? or is it not a princely and most commendable virtue if it be done? and shall this be denied to the Son of God? nor is the Precept of Christ wanting to enforce this duty, Math. 5.23. If thy Brother hath offended thee, go and be reconciled to him: yea God himself, when Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit, and had most heinously provoked him to wrath, yet did he discover his affections to him in a gracious manner, after he had once convinced him of his sin Genes. 3. and do not we red that the Israelites after their rebellion against David, and the death of the head traitor Absalom made means to David to bring him back to Jerusalem and to be reconciled to their sovereign, 2 Sam. 19.12.? and shall it be judged then absurd for the Son of God to reconcile Mankind to the most High? I conclude, he who is not medius in regard of his person, yet may he be medius ratione officii& oeoonomiae, which, as we see sometimes is a duty commanded by Christ, and which hath been practised by others, the genus, as Logicians teach us, ceaseth not, unless all the species do cease, nor doth a Mediator cease to be a Mediator, unless all the acts and offices of a Mediator do cease. bid. Neither will it relieve the Adversary to reply that there are several Persons in God, and so the second satisfied the first; for if there be three Persons to whom we are indebted, and but one of them satisfied, we are in as bad a condition as before, in that we stand in need of some one to make satisfaction to the second and third Persons in God. Ans. The Father hath a Mediator, but the Son properly hath not a Mediator, the natural order of the Divine Persons, and the most wise will of Father and Son do confirm it, besi●es the whole frui● and benefit of this office r●dounds to the Son as well as to the Father, if a Triumyir shall undertake to be an Ambassador for a common cause, both in his own name, and in the name of his Colleagues, yet is he not properly an ambassador of himself, because diversity of persons is required in the sender, and him that is sent. The adversary must remember that out debate is of satisfaction to the Person offended, not as he is simply the party offended, but as he sustains the Person of a Judge, as he is Judge, whether he be the party offended or not? the party offended as he is such may forgive offences, but the Judge cannot absolve the Transgressor of the Law without injustice, being legally convinced of a crime, and seeing the persons of the Father and Son are distinct, there needed no other Person to sustain the Person of a Judge but the Father, nor no other Person but the Son of Man to represent the Person of guilty persons. I grant, we do by our sins displease all the three Persons of the Holy Trinity and further I grant, that all of them are to be reconciled an satisfied; there are two parts of Mediation, one respects God and divine things, the other respects man and his salvation, and both of these are to be disposed, prepared, procured, and perfected by God, for it was not possible for Man to know how, or to be able to reconcile God and Man together, God who was {αβγδ}, took pity upon Man, and so loved the World, that he gave his Son, that Believers on him should not perish, but have life everlasting: he he that knows not this, knows neither God nor himself. The objection is already answered; let it be remembered by the Reader, that the Son of God( as I have formerly shewed) was the most meet Divine Person to perform this office, and albeit justice properly and commonly tak●n, respects our carriages and dealings towards our Neighbours, yet analogically and by accommodation it respects the dealings of the just man in reference to himself, Aristot. Ethicor. lib. 5. cap. 11. this is likewise verified of the Mediation of Christ, which by analogical accommodation is carried to himself, and as S. Cyril, saith, de recta side ad Reginas. Christ in offering sacrifice was not like to Ministers of the Gospel, which do receive their spiritual sacrifice but he reconciles himself to us thereby, and by himself to his Father. Besides the Son of God incarnated differeth not only from the Father and the Holy Ghost, but from himself as God, in that he is Man, and he differeth from other men and himself as man, in that he is God, and therefore may mediate, not only betwixt the Father and us sinful men, but also betwixt himself as God, as excellently said, the learned Dr. Field, lib. 5. of the Church, chap. 6. The Papists have a ready way, if it was safe, to answer this objection, though both natures( say they) do meet in the Person of the Mediator, yet is he our Mediator only in his human Nature, because he as God was to be pacified as well as the Father and the Holy Ghost,( and this is Mr. Biddles objection also) and so as he was God was reconciled to us by the merits of his passion; this assertion is erroneous and justly confuted by our Worthies Jun. contra Beltar. l. 5. de Mediatore, cap. 5. and by Chumier Paustralia de Officio Mediatoris, lib. 7. cap. 7. and by many other learned men the sum of all is this: Christ is not a Mediator either in regard of his Divine Nature singly and simply considered, nor according to the human Nature alone, but according to both Natures conjunctim, and in hypostatical union, and we must distinguish betwixt the Son of God, as he is naturally the Son of God, and betwixt him as he was by a voluntary economy incarnated, and became our Mediator. In a word, Christ, as he is God, is offended with us for sin; Christ as he is {αβγδ}, God-man, differs from himself as he is God, and by himself reconciles himself to himself, so that he is not the Person satisfied, and the person satisfying; the Person offended, and the Reconciler in the same respect and manner of consideration. bid. If they further answer. that the second Person freely forgives us, this will make him more bountiful then the first, who would do it without receiving satisfaction. Answ, The whole Trinity, and not onely the Father in this sense freely forgives us, I even I am he, that blotteth out transgressions for mine own sake, our sins were written in Gods book, and a large Volume of iniquity is blotted out in a moment; there is not so much evil in sin, nor so much sin in man, as there is goodness in God; sin is onely termed infinite, in respect of the infinite Object against which it is committed, but God is absolutely infinite, there cannot be a summum malum, as there is a summum bonum, its true, we by ourselves could do nothing to procure our pardon, but they are not freely pardonned in regard of Christ our Surety, who hath dearly bought us with the price of his most precious blood, whereby he became our perfect Saviour and made full measure to God for us, heaped and running over, and it is as a rich Treasure to pay our debts never to be exhausted, wear freely justified, saith Saint Paul, Rom. 3.24. yet it is added in the Text, by the Redemption in Christ: this Act of Christ in respect of the Law, is called a relaxation, or a dispensation, but in respect of us, who are debtors to Gods Justice, 'tis called remission, depending on foregoing satisfaction, which is admitted by our gatious God to make way for the remission of our sins, which are then actually done away, when we do believe in Christ, when we do convert to God, and ask pardon of them, God doth as it were dip his pen in the blood of our Saviour and so dasheth out all our iniquity. Nor doth this satisfaction obscure the riches of Gods mercies towards us, or make the: ●mission of our sins to be less free, for seeing the Commination of the Law, and the Office of the Judge to execute the Law, hindered the justification of repenting sinners, could there be a greater Demonstration of admirable love and mercy, then to transser our punishment, which we deserved, on his Son our Surety, rather than we should everlastingly perish? and therefore this is set out by Scripture, as the highest strain of love. so God loved the World, that he gave his onely begotten Son( to die for us) that we might not die, but live for ever, John 3.16. it was much that the party offended, should not hate us, who grievously offended him: but it was more, that he should love us, and have mercy on us, and yet more, that he should bestow many blessings upon us, but it is a most transcendent and unparalleled love and mercy, to give his onely begotten Son to die a cursed death for us, to free us from the everlasting curse, yea, and this was also the admirable love and condescension of the Son of God, who was not {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}, consubstantial with his Father, to become man volun●arily, and as mediator in both natures, to make satisfaction for us to the Trinity, for surely, there was no attract ve magnetical virtue in an undone and bankrupted creature, to draw down our Saviour from heaven to cloud the lustre of his Divin●ty by the interposition of a mortal body; nor doth the Son of God, as he is the Son of God simply, or as he is God in that notion considered, freely forgive our sins without satisfaction, for albeit, this is not made by a third person, yet as mediator, he satisfied Divine Justice in his own person, which Justice is common to the Trinity, and in our assumed nature, reconciles himself to us as God, and satisfieth himself, as I said above, by himself, and upon this account i● is, that Gods justice is more satisfied by every believer, than by the damned which are tortured in Hell to all eternity, for they are always suffering, and yet can never satisfy and pay their debts, but every Believer hath by his Surety paid all to the utmost farthing. bid. But this Doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ as well as that of his two Natures whereon it is( though very ruinously) built, is a mere device of men, for neither is it expressed in scripture, nor can solidly be deduced thence, as I could quickly show, were it not beside the business in hand. Answ. It is a comfortable truth, that as there are evidently two Natures in Christ, not to be considered apart one from the other in this great business, but always in the hypostatical union, for neither can the human Nature reconcile us to God, nor can God, as he is only God, reconcile us to God by way of satisfaction, and therefore the Humanity is assumed into the Person of the Son of God that he might be a meet and all-sufficient Mediator; and as the Natures in the union do for ever remain distinct, so do the operations-also, each Nature acting according to its own operative principle, and we do both from Scriptures and reasons deduced thence assert, thus the Word incarnated is, as the School-men speak, Principium quod, and the Deity as well as the Humanity is the Principium quo, the formal and immediate principle of, the work of redemption, for God resolving to declare his righteousness and truth in his reconciliation to Man, Rom. 3.25. could not bring this to pass without satisfaction to his justice, I do not say it is in our Surety in every respect answerable to the Law, the dignity of his Person, together with the Deity concurring to the work of our redemption, procure not only acceptation with God, and makes his passion meritorious for us, but abundantly makes compensation for such circumstances, as the place where, and the time how long we should have suffered, which were not beseeming, nor rational for him to undergo; it is a very dotage in Socinus, to say, that the dignity of the Person adds nothing to the value of the punishment, for albeit he had been God, yet the Deity suffered not: this is as absurd, as to say, it's all one to smite a King and a private man, to beat a mans Father, or a Stranger, because strokes are on the body, not on the dignity, or consanguinity. And as there is a difference in the working principles, so do the effects belong to the Mediator in a different manner, to both natures, as to forgive sins, Mar. 2. {αβγδ}, he hath authority to remit sins, not a ministry, as his Servants have to remit them, so likewise doth he give the Holy Spirit, John 16. not the Humanity alone, but our Mediator, as also to save his People, and to unite us to God by his blood to cleanse us from all our sins, so that we constantly affirm, that Christ according to both Natures united in one Person, is our Mediator, with the Mediation which is called both operative and substantial, and this is a Rock to build on, which all the powers of H●ll cannot prevail against. This satisfaction of Christ is the most precious treasure of the Church, and the main ground of our Salvation, Athanas. Orat. de Passio& cruce Christi: It is a shadow under which we are safe from the heat of divine wrath it is a garment that covers our imperfections, that they are not seen by Gods revenging Eye, it's a buckler which we may hold against an angry God to keep off the fiery darts. It is reported of one Endoxus that he desired to see the Sun immedia●ly to contemplate the magn●tude and motion thereof, though for a reward of his curiosity he was presen●ly burnt by it, the same will be●all all Eudoxeans which without the satisfaction of Christ do behold God, the Son of Righteousness, he will be a consuming fire to them, Stegman. You tell us Christs satisfaction is a mere device of Man, and not soundly collected out of Scriptures: Learned Gerhard treating against this Socinian heresy, saith hereof, Hic ungnes apparent Diaboli, and his intention is by this gross heresy, to raze the foundation of our s●●vation and confolation, which are built on the satisfaction of Christ, and out of a holy zeal and detestation hereof, he breaks out into this imprecation, Exurgat Deu●& coelesti fulmine, imò infer●ali fulmine hasces Adversariorum svorum blasphemias vindicet: this is to ask the Kingdom, also to take away all Religion, and happiness from Solomon, as Solomon of Adonijahs policy, 1 Kings 2 22. I will not make a large business to prove this necessary and comfortable truth, which the holy Scriptures clearly hold forth to us, so that all that are not blind may see the bright sh●ning thereof, yet I will not dismiss the Reader without some fair convincing evidences to prove the truth: God who hath supreme authority, and is subject to no Law may lay on Christ nearly joined to us by nature; our head by office and surety for us may also undertake to die for us, having power to lay down his life, which we have not: it was his love to become our Surety, it was his incredible Love to perform the debt of his promise, he is in the number of those Sureties, which being snared with the words of his mouth, his promise, Prov. 6.2. did willingly in the fullness of time make his promise good. First, because our Mediator by divine ordination was wounded for our transgressions, and was bruised for our iniquities, Esa. 53.5. he suffered for us, and this [ for us] notes the impulsive, and meritorious cause of his suffering, it was not for himself, but for us. See Grotius de satisfact. cap. 1. and v. 6. Esa 53. there is an emphatical expression {αβγδ}. God hath made all our infirmities and sins to meet in Christ, who is as the center of them all,& in the same place tis said, by his stripes are we healed: this Chapter was a prophesy of our Saviour, and was accomplished by him in the dayes of his mortality: and S. Paul saith, He was made a curse for us, this curse which was due to us for our sins was laid on him, and he freely and voluntarily did bear it, Gal. 3.13. 2. Cor. 5.15. Rom. 4 25. what do these Phrases import, but that he in propriety of speech made satisfaction to God for our sins? Secondly, Christ did not suffer to pay his own personal debts, for he had none of his own, he experimentally knew no sin, he committed no sin, but he suffered for our sin, he gave himself to be {αβγδ}, Matth. 20.28. hence the old latin Lustrum, a year of expiating sins by Sacrifices, a ransom to free us from punishment by punishment, he came not into the world to seek his own benefit, but in charity to die, and be a ransom for us, he was {αβγδ}, 1 Tim. 2.6. {αβγδ} in composition signifies sometimes contra against, as Antichrist an enemy to Christ, which agrees not to this place, or compensation, as {αβγδ} when a man dies to free another from death, he poured out his blood in our stead, thereby to redeem us from our sins, from death, and the power of the Devil; he is also said to bear our sins, 1 Pet. 2.24. as a heavy burden laid upon him, i.e. the punishment of our fins, Levit. 5.1. and so to bear our sins, that we may be freed from bearing the punishment of them, and to the same purpose are we said, to be reconciled freely by his grace {αβγδ} by the Redemption, which is by Jesus Christ, Rom. 3.24. The Lord shows us a way whereby he will be propitious to us, not by any legal performances, but through faith in his blood, and he is also called {αβγδ} an oblation for sins, Eph. 5.2. Heb. 9.14. We are saved by a precious price, viz. the obedience of Christ. 1 Cor 6 19. he is also called {αβγδ}, a propitiation for our sins, the appeaser of Gods wrath, in these and the like passages of Scripture, the Adversaries denying satisfaction, must needs confess that there is Redemption without emption, a buying without a price, praetium sine valour, valorem sine solutione, solutioneus sine satisfactione, Dr. Prideux lect. 19 Thirdly, this is proved by those Scriptures, which inform us that Christ was given for us, the just and Righteous once died for us being unjust, and when we were enemies to God he reconciled us by his death to him, 1 Pet 3.18. and Christ being an innocent person was made sin a Sacrifice for our sins, that we through his deat● might be justified: For the transgression of my people, was he smitten. Isa 53.8. the word in the original {αβγδ} if there be not an Epenthesis of t●e Letter m, as is commonly thought, then is there ad Enallage of the Plural number for the Singular, which is more pro●able saith Glassius, Philolog. sacra tractat. 1. de punitate textus Hebraei. n. L●●●●. and if so, the observation of Brentius is most remarkable, that the Plural number being spoken of Christ, intimates that he did in his Passion stand in the room of all his people, and that the judgement which passed on the messiah, was imposed on them all, yet so, that Christ alone did bear the burden of it, and what doth this import, but that he satisfied for them? So that Christ suffered not onely to give us an example, but for our profit to free us from eternal death. Was Paul crucified for the faithful? yea, for their good he suffered Gol. 1.24. but not as Christ suffered for us, to free us from everlast●ng damnation, he suffered in our rooms, that we might not suffer, so did not Paul. Fourthly, the satisfaction of Christ was typified by legal S●crifices, namely by the paschal Lamb hence is he called the Lamb of God, the Lamb was a type of Christ, both in regard of meekness, and innocency, as also in regard of the oblation, and slaying him, 1. Pet. 1.19. this was also prefigured by the read heifer slain before Eleazar, Numb. 19. Heb. 31.12. as also by the live Goat, on whom the sins of the people were laid, and he carried them away. Levit. 16.22. all which related to, and were fulfilled in the death of Christ, Isa. 53. to say nothing of private Sacrifices, for Christ died for single persons, which is not opposed, but subordinated to the death of Christ, for all his, Levit. 17 11. the blood on the Altar makes an Atonement for the soul, Levit. 1.4. and 4.21.20.31. both in the type and the antitype, a free condination is excluded without satisfaction. Lastly, this is likewise implied by that Scripture which saith, that Christ performed that for us by the effusion of his blood in a mortal body like ours, without which it bad been impossible for us to have been reconciled to God, Rom 8.2, 3. the causes of Christs sufferings which Secinians do render are not necessary, the holiness of his life and his Doctrine which was sufficiently declared by his Miracles, and after his holy life on earth without death, as did Elias, he might have ascended into Heaven, and declared his Majesty and power on earth. Further, if they say true Christ shed his blood in vain, because God might have saved man without his death, for according to their Tenet, his Justice did not require his bloody passion, being most ready to be reconc●led to man, and desirous to make man to take notice of his willingness to forgive sinners; nor did Gods wisdom require his death, seeing the good Sons under the Law were faved without it, when the precepts and rules of life, as they say, were more imperfect then they are under the Gospel: Besides, he shed his blood imprudently, because notwithstanding his death, in the opinion of the Adversaries, which do deny eternal Elect on, and 'tis Gods knowledge of future contingency, haply not one man should have been save● thereby and Christ should not have been the King of the Church, if he had no Subjects to rule over; nor should the glory of God have been promoted thereby, and in vain should God have loved us, which is so highly commended in Scripture, for giving his Son to die for us: If we could haue been saved without it. But to return to the point, the Scripture tells us, That as by the disobedience of one( of Adam) we were all made sinners, and subject to death, which was threatened, if he should eat of the forbidden Fruit; so by the perfect and exact obedience of one( the second Adam) who suffered death for us, to make satisfaction for us to sa●isfie Gods Justice shall all the faithful be justified, and made righteous, Rom. 5.18 19. from all the premises its clear Paenam omnem nobis debitam, ac tum etiam supernaturalem. Christum Jesum pertulisse, cum ad id& sponsione devinctus& debito obligatus.& lege districtus,& justitia Dei addictus& necessitate obvolutus videntur Perk de descens. clear. l. 3. n. 52. And though Christ according to the substance of punishment suffered no more then was required by the Law, yet in regard of some circumstances he suffered more, if we respect the person that suffered: The cause of his suffering and the efficacy of his Passion for the Law did not require that God should die, nor that any one should suffer without his own offence nor did it require such a death, which should not onely abolish death, but advance us to a life, which many degrees is better than Adam lost idem●n 51. hence Anselm Cur D●us homo c. 24. the life of Christ was incomparably a greater good, than those sins are evil which his death destroyed. These are so id Proofs that our Saviour made an Atonement and satisfaction for us, and what you can quickly show to the contrary, are but like bubbles on the water, and empty nothings, qu●rks of wit, and vain sophistry, which are as quickly disproved, as they are propounded, and which being touched will, like the Apple of sodom, vanish into Ashes, so much of this third Article. ARTICLE IV. bid. Whence though he be our God, by reason of his Divine sovereignty over us, and worship due to such sovereignty, yet is he not the most high God, the same with the Father, but subordinate to him. Answ. The words of this Article, contain no new thing, but what hath been often mentioned by the Adversary, yet the fraud is to be discovered: he labours to conceal the horridness of his Tenet, by calling Christ our God, and this is, as it were a bait, whereby he would 'allure the unwary Reader, to swallow it down, that he might prevail with his pernicious hook. Secondly, we do not deny, but both to our singular comfort, and exceeding great profit, do hearty aclowledge, that the Son of God in our nature is exalted in power, honour and Dignity, far above men and Angels, yea and the highest pitch of Majesty, that any creature is capable of. Thirdly, Yet in the third place this concession will be no advantage to the Adversary for besides all that he hath spoken of Christ in that nature, our Saviour hath the same Divine nature with the Father, and he is the same God, though not the same person, and therefore he doth infinitely abase him, by making him onely a creature God, and if he should strip him of all sovereignty over us, and worship due thereto, yea, and esteem him in feriour to a worm he could not so much dishonour him, as he hath done in denying his Divinity, for the distance of one creature compared to another is but finite, but that which is betwixt God and the most eminent creature is infinite, and Christ being the most high God, is not in that regard subordinate to his Father, but coordinate with him, for subordinate causes are not in the same order of causality, as if one of them be particular, the other is universal; if one be the first cause, the other is the second; if one of them be the principal cause, the other is an instrument or less principal, which have no place in the persons of the holy Trinity. Fourthly, albeit some eminent creatures, or which are taken to be such, may in divers respects be called Elohim, yet is it not agreeable to the Scripture- phrase not to the analogy of Faith to call that Creature our God, or my God. Fiftly and lastly, the holy Scriptures which the Adversary allegeth for the proof of this Article are positively assented to, albeit the Adversaries inferences from them, that in no other respects Christ is God, then are here name, are justly denied. bid. John 20.17. I( Jesus) ascend to my Father, and to your Father, to my God and to your God. Ephes. 1.17. The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, Hebr. 18.9. but to the Son, or rather of the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom, thou lovest righteousness, and hatest iniquity: wherefore God or rather, O God thy God hath annoy nted thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellowes: in these places which we have cited, Christ, as he is the Son of God, and Lord, yea, God is said to have a God, and therefore cannot be the most high God. Answ. In the first Text, John 20.17. our blessed Saviour contents not himself by saying God, but he adds, my God, your Father, and your God, intimating hereby the near conjunction betwixt himself and the faithful, in two respects: first, that as he is Gods Son, calling the first person our Father, and the Father of Christ: secondly, because he is our God and Creator, as he is of Christ, in regard of his Manhood; Christ as he was God simply, had not a God, but as Son he had a Father; but being both God and Man in regard of his human Nature he hath a God, and yet is God, as somethings belong to a Person in regard of a part, as man is mortal, though his soul is immortal: now as God is the God and Father of Christ, and of his servants in the fore-mentioned respect, yet in a different manner, insinuated, in that Christ saith not, I ascend to our Father, and to our God, but to my Father, and your Father, to show a difference betwixt his Son ship and ours, betwixt his creation and ours, that he is in a more excellent manner his Father then ours, and therefore first he saith, my Father, and then your Father. This is denoted by the Article prefixed before the one,& not the other, God is not therfore the Father of Christ because he is our Father, but he is therefore our Father because he is his Father. We are Gods Sons onely by the grace of adoption, whereas Christ was not made the Son of God, but he was born the onely begotten Son of God, and touching his human Nature, he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and that flesh was singularly united to the word by hypostatical union. Secondly in that notion, he was created in a more excellent manner then we are, but Christ as the Words not only created, but assumed that Nature into the unity of his person, and so may in a good sense be said to create himself, viz. touching his human Nature, but who can say that he created himself, save Christ only? and there is yet another difference, Christ was created without mans seed, he had no im mediate Father on earth, and by consequence he was not polluted with original sin, as all other men in the World besides him are stained with that pollution; and lastly hi●foul was adorned with those eminent divine qualities, and that from the conception which do transcend the excellencies of any rational creature. In a word, God in this Scripture is not taken essentially for one that governs all with supreme dominion, but personally, which in the intrinsical conception doth denote an intrinsical relation in the most simplo unity of the Godhead, its taken for the Father, the first Person of the sacred Trinity, as the inspection of the Text evinceth, and from hence you may conclude a distinction betwixt the divine Persons, that the Son of God is not the Father, but you cannot infer that he is not God; but the contrary rather, because he in his human nature ascended into Heaven by his own omnipotent power. 2. Your next place Ephes. 1.17. holds forth that the Apostle preys to the Lord, who is in these Latter dayes made known to us by a more glorious title then that of The God of Abraham, even the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, unless haply there be a rajection of the words as Piscator guesseth, God and Father, the God of glory and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: God the Father is called the God of our saviour, because he was as man both created and preserved by him, as also because he was in regard of his office of being our Mediator subject to him, and became obedient to the death of the cross. Lastly he may be called the God of Christ, as he was the God of Abraham, that is the true God, because he sent him to reconcile sinners to himself, and that God which Christ preached to the world? Zanch. is this any thing for the Adversaries advantage? To that Text, Hebr. 1.8.9. I say it is a clear demonstration of the Son of God, for God the Father speaks of his Son by the mouth or Pen of David, Psal 45.7.8. and calls him God absolutely, not eiffering from himself in Deity, but in personality, and ascribes to him an eternal throne and dominion, and not for a long time, as in this sense {αβγδ} is sometime taken but {αβγδ} both joyn●d together doth always signify eternity, as is observed verse 9 Where O God, in the vocative case, God, that is, God the Father hath annoynted thee, O God the Son, the same person that is, God is annoynted and turn ●●ed with extraordinary gifts for an excraordinary calling, not simply as he is God, but respectively in reference to his humanity, in which respect God is superior to him, and in reference to his Divinity the Son of God is God, and hath a God; but how taken? personally, and not essentially, for this being attributed to God secundum quid, may be both affirmed and denied of the same subject without violation of the Laws of opposition, when it is considered in divers respects: the Father is God begetting, the Son is God begotten, not the God of his Son, as God simply, but as God the Father beget●ing, nor is the Son simply God, but God the Son begotten, he is both God and the highest God, because he is begotten of his Father by eternal generation, hence doth the Nicene Creed assert, that Christ is God of God, begotten, not made, yet doth not the Christian Religion permit us to say, that God begets another God, for that phrase implies there are more Gods then one, but God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are simply one and the same Jehovah Now that the weakness of the Adversaries Argument may more clearly be discerned, I will reduce it into a syllogistical term, thus: He that hath a God is not the most high God. Our Saviour hath a God, ergo, he is not the most high God. The mayor is evident, or else we must maintain that there are two Gods: the minor is proved by the alleged Scriptures. I answer to to the mayor by limiting it thus: He that hath properly a God, as he is God, is not the most high God, this proposition thus taken is assented to, if otherwise, it is deni●d. ●o the minor I answer, by distinguishing of the subject Christ in respect of his human Nature hath a God, and in his sense the concludon is yielded but Christ as he is God so hath be not properly a God; but God senecdochically taken, but as he is God the Son, s●he hath God the Father, and reciprocally God the Father hath God the Son to clear this we do thus distinguish of man; man in regard of his body is mortal but in regard of his soul that's immortal, God the Father and God the Son are relatives, and do prove the distinction of Person in the u●jty of the Go head, the premises duty considered, the Adversaries specious inference, that Christ is not them ●●st high God, grou●ded on the Homonimy of the word God, and most High comes to nothing. bid. Neither will this seem strange to him that considereth the language of the Scripture, which expressly maketh mention of the most high God, and calleth Melchesedech King of Salom Priest of the most high God. Hebr. 7.1. and calleth the Lord the God of Gods, Deut. 10.17. The Lord your God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords, both which places show, that there is one by way of excellency, or in the most perfect manner called God; but others in a way of subordination, or less perfect manner, amongst whom Christ himself( though otherwise far surpassing the rest) is notwithstanding ranked, as this place of the Hebrews doth evince, beyond all gain-saying, in that it speaketh of Christ as a God, when it saith he hath a God, so that there is no place for the Adversary to baffle, telling us this is spoken of Christ as Man, or according to human Nature. Answ. I answer to that place, Heb. 7.1. Melchisedech was in name and in truth answerable to his name, King of righteousness, he was also Priest, of the most high God, God here is taken essentially and absolutely, he was a Priest of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, virtually at least the Son and holy Ghost are implyed, they are not excluded by that title. Very well. Christ was not the most high, but subordinate to him according to this Text, who denies this? for no creature can be equal to the most high creator, what then? therefore Christ, say you, being typified by this Melchisedich, as is proved Psal. 110.4. without all contradiction, is also subordinated to the most high God, this is most true, for Melchisedeck both in respect of his Person, and his office, was not a type of Christ, in respect of his Divine Nature simply considered, nor in respect of his person, for then your proofs I confess would have been to good purpose, but he was on emblem of him in regard of his office, as he was our mediator, both God and man, for Christ in respect of his Person, had a Father in heaven, and he so calls him, when be conversed amongst mortal men, and in respect of his Genealogie●sh had no other substance but human, the blessed Virgin his mother, was a woman well known, so that in this respect Melchisedeck was most unlike unto Christ, for he is described in the word, without any mention of his Father and Mother, of his Genealogy and death but Christs Father and Mother, his Genealogy, his Nativity and death, are acurately described in Gods book, so that in this respect he had beginning of his dayes; as he was man, and there was an end of his life, as is clear in the Gospel, and as he was God in regard of the Divine Nature, he neither was nor could be a Priest. How then is it said, that Christ was without. Father and Mother? the Apostle Rom. 9.5. resolves us by distinguishing Christ, as he was man, according to the flesh, was of the Father, the Son of Abraham, the son of David, yet had he no immediate Father on earth, as he was man, and as he was God, the Son of God according to the Spirit, he had a Father, and not a Mother, no beginning of dayes, nor an end of his life, this Text then doth evidently prove, that Christ hath another nature than the human, or else the Apostle was wide in making them to be like, wherein they are most unlike, this then must be meant of Christ, God-man, as our mediator in both natures, he had no Father, nor Mother, in that he had no predecessor, to whom he succeeded in that office, nor any successor to stand up in his room when he died, as Aaron had, and therefore he fitly resembles Melchisedech, who had no predecessor in that office recorded in the Scripture, nor any successor; there is no genealogy of Priests of that order after him, in which respect he was a proper type by Divine appointment of our Saviours Priesthood, and yet the dignity and efficacy of the Priesthood of Christ depended upon the Deity, by which he offered himself an immaculate Sacrifice to God, and some acts of his Priesthood were performed, before his Nativity of the Virgin Mary, and all the faithful, before she had a being in the world, were freed from the guilt of their sins, and sanctified and saved by the benefit of Christs Priesthood, not by the Levitical, not by their own works, it must be then by the efficacy of Christs Priesthood, and this must needs be, because Gods covenant is eternal, and before the Law, Gal. 3.17. and shadowed out by those illustrious types of Sarah and Hagar, Gal. 4.24. now the covenant is not more ancient than the mediator of the covenant: Hagar was not before Sarah, nor was Jerusalem, which was above before her husband, for she had not two husbands, and was longer barren, Gal. 4.27. now she is not called barren, which is not, or which is not married. To that place out of deuteronomy, I answer, first according to the Adversaries supposition, that Christ could no● be comprehended under the name of Gods and Lords, because then he had not a being, when those words were spoken, God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, that which is not, cannot be an inferior Lord and God. Secondly, I answer, that God is taken here essentially, as most frequently in the old Testament, not excluding the son of God, and the Holy Ghost: Gods Son is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, infinitely superior to them that are onely made Gods, whether dead and fictitious, which are esteemed such by their idolatrous worshippers, or whether they be living Gods, as Princes and Angels, which is so true, that you have none of ours to be your Adversary, and you might well have spared this proof, for God is truly God of gods, and Lord of Lords The Adversary is very confident, that his Argument cannot be eluded, or rather the vanity thereof detected, because God the Father( as he takes for granted) is onely the most high God, and Christ then must needs be subordinate to him, but this is in truth a plain dotage, to say the Son is in a less perfect manner God, then the Father, because he hath a God; it is true, God creates, preserves, and governs all and all the made gods, who have truly a God above them, are under him, but the Son, as he is simply the Son of God, is coequal and coessential with his Father, even Jehovah himself, the great and the most high God, albeit the same person, in regard of his human nature, is inferior, and subordinate to him, and albeit Christ is not the Person, which is in many places called God. yet is he the same God, John 1.1. the highest God is understood, yet is not every one perfect, that is, the highest God understood thereby, and as in some places, the Son is distinguished from God, so be there other places wherein the Father is distinguished from God Psal. 45.7. and Heb. 1.8 yea, and from Jehovah, for according to the Adversaries, the angels are sometimes called Jehovah. Shall we from hence conclude, that onely created Angels are Jehovah. Bid. For the further cleared of this matter, I will here exactly unfold the appellation of God, as I find it delineated in Scriptures, for many being ignorant hereof, hold very great and inexplicable errors, touching the Godhead of Christ. First therefore the appellation of God denoteth him that hath a supernatural substance as Esa 31.3. The egyptians are Men,& not God, Ezech. 28.2.9. Because thy hear is lifted up, and thou( Prince of Tyrus) hast said, I am god, yet thou art a man and not God: which werds do plainly intimate, that by God is meant a supernatural substance that cannot die, whereas every natural substance may die: thus is the Lord called God, and the Angels, because they are immortal. Answ. What singular thing you have performed in your delineation of the several ways how God is taken, will in part, by the sequel be discovered, and albeit you preferred exactness in this search of Scripture, yet is not your enumeration full, there are some other expressions, besides those here specified, which belong to Christ, and which cannot appertain to a creature-God; but whether the ignorance of others,( thus doth he speak of our most eminent Divines, to whom others of meaner parts are but Scholars) in this point produceth strange errors touching the Deity of our Saviour, or your own prejudicate blindness in the mis-application of them is to be tried by the unerring testimony of the holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures. The first way is not generally true, for the soul of man is in some sense a supernatural living substance, which cannot be slain, and yet is never in Scripture language called god, and Divels which cannot die are indeed called the gods of this world. Was ever any one of our Writers ignorant of this deep mystery discovered by you, that God is taken for a supernatural living substance that cannot die, and could our blessed Saviour in his Divine Nature die? we would forthwith and that most justly disclaim his Divinity How this can consist with your Exposition of Scripture and judgement, that Christ when he was God by his power to work miracles, and yet even then was subject to death, and at length crucified, I leave to your better thoughts. I add the opposition in the Text cited by you, is betwixt God and men, and doth not extend to all that have in your sense a supernatural being, to wit, Angels, tis betwixt those Heathenish people which were creatures, as the Prince of Tyrus, which albeit he compared himself to God, chiefly in regard of wisdom, as the following Verses clear, yet I can scarcely believe that he was so sottish to think that he should live for ever, as Meander the Samaritan and a wretched Disciple of Simon Magus persuaded himself& by his magical ●llusions would have persuaded others, in Justin Martyrs days Apol. 2. pro Christiani iron. l. 1 c 21. that neither he nor the should ever die, and David Grover the Father of the Family of Love did foolishly feign unto himself a certain immortality in this world; I Knew stil against the heresy of H.N. Or shal we say that they had an opinion as the Britons had of K. Arthur, that he was not dead many hundred years after his departure, Usser de britain. Eccles. primordils pag. 321. the opposition I say is betwixt mortal men and the everliving Creator, they must die, but God is immortal and lives for ever. bid. Secondly, him that hath a supernatural dominion, or such a dominion as is not managed in a natural and visible way, but in a hidden manner exceeding the limits of Nature, Numb. 26.27.16. Let the Lord, the God of the Spirits of all flesh, set a man over this Congregation: therefore called the God of the Spirits of men, because he ruleth over them, but such rule and dominion is more then natural, for they that exercise a natural or civil dominion have power over the flesh only, hence Paul saith Ephes. 6 5. Servants be obedient to your Masters according to the flesh, opposing them to the Lord of their Spirits: In this sense is the Lord also said to be the God of Gods, Psal. 136.2. because he exerciseth dominion over the Angels, which in Scripture are called gods, as in Psal. 97.7. Worship him all ye gods: This cannot be meant of Idols which are not to be worshipped. See also Psal 8.5. Thou hast made Man a little lower then Elohim, then Ang●ls: Now the dominion which the Lord exerciseth over Angels is not natural or civil, but exceeding the limits of nature, in that the very subjects of this dominion are supernatural. Answ. For substance nothing is in all these Scriptures presented to our view by the Adversiry which is not obvious and assented to, onely some expressions are to be rectified. First in that he saith, Gods dominion over the Angels is not natural, which in propriety of speech is very erroneous; the highest creatures are subject to the natural kingdom or rule of God, as to their Creator, and it is as natural for the God of Spirits, being himself an infinite all-knowing Spirit, to rule over all created Spirits, as for a mortal man to rule over Man who is mortal, yea and much more fully then so: it is true, Gods Rule is not properly civil, as that is of man which is over the flesh and body directly, but more glorious and Divine, for God hath absolute, and uncontrolled authority and sovereignty over all the creatures in the world. Secondly, you a●d, The spirits which are the subjects of this dominion are supernatural. This in a good sense is not strange and no marvel, if Angels are called supernatural, for the same attribute is verified of all other creatures, they have their being not from Nature simply, but from the omnipotent will of the most high God. Agath, all creatures may in another sense be called natural, as having their being and subsistence from the great God, who is, Natura Naturans: the usual distinction of natural and supernatural is not in regard of substance: a thing is not called supernatural, but in regard of the accidental ●orm, and those gracious qualities wherewith it is endowed, as the word itself imports, and it perfects a created substance above that which it hath by its natural constitution: 'tis of a higher order, and tends to a supernatural end. The Scriptures alleged Psal. 97.7. and applied to Christ. Heb. 1. that all the Angels are commanded to worship him is a very strong proof of his Deity, in that he is worshipped with religious adoration, whereof a creature, whose wisdom and power is but finite, is not capable, and well have the ancient Fathers judged the Arians to be Idolaters, and so have some Socinians censured their fellowes for worshipping Christ with religious worship, and yet do maintain that he is but a Creature, a created God. Your other place, Heb. 2.3. Thou hast made him a little lower, understand it lower for a short time, and that not simply neither, but because he humbled himself, as he was a man, to death, but all the Angels are immortal substances; for this speech being comparative, extends only to that particular wherein holy Jesus and the Angels are compared together; as Angels are in many respects more excellent then men, yet men have some perfections agreeable to their state, which Angels want, for instance vis productiva prolis Scotis in 4. Sentent. dis 49. So albeit Christ was in regard of his passion lower then the Angels, yet as he was the Son of God, and had the human Nature hypostatically united to the Person of the Son of God, and as it was enriched with supernatural gifts above measure, he was thus above Angels, and who was no doubt in the state of his infirmity and in the days of his flesh, as the Apostle speaketh, worshipped by the holy Angels. bid. Thirdly, him that hath a sublime dominion conferred on him in a supernatural way, thus Moses is called a God, Exod. 7.1 See I have made thee Elohim● G●d to Pharaoh: and nabuchadnezzar Ezech. 31.11. I have delivered Pharaoh into the hand of the Heathen, meaning nabuchadnezzar, as appeareth from chap 30.24. For Moses had his dominion immediately bestowed on him by God, as the Text itself sheweth, so also had nabuchadnezzar, jer. 27.4, 5, 6. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I have made by my power, and I have given it to whom it seemed meet to me, and I have given all these Lands into the hands of nabuchadnezzar my servant, Ezech. 31.11. I have given Nations Beiad el Gorin into the hands of the God of Nations. Answ. This third way, and the former in the main( as touching sublime Dominion) are one and the same, and in that respect 'tis alleged for a vain show, to multiply ways which are not in truth distinguish●d, but whereas he adds Dominion conferred, I observe that the name of God is not here as in all the rest, agreeable to the most high God, for who can confer sublime Dominion on him? nor is this title appropriated to th●m which have sublime dignity, but it is applied to inferior Magistrates also, which are advanced to their places in an ordinary way, Psal. 1.6. and John 10.34. 'tis true, Moses was a made God to Pharaoh by participation and similitude so called, because he had something Divine and above nature, valour and the gift of miracles communicated to him; as also to make known Gods word and Pleasure, but your placing Nebuchaanezzar, or as others understand i● Merodac ●aladan in the same rank with Moses, is very incong●uou▪ First there is no reason to con●ound these two, viz to have gifts given immediately, and in a supernatural way, who hath taught you thus to speak; all things at first were immediately created by God, and had whatever they had immediately from his own h●nd and to this day many things are immediately given to the creatures, to instance in the soul and infused habi●s, yet would it be very improper to say, they are given in a supernatural way, nor had that King wh●soever he was, any thing conferred on him, but that which is natural. Secondly your proof falls short, for it appears not that the King is called God, as you tra●slate the Text, our English, is Mighty one, so Junius Piscator most migh●y El●● an adjuctive faith Schin●ter, that famous Hebrician, and signifies mighty, powerful, ●s Gen. 31.19. Laban vainly boasted, that it was in the power of his ha●d to do mischief, and in many other places and you had no reason to render it into the hand of the God of Nations, for to be sure, the King of Babylon being compared with other Princes, was more mighty then they were potent, I will help you to a fitter example. satan is called the God of this World, 2 Cor. 4.4. the natural endowments in cursed Spirits, were not lost by their fall, some of them had greater power conferred on them then others, the order amongst them is sacred, in respect of God ordaining it, for he useth the power of the Devil to accomplish his own holy ends, but this power on the Devils part abusing it to the dishonour of God, and the hurt of men, 'tis wicked. bid. Fourthly, him that is bestower of supernatural benefits, thus is the Lord called the God of Abraham, Isaac and of Jacob, Exod. 3.6. because he( as the author to the Hebrews expounds it) hath prepared for them a City, even the heavenly jerusalem, Heb. 11.16. Answ. Touching this fourth way, I with good reason justly expected a proof from Scripture, that in this regard, a creature is called God, because he is a bestower of supernatural benefits, as you have done in all the rest, though all in vain. If we respect the matter itself, here is another deep mystery, whereof the learned forsooth are ignorant, God gives both grace and glory, who doubts of that? your Exposition of the third of Exodus is too short, it comprehends more, that God by special Covenant, was the God of Abraham, Isaac and jacob, not onely by a rich preparative, destining that Land of Canaan and in that Land a famous City jerusalem for their posterity, and in that mystically prenguring heaven above, a singular argument of his love and favour, that they should live in his sight to all Eternity, he did not onely this, but he qualified the● by his grace to be meet for it which he also really bestowed upon them. bid. Fifthly, him that is a sovereign benefactor, bestowing benefits on them( though in themselves natural) yet in a supernatural way, Gen. 18. I will give to them the Land of Canaan, wherein thou art a stranger, for an everlasting possession and I will be their God therefore their God, because he gave them the Land of Canaan, which was done in a supernatural way, they got not the Land in possession by their Sword, Psal. 44.3. See also, Exod. 23.23. Answ. Temporal things are common to good men and to bad, and by them simply considered, no man can know whether God loves him, or hates him, but to Gods children, which are partakers of the Divine nature, and which do use them to his holier ends, and to promote their own good, they are sweet pledges and tokens of his love, and their smell is as a field which God hath blessed. I do observe the Title, God is a sovereign benefactor, I demand, if there can be a sovereign benefactor, which is not the most high God? to be sovereign is too great for a creature, God. It is incongruous, to say, a person, which is a ministerial or subordinate cause of good, is, or can be a sovereign benefactor, to say nothing, that this fourth and fifth way, are in effect coincident, and do onely gradually differ, let us now take notice of the application of these several respects to our Saviour. bid In all these respects is Christ now rightly styled a God, having a supernatural, spiritual, and immortal substance, a sublime dominion conferred on him in a supernatural way, even by God raising him up from the dead, and setting him at his own right hand in heavenly places, yea, a supernatural dominion over Angels, and the Spirits of men being also a sovereign benefactor, and bestowing benefits( though in themselves natural as health, and the like) yet in a supernatural, way, yea, bestowing supernatural benefits also, as the eternal inheritance, and the pledge thereof the holy Spirit. Answ. All this is spoken to blear the eyes of the Reader, and 'tis nothing but sophistical juggling, he saith, Christ is true God, but he denies, that he is the eternal and omnipotent God. All the particulars are absolutely true of him, as he is God, but in an improper and limited sense, as he is man. The Dominion of Christ over all, both natural as he is God, and do native conferred on him, as he is our mediator in time, we do to our great comfort aclowledge, as also that he bestows spiritual blessings, yea, the Holy Ghost in the Scripture sense, and eternal life, grace and peace, and glory are from him, as he is God, and as he is mediator, both God and man, and that is done dispositivè, or per modum praeparantis, by preparing and fitting men for grace by his passion, satisfying Gods wrath, removing all matter of dislike, meriting the favour and acceptation of God for us, which depened upon the excellency of his person, and on the Divine Nature which made his passion meritorious for us; Christ is also the sovereign Author of grace effective, per modum impertientis, by way of efficacy conferring to us grace by the operation of his Holy Spirit; for he alone enlightens the dark understandings of men, he alone softens their hard hearts, and sanctifies their disordered affections, and reforms the whole man. But this Antitrinitarian albeit he calls Christ a true God, yet doth not the definition of God in his sense belong to him, for he will in no case say, he is a spiritual eternal essence infinite in all perfections. Secondly, there is a wide difference betwixt these two to be called a God, as sometimes in holy Scriptures some creatures are, and to be a God in reality. Thirdly, all or most of the former particulars do not demonstratively prove, that those to whom they are attributed are truly God, but there is further required the Divine Nature and omnipotency, Jerem 10.11. if he be God, he hath made Heaven and Earth, as Christ indeed is the Author of these great Works; besides it is never said, which is carefully to be observed, that Christ in the Scripture phrase is a made God, but he was even in the depth and lowest degree of his humiliation called, and that most truly as he was God, and our God. bid. Neither was he destitute of a supernatural dominion, but was a God even whiles he conversed with men on earth, for he had authority not only over diseases and Divels to cure, where, and when, and whom he pleased; but he could give authority to his Disciples to cure diseases and to cast out Divels, and that in his name, Luk. 9.1. and 10.16 in the former place the twelve Disciples had power given them over Divels, in the latter the 70 Disciples cast out Divels in his name; yea, some that were not Disciples could notwithstanding cast out Divels in his name, Luk. 9.49. Answ. All this we do hearty embrace, and willingly subscribe unto, but these passages are not in the least to the prejudice of our cause, but do make much for us, and do afford a double Argument to prove the property, so called Deity of Gods Son. First, because he wrought miracles by his own power, for God alone is the sovereign Author of miraculous works, Psal. 72.18. and our Saviour argueth from his works, and proves his equality with the Father, John 5.18. which the Jews charged on him to be no less a sin then blasphemy, and in the next verse he saith, Whatsoever things the Father doth, the very same doth the Son likewise: that is, by the sameness of his essence, and most perfect equality with the Father; and we may take notice how both Natures of our Saviour concurred in his miraculous works very frequently, in his human Nature he received power in time, but in his Divine Nature he had power eternally in himself to work them, as he was God he opened the eyes of the blind, as he was man, he touched sometimes the ill affencted member; as he was man he touched the Leper, as he was God, he said, I will, be thou clean, and the Leprous was cleansed Mat. 8.3. as he was man he looked up to Heaven and sighed, and put his fingers into the ears of a deaf man, he spit and touched his tongue, as he was God he said( with authority) Ephphatha, be thou opened, and immeditely he had the use of his ears and of his tongue, Mar. 37.33.34. as he was man, he wept, he sighed, thanked God, and spoken to dead Lazarus, Come forth, as he was God, he raised him from the dead, John 11.43. When we see a candle shine through the horns of a lantern, we do not fix our mindes on the lantern, which hath no native virtue thus to shine, but on the Candle itself, which sends forth through its radiant light; in like manner when we do contemplate the glorious works which our Saviour instrumentally wrought by his human Nature, we must not rest in the meditation of the visible creature, but by it transmit our mindes to the invisible God, who was the proper and principal cause of them. Secondly, our Saviour had not only power to work miracles himself, but he gave power and authority to whom and when he pleased to work them in his name, Act. 3.12.16.38. this is so transcendent a favour, that no Apostle nor any creature can give to any other, but it is an honour which is peculiarly reserved in the hands of supreme Majesty, and it was a palpable error in Simon Magus, and so it is in any other man to think otherwise, Act. 8.19. It was the infirmity of John, a beloved Apostle to be envious that any one which was not a professed Disciple should have the gift of working miracles in the Name of Christ, herein he was not unlike to Josuah, Numb. 11.18. which was troubled that Eldad and Medad prophesied in their tents, and Jesus in effect answered him as, Moses did his servant, let as many as will cast out Divels in my Name, though they keep not company with us, no man is so foolishly vain; that will at the same time both make use of and blaspheme my Name, He that is a soldier and fights not against me( according to the Proverb) he is for me, in that he makes use of my Name for such a purpose, according to that famous speech of Caius Caesar, Grotius in hom: yea, our blessed Saviour confers this great gift( such was his bounty) not only on him which was not then a professed Disciple, but on the Reprobates which at the last day will pled for themselves, that they had in the Name of Christ cast out Divels, to whom Christ will answer, Depart ye wicked, I know you not: verily this makes much against, but nothing at all for the Adversary. bid. This( to give a hint by the way to them that are inquisitive after the truth) putteth a manifest difference between the manner whereby Christ gave power to the Disciples to cure and cast out Divels, and the manner wherein the Holy Spirit wrought them, for we red expressly 1 Cor. 12.9.10. that the Holy Ghost gave the gift of healing, and the operation of Miracles, amongst which mighty works the casting out of Divels is comprehended, for Christ gave them power to cure Diseases and cast out Divels in his name, Acts 3.6. and 16.18. I command thee in the in the Name of Jesus to come out of her: but we never red that any of the Disciples did ever perform cures, or cast out Divels in the name of the Holy Spirit. Answ. There is I grant, a difference betwixt the second and third Person of the holy Trinity in working miracles. For the Holy Ghost was not incarnated, as was the Son of God, and both Natures as I have shewed, concurred, although in a different manner in their production very frequently: as also in the order of working, which agrees to the order of subsisting, as the Divine Nature with all essential properties were communicated to the Holy Ghost, by the Father and Son of God, not as two Agents but as one principle, so doth the Son work by the Holy Ghost: this granted, yet the virtue and power conferred on the Apostles and others in those dayes, whereby they cured diseases without physic, yea and inflicted formidable Judgments as Paul on Elymas, yea death itself as Peter did on Ananias and Saphirah his Wife, and whereby they cast out Divels in the name of Jesus Christ was one and the same power in the Son and Holy Ghost, that is, a Divine Power, for ability to work miracles is proper to God, and so doth equally belong to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and that we might not doubt hereof the Holy Ghost in the Text 1. Cor. 12. is declared to be an absolute Author of such gifts, and bestows them where and how, and to whom he pleaseth, nor is there the least superiority discovered in the diversity of operations ascribed to God the Father, and in the diversity of gifts ascribed to God the Holy Ghost, and of administrations to the Lord; is not the Spirit made the absolute author of gifts, and the Son of administrations, as God is of operations? shall we say that the Spirit is not so the Author of gifts, as God is the Author of them? to be Author of gifts and administrations imports it not equal glory as to be Author of operations? operation proceeds from administration, and administration depends on gifts! what pre-eminence hath the Father in that tis said, ● that the Holy Ghost divides gifts to every one as he will: search and consider if there can be more spoken of the Father, who is by the Adversary confessed to be the most high God? can an Instrument under another dispense gifts to any as he will? It is confessed that the Disciples are not said to cast out Divels in the name of the Holy Ghost, as they did expressly in the name of Jesus Christ, yet did they in very truth cast them out in his name; for what is it to cast out Divels in the name of the Holy Ghost? is it not to do it by his power, and by a gift received from him? this they received, 1. Cor. 12. as the text proveth; for how else I pray you, could the Holy Ghost give this to others? and not only did the Apostles, but Christ himself also as he was man cast out Divels in the Name of the Holy Ghost, for he did then by the finger of God, 12. Mat. 28. besides there was an evident reason why the holy Apostles should make an open profession that they cast out Divels in the Name of Christ, not only to renounce thereby all honour and glory as due to themselves by such eminent works, as they were instruments to produce, but to advance the honour of Christ, obscured and veiled by his sufferings in the flesh, he was a person contemned and slighted by the Jews and Gentiles, now this seasonable professsion of the Apostles, that all they did in that kind was by the name of Jesus, was a notable demonstration of the glory of the Son of God, whom the Jews had crucified. bid. Let us now proceed to other testimonies of the Scripture from whence it may appear that though Christ be a God, yet is he not the most high God, Isa. 9.6.7. he is called a mighty God( in the original it is simply El Gibbor, not hael hagibbor, as the Lord of Hosts is styled, Jer. 32.28.) a Father of the ages( or of Eternity) a Prince of Peace, of the increase of his government there shall be no end, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this, in this passage it is remarkable, that the Prophet after he had called Christ a mighty God, and given him other excellent and Divine eulogies, he saith in the close of all, that the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this, thereby distinguishing Christ from the Lord of Hosts, making his Godhead dependant on the bounty of the Lord of Hosts, who would out of his zeal cause Christ to become a mighty God, so that Christ is not the most high God, but a God subordinate to him. Answ. This place hath been already examined page. 266. and these that follow, and I purpose not largely, actum agere, and to roll the same ston, in that holy Text, our Saviour is described, both as he is the Son of God simply, and likewise in regard of his offices, and the benefits which do flow from that fountain to us. In the first Consideration, he is styled the mighty God, a Title too high and lofty for any creature, and which can fitly appertain to none but the most high God, nor will this sacred Scripture evince, that Christ is made a mighty God by the bounty and favour of the Lord of hosts, as you do most unworthily confounded things that do differ, for I demand, what is that the Lord of hosts will perform, is it to make Christ really to be almighty God? Surely not this by any natural Deduction, but by a forced Interpretation without any footing in the Text, what then? he shall have the Throne of David,( who is a mighty God touching his person) he shall order and stablish it in Justice, from hence forth for ever, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this: now the Distinction betwixt the Lord of Hosts giving a Throne, and the promised messiah to whom it is given, is not denied, but unanimously acknowledged by us, for who is so rude to confounded the Lord of Hosts, the eternal God with the human nature of our Saviour, or with the mediator betwixt God and man? and we are sure by the Testimony of the Scriptures. That it was a singular privilege to the Jews, that Christ, as concerning the flesh came of them, Rom. 9.5. and a greater favour to the house and posterity of David, that the Lord would both make and ratify that happy promise, and the words insisted on, are as a Seal annexed to the promise, that the zeal, the exceeding great love, which God did ever bear to the Church, and his indignation against the enemies thereof, will by his mighty power accomplish that gracious promise for the benefit of mankind, which we to the joy of our hearts, do see in part already fulfilled. It is an usual practise of the Adversary to spend time and paper, to prove that which is not denied, and to leave that naked, which should be proved. bid. This will further appear from other Texts of Scripture, wherein Christ hath the appellation of God given to him, the first is, Rom. 9.5. where the Apostle speaketh in this manner, Whose are the Fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, a God blessed for ever, a God, so the Greek hath it, wherein {αβγδ} is put without an Article, and were it here used as a proper name( for so it is sometimes in the Scriptures, the words over all would be needless,( being implyed in it) nor could be construed with the same, for is it incongruous to say, who is Moses, or David over all. Answ. O that foolish man should take such pains to kick against the pricks, to make light to be darkness, and to draw a curtain over his eyes to keep out the light from shining to them, and for no other reward, but to procure his own damnation? this place is so clear a proof of the Divinity of Christ, that as doctor Hammond observes out of Proclus de fide, it convinceth all the Heresies touching him, and it shuts and walls up all passages for calumny from them that are contumelious to our Saviour Can there be more force in omitting one poor letter to make the Adversary deny our Saviours Deity, than in many strong reasons to wring out from him a Confession of this necessary truth? Too much curiosity in this criticism hath deceived him, is not Christ Jesus the true God, because the Article is omitted, or is the Article never omitted, when the most high God is most undoubtedly spoken of? First I say, this exception is but a vain elusion, for Articles are not always added, no, not to that person, who is in the Adversaries sense the most high God, and there are infinite examples in all Writers in that tongue, and many in the new Testament, which will to the eye of the intelligent Reader make this good: See Mat. 4.4. and 5.9. and 12.28. and 14.31. Philip. 2.6. as Saint Chrysostome on that place observeth, equal to a God, shall we thus render it, and such instances are every where obvious, which are needless to be repeated: the Article where God is spoken of, is wanting in an hundred places, saith Beckman, yea in no fewer in the New Testament than two hundred, saith Stegma. Disput. 3. qu. 6. Shall we then conclude from them, that the Father is a God, not the most high God? But perhaps you will object and say, that albeit the Article is sometimes omitted when the most high God is mentioned, yet is it never prefixed when the Son of God is called God: if this could be truly spoken, it would be some prejudice against the Argument, but how false it is, will be made out even in this very Text, for albeit it is not added immediately before the name of God, yet it is here done remotely, and virtually appe●tains to it, the Text is {αβγδ}, and more plainly, Matthew 1.23. Act. 20.28. Tit. 2.13. Heb. 1.8. and 1 John 5.20. showing hereby, that no great stress is to be put to a place in reference to an Article,[ 2 Pet. 1.1. our God and Saviour, the Articles is added to {αβγδ}, but omitted in {αβγδ}, to intimate that one person is meant by both] sithence the holy Text sometimes omitteth and sometimes addeth it, yea, to false gods, as to Moloch and to Remphan, in the Prophet Amos, c. 5.26. called Chiun, rendered by the Septuagint Rephan, retaining the sense, not the word, whereby we are to understand Hercules, who in the Egyptian language was called Chon, for {αβγδ} in the holy Tongue signifieth, giants, and by Hercules the Sun is meant, according to some Etymologists, from the Hebrew {αβγδ}, because it enlightens all things, Goodwin Synag. lib. 4. c. 2. yea voluptuous men make their belly their God, {αβγδ}, yea it is affixed to the Devil himself, for he is called {αβγδ}, the god of this World, out of your own words I frame this Argument. That God which hath an Article prefixed before him, is the most High God. The name God, when applied to the Son of God, hath an Article prefixed before him. Ergo, he is true God. When you say, over all, would be superfluous and incongru●us, were God a proper name. Here is( say I) a piece of new learning as though every periphrasis of a name was needless? what more usual then to add, for teaching and illustration sake, expressions fitted to a proper name? and whereas you object David over all, is incongruous. First, you omit what is in the Text {αβγδ} Christ being God over all. Secondly, I do not see any inconvenience to say in a qualified sense( for otherwise the words you relate are not true) this is Moses, and this is David, who is over all; and above all the Israelites; but it is well, that you do not with your heretical Simmists shamefully pervert the plain words of the Text, affirming without proof, that there is a point after {αβγδ}, and the following words are a wish appertaining only to God the Father. Let the God that is over all, be blessed for ever. bid. Neither let the Adversaries here object, that Jehovah is a proper name, and yet it is often said in Scriptures Jehovah Sebaoth the Lord of hostes, for it is evident by Scripture, that in this expression there is a defect of the word God, as appeareth from 1. Chron. 11.9. The Lord of hosts was with him, compared with 2. Sam 5 10. The Lord God of hostes was with David: Wherefore the aforesaid passage to the romans doth not show that Christ is the most high God; but rather the contrary, in that he is so a God over all, as that he himself in the mean time hath a God, for that he is not a God over all, none excepted, is apparent, for then he would be a God over the Father, which every one will confess to be most false. Answ. You discover to us a great mystery to no purpose, and an observation, which, as I conceive, is not taken notice of, either by the ancient or modern Writers, whose knowledge surely was not below Mr. Biddles in Criticism, and if in one place the name God is supplied, which is your only proof; Doth it follow that it is always to be understood in a hundred? and why may not the name God be proper to the great God, as it is in other places, you do not demonstrate: I am to learn how this which you here say can either hurt us, or advantage you; it had been well for you, if you had had less of the Grammarian, if you had had more of the sober and learned Divine. It is true that Christ is so God over all, that he himself hath a God, I mean the Father distinguished from him; yet will it not follow, because he hath a Father which is God over all, that therefore the Son is not God over all for this is an honor necessary annexed to the Deity to be over all, and by consequent, which is contrary to the Adversaries collection, this is a title which doth equally belong to God the Father and God the Son. You do object, that the title cannot be taken without exception, for then Christ should be over God the Father also: the answer is easy: this elegy is not ascribed to him to exalt him above the Father, but above all creatures, as it appeareth by 1. Cor. 15.27. all things are put under the feet of Christ, but God the Father is excepted, that put all things under his feet, and you also do attest, that he is according to the Scripture, Ephes. 1.20 above all creatures, the highest of them all both men and Angels. This Text hath invincible proofs of the Deity of the Son of God, in that his office is not described, nor is he above all by a gift conferred on him in time by his Father, but by nature and eternal generation. First, because he is said to be of the Jews according to the flesh, which is spoken by way of limitation, more then intimating thereby that he hath not only a human Nature, but the Divine, which is not of the Fathers, for flesh is frequently taken for man, Luk. 3.6. Math. 24.22. 1. Pet. 1.24. yea, as it refers to Christ, Rom. 8.3. he was of the seed of David according to the flesh, as other children are of the seed of their Parents: now Philosophy teacheth us that it is the man, the totum that is generated, and not the body only without their souls. Luk. 1.35. Secondly, this is evinced by the description of Christ, that he is God over all blessed for ever, which cannot appertain to any but to the most high God: whosoever is a God over all blessed for ever, he is the true and the eternal God; there are Synonymies, as homo and animal rationale, it is a reasonable animal: Ergo, it is a man, and as evident reason, so the words of the Apostle do prove it, Rom 1.25. What is ascribed in one place to the Creator of all things, that in the other is ascribed to the Son of God: it was a custom solemnly observed by the Jews, when ever the Priests in the Sanctuary spoken of the Name of God, the people used some words of blessing or praising God, which forms were after added {αβγδ} for ever and ever, the evidences of which custom Doctor Hammond in locum sheweth both out of the old and new Testament, and the Writings of the Jews. bid. Furthermore( to clear that passage, Rom. 9.5. and confirm our assertion touching the Godhead of Christ) when the Apostle saith, that Christ came of the Fathers, according to the flesh, who is over all, a God blessed for ever, the opposition is not entire and exact, as wanting the other member; what that member is, another passage of the Apostle, wherein you have the same opposition in describing Christ, will inform you, it is Rom. 1.3, 4. our Lord Christ made, or rather born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holinesse, by the Resurrection from the dead; here you see that to those words, according to the flesh, are opposed these words, according to the Spirit of holinesse. Answ. That passage to the romans, c 9. v. 5. wants not a member opposed to it, but it is expressed in those words, who is over all, God blessed for ever, and a parallel Scripture, to illustrate this, is Rom. 1.3, 4. where the same opposition is, I grant, for substance observable, as Adam is of the earth, as touching his body, but he is not of the earth as touching his soul, thus is it touching our Saviour, who is of his Fathers touching his flesh, but by God his Father touching the Spirit of holinesse, let us now see what you can make out of this latter place, to elude the strength of our Argument drawn from the former. bid. What the Spirit of holinesse is, will be no hard matter to find out, if we consider, that as the flesh signifieth a constituting part of Christ, namely the fleshy body, so also must the Spirit of holinesse opposed thereto, signify a constituting part; if so, then it is not the holy Spirit, as every one will confess, nor the reasonable soul of Christ, because he is intimated to have had this Spirit by the means of the Resurrection from the dead, nor the Divine Nature, for that is no where designed in the Scripture by the name of Spirit, or Spirit of holinesse: Besides the Adversaries hold, that Christ had the Divine Nature, whilst he was yet clothed with flesh, it remains therefore that by the Spirit of holinesse is to be understood his holy spiritual body, which Christ had by means of the Resurrection from the dead, which is a constituting part of him, whereby he is excepted from all other men, being the first born from the dead, or the first that rose from death, so as he never died again, but was clothed with a spiritual body, and made like to God, who is a Spirit. An. First, to speak a little touching the Translation, ours is, made of the seed of David, or rather say you; born, or rather orto than nato, saith Beza, the word is not {αβγδ} but {αβγδ}, Piscator, I will not contend about words, yet the learned and ancient Fathers do expreslly say, that he is not born, but made, Beza allegeth Tertullian against Praxeas. Irenaeus de Haeres. lib. 3 cap. 31. Vigilius against Eutyches lib. 5. and Augustine lib. 2. de Trinitat. cap. 44. which is fitter both to confute martion, which denied Christ to have a true human body, and some other heretics, which formerly and in our dayes do say, that Christ brought his body from heaven into the Virgin, and that he was to him as a channel to water to convey him to us. Secondly, our Translation runs thus, declared to be Gods Son, you say, which I omitted in setting down your words in the former Section, in Greek, determined, or ordained, the word is {αβγδ}, and is not fitly translated in the vulgar latin and the Rhemists, predestinated, for it is not {αβγδ}, for then the preposition would have limited it to Gods eternal Decree, but the word in the Text is more general. Besides, it is a received rule amongst Divines, that things are then said to be made, when they are manifested, and begin to be manifest, the word signifieth both to ordain, Luke 22.22. the Son of man( goeth to his death) as was ordained& to the same purpose, Act. 23. it signifies also to declare and manifest what is determined, hence {αβγδ} is a definition. The former sense doth not belong to this place as the Context sheweth, for Christ is not predestinated to be the Son of God in that consideration the Apostle describes him, v. 4. he was the Son of God before the Resurrection, therefore by the Resurrection he could not be constituted Gods Son, but hereby it was evidently shewed and declared to us, that he was the Son of God, Our Translation is both agreeable to the original, and takes away the ambiguity, which is left as doubtful by the other: now to the matter itself. By the Flesh is not meant the fleshy body onely of our Saviour, as it is distinguished from his soul, but his human nature consisting both of a fleshy body and a reasonable soul by an usual synecdoche, i.e. Christ according to his human nature, or as he was a man, was born a Jew of the stock of David, and his being according to the flesh, is opposed to the Spirit of holinesse, that is, to the other nature in him, and is called the eternal Spirit, which did shine forth most brightly in him, after and through his resurrection from the dead: this Nature then had a real existence before his incarnation, for it was such a modified nature that could have taken on him the seed of Angels, Heb. 2.16. but, would not do so, but was the Son of Abraham. Theodoret Dialog. 1. saith, As often as I speak of the generation of a known and an ordinary man, I do not say, he is the Son of such a man according to the flesh; but I do simply say, he is the Son of such a one, as Abraham begot Isaac, I add not, according to the flesh, because he had no other Nature but the human, but I speak otherwise of Christ, because he had not onely the human, but Divine Nature. As it is said here that Christ was made or born after the flesh, so in other Scriptures the Son of Man is said to come from Heaven, and to be in Heaven in respect of his Deity, when he was on earth, 3. Joh. 13. this place then is not serviceable for the Adversary, for he was Gods Son by eternal generation, and he by the Spirit of holinesse was made the Son of Man by his incarnation, and clearly manifested to his Disciples to be so by his powerful resurrection. The words then hold forth a communication of properties, for the denomination of Christ in respect of his Divine Nature, is attributed to the human Nature, he was made of the seed of David; the same Person is called The Son of God in respect of his Deity, and The Son of Man, or of the seed of David, in respect of his humanity; the whole person is incarnated, but not the whole of the Person, but only in regard of his human Nature. I do confess that by the Spirit of holinesse is not meant the Holy Spirit, viz the third Person of the sacred Trinity, and your reason is good, because the scope of the Apostle is to describe the Person of our blessed Saviour, which is the foundation of that doctrine, which the Apostle intends to treat of, as in the former part he describes his human Nature, so in the latter his Divine: I grant also that the soul of Christ is not meant by the Spirit of holinesse, but your proof is faulty, for Christ has not this Spirit of holinesse, nor doth the Text say that he had it by his resurrection, but he had it before his death and resurrection, but he( that was before the Son of God) was declared with power, that is by that Spirit of holinesse, which manifested itself by raising Christ from the dead, for this is a work of omnipotency, without contra●●ction: there is then by the Spirit of sanctification a secret relation both to the flesh of Christ, and to the Church, his members and body, whereby they are all of them sanctified. The Divine Nature( saith he) cannot be meant by the name of Spirit, because it is no where in Scripture designed by the name of Spirit: to this I answer, first this reason, if true, is no sufficient confutation, because possible a term may be but once used {αβγδ} in that sense, however the Adversary confutes it himself, for where shall we find in Scripture, that by the Spirit of holinesse is meant a holy spiritual body? Secondly I answer, that the term equivalently is in Scripture, God is a Spirit, or spiritual substance, John 4. and he is called the Spirit, as most fit to set out the opposition, because he had said in the former member, not according to man, but according to the flesh, he makes choice of a word directly opposite thereto, which shows the incomprehensible and ineffable virtue of the Divine Nature, viz. Spirit and this Spirit is called the Spirit of holinesse from the effect, because he sanctified his own human Nature, the Temple in which he dwelled, and which he assumed into the unity of his Divine Person, and by which he doth likewise sanctify all the Elect which are the living Members of that body, whereof he is the mystical head; this sense is made out by the opposition betwixt flesh and spirit, otherwise it would not have been full and entire, nor would it show according to what he was, the seed of David, nor how he declared himself to be omnipotent by his resurrection from the dead, unless it had been wrought by his own Spirit, and albeit Christ is not said to do this, or shows this in other Texts by the Spirit of holinesse, yet is it in holy Scriptures set down in terms equivalent, for he offered himself by his eternal Spirit, Heb. 9.14. which words S. Paul more sully explicateth, saying, He was crucified through weakness; that is, in his human Nature, yet he liveth by the power of God, 2 Cor. 13 4. that is, he was raised again from death to life by his Divine power, as S. Bernard saith, misery belonged to the human Nature, but power to the Divine, Ser. de Verb. Sapient. 1. Pet. 3.18.19. the like opposition betwixt the flesh and the Spirit is in this text, he was put to death in the flesh, but was quickened by the Spirit, which as the following works do open, cannot be meant of his soul, which could not preach it, having no being in dayes of Noah, when the Spirit of Christ by Noah preached to the disobedient World: See this largely confirmed out of the Fathers by Mr. Parker, de Descensu Christi ad Inferos, lib. 4. S. 55. once more God was manifested in the flesh, justified by the Spirit, id est, declared to be just by the Deities raising him from the dead, by his aseention into Heaven, and sitting there at Gods right hand. The second Argument to prove the Divine Nature cannot be meant, because he had it, as we confess, whiles he was clothed with flesh. True, but what of that? the adversary supposeth that to be true which is manifestly false, and a corruption of the Text, that Christ had not the Spirit of holinesse till after his resurrection. Observe these terms are not equivalent, to have a thing is one thing and to prove that a man hath it by a glorious effect is another thing: a Child hath a reasonable soul, who can deny it? but this is manifested to others when he acts rationally: in the Mothers womb its male or female, but not declared the one or other but by its nativity. I add, that the Adversary doth more then intimate, that Christ is not now clothed with the flesh, what then shall become of the resurrection of the body? for what is resurrection but the raising up of the same body which was dead, we must distinguish betwixt the nature of a true human body, which Christ now hath in glory, and betwixt the frail and corruptible qualities thereof, which cannot enter into Heaven. After the Adversary had removed all false interpretations of the Spirit of holinesse, as he apprehended them, he sets down his own judgement, that it is his holy spiritual body, which dies no more. but tis like God who is a Spirit. May not a man justly wonder at the forgetfulness or folly of the Adversary, that he endeavours to confute our sense of the Spirit of holinesse, because the Deity is never in Scripture called the Spirit of holinesse, and tells us that thereby is meant a holy spiritual body, and yet neither doth nor can allege one Scripture to that purpose, nor any Expositor old or modern, excepting Socinians, which say that a glorified or spiritual body is called, The Spirit of holinesse? nor will the words of the text bear this corrupt gloss, for to be made of the Seed of David according to the flesh, implies a limitation and distinction, and doth show that the same Perso● was both the Son of Mary, as he was Man, and the Son of God by h●s eternal nativity. The Adversary with the Photinians holds a gross opinion touching the body of Christ raised from the dead, calling it a holy spiritual body, and they do deny the resurrection of the same body, and that other bodies which are eternal and spiritual, shall be given to us. First, this is to deny the Resurrection, for to rise again is not to exist again; as sight restored to a blind man, is not resurrection of sight; and the restoring of health to a sickly man, is not a resurrection of health, but 'tis an Article to believe the resurrection of the same body. Secondly, in what body Christ rose from death, in that he is in Heaven, for he rose again not to live on Earth, but in Heaven, yea, and he hath a human body in Heaven, Math. 25.31. how else can he be called the Son of man, if he hath not a human body? and what other thing is mans body, but flesh and blood? and the bodily members, as Face, Eyes, Hands, Feet, and the rest do beautify, and perfect the body, without these the body is imperfect. Christ rose from the dead with flesh, and said to his Disciples when they were troubled, Behold my hands and my feet, a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see I have, Luk. 24.39 and to confirm Thomas in the faith of his Resurrection, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, John 20.27. He did eat and drink with the Disciples after the Resurrection, and was seen alive after his Passion forty dayes; and in the same continued narration, Act. 1.2, 3, 9.11. 'tis spoken of one and the same human body, He was taken up into Heaven in the same body, and the same Jesus shall so come from Heaven, as the Disciples saw him go into Heaven. And Act. 2 30 He was raised so from the dead that his body saw no corruption. 31. and He was seen of Stephen in Heaven, Act. 7. and They shall look on him whom they have crucified, Revel. 1.7. and to allege no more Scriptures, Rom. 6 9.10. Christ being raised from the dead death no more: how could he say so, if he had a really distinct body from that in which he was raised? for the body of a man, as it is a body, riseth not again, because as it is a body, it death not, for so the Elements, &c. being bodies should die; but it death as it is a living body consisting of flesh and blood, for death is onely where life was, and that which death is raised up again. Fourthly, if Christ hath not flesh in Heaven, neither shall his Members, the faithful; for our bodies must be conformable to the glorious body of Christ, but we shall have the same bodies for substance in Heaven which we have on Earth, for the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15.53, 54. This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortality must put on immortality: the context proves that the subject is Man consisting of a body or reasonable soul; there is identity of the same subject in this life, and the life to come; {αβγδ}: it could not be said, that this corruptible must put on incorruption, if they had other bodies, and not the same according to substance raised up, and is it not the glory and beauty of bodies to have the parts therof distinguished one from another? and that those bodies which in this life were subject to diseases, infirmities, deformities, should be reformed to a better state, and exempted from all such natural evils? and doth it not conduce to the glory of God, that we should have tongues to praise him in the Heavens, yea and our own happiness too, that our bodies which suffered here, and served God, should partake of the glory of the soul? or stands it with the justice of God, that new bodies should be framed, and they in bliss or eternal misery, which were never instrumental to the soul, either in good or evil? and how should this main principle of Christianity be to Heathen People a thing incredible, and mocked at, Act. 17.32. if the some body was not raised up again? I conclude with the words of Jerom. de Libero Arbitr. ad Ctesiphon. To recite the saying of heretics, is to refute them, for their blasphemy appears at the first fight; nor is it needful to be convinced, which is detected to be blasphemy by the very profession of it Ob. It is said by the Apostle, that our bodies shall be raised spiritual bodies. Sol. This is not meant of the Essence of the body, but the qualities thereof, in which regard, men which are regenerated, are called spiritual, 1 Cor. 2.15. Gal. 6.1. Ye that are spiritual: again, as {αβγδ}, is not the soul, or the body turned into the soul, no more is {αβγδ}, the soul, but so called, as Beckman hath observed. 1. Because it's free from marriage in heaven, Matth. 22.32. we shall not then be Angels, but in this like the holy Angels. 2. Because our bodies, which are here corruptible, shall then be incorruptible, 1 Cor. 15.53. 3. In respect of the glory of our bodies, They are sown in dishonour, but shall be raised in glory, v. 43. 4. In regard of the power of the body, Its sown in weakness, and is raised in power: ibidem. 5. In regard of the agility of the body, it shall not be heavy then as now, but wholly at the command of the soul. Ob. It is said, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, 1 Cor 15.40. An. that is, this mortal and frail corruptible nature, till it hath put off this corruptible condition, subject to and infected with sin, cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and this sense is proved by the following words in the same verse, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. I remember that a Socinian in a little book called Disquisitio brevis, undertakes to show the Protestants by their grounds cannot confute Papists, as Socinians can. Transubtiation( for an instance) is confuted, and the bread is not turned into the body of Christ,& wine into his blood, because Christ being in heaven, hath neither flesh nor blood: but well might the Pontifieians triumph, if there were no better weapons to hurt them, then such as are drawn from a blasphemous Position, which destroys an Article of our faith. To wind up this Discourse, and to return to the Text, Rom. 1.3. The spirit of holinesse sanctified Christ, the same person sanctifies himself, and is sanctified by himself, so that the spirit of sanctification is not another thing from Christ, but it is another thing from the flesh of Christ, which is sanctified, and the Text proveth the Deity of Christ mentioning his power, that is, his own omnipotency, Luke 4.36. declared by working miracles, and converting people unto God, Rom. 1.16. and by sending the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, and at other times, Acts 2. for who but God can do so great a work? as also by raising up his dead body, which is a singular work of omnipotency, and demonstrates Christ to be the high God. bid. And now the sense of that passage, Heb 9.14. begins to appear; How much more shall the blood of Christ, which through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God, Purge your Consciences from dead works to serve the living God. By eternal spirit is here meant the spiritual body of Christ, which lasteth to all Eternity, and this expression is opposed to what the same Divine author speaketh of Christ. Heb. 5 7. who in the dayes of his flesh; for eternal is contrary to dayes, and flesh to spirit. Answ. The Adversary takes occasion to vent his gross and senseless fancies, and in this his Exposition he doth extremely cross other Socinians, which do understand by eternal Spirit, a divine Spirit, or gifts given unto Christ without measure, or that he offered himself spiritually and not carnally, and by his voluntary oblation procured eternal Redemption for us, with such like devised shifts. S●●Paraeus in locum, but they hit not on your strange Exposition, that by eternal spirit a spiritual body is meant, which no where in Scripture, I am sure, is called an Eternal spirit: the body indeed is called by Saint Paul after the Resurrection, a Spiritual body, but it is never called a Spirit. Will you say, that Christs glorified body in heaven is made of air, or a heavenly substance? and how should that body offer itself to God? much more rationally might you have said with some of ours, that by Eternal Spirit is meant the Eternal and immortal soul, intimating thereby, that he knowingly and willingly in obedience to his Father, suffered death for us: but this is rather to be understood, as most commonly it is by ancient Fathers, and later Writers, of his Divine nature which made his bloody sacrifice on the cross, acceptable to God, and able to purge us from dead works, that is, from sins which deserve death; for the dignity of his worthy sacrifice ariseth not from the blood, or soul of man, though it be more excellent than the blood of Bulls and goats, but from the invaluable worth of the person, whose blood was sacrificed: no satisfaction of a creature can take away sin, which hath a kind of infinity, in that it is committed against an infinite person, Aquin. Sum. par. 3. q. 1 art 2. no finite sum can discharge an infinite debt; the nature and worth of a holy man being finite, is as far from infinitnesse( be it what it will be in comparison of other finite things) as nothing at all is from all, or as that which is from that which is not. This then affords an Argument to prove, that Christ was not onely man, but the true and Eternal God, for by his Spirit, his own Eternal Spirit, he offered himself to God, and the holy Apostles make a clear difference betwixt the flesh which was offered, and the Spirit, which at the same time offered it, and by consequence Christ is a Priest, not onely according to the human, but the Divine Nature also, for being a Priest, he offered his flesh and blood as man, but the worth and efficacy of his bitter passion flowed from his eternal Spirit, that is, his Divine nature, as the principle thereof, the Eternal Spirit of our Saviour procured that his Passion should work an eternal Redemption and purgation of our sins. You add out of the fifth to the Hebrews, that flesh and spirit are opposed, as Eternity is to dayes: this we grant to be true, but it is to be observed that the opposition is to be taken in regard of the same time: in this manner he offered( and sacrificed) by his Eternal spirit, which he then had, and not onely after, as you say, when he had been crucified. Besides, doth this opposition betwixt flesh and Spirit, prove at all, that an immortal glorified body is signified by the eternal spirit: verily, if there was nothing else eternal but a glorified body, the point had been fully proved, but sith this is attributed not onely to Angels their souls now, and bodies after the Resurrection. A Conclusion à genere ad speciem affirmative, was never held logic; this his body is an element, Ergo it is fire: it follows not. bid. Neither will that which we have spoken seem strange to them, who having penetrated into that profound Epistle to the Hebrews, know what is here frequently intimated, that Christ then made his offering for our sins, when after his Resurrection he entred into heaven, and being endowed with a spiritual and immortal body, presented himself before God. For so the Type of the levitical Priesthood making the yearly atonement, required it. Answ. bats and owls may conceive and pretend, that they can see further with their weak eyes and dim sight, than the quick-sighted Eagles can discern. The deep speculation of this seraphical and illuminated doctor is this; Christ made his offering for our sins in heaven, and not on the cross: this Divinity is strange in the ears of our people, and directly contrary to the holy Scriptures, the rule of our faith, if we will speak as the Apostle doth in that Text of his expiatory and satisfactory oblation. 1. Christ was a common person, no otherwise then the first Adam was, who is called the figure of Christ, Rom. 5.14. and Christ himself is called the second Adam, 1 Cor. 15.45. as sin and death is from the one, so is righteousness and life from the other, and this is effected by his oblation, whereby he undertook as a surety to pay our debts, and satisfy divine Justice, by undergoing the punishment due to our sins, and this was done by his bloody death, Mat. 20.28. Rom. 3.25. 1 Pet. 1.19. and by many other Texts to this purpose not needful to be name. Augustin. in Psal. 37. saith expressly, that Christ sustained the Person of the first Adam on his cross, and Theodoret. Dialog. 3. compares the first and second Adam together, as the physic with the Disease, as the plaster with the Wound, Righteousness with Sin, Blessing with Cursing, forgiveness with Condemnation, Observation of the Law with the Transgression of it, as Life with Death, and Heaven with Hell, Christ with Adam, and Man with Man. Secondly, our Saviour himself said John 19 30. when he was departing out of this life, It is finished, and bowing down his head a gesture of Prayer, he said, Father into thy hands I commit my Spirit, and gave up the Ghost: our Redemption according to the Oracles of the Prophets was now wrought, and what was signified by legal types, which were shadows of good things to come, was then accomplished, and the Sun of righteousness being risen, these shadows and dark resemblances of good things to come by Christ are vanished. Thirdly I add, that Christ acted as a Priest, whiles he was on earth, for he taught the heavenly Doctrine, he prayed, he blessed, he offered up himself, he purged us from our sins, and then he sat in Heavenly places, Heb. 1.3. he offered up prayers with strong cries, Heb. 5.7. plainly relating to his bitter agony in his passion, and if you please to penetrate into that divine Epistle, there are convincing proofs to manifest this truth, chap. 9. v. 13. Christ sacrificed neither by the blood of bulls and Goats, but by his own blood he entred in once into the holy place( Heaven) having obtained eternal redemption for us, and not for a time onely, as were the legal justifications by types, but this Redemption shall continue to the end of the World, and the efficacy thereof reached backward even to the beginning, Act. 15.11. the faithful all of them make but one catholic Church, and are all of them saved by him and by no other: now this Redemption is not purchased without shedding of blood, which was done on Earth, and not in Heaven, and vers. 15. 'tis expressly said, that by the death of the Mediator, the truly reformed and penitent have the redemption of their transgressions, and the expiation of their sins, and this the Apostle proves, that his oblation was in his passion, because he could not die often, and therefore he could not be offered more then once, ver. 25, 26. this Argument of the Apostle would not be of any force, unless this be granted, he offered himself but once, therefore he could not die often, and v. 26. Once hath he appeared to put away sins, {αβγδ}, to frustrate the end or design of sin, which was to get us into its power, to reign in our mortal bodies, and then maliciously to bind us over to eternal punishment, from both which Christs death was designed to redeem us, and takes away sin, quoad vim dominandi& damnandi, non quoad actum inhaerendi,& vim inficiendi in hac vita, B. Davenant Determinat. 5. and further v. 28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; he bore our sins up to the cross with him, 1 Pet. 2.24. and died as our Surety; now the sacrifice was killed on the Altar: Christ therefore by his bloody death and passion, and not by any feigned offering up himself in our names after his glorious Resurrection hath put away our sins. Fourthly, Gods Justice and his truth required that our sins were to be satisfied for by the death of the messiah, whereby God gathered together in one all things both in Heaven and in Earth, Ephes. 1.10. {αβγδ} in Christ, as the head, even all men, all the faithful which were from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, as Irenae. lib. 3. cap. 33, opens it, the transgressors of Gods Law were threatened with death, Genes. 2.17. and the sinners are worthy of death, as the hired servant is worthy of his wages, Rom. 1.27. and 6. ult. If it was possible then for us to be saved, Gods justice must be satisfied, and the truths of his threatenings must be performed: who could do this but our Saviour? he being the Almighty God infinite in wisdom, in power, and in holinesse, in all worth and perfection was able to satisfy to the utmost farthing, and we may truly and confidently say; God hath laid help on him that is mighty. Lastly, where there is properly no Altar, there is no sacrifice offered up to God; but in Heaven there is no Altar, as there was no Altar for burnt offering in the Sanctuary, but an Altar of Incense, which was not raised up for {αβγδ}, sac●ifices, and so by consequent Christs oblation was not properly in Heaven, but on the Altar of the cross, on which he canceled the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us, and destructive to us, Col. 2.14. and by his blood shed on the cross made our Peace with God, Col. 1.20. drawing us who were far from him in regard of any gracious condition, and saving relation to be nearly and savingly united to him, Ephes. 2.12.13. bid. The type of the levitical high Priest making the yearly atonement for the sins of the People, Levit. 16. did require it, for as the atonement was not then made when he slay the Beasts; but when having put on his linen robes, he brought their blood into the Sanctuary before the Mercy-seat; so neither did Christ after his sacrifice for our sins upon the across, but when after his resurrection, being clothed with Robes of glory and immortality, he entred into Heaven, the true Sanctuary, and presented himself to God. Answ. The type of the Levitical Priesthood, in that he made the yearly atonement, which was ceremonially in an external and visible manner performed by him, for the sins of the people, did signify, as we all confess, the true, real and spiritual expiation of all our sins, by Christ Jesus our high Priest, who was a Priest not after the order of Aaron, but Melchisedech; and as the Levitical Priest performed some duties pertaining to his Office out of the Sanctuary, as to pray for the People, to offer sacrifices for sins, which were done by him out of the Sanctuary, and to bring in the blood of the sacrifice into the Sanctuary, and there to make intercession for the People; thus is it likewise touching our Priest prefigured hereby; his Priesthood and some acts thereof were begun and finished on Earth, as to pray for us, John 17. in the Garden and on the cross, and to offer up his body a sacrifice for us; so doth he continue a Priest in Heaven for ever, entering into that Building not made with hands, with his body as it were sprinkled with his own blood, and there making continual intercession for us. Nor did the high Priest only on the day of atonement prefigure our Saviour, but he himself also in his office at other times; yea, and the inferior Priests in their daily sacrifices, which never entred into the Sanctum sanctorum, typified him, and made atonement for the sins of Israelites. And as the High Priest was truly a High Priest, and discharged his office before he went into the Sanctuary, the Sanctum sanctorum, which was a type of the highest Heavens, 1 Chron. 6.49. and in case of sickness and pollution had an Assistant to perform his office, as Zephaniah, called the second Priest, was to Semaiah the chief Priest, Jer. 52.24. as Annas was thought to be to Caiaphas, Luke 3.2. See Joseph. Scaliger in Prolegom. ad Euseb. Casaubon. ad ann. 31. se. 4 n. 9. as the patriarch of Constantinople had his Proto-syncellus, the Roman Centurion his Optio avant and the heads of our colleges their Presidents: as the High Priest, I say, was truly a High Priest before he went into the Sanctuary, so was Jesus Christ a Priest of earth, though not an earthly Priest, or of an earthly condition, for then he could not of himself, by his own virtue have expiated our sins, nor was he a Priest on Earth to offer up to God Levitical sacrifices, Heb. 8.4. nor did he die for our sins as he was a Priest, but as he was a sacrifice; nor was he so a Priest on earth, as to remain on earth so long as he was a Priest, as those did which were of the order of Aaron, for had he not entred into the heavenly Sanctuary, he could not have been a Priest for us, and opened the kingdom of heaven for us to enter into it; and as the high Priest did not offer Sacrifices( to speak properly) in the Sanctuary, for they were offered on the brazen Altar before he went into the most holy place, which as the daily Sacrifice and other Sacrifices at all times were offered and burnt on the Altar; and as Abraham is said to offer up his Son, Heb 11.17. because he intended to sacrifice him on the Altar, so Jesus Christ our high Priest once offered up himself, a Sacrifice in his manhood on the cross, and not in heaven, for he is a Priest there, albeit his body is not there to be an unbloody Sacrifice, and albeit he hath not a certain host in external proper manner to make perpetual oblation thereby in the Church, though he doth not exercise a visible and external act of sacrificing in heaven, as Papists say, Rhemists on Heb. 8.3. v. and Fulk against them. To prosecute the comparison betwixt the typical and spiritual high Priest: as the high Priest went into the Sanctuary with some part of the blood of this Sacrifice, and sweet Incense beaten small, which prefigured the bitter agony and death of our Saviour; so Jesus Christ having made an atonement for us by his oblation and passion, entred into the highest heavens, and remains there a Priest for ever to make intercession for us, not as in the dayes of his humiliation by vocal external prayers, nor by offering an external sacrifice for us, for our Redemption was purchased, and expiation was made before Christ entered into heaven, but by appearing in the presence of God, and to negotiate as the Priest did in the holy of holies, and on our behalf, and to relieve us in our wants, Heb. 9.27. by the vigorous effect of his Sacrifice, once performed for us: if the blood of Abel unjustly shed cries for vengeance continually, how much more shall the blood of Christ shed but once for our sins, cry always for mercy and reconciliation. It is true, that the Apostle makes mention of Christs {αβγδ} in heaven, his manifestation or apparition there for us, but this is not {αβγδ}, an oblation for us, but an application of his oblation to us; not a Sacrifice, but a commemoration of his bloody Sacrifice, and he always appears before God, but he was never but once offered. Heb 7.27. and 9.25.28. By his offering himself once, he was our Saviour meritoriously: by his presenting himself before God the Father, he is our Saviour essicaciously, and that not by any new oblation, but by virtue of a former oblation on the cross: it is true, the same effects are ascribed to the resurrection of Christ, but not in the same manner, but first in respect of manifestation, because his resurrection, ascension and glory in heaven are an evident testimony of our Redemption. 2 In regard of Confirmation, because by these acts, our faith touching the pardon and future abolishment of our sins is confirmed. 3. In respect of application to save us by his life, Rom. 5.10. 4. In respect of actual absolution, There is no damnation to them that are in Christ: the truth is▪ Christs acting in heaven is in no place of Scripture called {αβγδ}, an oblation or offering up himself for us, an expiatory and propitiatory oblation. By this time the event discovereth to us what is the Adversaries penetrating into the profound Epistle to the Hebrews; in truth, 'tis not to disclose those heavenly treasures, wrapped up in those sacred leaves for the enriching of the Reader, but to offer a profane violence to that divine Epistle, and to rob us of those blessed truths, which it plainly reveals to us: and it is no marvel, if they which take away Christs natural glory, the glory of his Deity properly so called, do also deny his true Priesthood contradistinguished from his Kingly and prophetical offices, and if they do not aclowledge the chief benefits thereof. bid. Wherefore to return to that foresaid passage, Rom. 9.5. when it is here said, of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, a God to be blessed for ever, we ought( by the authority of the Apostle himself) to supply in our mind the other member of the opposition, and to understand the place, as if it had been said, who according to the spirit of holinesse, by the Resurrection from the dead, that is, according to his holy spiritual body, which he received by means of the Resurrection of the dead is over all, God blessed for ever: so that he is the Son of God in power, and accordingly a God over all, not by having the Divine Nature personally united to the human, but by the glorification and exaltation of his very human nature, and so is not the most high God, but a God subordinate to him. Answ. Your far fetched addition, and supply in your mind, hath no better ground for you to build on, than teste meipso, and if you bear witness of yourself, your witness is not true, but false and contemptible: that Scripture Rom. 9.5. hath been already vindicated from your corrupt glosses, and they being discovered can your Building stand upright? The parallel place, Rom. 1.34. is notoriously depraved by you, for he was not made the Son of God after his Resurrection by the glorification and exaltation of his human nature, for the Socinians themselves will confess, that Christ was the Son of God before that time, viz. as is clear by his conception and birth, Luke 1.35. by his sanctification with a Divine power to save many, John 10.36. by Gods special love to Christ, Math. 3.17. by his resurrection from the dead, Acts 13.32. and lastly, by his exaltation into glory, Heb. 5.7. but Christ was not made the Son of God by any of these means, for he was long before, even from Eternity the Son of God, the Text saith he was declared to be the Son of God by that omnipotent work of raising his body from death to be the most high God, this was it which manifested the Sonship of Christ by raising up his body to an immortal state, and offering violence to death by his own glorious power, and not, as you wildly infer, that he was not God blessed for ever before his resurrection. This Scripture hath been already discussed, I will therefore pass it over, and conclude with a sentence out of the Ancient Father Origen. lib. 7, in Epist. ad Roman. What will some say of this place of the Apostle Paul, in which Christ is evidently called God over all? and a little after, he that is above all, hath none above him, for the Son is not after the Father, but of the Father, and he adds; manifestly is the nature of the Trinity held forth, and that there is one substance which is above all: can any thing be spoken more clearly for us, and against the Adversary? bid. John 20.28, 29. Thomas said to Christ, my Lord, and my God: Jesus saith to him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: The words of Christ plainly show, that Thomas believed him to be his Lord and his God, because he had seen him, being raised from the dead. But doth this argue now Christ to be the most high God? yea, it strongly proves the contrary, in that the Scripture else where calleth the most high God invisible, 1 Tim. 1.17. and saith, that no man hath seen him, nor can see him, 1. Tim. 6.14.15. Answ. Thomas never doubted of the Divinity of God the Father, but of Christ, but being now convinced hereof by his divine knowledge, he faitfully confessed him to be Lord and God; yea, his God, and his Lord: nor did our Saviour reject this confession, but he accepted it as a title due to him, Because thou hast seen, thou believest: when the people in their acclamation to Herods Oration, said, The voice was the voice of a God, and not of a Man, and he was puffed up with vain glory: this was in him so great a fault, that God smote so signal an offendor with worms, base creatures to pull down his pride, Act. 12.21. and would our Saviour, think we, build up Thomas and the rest of the Apostles in a dangerous error, by owning that title of God, which Thomas ascribed to him, and take this glory to himself, if he had not been truly the mighty God? It is true, at that time Christ was visibly seen by Thomas, and from hence you argue he is not God, because God is invisible. I grant that in the same respect that any thing is visible, it is not invisible, yet may the same thing be in divers respects both visible and invisible, as man and beast are visible touching their bodies, but invisible in regard of their souls; yea, Christ himself is undeniably the object of faith▪ He said to the blind man miraculously cured, Dost thou believe on the Son of God, John 9.35. and yet he saith, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee, vers. 37. notwithstanding the Apostle saith, that faith is of things that are not seen, Heb. 11. viz. of such things whereof none have an ocular or sensible demonstration. How can these jarring sentences be reconciled? very well: though faith may be of things which are seen by the eyes of the body, yet it doth not depend on them in that notion and consideration, as they are so seen, but as they are seen with the eyes of the mind illustrated by the shining truth in the word. Lombar. lib. 3. Dist. 24. cap. 3, the Apostle distinguisheth, We look on the things which are not seen: we look on them, and yet they are not seen by us, 2 Cor. 4.18. and albeit God is said to be invisible in regard of his essence, yet it is said, that the time will come when we shall see God face to face, 1 Cor. 13.12. for as the great School-man Alexander Halensis saith, there are three degrees of knowledge of God in the understanding answerable to the three degrees of knowledge by our Senses, as we know sweetness: first, by hearing, Honey is sweet: to this a kind of faith is answerable; for faith comes by hearing: Secondly, by seeing sweet things: speculative knowledge in the understanding is correspondent to this: and thirdly, by tasting Honey to be sweet, experimental knowledge answereth to this: yea, as the Sun is seen divers ways by the eyes of the body, so likewise is God by the eyes of the mind; sometimes through a clear bright Cloud, so is God seen by the Angels and glorified Saints: sometimes through a dark Cloud, thus God was seen by Adam in the state of innocency: sometimes through a compounded glass whereby we see the image of the image: thus do we see Gods face now by faith in the glass of the word: briefly, as the acts of the reasonable soul do discover that immortal substance, which cannot without absurdity be denied; so likewise, albeit God is in his essence invisible, yet by our Saviours works Thomas discovered him to be the most High God. Thomas saw Christ, and this proved him to be a Man; Thomas saw the Divine works of Christ, and they proved him to be the invisible God. bid. Whereas on the contrary the Scripture calleth Christ the Image of the invisible God, 1 Coloss. 15. but it is impossible for him that is the invisible God to be the image of the invisible God, unless any man will be so absurd as to say, he is the image of himself. Answ. An image( as here it is taken) is a resemblance derived from that thing which it represents, and therefore albeit milk is like to milk, yet is not milk an image of milk, and if it be a natural image, it hath a habitude to design the nature of that thing whose image it is; a Crow is not the image of a Blackmoore, though they are like in colour, because it neither denotes the same kind of Creature, nor doth it design the nature of a Blackmoore, But his accidental quality only. 1. Christ is the image of his Father in a common respect, as he is man, for men are made in the likeness of God, and this is not meant: or in a singular consideration, and that 2, First, primarily he is Gods image in respect of his Person, the essential image of his Fathers Person, an infinite and most perfect image of an infinite Father, whose Son he is by paternal, and eternal generation. Seth was the Image of his Father Adam, not only his accidental image, in regard of the corruption of nature derived from him, but his substantial image also, because he received his substance from his Father, the same in kind with his: the Adversary, as his usual manner is, by the term( God) taking it essentially, which in this text is to be understood synecdochically of God the Father; the Son of God we all grant is not an image of God or the Deity, absolutely taken, for that is one and the same individually, both in the Father and the son of God, but there is a relative opposition betwixt an image and that which is represented thereby, so that these Relatives must be two at least; so that albeit Christ is one in essence, yet is he not one in Person with the Father, In similitudine hac summa differentia& summa convenientia concurrunt: the agreement in regard of the essence, and the difference in regard of their Person, and to the same purpose he is called The Character of his Fathers Person, Heb. 1.3. and coequal with him, as the Character is neither greater nor lesser then the stamp: and he represents his person not only to men, when he was manifested in the flesh, but to Angels before his incarnation, but he was from all eternity the express image of his Father, by himself, and in himself, and in this also he is like to God, whereas the Holy Ghost is not said to be Gods image, because the Son is Productivus of the Holy Ghost, but the Holy Ghost is not Productivus; yea, and the Son would have been his image for ever, if neither men nor Angels had been created by him; if a man should never see the image of Caesar, yet would that remain his image still; for to be seen is onely accidental to an image and separable from it, and Christ as he was God was the visible image of his Father, which Moses did behold, Numb. 12.8. this image was not corporeal but Spiritual and Divine, and consequently the most high God, and Divines do render a reason why God the Father is called invisible, because he was never seen of any man, as the Son of God hath appeared more then once in the Old Testament. 3. As Christ in regard of natural generation is the essential image of his Father, so likewise in a secondary consideration he is the image of God, as he is our Mediator, and as God manifested in the flesh, for in this notion he hath more lively then ever was or could be done by a creature expressed the will of his Father by his Divine wisdom and heavenly Doctrine, and miraculous works, and made thereby the invisible God to be seen in him, as a body is in a crystal glass, for in him the Mercy, Justice, Truth, and power of God are represented to us, insomuch that our Lord saith, He that sees me hath seen the Father, John 14.9. He that knows me, and by faith believes that I am Gods Son, needs not ask to see the Father, because they are one God, Zanch. de Incarnat. filii Dei, lib. 2 yet is not Christ the image of himself, though of the same essence with the Father, first, because he is a distinct person from the Father. Secondly, because he is not an image of the Divine Essence, but of the Fathers Person, nor is the Holy Ghost, though he hath the same Essence with the Father, the Fathers image, by Christ, who is God manifested in the Flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. God the Father is manifested, and he is the light, the way and the truth, by whom we do know the will of the invisible God, a d by whom we have access to his Majesty, and do with great pleasure and delight behold his lively image, Jesus Christ. B. Davenant in 1. Coloss. 15. bid. John 1.1. In the beginning( not of the World, but of the Gospel. See Mark 1.1, Luke 1.2. and Joh. 1.1. and chap. 2.7.13; 14.24. v. and chap. 3.11. and Epistle 2.5, 6. for these words( and in the beginning) are wont to be restrained to the matter in hand, which is here the Gospel. Answ. Mr. Biddle is wickedly industrious in obscuring the lustre of this sacred Text, wherein the Deity of Gods Son doth as clearly shine forth, as doth the glorious sun with its radiant beams in a fair summers day, and his success is no better then a dogs barking against the Moon, as by Gods help shall be demonstrated. The are many ways how the word was in the beginning: in respect of generation, as he is simply the son of God: and in predestination, or preordination with God in promise: by exhibition or public manifestation, or in regard of institution and sanctification of him to the office of a mediator. Beginning in respect of generation and preordination, belongs to Eternity; in respect of promise, to the beginning of fathers, man: beginning in respect of exhibition, to the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; in regard of declaration, to the beginning of his public ministry: in regard of institution and sanctification of him to that sacred office was done by his Father, when the Holy Ghost descended on him at his baptism in the likeness of a Dove, and when by his Fathers voice he was called to the public office of a mediator. These I will not insist on at present, many of them not agreeing to the beginning in Saint John, I will onely mention two, wherein both of them do thus far concur, that our Saviours eternal being, is signified thereby, though they differ much in the meaning of the word itself. First, some will have beginning understood of the relation ad intra, that is, the word was in the Father who is principium originarium, this Exposition is for the matter true, for the Son is in the Father, but the word beginning is never so taken in Gods holy Oracles, and therefore not warrantable to give a strange sense to a word in this place, where no necessity enforceth it. Others by beginning do note eternity to be meant thereby, Our Apostle and Evangelist, like an Eagle, flies higher then the Creation, aims at a higher beginning, looks upon the Sun, and fastens his eyes on the eternal beginning of eternity; in this sense beginning seems to be taken, when our Saviour saith, he knew from the[ beginning] who they were that believed not, John 6.64. now this he certainly knew from eternity, for nothing is hide from him, who is the God everlasting, but all things are open in his sight, and the Apostle Paul, Coloss. 1.18. He is the Beginning, which is more fitly referred to our Saviour as he is our Mediator, but that place is evident Revel. 1.8. where he is called Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End: here the Lords everlasting being is described; beginning of itself doth not note eternity necessary, yet the word End being added, it doth, and to put the matter out of doubt, the Apostle saith, that God from the beginning choose the Thessalonians, 2 Thess. 2.13. what is from the beginning, but as the same Apostle speaks in like manner in another place, before the foundation of the World, Ephes. 1.4. and origen saith,( of whom that is proverbially spoken; Where he spake well, none spake better) in the beginning of his Works the first of Genesis, In the beginning God created Heaven: what other beginning is there of all things, but his Word? Our Lord by whom he made Heaven and Earth, as Saint John in the beginning of his Gospel saith, in the beginning was the Word. Thus Origen: this I confess is not a primary, and a proper Exposition of the Text, but a secondary, and no way convincing the Adversary, for if this had been the mind of the Holy Ghost, one would think that the words would have been thus, the Word was from eternity, rather then in eternity. The second and common Exposition of the Orthodox is, that by beginning, is to be understood the beginning of those things which have a beginning, Principium principiatorum, viz. of those things which begin in time, and it notes out properly the first moment and point of time, when time, place, creation, and things created in time and place began to be, and herein our Evangelist in all probability hath relation to the first words of the first Chapter of Genesis, In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth: and Grotius saith, that so the Syriac hath it {αβγδ} out of the Hebrew in this place, so that Moses the first Pen man of the blessed Spirit, and Saint John the last Evangelist, Prophet, and Pen-man of the Scriptures do use the self same first word in both their Writings, In the beginning, and our Saviour is most fitly excluded out of the number of the Creatures( for the Evangelist saith not the Word {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}, he was in the beginning) within which the blasphemy of the heretics would include him, and consequently he had his being from all eternity, for every thing that is not eternal, had its first beginning in time, and to be before the world, and to be eternal, are equivalent in Scripture Phrase; as Moses saith, Psal. 90.2. Before the Mountains were brought forth, and thou hadst formed the Earth and the World, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. and the Wise man, Prov. 8.22. and Paul, Ephes. 1.4. do speak to the same purpose: this Exposition is proper, and cleared up by the context, as shall be proved. Mr. Biddle expounds beginning not as I have done, nor as the old Arians, viz. of the Creation of the World, but of the beginning of the Gospel, and spiritual world, because the word is to be restrained to the matter in hand. This is a commendable Rule to which I do willingly subscribe, and I know it will not advantage his cause, but overthrow his Heretical Doctrine: Beginning, when it speaks of Time, signifies the beginning of time, or the world, unless the subject matter hindered, as here no circumstances show it to be taken {αβγδ}, but absolutely, and therefore is not to be restrained to the beginning of preaching the Gospel. It is a true Rule in logic, Talia esse subjecta qualia permittuntur esse à Praedicatis suis commodè intellectis;& 'vice versa, Talia esse praedicata qualia esse à subject is permittuntur. Whereas he saith, the subject matter is to treat of the Gospel; to this I answer, by granting that the general scope of this Evangelist is to declare the Gospel, yet this is not intended in every passage of the Gospel, but the proper drift of this part is to treat of a Divine Person: Quae non suppointur temporali principio, said praeponitur; and to satisfy a question, where the word was in the beginning, and in effect the answer is, when the world began, he began not with it, nor was made when the world was made, but he was before it. The places which are alleged as parallel to this in S. John are altogether unlike it, or else they do make against him. I will lay down this Rule not to be contradicted: That which is not determined in itself, may and must be explicated according to the circumstances of the Text, or concurrent Scriptures when they agree together in matter and analogy, and not other wise; here is treated of the Word absolutely, and touching his essence, but in most of the places alleged by the Adversaries is meant a temporary beginning of those that are spoken of, and in this absolute sense the Church of Christ for many ages hath expounded them, till men rose up which were bold to pervert plain Scriptures: besides, the Socinian sense is absurd, for thus it must be; in the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus, was Jesus Christ; or, in the beginning of the Gospel, Jesus Christ was the first Preacher of the Gospel: what is Gospel, but glad tidings of the coming of Christ? the Evangelist then sheweth in the beginning, when it was declared that Christ was come. Christ was; Is this a sentence beseeming the wisdom of the Apostle to be placed in the front, and most conspicuous place of the Gospel? besides, this would render the first word of the Gospel to be ambiguous, for the beginning of the Gospel may be variously assigned. matthew begins his Gospel from the Nativity of Christ, Luke b●gins from the Conception of John the Baptist, S. Mark begins it at the Preaching of John the Baptist, S. Peter from the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost fell upon the Apostles in the similitude of cloven fiery tongues. The text taken in the adversaries sense doth not decide these doubts, nor can any one of them agree to the scope of it. See Placens lib. 1. Arg. 19. I will now examine the alleged Texts. Mark 1.1. In the beginning; in what beginning? not in a beginning simply taken, but {αβγδ}, in the beginning of the Gospel: here beginning is clearly restrained in the Text to the Gospel. This may be retorted: Why doth Saint John simply say in the beginning and doth not add as Mark doth, in the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if he had intended they should have been taken in that restrained sense. The second place is Luke 1.2. Things famously acted amongst us, were delivered to us by such Instruments, which were from the beginning eye witnesses; this Text is unlike that of Saint John, for the Explication opening what is meant by the word, beginning, is evidently annexed to it. The third place, 1 John 2.7. I writ unto you no new commandement, but an old, which ye had from the beginning: the restriction is here also expressed, Ye have heard from the beginning, viz. of the Apostles preaching the Gospel, and their receiving the faith; what he commandeth, they had received formerly for Gods truth, and they ought not now to be drawn away to other persuasions, to think, as the gnostics held, that they might live unchristian lives, and yet be good Christians, Dr. Hammond, this Text there is also impertinently alleged. The fourth place, v. 24. this place hath also a restriction in the words themselves. You have heard from the beginning of your Christianity, when the Gospel was first preached to you: these. Christians must needs have a being in this beginning. 5. And S. Peter, 1. Pet. 3.11. doth necessary admit the same Exposition: Love is the Fundamental Doctrine which hath been pressed on you from the beginning, viz from the time the Gospel was first preached to you. As the fore alleged places make nothing for the Adversary, so the two remaining are against him. 1 John, 1.1.7. That which was from the beginning, is meant of the Divine nature, which was in the beginning of the Creation of the World, who was the fountain of life, who from al Eternity continued with the Father, and who was in the Decree and purpose of God, and afterwards was foretold by him, and became man, that which we have heard from God speaking from heaven, and really beholded, and was made known to our senses by seeing and handling him: he alludes to Luke 24.39. and John 20.20. so that as Beza saith, he speaketh of Christ, as God, but not as simply God, but as God manifested in our flesh; so that both the Divine and human nature do appertain to the Unity of the same person, and both are true in sundry respects, he was seen and handled as he was man, but the whole of the word of life was neither seen nor handled. 1 John 2.13.14. Beginning here doth not denote the beginning of the holy Gospel; the Text doth not thus run, you have known him, from the beginning of the Gospel, but, you have known him who was from the beginning: it is agreeable for old men, for men of your age being ancient to know the Ancient of dayes. Thus hath Mr. Biddle jumbled together many sacred texts, and some of them do make directly against him, and the rest are not parallels to the first of John, and by consequent they are not pertinently alleged, as I have cleared them up, and as it is said, they have solutionem in later, but our commonly received opinion formerly proved by me, is most agreeable both to the occasional time of writing this Gospel, which( as is probable) was after Saint Iohns return from his banishment out of Pathmos, both to supply what was wanting in the other Evangelists, as also to be an Antidote against Mr. Biddles heresy, which Ebion and Cerinthus bad hatched in those days, and others also, which called into question the Godhead of our blessed Saviour; now the Apostles purpose was not, nor did it become the authority of him who was the Lords Secretary, to dispute in his writings with profane and blasphemous heretics, but to instruct the Church of God, and positively to assert that Divine Truth formerly delivered and professed by the Church, and this he doth with that Majesty and Authority, that he may well be called a son of thunder, and in this respect as I said, he is compared to an Eagle, as Saint Matthew is to a man, because he begins his Gospel with the pedigree of our Saviours humanity; Saint Mark to a Lion, beginning with John Baptist, a man of courage; Luke to a calf, beginning with Zachary a Priest, and so is Saint John like an Eagle the chief of Birds, who mounted above the pitch of the other three Evangelists, even to the height of the Godhead of Christ, and to the most unsearchable mystery of the most glorious and blessed Trin-unity, and do thou Christian Reader cast thyself upon the wings of this quick-sighted Eagle, and thou shalt( as it were) be carried into the bosom of God, and acquainted with those heavenly truths, which, had they not been revealed by God himself, could never have been discovered or imagined: by the first words of this holy Gospel, those wicked heretics which denied the Deity of Gods Son are refuted, as witnesseth S. Irenaeus, lib. 3. adver. haereses, cap. 11. who lived long before Athanasius and the Nicene Synod. Epiphan. haeres. 51. Augustin. de Haeres. cap. 8.10. Theodoret. heretic. fabul. lib. 2. thou avouchest( wretched heretic as thou art) that Christ had no real being, till he was conceived in the womb of his blessed Mother; but the holy Ghost who leadeth into all truth, saith, he was in the beginning: whom will you believe, Mr. Biddle or sacred Scripture? thou pleadest to make him younger then his Virgin Mother, but the Holy Ghost makes him elder then Adam, who was the root of all Mankind. His Exposition agreeth not to the subject treated of, who was a Person, even God with the Father, and was also God in the beginning, which do transcend all temporal beginnings; nor doth it agree with the effects that follow, that is, all things were made by him: as this Exposition is unjust, so is it foolish and absurd. What is the meaning of these words, In the beginning was the Word? that is( saith Biddle) he was when he began to Preach the Gospel: what wise man useth such a manner of speech? he was a Man when he governed the Common-wealth, he was a man when he Preached; we may say indeed, he preached, therefore he had existence, and was a man: Ab est tertii adjecti, ad est secundi adjecti valet consequentia: but to say thus, he was when he began to govern, is unsavoury, not fit to come forth out of the mouth of a reasonable man, much less of a holy and divinely enlightened Apostle. Let us now further see what you can say for the confirmation of your paradox. bid. That the beginning of the Gospel is meant, appears from the very appellation of the word, which is here given to Christ in regard of his prophetical office in publishing the Gospel, The Word was in the beginning; that is, the Man Christ Jesus called the Word, was in the beginning immediate Interpreter of God, by whom he revealed his counsel touching our salvation, as we are wont to disclose our secrets by our words, which reason may not obscurely be gathered from the 18. v. of the same Chapter. Answ. This is to be laid down as an undoubted conclusion, that Jesus Christ in his human Nature was not the first publisher of the Gospel, and of eternal life to Believers, as Socinians say: there is no express promise hereof, either to Moses or the Prophets: but how false this is Kemnitius hath diligently demonstrated; first, from the fall of Adam to the flood, Genes. 3.15. and 4.7.5.14. as is explicated Heb. 11.4.5.7. 2 Pet. 2.5. Secondly, from the flood to Moses, Genes. 8.21.9.26. and many other places; compare with these, Heb. 11.21. Thirdly, from Moses to the Prophets: figures hereof are the Levitical sacrifices, the brazen Serpent, plain predictions, Deut. 18.11. Act. 7.37. Fourthly, from the Prophets to Christ, 2. Sam. 11.12. in Solomon a type of Christ, Esa. 53. and many others, John 5.39.40. Nor can the beginning of the Gospel be from Christ, as man, these pertained to the Gospel, the sending of the Angel to Zachary the Priest, as also to the blessed Virgin, to the shepherds, to Joseph, Mary's Husband; the incarnation and conception of Christ, the calling of John the Baptist to his Office, his Preaching and Baptism, did not these pertain to the Gospel? did not the Baptism of Christ, his sending to Preach, and gists bestowed on him, pertain to the Gospel? The Son of God is the Word here spoken of, and {αβγδ}, the word, is a proper name, and the subject of the proposition the Word was in the beginning, and is in order of nature before the Attribute: and this {αβγδ} was anciently in use amongst the Platonists( from the use whereof Saint John is called {αβγδ}, the Divine) which caused Amelius when he red the beginning of this Gospel to cry out of him, This Barbarian is of our Plato's Religion, that the Word of God is in the order of principles, the Maker of the Universe, and Tertullian adversus Gentes: their Wise-men, as Zeno by name, acknowledged {αβγδ} made all things, and to the same purpose writes Lactantius. See Grotius in locum. Our inquiry then must be to show in what respects this word {αβγδ} belongeth to our Saviour, and the reasons alleged do concern our Saviour either as he is simply the Son of God, or as he is our Mediator, and both of them do confirm the Deity of our blessed Saviour. 1. The natural, the only begotten and eternal Son of God the Father is called the Word, not in that sense as the Holy Scriptures, written by Gods commandement do disclose his will and pleasure, are called, and therefore as Beza saith, the Article to distinguish this Word from the Law and Prophets, is prefixed before it, and for this cause also Christ is never called in the new Testament {αβγδ}, which is an outward Word, and that either audible, which may be heard, or visible, which may be seen, and the Chaldee useth for {αβγδ}, but he is called {αβγδ} in a more divine, eminent, and ineffable sort to express unto us in some measure by a term agreeable to our capacity, that the Son of God from eternity was born of God the Father, as our prime conceit( which is our internal and mental Word) is and issueth out of his understanding. Ignatius in his Epistle ad Magnesios, saith, that Christ is the Word of God, {αβγδ}, not a word spoken, but his essential word. Gregor. Nazianz. Ser. 2. de Filio. and later Divines from him do shadow out this unspeakable mystery, and do give us a glimpse of this dazzling light, by comparing God the Father, our understanding and to God the Son to that which our understanding inwardly conceives; when an intelligent man inwardly discourseth with himself, it is evident that he frameth in his mind a certain kind of speech, or sentence, and( as it were) a word without sound, which is called the conception of the mind; if this man desireth to communicate his conceptions to others, then doth he form some outward speech or words, and delivers out, if I may have leave so to speak, a copy of that, the original whereof he reserveth still within, wherein it was first conceived. Consider with all reverence and humility, that God the Father being from all Eternity infinite in wisdom, hath had always some conception in him, as a man hath in his understanding when he discourseth; this conception of man is not of the substance of the soul, but in God, who is absolutely most simplo, and without all manner of composition, there can be nothing, which is not his divine substance: now this conception of God the Father, is his eternal Son, but the like conception of man, is not the Son of man, whereas the Word being the Son of God must needs be of the same nature with the Father; this then is the first reason why the Son of God is called the Word, because he is so begotten of his Father, in such a manner, as our inward word or conception is framed in us, unless we do speak more fitly, and commodiously( saith learned Junius) in saying the Son of God is not {αβγδ}, but {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}, as an essential faculty of the soul, lib. 1. de Christo contra Bellar. cap. 6. If either this or the former sense be concluded by the holy Evangelist( as many learned Writers, both ancient and modern do persuade themselves that it is) and which if the Adversary had disliked, he should have disproved, the cause is gained, and the Adversary vanquished; these are high notions and hard to be understood I grant; but as Bisterfield against Crellius, l 2 praefat. ad sect. 1 faith, I truly have in the fear of God often and seriously perpended the point,& do profess, that the profound mystery of the holy Trinity seems not to be so incomprehensible to me, and perplexed with difficulties, as is the depth of Eternity; how the first being should be of himself from all Eternity: the cause hereof, because we are more puzzled by these terms, which are more simply first of all, and higher than others; now to be, and to be of himself, is more simplo than unum& trinum. 2. There is another Exposition, not opposite to the former, but distinct from it, and this is more easy to be understood than the former; that Christ hath his name given him in reference to his mediatorship, and to this Exposition in the general the Adversary agreeth, albeit not in that latitude which belongs to him, for this is a title which is given to him with adjection, {αβγδ}, the word of God, Apoc. 19.13. where Christ is described ●s a most potent King, that had many diadems on his head, and is called the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords,& this is a name which no manknoweth but himself, and yet it may be meant in part of his prophetical office, because he reveals Gods counsels to us as a Prophet, touching our salvation and in such a manner, as no other ever did, and therefore no Apostle is called {αβγδ}: he is called the Angel of the Covenant, and the ambassador of his Father to make his will known by word of mouth in his own person, and by the ministry of his servants employed by him to that purpose, and he so reveals the counsel of God to us in the business of our souls, as we do by word of mouth communicate our minds to others; not that he was not the Word till he became man, for on this account the Adversaries Exposition would have been justifiable, but he was the Word, and taught the ways of God to his people before his incarnation by his spirit and Divinity, and upon this account, as is commonly received, and cannot be disproved, we red, that the second person of the Trinity appeared often in the old Testament, namely, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; and others and then you may well conceive, yea see and hear the Son of God reval by himself immediately some part of his fathers will to these eminent persons he appeared unto, and thus did he also by his Spirit discover Gods mind by his Prophets to them which were in Covenant with him, and in the last times God spake to his servants by his Word, the Son incarnated: this Exposition is approved by Origen. Tom. 1. in johan. by Augustin. in lib. quaestionum exeutroque Testamento, cap. 122. and Greg. Nazian. in loco praedicto. Thirdly, because the Son of God was designed by his Father from eternity to be the messiah, and the Jews knew him by that title, The Word of God, and so called, because he was often spoken of, and the great promise which the Lord made to his people, who was the glory of Israel, and the expectation of the Gentiles. A Promise is often called The Word: Quioken me, O Lord, according to thy Word; I have trusted in thy Word: and many the like. The promised messiah is the main promise, and that on which all other promises which are blessings do depend; he is the pith and marrow,( as it were) and the scope of Gods Word, the center of the whole Scripture, and the abstract of the Prophets Sermons. Act. 10.45. and the Commission is granted to preach Christ, and nothing but in reference to Christ; no marvel then if our Evangelist makes choice of that title for him, by which the Septuagint, which translated the old Testament into Greek, often expressed the promises of God, as may be seen by perusing these places, Psal. 105.5. and Psal. 119.78.45.65.74.76. Psal. 130.1. nor do we in our English tongue call a mans promise his speech, but his Word. See Glassius in {αβγδ}. Messiae p. 276. and D. Hammond on 1. Luk Anotat. 6. Maldonate, a learned jesuit, on this Text dislikes this reason, If the Son( saith he) be called the Word, because he was promised; then was not he the Word in the beginning of the World, because he was not promised till after mans fall: but he should have considered the words of the Text better: our Evangelist faith not, he was the Word in the beginning but, the Word was in the beginning: that is, he that was promised to be the messiah had already his being, an eternal subsistence, when all created things began first to be. Fourthly, the Son of God may be called the Word from an usual Phrase amongst the men of this world; some things are done by man not without the hands, the essential instrument, such is mans weakness, he may say, Let such an house be built, but all in vain, for his saying will not build it: other things are done with a word spoken, and they that have power in their hands may glory, that they can with a word, that is, a command, do great things, as the Centurion reasoned and applied his words to our Saviour, I have Servants under me, and I say to one, go, and he goeth. Hence is i●, that seeing the Father doth all things by his Son, both those things which concern the first and second Creation, id est, our Redemption, he is called the Word. When God in the Hebrew is said to do or speak any thing, the Chaldee Paraphrast turns it as if it had been written; God did it, or spake it by his Word, Genes. 3.11. The Lord said behold the man● the Targum hath it. And the Word of the Lord God said, behold Adam. See Paulus Fagius on that place on the Chaldee Paraphrase, and in other places, as Esa. 1.17. and 45.17. Jer. 1.8. Psal. 110.1. The Lord said to my Lord: they red, The Lord said to his Word, Genes. 15.1. See Grotius in loc. {αβγδ}, and Dr. Hammond on 1. Luke note 6. and another clear Example, Hos. 11.7. I will save the house of Judah by the Lord their God. the Chaldee turneth it, I will redeem them by the Word of God their Lord. This is the Exposition of learned Camer. on 1. Cap. ad Hebraeos. I will allege another consideration out of his Successor at Salmur, the famous Placens, who proves at large, Arg. 21 lib. 1. that S. John alludes to the Creation, Gen. 1. where mention is made of Gods speaking or word, and Psal 33.6. Heb. 11.3. and so the admirable analogy betwixt the first and second Creation is apparent. As to the reparation of the World, the Father, the Son, and Spirit concurred: so likewise to the Creation, the Person commanding, viz. the Father; the command, viz. the second Person; and the third Person executing the command, viz. the Holy Ghost. These several Expositions of {αβγδ}, which are agreeable to the analogy of faith, I have laid before thine eyes( Christian Reader) and left to thy choice to adhere to one or more of them, which shal seeem to be most congruous to the Text; every of them is against Mr. Biddle, and asserteth the Divinity of the Son of God. 1. John 1.8. The place alleged by Mr. Biddle, to prove his forced sense, fals very short to make good his design, but it agrees to the second Exposition, why the Son is called the Word; no man hath lived so familiarly with God to see into these Secrets. No man by the sharpness of his understanding hath known so much of God, of his Attributes, and Will as is necessary for his salvation, but true Believers by Gods gift have these secrets revealed to them; if you ask by whom? the Text informs us, the Son of God, who is in the bosom of his Father hath discovered them to us: what is it for one to be in the bosom of God? this notes the internal relation betwixt the Father and the Son, which is mutual. A bosom is attributed to the Father by a Metaphor taken from Man● used amongst the Jews in their Feasts, where the best beloved▪ most honourable, and intimate did lye in the bosom of the chief Persons, as the beloved Disciple John did in our Saviours bosom; and in this place it sheweth the most intimate; yea, and all secrets without exception were by him most lovingly communicated to his Son, and that not in time, but by eternal generation, and the blessed Son brings these secrets to light which concerns us, and declares them to us, and which were hidden from the world till his discovery of them. bid. And this Word was with God, being taken up into Heaven, that so he might talk with God, and be indeed his Word, or the immediate Interpreter of his Will, and receive the most certain and absolute knowledge of the kingdom of Heaven, which he was to propose to men. See John 6.38.46.51.62. where Christ affirmed he came down from Heaven, and had seen God; and that as he was the living Bread which came down from Heaven, whereof whosoever did eat should live for ever; so the bread which he would give for the life of the world and afterwards asks the Jews, what if they should see the Son of Man ascending up where he was before, namely before he began to preach the Gospel? Answ. With God the Father taken up into Heaven? a strange, groundless& corrupt exposition of the Text. But when was he taken up into Heaven? was it as Schlichtingius and other Socinians do imp●dently affirm, when he had fasted forty dayes, then he was miraculously rapt up into Gods presence? were you ashamed to set down the time when he ascended, because you have no Scripture for it, but rather the contrary? what Prophet foretold, what Apostle revealed this? where is it said in any Scripture, that Christ in his human Nature returned from Heaven before his Passion? this could not be done without multiplied miracles, nor ought to be believed without revelation to confirm it: and is it credible, seeing 'tis recorded that Christ was lead into the wilderness to be tempted, and was there amongst the Beasts forty dayes and forty nights, and sith many other things are recorded touching our Saviour, that that which is th●● principal should be omitted? Search the Scriptures, and there it is said, He ascended into Heaven by his own blood, Heb. 9.12.24. He entred once. If a man should go to Rome, and returning thence, should go thither again; we do not say well, he once was in Rome, but this is twice, or the second time, why doth not the Apostle say( if Biddle rightly expounds the Text) that the Word was in Heaven or with God in Heaven, and by this means the sense had been more cleared, ambiguity removed, and danger of Error taken away. Lastly, by the hypothesis of the Adversaries, the Word should not have been with God, till he had been on Earth, and then with him but for a short time: but this agrees not with the Word; for Gods Word is with his Father before he is with other things, for the Word of God proceeds from God, and from no other, and therefore we must not imagine that first he is far from God, then ascended to God, and is after sent from God. Can we imagine, not truly I am sure, that he first ascended from Earth to Heaven, before he descended from Heaven to the Earth? Paul indeed was rapt up into Heaven, and Moses went up to God on the Mount; for these we have plain Scriptures, but it is no where said, that Christ ascended up into Heaven, till after his Resurrection; now was there any need that he should be rapt up into Heaven to be taught of God as they were, for a fuller confirmation of his Office, sith the Holy Ghost at his Baptism descended on him, and the Father testified of him, that he was his Beloved Son, and people were commanded to hear him, sith the Godhead dwelled in him bodily, and sith he was always in the Father, and the Father in him. Secondly, I do observe the discord betwixt Mr. Biddle and some of his Brethren, Smalcius See Plac. Arg. ●8. wih God that is, known only to God: a strange Exposition! the Divels, and Antichrist and all wicked Men are known to God; yea, and all things else; were they therfore with God, as the Word is here said to be with him? yea Christs conception was foretold by an Angel to the Virgin, and his Nativity by those Heavenly Messengers, to shepherds. But I do further observe a contradiction in the Adversary: Mark here that he saith, Christ was taken up into Heaven, that he received absolute and certain knowledge of the kingdom of Heaven, and became the immediate Interpreter of Gods Will: but in his sixth Article, pag. 47. you shall hear him sing another Song: Whereas Christ( saith he) whiles he lived a mortal life on Earth( which certainly he did till after his passion) was wont in many things to be taught by the Spirit, Esa. 11.2. yet after his exaltation he gave the Spirit instruction, what he was to make known to his Disciples; how do these things hang together? to say he was taught being in Heaven with God before he preached, and he had absolute knowledge of the kingdom of Heaven, before he made choice of his Disciples, and at the same time, and after to be taught many things by the Spirit, is an irreconcilable contradiction. Thirdly, I must mind both mine Adversary and the Reader once again of the unreasonable and horrible blasphemy involved in his words; that God as touching his essential presence is onely in heaven and that it was needful for Christ to ascend locally to the throne of the Divine Majesty, before he published the Gospel, as though God could not instruct him as his ambassador to man, what was the pleasure of God touching mans salvation whiles he was on earth, without his Ascension into heaven? true and enflamed zeal for God cannot without indignation and horror, red such intolerable blasphemies. Gods ubiquity, 'tis true, as his Essence, is altogether unknown to us, whence that rule; whatsoever is spoken of God, taken from the consideration of the creatures, is to be understood rather negatively than affirmatively, and when the perfection of the creatures is attributed to God, it is( as Schoolmen say) secundum supereminentiae modum, in that supereminent manner, which is imperceptible to us: thus we say, God is every where: this Proposition is not affirmatively true, but according to that supereminent manner, which is unknown to us, sith the divine Majesty, as the council of Ephesus saith, is above all place and every measure, and sith Gods ubiquity respect no perfection in the creature, it is to be expounded negatively thus, God is every where, i.e. hath no limits of nature, nor is excluded out of any thing: no more of that. The Adversaries Exposition being confuted, I will endeavour to show the true meaning of the Text, The Word was with God. Verily, there is but one God; God then must not be taken for the Godhead simply and absolutely, but for God the Father; the person is signified and not the Divine Nature, whence the Sabellians are confuted, which fancied against evidence of Scripture, that God was but one person called in divers respects, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Holy Ghost, but no respects can make this speech reasonable, if there be but one person in the Godhead: as a man may say, John was an Apostle, John was an Evangelist, John was the Disciple that Christ loved; but none can well say, John was with the Disciple whom Christ loved: it is one thing to be with the Evangelist John; and another thing; to be the Evangelist John, that may belong to any but to John, this agreeth to none but John himself: no respect will clear that speech from absurdity, if the party spoken of be one and the same, as well for person as for nature. 1. The Evangelist having in the former clause name the Word. In the beginning was the Word: he doth not say, in the beginning was the Son, but he doth here more fitly mention the Word God, then God the Father; for so the correspondence betwixt them seems to require; the Son of the Father, and the Word of God with God: here is distinction and relation of the persons with God, not as an Attribute, but as a person distinctly existing. Besides, it helps the elegancy of speech, which the Holy Ghost useth, in that he makes the last word of the first clause, the first of the second, thus; In the beginning was the Word, then revealed, and the word was with God; and in the next also, God was the word, for so runs the original: suppose now Saint John had said, The word was with the Father, the grace of the speech had been lost, because he could not have repeated the Word, in the beginning of the following clause; for it cannot be said, the Father is the Word, or the Word the Father, but to say, God was the Word, is a true and elegant speech compared with the former. Thirdly, I may add also, that in the old Testament, where the messiah is prophetically spoken of, as in Gen. 3.15. and Gen. 12.12. rarely shall you find any distinct mention of the first person under the name of the Father; therefore the holy Apostle makes choice of such a name of God the Father, as that whereby his speech might best be approved and understood. Thus have I out of our best interpreters collected( as I conceive) what may give some light to this Scripture under debate, the scope and principal drift whereof was this, as Saint Basil in verba, John having said, The word was in the beginning, and that he had already his glorious being, when all things that were originally created began to be. Well then, if the Word subsisted before the World began, if he really was before there was any time and place wherein he might subsist, some may haply demand, where was he then before the World and time? The Evangelist answereth plainly and satisfactorily, he was with God, even as the inward Word or conception which a man frameth within himself, or as his {αβγδ} is with the man where he is, so is the eternal Word with God; but mark the distinction in the different manner of being. The word was not God the Father, with whom he was from all eternity; for albeit they are one in nature, for the Son is not a divers nature from the Father, as another God, yet are they really distinct persons, so that Christ was with his Father not after he was incarnated onely, and after his Passion, by his local ascension up into heaven, but before the beginning of the World, even in the first moment of the first beginning, when as yet there was neither time nor place completed, even then had the Word his being with God. To this I further add what is asserted by Tolet the Jesuit on the place, and approved by some of ours to carry great probability; that the Evangelist by this repetition would further give us to understand, that the Word was not onely in the beginning, but was then with God the Father a co-worker in the Creation of all things: the ground of this Interpretation is from Prover. 8. where first his eternity is described, v. 22. and v. 27. the same wisdom was with God as a nourisher when he prepared the heavens, that is, creating and ordering all things, and he saith, When he prepared the heaven, I was there: to this of the Wise man, these words of Saint John do correspond, The Word was with God from the beginning. 1. The Texts alleged out of the sixth chapter of Saint John are in themselves clear enough to overthrow all that Master Biddle intends to build up thereby. John 6.38. I descended from heaven, but is it said, as your words pretend, after he had been tempted in the wilderness? no such matter: how then? distinguish betwixt the whole and a part, betwixt his person and a part of his person, that is, his flesh; the words are spoken, and meant not in respect of his Deity, or humanity considered apart, but as the son united himself hypostatically to the human nature, Christ descended from heaven, and the Word was made flesh, but his humanity had never then been in heaven, and the Deity to speak properly, neither ascends nor descends, nor doth the speech belong to the whole person wholly and conjunctim considered, as our mediator, for the flesh of Christ was from his Mothers substance: the Text then is to be understood of the person of Christ, which is said to descend from heaven, but differently in regard of his two natures: in regard of his humanity, as it was assumed into the Person of Gods Son; and in regard of the Deity, as the word was incarnated, thus is he said to descend from Heaven, who is every where present, who contains all things, and is contained of nothing, because in the Heavens properly taken his glorious Majesty is more manifested then in other parts of the World, and he is said to descend from Heaven when he was made man, and declared the divine mysteries, and Gods Will, that all Believers shall be saved, See Beza in locum. Verse 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, viz. perfectly: hereby all Creatures are excluded, for in another sense the holy Angels always see the face of God, Mat. 18 and Saints on Earth, as Moses, by faith do see him who is invisible, Heb. 11.27. but the Son of God hath seen the Father, and hereby he is distinguished from al the holy Angels and Prophets: and tis observable that he calls himself {αβγδ}, as if he had said {αβγδ}, for all creatures were made by God. Our Saviour then signifies hereby, that he is from God in a far different manner then the holy men and Angels are from him, namely, as the natural Son is from his Father, John 7.29. {αβγδ}, I am from him, that is, from his substance: by these words our Saviour would draw his Disciples from the consideration of his flesh to the contemplation of his Deity personally united to his human Nature, that they may be assured he knows the mind of his Father, and his seecret counsel touching mans Redemption. Vers. 51. I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, and this bread which I will give is my flesh: he mentions his descent from Heaven to signify his dignity, and the efficacy of his Spirit in raising the dead; he mentions his flesh to intimate his passion, and the effusion of his blood for us: our Saviour makes a comparison in dissimilitude betwixt Manna and himself, as our food to feed on; that gave not immortality, as this bread doth, to those that by faith do feed on him; that came not down from Heaven properly so called, but from the air, the first Heaven, but Christ came down from the highest Heavens; that bread was not very flesh, as this bread is my flesh; that is, my body which I will give to be crucified, as the means whereby this flesh comes to be quickening food. Manna was given for the preserving of the life of one people onely, and that for a few years only; but this bread came down from Heaven, not only for the salvation of the Jews but Gentiles also at all times. John 6.62. What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before? See, idest, or know by the testimony of others; the Son of Man, i.e. true man; where he was before, not as man, but as God: by a Synec. called communication of properties, as before we have heard out of John 3.13. that is ascribed to the Son of Man which belongs to him as he is {αβγδ}; so do we call a man, soul and body a part, and Homer gives the proper names of men to separated souls: so Grotius. There is an Aposiopesis, which may be thus supplied; this much more would scandalise you, or would not you then perceive, which you see not now, that my body being in Heaven could not possibly in a proper notion be eaten, and that it was as credible he should ascend into heaven( bodily) as that he should descend and take our nature on him? our Saviour saith not, what if you shall see the Son of Man ascend whither he ascended before: but where he was before, viz. in his Deity. John 17.5. an Angel after his first message from Heaven to Earth ascends to Heaven, where he was before, yet could not he be said before this message to ascend from Earth. These words have been discussed above, I will therefore say no more at present. bid. Joh 8.42. The words intimate the same: I went out from God, I came not of myself, but he sent me, Joh. 16.28. I came out from the Father, and came into the world, and I leave the world and go to the Father; which going forth from the Father, every one may easily perceive by the opposition of the former clause, is meant of a local procession of Christ from God and that before the discharge of his embassy; for to come, or come into the world signifieth to treat with men in the name of God, and to perform a public office amongst them, see 1 John 1.15.27.30. and 1 John 5.20. Math. 11.3.18.19. Joh. 17.18. compared with chap. 16.28. and chap. 18.37. Answ. Mr. Biddle, a forward Disciple of Socinus, shuts up God in regard of his essence, in Heaven, and saith he is every where in regard of his knowledge and operations only; it is true, God is not as bodies are, circumscribed in any place, or confined to any time; but he is immensive present every where, substantially present, praesentia indistantiae, as the Learned term it: he is present every where repletivè: yet take heed that you conceive not God to be every where present, as the air fills up the space betwixt Heaven and Earth, or as if one part of God should fill up one part of the World, and another part the remainder of it, but his whole essence is every where; and neither hath limits actually or potentially in adessendo, he is not confined within the limits of the whole world, but is wholly and indivisibly present in every imaginable space: See Ambros: de fide ad Gratianum. Gods immensity is his absolute property eternally belonging to him, and Gods ubiquity is founded on his immensity, and notes a habitude to a place existing in time; the former is as the first act, and this latter as the second act: the main controversy is not touching the manner of Gods presence, but of the ubi of his presence; whether he is present in Heaven,& how he is present, are two questions: and its one question, whether God is present on earth, and how he is there present is another question; the School-men( saith Vasquez) do agree that God in all things, but yet they do vary in assigning the manner of his presence, as S. Chrysost. Homil. 1. de incomprehensibili Dei natura: I know God is every where, and wholly in every part of the world, but how I know not. The question is of the essential not, virtual or operative presence of God, not by diffusion or extension of his essence( for these belong to bodily substances) but he is instar puncti, because he is an infinite incorporeal substance without parts. 1. Arg. The truth of his essential presence is proved first by Scriptures. 1 King. 8.27. The Heaven( saith Solomon) and the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee; much less can this house: we are not to have the least thoughts that Solomon built an house to contain God, for he is not contained in the heavens, much less in this house; he doth not only speak of Gods virtue and providence, but of God himself, as Gods providence cannot be comprehended in Heaven, no more can God himself, for otherwise God should be infinite in regard of his providence, but not infinite in regard of his essence: can an infinite virtue pertain to a finite essence? nay verily, the power of God can be no more infinite then his essence, for God by his essence of and by himself is powerful and infinite. The Psalmist lends us his suffrage to this truth: Whither shall I go from thy spirit? if I ascend into Heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in Hell, behold, thou art there; if I go to the uttermost parts of the Sea, thou are there also, Psal. 139.7, 8, 9. God is in Heaven, and in Hell, and in all parts of the World, not only in regard of his knowledge and providence, but of his essence, for he is so on Earth, as he is in Heaven; nor doth the Psalmist say, How shall I fly from thy Providence? but, from thy Spirit, from thy face: nor is any action of God any where but God is essentially present there. Jerem, 23.23. Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hid himself in secret places, that I shall not see him, saith the Lord? Do not I( saith God) fill Heaven and Earth: in this Text, as in the rest where mention is made of Gods presence, Heaven and Earth are joined together, and 'tis always said, either he can be contained in no place, or that he fills all places, and is always in himself most present to all things: nor doth this help the Adversary, to say such places are ment of Gods power and providence, because 'tis said, he is not a God afar off, for he saith expressly of his person, in the first person, I, and not I, in regard of his operation onely. This is an unworthy consequence; God can do all things afar off, and therefore in regard of his Essence he is not present with all things: 'tis all one in regard of God, whether he be said to be nearer or further off from men, seeing he is every where present, and fills heaven and earth, and hypocrites are more fully convinced of their folly by this phrase, in thinking they can hid themselves from God, for he in regard of his essence fills all places, he is not distant from any creature by any imaginary space interposed betwixt Gods existence, and the creatures substance. 2. Arg. The second Argument is drawn from Gods Attribute of perfection: God is most absolutely perfect; to be every where in regard of essence, denotes a higher degree of perfection, then to be limited to a place, as it would be a greater perfection to a King to be essentially present all over his kingdom, then to be there by his Authority and power onely, for on this account we excuse disorders in a kingdom, and often justly; because such is mans condition, that he cannot know abuses being absent so well as if he had been every where present; so is it true, that Gods ubiquity is no imperfection, but a high degree of perfection, as it is by the Adversaries acknowledged to be a higher degree of perfection to be every where present in regard of operation, than either to work in heaven alone, or on earth, or any one place: Gods power is not separated from his essence. 3. Arg. Thirdly, this is proved from the consideration of Gods nature, which is infinite without measure, end or bounds, which depends on no creature, who hath no superior nor equal to limit his nature, and the Adversaries granting that the power and wisdom of God( which they take to be accidents in God) are infinite and incomprehensible, must by consequence yield, that Gods essence is infinite, for how is it possible, that infidite accidents in intention should be in a subject of finite extension? for the manner of working doth not exceed the manner of being; an essence that is not infinite cannot produce infinite operations, nor can it have an infinite virtue to produce them; in an infinite there is nothing that admits more or less and this is true of God and of his Attributes. 4. Arg. Fourthly, God is not so essentially in the Heavens, but that he is out of the Heavens also, he is not contained in Heaven, and this is proved. 1. God was not in Heaven before the Creation, and when they were created, we must not think he went out of himself, changing, as it were, h●s place, and betaking himself to dwell in that Heavenly palace, when it was created in the beginning, for certainly before there was any creature, God was alone, he was to himself, the World, and place, and all things, tertul advers. Prax. 2. If God should annihilate all the world, as he is able to do, would not God be there where he is now? and therefore he is not affixed to heaven. 3. If God should create new heavens( as 'tis not impossible for him to do) could not God, or would not God be in those Heavens also? yes verily, though not as locatum in loco, but as in himself blessed for ever, as a cause creating and preserving all things per essentiae {αβγδ} 5. Arg. if God was not essentially present every where, these and the like absurdities would necessary follow. First, God should be measured by place, as his duration by time, and his substance should be circumscribed in a place, or limited by it, which is a property of a creature, and to avouch that Gods substance can be dilated or contracted, is anathematized in the Synod of Syrmium. Secondly, Then should Gods greatness in respect of his Essence and presence differ from that of a creature, not in kind, but gradually. Thirdly, Gods Essence either fills the whole heavens, or a part of it onely: if you say the whole, I ask then, Why cannot Gods Essence be out of heaven, and have either a greater or a lesser place? Who limits him, or what is it that sets bounds to his supreme Majesty, saying, as to the sea, Hither mayest thou go, but no further? If you say a part of heaven, I demand again, Why this part rather than that? and why so much place, and no more? Cannot he remove to another place? and if so he is, and if he be essentially absent in any place of heaven, he is then no more in that place, by the Adversaries Confession, then on the earth. I have touched on this Subject above, and have now in a fifth place more fully confirmed this truth denied by the Adversary to the great dishonour of God Almighty: much more is set down in large Discourses of our learned Writers touching Gods omnipresence, chiefly in Dr. Hammond. The Text cited John 8.42. proves, that Christ did not run and prophesy before he was sent, as the Jews his professed enemies imagined, but that he was immediately sent from his Father, and what he did in his office was not done of his own motion, but by Commission from God: he ran not before he was sent, as false Prophets were wont to do, but by his Fathers counsel and authority, this he speaks to stop the mouths of the J●ws, and to gain authority to his Doctrine, because the Fathers authority was his. Christs going out from the Father, and coming into the World, do denote something which follows his mission, and appertains to the execution thereof. If you ask, why Christ went out from his Father, who is( as they say) terminus à quo, and why he came into the World, as the terminus ad quem, it is fitly answered, as in the Text, because he was sent of his Father, for the end of the execution of the Mission cannot be obtained, unless an ambassador goes out from his Prince that sent him, and so going out from his Father, signifies his going from his Father out of heaven, and on this ground it is, that no Prophets or Apostles are said in Scripture to go out from God, Placens Disput. 3. This Text then chiefly denotes the external relation of Gods Son to his Father, and is terminated in that consideration, nor doth it intend( as Arians and Politicians dream) a local descent of a mere creature from heaven, but the end is chiefly to be considered, which is not to teach the eternal generation of Gods Son, but his mission and office to be a Saviour, and do import that he that was sent was Gods natural Son, as S. Cyril saith; to proceed from the Father, argues his Divinity; to come into the world, argues his Humanity: Gods Son incarnated is manifested thereby to come into the world; yea God himself is said to descend from Heaven, Genes. 11.1. i.e. he manifested himself by some remarkable sign of his presence: yea, and our Saviour himself saith, I and my Father will come to the faithful and dwell with them, as the Father comes to his children,: so Christ, as the Letter of the Text sounds, comes to them: doth the Father come locally, and as it were with his feet? nor do we confounded the Person sending with him that is sent; but we do distinguish them: it is the Adversary that brings in confusion, because he would haue a Father without his true and natural Son, and a Son without his natural and coessential Father, but who is so blind, as he that shuts his eyes, and will not see? Christ came into the World where he was not before, viz. in his human Nature: yea, to take notice of your wise choice, 1. John 15. the Text saith, He was before John, though born after him: he was not only preferred before him in favour and dignity, but He was before me: i.e. he had a being long, even infinitely before me; for he was begotten of his Father before all things, Colos. 1.15.17. this causal {αβγδ} being a proof of the former, must somewhat differ from it, or else the same thing is proved by itself. The other alleged Scripture will prove what is confessed, that Christ was God, manifested in the flesh, and undertook to be our Mediator and Peace-maker, and no more then I have confessed. Bid. And the word was a God( as being endued with divine power and Empire) for according to the reasoning of Christ himself John 10.35. if the Psalmist calls them Gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken( as it would, if any one should deny them to be Gods) is not he much more a God, who is endued with so divine a dominion, that he is the very substantial Son of God? An. The holy Evangelist, lest any man from what was formerly said in this verse touching the relation to, and distinction of the second Person from the first, should think that the Father was only the true God, expressly asserteth, that the WORD is God also: the words in the original run thus for elegancies sake, and God was the Word: yet the genuine construction, and placing them in their natural order, which is also followed by the Adversary is, The Word was God, not only because it agrees not to the subject of a proposition to be more large than the predicate, as otherwise here it would be, for God belongs to the Father and the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Son; but because {αβγδ}, the Article presixed, sheweth that the word is the subject and not the predicate in this clause by itself enunciated, and lest any should conceive that the Word was God,( as the Arians were wont to do, and in this the Socinians agree with them) to avoid the evidence of the place, he saith in the context, that he made all things: and in another place he saith, that he was the true God, 1 Joh. 5.20. See Aug: de Doctr. Christiana l. 3. c. 2. Whereas Mr. Biddle saith, that he is God, in that he was endued with Divine power: this explication in an orthodox sense is admitted, for how can Christ be God, if he hath not Divine power, but in the Socinian sense tis inconsistent with the truth, as I have at large demonstrated, Gods power is Gods glory, Esay 42. which he will give to no other, nor can a creature which is finite be capable of that power which is infinite. I ask, how is Christ endued with Divine power which is surely infinite? hath he it intrinsically, so as to denominate the human Nature truly omnipotent? if so, then hath he the infinite essence, and by consequent is true God, which the Adversary will not admit. Or hath he it extrinsically, because the omnipotent God dwells in him? if in this latter sense, what singular thing is here avouched which belongs not to all the faithful? I grant, some Attributes of God are said to be communicable, as others are called incommunicable; but how communicable? only by analogical accommodation, not in respect of the properties themselves, which are all of them infinite, yea in truth one infinite God, but in regard of the effects of those properties, wherein the creature doth imperfectly resemble the Creator. Gods Attributes are the Divine essence itself, his Name, his Glory, his Godhead, and if any of the properties were truly communicated, the essence of God must be multiplied, divided, or distracted from itself, but there cannot possibly be more then one infinite; and therefore all Gods Attributes do signify one single and infinite perfection, as wisdom, power, mercy. The scope of the Evangelist will make good what we do maintain against the Socinians: the Scripture saith he was God; the Text saith not that the Word is God, but the Word was God, namely, in the beginning: if then we shall grant with the Adversary, that Christ was only man, and that by beginning, is meant the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, then cannot it be made out by any other text of Scripture, that Christ was God at that time: if then the Apostle intended to prove Jesus to be the messiah, as the Adversaries say, who can believe that he would in the first verse set down that which was more obscure then that which he intended to prove, and which could not be proved to be true by any other Text. 2. And if he was not God, but because he was made God, why should not he rather have said {αβγδ}, he was made God, then {αβγδ}, he was God, and why verse 14. saith he not he was flesh, {αβγδ} rather then {αβγδ}; the Adversary contends in regard of nature, that he was flesh, in regard of his office a God: was it without divine direction that the Apostle when he speaks of the word useth {αβγδ} eight times, and {αβγδ} but once, because flesh is made, but God is not made? 3. The order of nature would be inverted, for speaking of the word, verse 1. he saith he was God, but of the flesh o● the word, not till the 14. verse; but the Adversaries say, he was first flesh, and then in time afterwards God: it is one thing to be God, and another thing to be a Divine man. Paul may be called a divine man, not God, Plac. Disput. 24. To the tenth of Saint John I have largely answered, and 'tis needless to repeat what may there be red: angels and men in the old Testament are sometimes called Gods, the shadow of good things remaining, and the Sun not being risen to expel them; and they are so called in the Plural number only, and a singular Magistrate is not called a God, nor were they then to be worshipped with Divine Worship, nor equal with God, nor searchers of mens hearts, and reins, but the Word is called God, when the day is come, and that in the singular number particularly is the name of God, yea and Divine Worship, attributed to him, who accounts it no robbery to be equal with God, and whose Prerogative it is to be a searcher of the reins and hearts, and who is the Judge of the whole World, from whose Throne there can be no appeal. The Adversary calls our Saviour the substantial Word, and that without ambiguity stands not well with his own principles, but where is the man amongst us, which will say otherwise? The words in Saint John are evident: the word was not onely with God, whose being depends not upon time, place, or any creatures, all which were made by him, but the Word was God, that is, the Divine Nature, and not in regard of any office; for there is no testimony of Scripture, which denies him to be by nature God, or which affirms him to be made a God at any time, nor is there any Text of Scripture, which shows him to be man in the beginning, or that he which was God, might not become man also v. 14. never was there a question, or so much as doubted, that God was before the beginning of the World, but there were found some miscreants, as Ebion and Cerinthus, before the writing of the Gospel, and the Arians after them, which impugned this Deity of our Saviour: the holy Evangelist decides the doubt, and expressly saith, he was God; which was the thing, which he intended to avouch of him: hence there have been found men, which have so much admired this first verse, that they have wished it was written with letters of Gold, and to put all out of doubt, in the next verse he signifies the Divinity, Eternity, Omnipotency, and Equality of the Word, or Son with God the Father, by saying, all things were made by him, both visible and invisible, Col. 1. whereupon it is evident that he is no creature, because he is the creator of all things, and v. 4. In him was life. All the particulars here spoken of, are spoken of the Word, and the whole frame and scope of the Gospel, is to teach us, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing we might live through him, John 21 31. Bid. This Passage also sheweth, that Christ is not the most high God, the same with the Father, for when he is said to have been with God, the Word( God) then by the Confession of all, signifieth the most high God, since the very Article in the Greek set before it importeth so much. Answ. The Son of God is one and the same in Essence, though not one in person with God the Father? 'tis confessed, that God in the second clause, is taken for God the Father, and Saint John giveth us to understand, that the Word hath his proper subsistence, and personality distinct from God his Father( for a person cannot be said to be with himself) whereby the heretic Sabellius is confuted, and 'tis also unanimously acknowledged, that God the Father is the most high God; but your negative Inference from that concession, that the Word his Son is not the most high God, is utterly rejected, because, as I have often proved, to be most high is a common Attribute, equally belonging to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. bid. As the Article is added in the second clause to God, but when the word is said to be God( with the omission of the aforesaid Article) neither will the words nor thing itself suffer Christ to be the same God with him with whom he was, that is, the most high God; for then he would have been said to be with himself, which is ridiculous, so that these words, which are usually brought to prove the supreme Divinity of our Saviour, being well examined, do quiter overthrow it. Answ. The Holy Ghost, as the Adversary thinketh intended, because the Article is omitted in the last Clause, that he therefore hath his Godhead, such as it is, by grace, and that divers from him, that is the most high God. To this I answer first, that albeit sometimes the force of an Article is of use and observation, yet is a Grammatical quillet too weak to sway a cause of this weight and value. I do ask the Adversary this question, is the Arricle never omitted, when the true God is undoubtedly spoken of? If it be omitted, and that often, as I have shewed, where then lies the strength of the Argument?( Articles, saith our learned Casaubone against Baronius, Exercitat. 2. are not always to be urged, they are often omitted in Scripture, ubi Hellenismus exactior eos requirebat, and another, Camier. Panstrat. Tom. 2. lib. 17. c. 1. Articulus saepe otiosus est, as Matth. 5.13.) This is further evidenced by comparing the Texts taken out of the old Testament, and cited in the new, Mal. 3.1. Was he not the true God, and called the Lord of Hosts, that sent John Baptist before the face of the messiah, and yet Saint John saith, There was a man sent from God? here God is without an article: this one place is sufficient to confute that vain and false exception, especially being in the same Evangelist, and within a few lines of the former; nor can it be doubted, but that God, Whom no man hath seen at any time, is the true God, Exod. 34.20.23. Thou canst not see my face: doth not Saint John speak of the same true God, when he saith, No man hath seen God at any time? v. 18. the Word( God) in this place also is without an Article, and if the addition of an Article proves that God, to which it is affixed, to be the true God, the Adversaries cause is lost, Act. 20 28. Secondly, there may be a reason rendered, why it being added to God in the first clause, should be omitted in the next, lest the Readers should be misled to think the person of the Word was confounded, and one and the same with the Person of God the Father. Thirdly, 'tis not unusual for Saint John to put an Article to the first Word, and when he repeats the Word to omit the Article as John 1.14. His glory, as the glory, 45, 46. Philip and Nathanael, 46, 47. John 6.5.7 Flesh, John 3.6 Abraham, John 8.39▪ 40. God, John 9.31.33, and Iesus, John 21.4. What marvel is it then, if Saint John adding an Article to God in the first place, omits it in the second place? Fourthly, we may guess at the reason, why God in the last Clause is without an Article, because in the second clause God noteth God the Father, who is the first of the three glorious persons in order, but in the third place it s taken for the nature of God, which is most singularly one and the same in all the three persons. If the Evangelist had omitted or added the Article in both, the sense of the place would have been more obscure, and the Distinction of the persons not easily discerned. Lastly, it could not have been so evident as it is now, that the Word was to be taken for the former part of the speech, but much doubted whether the Evangelist intended to inform us, that God was the Word( as the words in the Greek do evidently lye) or that( as most do place them,& the adversary himself) the word was God. There is but one God, this is a fundamental Article, God the Father, and God the Son are not two Gods, but one God: now when it is said, the Word was with God, for certain, God is not taken here essentially, but as Divines do speak, Synechdochichally or personally, namely for God the Father; this being supposed, that which you call ridiculous, is very congruous both to found reason and the holy Scriptures: God the Son is not properly with himself, but with another, that is, with God his Father; who is alius, another person from his Father, but not aliud, another thing essentially differing from him: the Text may be illustrated by this parallel example in Paradise. Adam was a man in Paradise, Eve was with this man, and Eve was a man, Gen. 1.17. a reasonable creature, as Adam was. Is this ridiculous? Christ was with God, taken formally for the Divine person, and in regard of proper relation distinguished from him, but not in nature, which is common to both persons: its a Sophisters part thus to pled; part of the air is not air, part of a line is not the line, because the same thing is not a part of itself: it is answered by a denial, for part of the air is air, and part of the line is a line, for though air, and part of the air do differ according to the proper respects and relations of the whole and part, yet not according to the nature of the air, which as an homogeneal body belongs equally to both: and as the word of God is not God properly, for none can be his own word, say Socinians, this is already answered, for when one man is said to be with another man, is not the one of them a man, as well as the other? There is I grant a difference, because there are more men than one man, but there is but one God: hence may we infer, that God the Son is undivided from God the Father, with whom he was as the Scripture saith, I and the Father am one. Suppose the Apostle had said, In the beginning was light, and this light was with God, and that light was God, or, in the beginning was Charity, and Charity was with God, and God was Charity: None of these Propositions could be denied, 1 John 1.2.5 and 4.8.16. could the Adversary infer, that these, as also Gods Power. Will, were qualities or accidents separable from God, and not in their own nature Divine? The Divinity then of our Saviour is not by Mr. Biddles exact examination of this Text overthrown by it. Bid. Thus have we retorted all the places of Scriptures wherein the appellation of God is given to Christ against the adversary, showing from them that Christ is not the most high God. Ans. You over-reach, Mr. Biddle, you have not so much as alleged all our Scripture proofs; not many parallel Texts out of the Old Testament, wherein questionless, the true God is spoken and meant of our Saviour: some of these shall be mentioned in my third Argument to prove the Deity of Christ; nor all in the New, 1 John 5.20. where he is called The true God, and Eternal Life, the pronoun demonstrative shows that it is referred to the next Antecedent, and 'tis a title of God the Son to be Life, John 6 35. and 11.25. and 14.6. Coloss. 3.4. but God the Father is never so called, nor have you name 1 Tim. 3.16. scarce shall we find any place of Scripture, saith Beza, wherein the Mystery of our Redemption is more gloriously and plainly explicated then in this Text; great is the mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh; this cannot be meant of God the Father, who is never said to be manifested in the flesh, nor, as Christ was, to be seen of Angels in a various state, in the Manger, Lu. 2.12. they saw him when he was tempted in the Wilderness by the devil, Mat. 4.15 they saw him in his agony, Lu. 22.43. they saw him raised out of the grave. Luke 24.4, 5. they saw him ascend into Heaven, Acts 1. nor is it a great mystery that Gods will should be made known by Prophets, Apostles &c. this is meant of him who after his resurrection was assumed into glory: and to name no more, you have not mentioned, much less retorted, Coloss. 2 9. in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 2. Your answers to, and retortions of the Scriptures are a torturing of them, and stretching them on the tenter hooks, to bring them down to your ever to be abhorred sense, they are fallacious, captious frouthy, and unsavoury, as I have shewed, all the clouds in your brains cannot obscure the light which shines forth out of those sacred Texs to prove the Deity of our blessed Saviour, but he that cannot say what he should, must say what he can for his espoused error, rather then yield and say nothing. Bid. But were all that we have said laid aside, this very thing( if men had not renounced their Reason, and made non-sense the Mother of their devotion) is sufficient to decide the controversy, that Christ is called in the Scriptures the Son of the most high God; for if he be both the Son of the most high God, and the most high God too, he will be the Son of himself, which is absurd. Ans. Fairer language( Mr. Biddle) would have been more comely& commendable for you, then to cast dirt in the most beautiful face of Christs beloved Spouse: should such an empty and worthless man as this Adversary is, lay such a harsh imputation on all Churches but his own, and on the most famous Christians in the World, to say, that they do renounce their reason, and do make non-sense the mother of their devotion? 'tis true our Religion teacheth us, as obsequious children to embrace and not to dispute against the pleasure of our heavenly Father revealed to us, and we do justly esteem it our wisdom to follow the wisdom of our unerring Guide: it fareth with this sweet truth, the Son of God became the Son of Man, as with that blessed doctrine, to believe that Christ was crucified for us, which was, and yet is a stumbling block to the Jews, and at first promulgation thereof, foolishness to the Gentiles. To your objection which depends on a term equivocal, I answer, as I have often done, and so shall not need to spend much time on this subject: it is agreeable both to sense and reason regulated and refined by the Word of God, and it contains a good sense devoutly to be embraced, and without contradiction to be believed, Jesus Christ is the co-essential Son of his Father, the most high God, and he himself is also the most high God truly and really in respect of his person distinct from his Father, and 'tis blasphemy not to be endured in a Christian to say, one person of the holy Trinity is higher then another; and although there be the same essence of the Father and the Son, yet is not the Son begotten of the Essence, as it is his, but as it is the Fathers; as it follows not, the essence of this matter of which water is generated, is also an essential part of water, therfore water is begotten of itself: or thus, the essence of the seed out of which Wheat is generated, is the essence of the Wheat generated, therefore Wheat generates itself: so here, the order betwixt the Father begetting and the Son begotten, is also betwixt the essence; as it is the Fathers, and as it is the Sons. Thus much of the fourth Article. ARTICLE V. Bidle. AGain, Though Christ be a God subordinate to the most high God, as having received his Godhead, and whatsoever he hath from the Father; yet may not any one thence rightly infer, That by this account there will be another God, or two Gods. For though we may with allowance of the Scripture say, That there are many Gods, yet neither will the Scripture, nor the thing itself permit us to say, There is another God; or two Gods, because when a word, in its own nature common to many, hath been appropriated and ascribed to one by way of excellent 〈◇〉( as that of God hath been to the Father) albeit this doth not hinder us from saying, That there are many of that name; yet doth it from saying, That there is another, or two, since that would be all one, as if we should say, That there is another or two Most Excellent, which is absurd; for when two are segregated in this manner out of many, they claim excellency to themselves alike. Thus though some faithful man be a Son of God, subordinate to the chief Son of God Christ Jesus, yet may we not thereupon say, That there is another Son of God, or two Sons of God( since that would be to make another or two Sons of God by way of excellency, whereas there can be but one such a Son:) howbeit, otherwise the Scripture warrants us to say, That there are many Sons of God. Answer. This Article is unlike its fellowes, in that the Commentary and the Text is more concise then the Article itself, and might well have been omitted, as having no new and singular matter or proof contained in it; but that only is aimed at, which hath been frequently inculcated; viz. That Christ is a God, not by Nature, but by favour; and that he hath his Godhead( such as it is) only by Grace; and that Godhead is different also from the Godhead of the Father, who is the true and most high God: What is singular in this Article concerneth the manner of speeches and phrases, and not at all the substance of the Question under debate, so that I might without any prejudice to the main cause have passed it over in silence, and have given you leave to speak your own terms, if you had concurred with us in the substance of the question; but lest you should complain, I have done you this needless right to set down your own words, with a few Animadversions on them. The Scripture speaketh of many gods, yet not of two Gods, or divers Gods. I must tell you, that there is a vast difference betwixt the attribution of God to a creature, or Idol God, and to the Son of God. The true God saith, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, Ex. 7. and it calleth all those Rulers which had their commission from God by the name of Gods: but doth the Scripture say in any one place, That Moses or the Magistrates were God simply? No: Or saith the Holy Ghost in any divine Book, That Christ was a made God? He that reads, I have made thee a God, can readily conceive, this made God is not the true God; and as easy it is for any man to assure himself, that those Governors were not Gods indeed, not only because they were many( whereas God is but one) but because they ar● presently threatened, that they shaldy like men; But now when the Scripture speaketh of Christ, it doth in some places simply and absolutely call him God, whose eternity and presence with God the Father before the world, is avouched,& to whom the Creation of all things is ascribed. If the Holy Ghost had said, that Christ had been a made God, or if the Lord had only affirmed, that he had called him God, there might have been then some occasion to doubt of the truth of his Deity, because there are some such like speeches attributed to other men in Scripture; but it is wilful wrangling to call so plain a truth into question, upon so unlike a manner of speech. A subordinate God is a God, as a subordinate cause is truly a cause: and to say in your sense, there is one high God, and another inferior God, yea, and many Gods, and yet not to allow by a distinction, to say, there are two Gods or many Gods; viz. one properly so called, and another improperly, is( as I conceive) to abandon reason with devotion; to acknowledge many Gods, and yet in that sense as there are many, to deny two Gods, is an implicit contradiction, for the greater number must necessary include the lesser; and there cannot be many, except there be two: and what inconvenience upon concession will follow, if the former limitation be observed, I would gladly learn. May not I say, that a sick man is cured by two efficient causes, by God principally, and by the Physician under God instrumentally? That Miracles were wrought by the Name, Authority and Power of Christ as the prime Agent, and by the holy Apostles and others ministerially? Touching your rule,( to pass by that which you take for granted, and which in your sense is undoubtedly false,) That the Father is only God by way of excellency, excluding the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, and not only the creatures from partaking of his Excellency. It may thus far be well granted, when thus limited, If a word properly and by way of excellency is ascribed to one person, then can it not properly( I mean) and in the same respect by way of excellency, belong to any other person; yet this hinders not but the same name improperly, or for some Analogical resemblance may be attributed to others. Thus may we say, that Angels and Magistrates are called Gods, and other Gods distinguished from God Almighty. To illustrate your rule, you add( magisterially without proof) When two are segregated in this manner out of many, they claim to themselves excellency alike. One faithful man may be called the Son of God, yet may we not say, there is another Son of God, or two Sons of God, this would be to make alike excellent. If this which you speak in reference to Christ had been true, as it is not, he differing from other sons of God not only gradually but specifically, yet in your sense that rule is false; for Christ is Gods Son, you think, only in a more excellent degree then others. Shall we say, that Isaac had not two sons, or that Esau was not Jacobs brother? That Abraham had not two sons, because Isaac was the son of the Promise, a better son, and more beloved of Abraham then Ishmael? Or, that Jacob had not twelve sons, because Reuben,( if he had not fallen) was to have been honoured as his first born, the excellency of Dignity, and the excellency of Power? Or, that Joseph had not many brethren, because Jacob his father loved him above all his children and made him a coat of divers colours? Besides, to say thus, Christ is the natural Son of God, and as he is our Mediator, Gods Son by grace of union; and Abraham is the adopted son of God; two sons in a different sense, is no way absurd: and why may not I say God hath two sons in such a family, twenty in such a Congregation? This is truly spoken, and doth not at all import, that there are many sons alike excellent; and Solomon in a special manner is called son of God, a Type of our Saviour, and what is spoken of him as a Type, is improper, and properly belonged to Christ as prefigured by him. But how will you shift off this instance, and be true to your own rule? Christ is called an Apostle, Hebr. 3.1. and you neither can nor will deny, but he is so called by way of excellency; and yet we do red of twelve Apostles, and that the new Jerusalem had twelve gates, which had the names of the twelve Apostles, Revel. 21. Cannot I say that Peter is an Apostle, but he must be as excellent as Christ? the like may be said of the name Teacher, Saviour, Servant, Isai. 42. Numb. 12. by way of excellency ascribed to Christ; yet are there other Teachers, called also Saviours in Obadiah; others then Christ called Saviours; and other servants. I grant, An Attribute common to many is not common to them always taken singly, neither Attributivè, as the Learned phrase it; or if so, yet not Subjectivè; an example of the first kind, Magistrates are in Scripture called sometimes Gods; yet take this or that Magistrate, and then in an approved phrase, it is not the custom to say( which hath a great sway in phrase) I have seen God to day, I have saluted God: or if a Magistrate hath done any thing, we do not say, relating to him, God hath done this or that thing. An example of the latter kind, Consecrated Bread and Wine in Scripture are called the Body and Blood of Christ; the name of the body of Christ is attributed to Bread, yet if this bread falls to the ground, or this Wine is spilled, the Scripture phrase is not to say, Christs body fell to the ground, or his blood was spilled; and Baptismal water is called the Laver of Regeneration, yet do not we say, If this water be cast on the ground, the water of Regeneration is cast down. To apply this, To be called Gods sons belong● to Angels, to all the faithful, and to the Son of God, as a common name to them all: but take them singly, and then no man in Scripture saith,( as Christ-doth) I am Gods Son; nor is it ever in Scripture, if my memory fail not, said to a single man, that he is the Son of God, unless he be the root of mankind, as Adam, Luke 3. ult. or a Type of Christ, as Solomon, or a collective body, as Israel is my Son, Exod. 4.22. But it is most usually said, I saw one of the sons of God, or one of the sons of God did this or that: but Christ is absolutely and emphatically called Gods Son, {αβγδ}, his natural son, and so as no other is Gods son. Bidle. 1 Cor. 8.4, 5, 6. We know there is no Idol in the world( so the Greek hath it) and that there is no other God but one. Hebr. 2.10. It became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all the things( so the Greek hath it) and in bringing many sons to glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. Answer. There were some Christians in those Primitive dayes( gnostics) which asserted their liberty to eat at the Idol Feasts, because forsooth they argued, an Idol was nothing. The Apostle confesseth their objections to be true, that the Heathen Gods were the fictions of mens brains, and their Images and representations the works of mens hands, and that there is to us Christians but one God. This Scripture hath been already discussed, page. 70. The sum of the Adversaries Argument is this, There is but one God the Father, therefore but one divine person: The Antecedent is the Doctrine and confession of the Prophets and Apostles: But the Consequence is denied, There is but one God, but there are three consubstantial Persons. Mans specifical nature, as the Learned know, is but one, yet are there many human persons. The Adversary restrains the name one God to one person, but God essentially or in regard of essence is common to them. God who is only one in Essence, is not only one in person. The Translation savours of novelty, falsehood or nonsense: There is no Idol in the world, so the words do run in the Original. And why, I pray, do you follow the order of the words here as they are in the Greek, and take liberty to do the contrary, 1 John? The word was God: the Greek tongue may without danger bear such a placing of the words, but our English will not do it unless the sense be changed; nor is it positively true to say, there are no Idols in the world; alas, there are too many, not only amongst Infidels but Christians also; yet this is true, an Idol which is in the world is nothing; something it is in regard of the matter whereof it is made, as brass, ston, Wood, Silver, &c. it may be something also in form and representation; they may represent Creatures, or be creatures of Gods making; as Sun, Moon, and Stars of heaven, which have been worshipped, and Idols have been made of them; yet are they nothing as touching the entity of the true God, they have no force or efficacy to do good or hurt; the word {αβγδ}, is from {αβγδ}, that signifies Nothing: they are not the living God, but empty representations, and deceitful nothings. The Text Hebr. 2.10 doth nothing at all disadvantage us, if the words, For whom are all things, and by whom are all things, be a description of God the Father, as the Adversary with many others doth red them. What is here spoken of the Father, which is not as fully attributed to Gods Son? Col. 1.16. All things were made by Christ, and for Christ, do as effectually prove his Deity, as these words to the Hebrews do the Deity of God the Father; but if the alleged words are thus to be ordered( as Paraus conceives their meaning to be) It became God to perfect through sufferings him,( viz. Gods Son) for whom are all things, and by whom are all things( as in the cited place to the Colossians) and who was to bring many Sons to glory, the Prince( I say) of their salvation. ( See Par. in locum.) then the Text may be retorted against the Adversary. However the Deity of our Saviour is implied in that Title, by calling him the Prince of our salvation; for had he not been the Most High God, had he been only a holy and innocent man, he might have saved himself, but he could not have saved others. I have now faithfully refuted, and by the help of God examined what the Adversary hath objected against the holy Trinity, and what he hath to say against the eternal being of the Son of God, and what for his subordination, as he is a God to his Father; and I have shewed, that the holy Texts mustered by him have no hand to strike a stroke in that Battle for which they are levied. A poisonful Doctrine this is, and stoutly asserted, but can never be soundly proved by any Socinian, as it doth, I hope, partly appear by my answer to the Adversaries Objections, and by his subtle elusions to avoid the strength of our Arguments. He is much to be pitied for taking such pains as he hath done to darken the Sun, and without repentance to procure his own destruction: and how th● Lord was displeased with the Ringleader of the Arians, we may re●● in Athanasius, Orat. 1. contra Arianos: And in ruffian his Ecclesi●st. History lib. 1. cap. 13. and in many others. Athanasius saith in his Epistle to Serapion, That Arius swore that he embraced the catholic faith. Constantine the Emperor saith, If thy faith be right, thou hast sworn well; but if it be wicked, and thou hast sworn to the faith established in Nice, God will condemn thee for this thy Oath. But when no authority of Scripture could reform the heart, and stop the mouth of that perjured heretic, Arius being ready to go to the Church at Constantinople, to maintain and set up his Blasphemy, Alexander the faithful Bishop of that City prayed all that night in the Church where the Council should be held the next day, ruffian. lib. 1. cap. 12. And particularly( saith Athanasius) that either he would take him out of the world, if Arius should enter into it; or else if he would spare his Church, that he would take Arius out of the way. Arius, I say, at that very time when he intended to advance his heresy, being forced by the necessity of Nature to go aside into a common place appointed for that purpose, for his ease, voided his very entrails, and so ended at once his life and blasphemy; and this happily sel out by Gods singular providence, hereby fulfilling both the threatening of that pious Prince, and the prayers of his holy servant whereby the Lord interposed himself as a severe Judge and condemned the Arian heresy, saith Athanasius. Bee warned by this dreadful example Mr. Bidle, otherwise you have good cause to fear, lest the Lord Jesus, whom you have very much dishonoured, should to astonishment, destroy you also by a fearful judgement; or if you escape in this life, yet lest a worse evil( without your repentance) befall you in the life to come. ARTICLE VI. Bidle. I Believe that there is one principal Minister of God and Christ, peculiarly sent from heaven to sanctify the Church, who by reason of his eminency and intimacy with God is singled out of the number of the other Heavenly Ministers or Angels, and comprised in the holy Trinity, being the third person thereof; and that this Minister of God and of Christ, is the holy Spirit. Answer. The substance of this sixth Article, as it is explicated touching the Holy Ghost, is comprised in the twelve Arguments, which this Author hath levied against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, which have been confuted by Doctor Cloppenburg, professor of Divinity at Franeker in Friesland, and after him by a learned man, who desires, such is his modesty, to have his name concealed; and before them both, I myself, a frail man, and miserable sinner, the Lord be merciful to me, have punctually answered whatsoever was of any moment in them, and have performed this task at least to my own satisfaction. This Adversary, for what reasons moving him, knows best, and I can guess at some of them, though there is a new Edition of them in the year of our Lord 1653. takes no notice of them. I will not misspend my short and precious time in doing that again, which is( as I conceive) already sufficiently done, in answering all the particulars at large; but if any ingenuous Reader, desirous to be informed in the truth of this divine Mysterious Article of faith, shall be puzzled with Scripture phrases which he allegeth to his seeming advantage, or with his specious and fallacious Inferences deduced from those sacred Texts, I do advice him to consult with those answers returned in all or any of the aforesaid Writings, and he shall see( if he be not wilfully blind) the mist which appeared to him fairly scattered, and the heavenly truth cleared up to his delight and comfort. Somewhat there is new in this Article, though not much, besides there is an addition to the twelfth Article; the remainder is but an abridgement of his twelve Reasons, and a confirmation against his fellow Socinians, That the Holy Ghost is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son: I will by Gods assistance briefly examine what is material both touching his alleged Scriptures, and deductions from those holy Fountains. Bidle. John 14.26. But the Comforter( or rather the Advocate, as the word in the Greek, and Beza renders it) which is the Holy Spirit, which the Father will sand in my name—. Note, The Holy Ghost is called the Advocate; which very appellation sufficiently intimates, that he is not that supreme and independent Monarch, Johovah; chiefly for two reasons: the one is, Because he instructeth the Saints, especially when they are brought before persecuting Rulers, how to pled their own and their Masters cause, as Mat. 10.17, 18. in opposition whereunto the unclean Spirit is called Satan, an Adversary, 1 Pet. 5.8. namely in that he suggesteth slanders and false accusation to the men of this world against Christ and his people, John 8.34. 2. Because when Saints sink under some great pressure and affliction, and are at a loss, not knowing which way to turn themselves, nor what to pray as they ought, then comes the Holy Spirit for their assistance, and intercedes with most earnest and unexpressible groans for them, Rom. 8.26. Answer. The design of our Lord in these words is to comfort his Disciples, which were( no doubt) full of grief when they heard his discourse of going away from them to the Father, v. 12. he was in his bodily presence a great comfort to them; this needs not trouble them, for in his stead, in the absence of his human Nature, they should have another Comforter, which should abide, not only with the Apostles, but with the Church, and every faithful member thereof for ever. The word {αβγδ}, hath various significations, but no reason upon this account to retain Paraclete in the English, lest, as the Rhemists say, they should abridge the sense of the place. And saith our Doctor Fulk, in this Marginal Note; upon this ground you must leave five hundred words more untranslated then you have done. In the latin Churches they barbarously red and sung Paraclitus, Penultima brevi, for Paracletus, penultima longa; which error being detected by Erasmus, occasioned great contentions, Apud Onagros quosdam Mutaeologos, saith Beza. The Syrian Interpreter hath {αβγδ}, in all places to the matter in hand. The word Paraclete is of large and doubtful signification, and consequently may be rendered as usually it is, Comforter, agreeably to the condition of the Disciples at present, by reason of the spiritual joy and comfort, which usually is the work, and accompanieth the office of the Holy Ghost, being Advocate( as Camero guesseth; or it is taken for an Exhorter, which belongs to the blessed Spirit in reference to the people of God, both to do what is commanded, and to suffe● what is inflicted: but I will not deny your ( rather) that the word is to be taken, as most usually it is; yea with an exclusion of the other two Tra●slations, for an Advocate, and I will not deny that he is not an Advocate or Interlocutor, both of the Christians cause with God and with men. But here is your mistake, which I desire that you and others also would take notice of, He is not an Advocate to pled their cause with God immediately, and in his own person, as Lawyers do their clients cause before a Judge; this indeed would have argued both his actual separation from, and his inferiority to the great God; but this is done by his gracious works in the hearts of Disciples and Christians, teaching them, as yourself confess in your first reason of this Name, how to pled the cause of Christ against persecuting Rulers, and a world of unbelievers. This is done, as the Learned briefly answer, not formaliter by him, but efficienter; and this was foretold to the comfort and strengthening the faith of the Apostles, That when Christ was gone corporally from them, the Paraclete should come to them,& they should see his power in convincing and converting many of the unbelieving world, of the Jews immediately, and of Gentiles in future times by the Ministry of the Apostles: the Spirit by them should reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgement, John 16.8. The coming of the Holy Ghost should be a convincing Argument that Christ was a true Prophet; and therefore the Jews that had a hand in his death, were guilty of a great sin in not believing on him, and of a greater in crucifying him. And this is the first work, and necessary to fit a sinner for Christ. 2. He would convince the world of righteousness; by assuring the Disciples of Christ, that albeit he suffered as a Malefactor, yet he was an innocent person; which is proved by this, That God took him up into heaven, whither no unholy and unclean person can enter. And 3 of judgement, given to Christ, and against Satan, that put it into the hearts of Scribes, Pharisees, and their associates to accuse Christ, and put him to a shameful death. Now by the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Kingdom of Satan, by the preaching of the everlasting Gospel, shall be gradually destroyed; yea, and his professed enemies were shortly after ruined; and this prophesy began to be fulfilled, Acts 2. when three thousand were converted by one plain Sermon of Peter. Thus in effect is the Text opened by Piscator, Grotius, D. Hammon. 2. Secondly, He is( say you) an Advocate, Because when Christians are in great straits, and know not which way to turn themselves, he assists them with prayer to God. But how? Not himself praying for us, but pouring on us the Spirit of Supplication, whereby we do ourselves pray unto God with sighs and groans( See Pneumatology answer to the ninth reason.) The Spirit is said to do that which he maketh us to do, Matth. 10.20. The Spirit of your Father speaketh in you; which is thus expounded Luke 21.15. I will give you a mouth and wisdom; which all your Adversaries shall not be able to gainsay and resist; and by the Spirit we cry Abba, Father, Rom. 8.15. and which is for sense equivalent hereunto, Gods Spirit in our hearts cries, Abba, Father, Gal. 4.6. And doth not the Spirit help our infirmities in our prayers, and teach us how to pray as we ought? By the Context, the Adversary might have learned this Exposition from himself; for as he is our Advocate, because he instructs us to pled the cause of Christ with opposing men;( this was your first reason of the Name;) so must he likewise by analogy be called our Advocate, Because he teacheth us how to pled our cause with God, he instructeth us how and what to pray for. This Text then is so far from weakening of the Deity of the holy Ghost, that it strongly proves him to be the great Jehovah; for who but the Lord God can instruct all the Disciples of Christ in all the world, and at all times to pled the cause of Christ, and teach them in their needs what to pray? Bidle. Note also, That the holy Spirit is said to be sent, and that in the name of another, yea, of a man( since not only the thing itself, but also the whole tenor of Christs discourse intimateth that he speaks of himself as a man;) but it is absurd to say, that the Most high God can be sent( since that is proper to inferiors and ministers;) more absurd yet to say, that he can be sent in the name of another; but most absurd of all to say, that he can be sent in the name of a man. Answer. He that is sent is inferior to him that sends him; the Holy Ghost is sent, and by consequent he is not God.] I answer, the Antecedent,( If it be true in matter) is particular, and then it is Asyllogistical, for the first figure or explicate Syllogism doth always require that the mayor be general, or a proper axiom. If it be generally meant, it is false and denied, for sending is not always a command of a superior over an inferior, but sometimes an act of wisdom and of counsel; the Holy Ghost is sent both by the Father and the Son with his own consent, and doth not argue their dominion over him. An equal person by consent, may be sent by him that is equal to him, and then he that is sent is the primary cause of his own misson, and derogates nothing from the perfection of him that is sent; and how false the rule of Bidle is, that inferiors are only sent, may( besides experience) be evinced out of Zachary, ch. 2.8. and 10.11. and 4.8, 9. and 6.12. the person that sends, and the person that is sent, is called, The Lord of Hosts. Can the Creator be sent by the Creature? The Lord by his servant? The Lord of Hosts by a man? And although simply it is no absurdity to say, that God being equal to his Son and the Holy Ghost, might in that respect be sent by them; yet in that Scripture it is said, the Son is sent by the Father, and the Holy Ghost is sent by God; yet ●t is never said, that the first person is sent; and to say so, is to depart from the pattern of wholesome words; and its also against the decorum, That the Son should sand his Father who begot him, or the Holy Ghost who proceeds from him. The Equality or Identity of the Essence and Persons, takes not away the original of the Persons, and the order agreeable thereunto. Non repugnat Patri, ut Pater, quà est aequalis Filio& Spiritui Sancto, mit●atur; repugnat tamen ordinatissimae ipsorum habitudini& emanationi,& naturalissimo ipsorum ordini. Nor doth the Son of God, as he was the Son of man, sand the Holy Ghost, though the person which was the son of man sent him; but as God he promised, and as he was our mediator he merited for us, that God the Father in his Name should sand the Holy Ghost, without whose inward teaching of the heart, all outward preaching would be ineffectual. Nor is the sending of the Holy Ghost to be understood in regard of his person simply, but in regard of his Gifts and graces, whether they be common, Hebr. 6.4. as the gift of Miracles, which is consequential to faith, either saving or unsound, common illumination, and such like: or such as belong to the Elect, whether it be by giving the first grace, making way into our hearts, or opening the door as it were, that he may come in and dwell with us in an eminent manner, being our Guide and Sanctifier; and to possess us for Christ, and to secure his interest in us, helping us in duties and against temptations, and making us to strive against our own corruptions. The Holy Ghost sent to his, changeth not place; he is every where present, and cannot be in any place where he was not before; but this sending imports a new manifestation of his presence by some gracious operation( I speak in a large sense) in them to whom he is sent, and with whom he was always essentially present. See my Answer to Bidle's sixth Argument against the Holy Ghost. Bidle. John 15.26. When the Advocate is come, whom I will sand you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, that proceedeth ( or, goeth out) from the Father, he shall testify of me. This description of the Holy Ghost; namely, that he proceedeth from the Father, serveth to show both the reason of our Saviours former words, wherein he had said, that he would sand the Holy Spirit from the Father, and also that the Holy Spirit is of much intimate admission with the Father, and as I may so say, Legatus à later. And indeed, were not men blinded with Romish tradition, they would never draw such a monstrous conclusion from these words, as they are wont to do; namely, because he is here said to proceed from the Father, that therefore he receiveth the divine Essence, and consequently is God by eternal procession from the Father;( for, as for his procession from the Son, though that be rife in their mouths, yet doth not the Scriptures make mention of it any where) which essential and eternal procession is not only in itself absurd, but hath also no good footing in the Text( nor pretendeth to have footing in any other) and is therefore to be rejected as a bold and senseless figment of mens brains. Answer. It is a usual trick of Adversaries, to make the beautiful face of truth, if possibly they can, to appear deformed, to stamp upon it the odious name of Popery: but they do too much honour Popery, which do say, the Holy Spirits processi●n from God the Father, and God the Son, is a Romish tradition; for this is for certain more ancient then Popery itself; and we bless God, that this divine mystery was not corrupted( as many other points of faith have been) by that adulterous and corrupt Church: we do not, nor ought we in duty depart from Romanists, when they do not depart from the truth of the Gospel. Touching the procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Father and God the Son( not to insist on the proof of that which is elsewhere fully demonstrated) we must not forget to abandon all thoughts of any corporal procession, ad extra; or spiritual procession in created ministerial substances, which are called Metaphysical. Such processions are apparently no persons, nor are they the very substance of Spirits: for they are, as the Learned speak, Immanent, and for the most part voluntary acts; but here we do mean a Metaphysical or divine procession; in this notion, that person which proceeds is a distinct person from the first and second of the holy Trinity, and subsists by himself. The Son of God doth likewise proceed from the Father, but with difference from the procession of the Holy Ghost. 1 For in regard of the principle, as the Learned speak, the Son of God proceeds from his Father only; but the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and the Son of God. And 2 In regard of the manner of procession, the Son proceeds from his Father by eternal generation; but the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Father( as for distinction divines do speak) by way of generation, but procession. 3 In regard of order, the Son( if I may so speak) proceeds immediately and only from the Father; hence it is that the Son is the second person of the sacred Trinity in regard of order; the Holy Ghost so proceeds from the Father and Son of God, that he is in order the third person of the holy Trinity. And what though in Scripture it be not said in so many terms, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son of God; yet is this divine truth sufficiently and soundly collected from Gods word; yea, even from this very Text, because it is avouched he proceeds from the Father; now this cannot be meant of him, as he is formally Father, for then the Spirit of God should be called the Son of God; but from the Father as he is a person hath the same divine Essence with his Son, and consequently he proceeds from the Son also: and this is more clearly proved from those Texts where he is called the Spirit of the Son, Rom. 8.9. Gal. 4.6. and where he is said to be sent by the Son from the Father, Joh. 15.26. and to be given by him, Joh. 20.22. I know there hath been a hot contention betwixt the Greek and latin Church touching this point, whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son? Yet both sides do agree First, That the Holy Ghost is the most high God, against the Macedonian heretics. Secondly, They do acknowledge also against the Sabellians that he is, by opposite relations, a distinct person from the Father and from the Son of God. Thirdly, That he is coessential and coequal with God the Father and God the Son. Fourthly, The Grecians do acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, and that he is from the Father by the Son; so that as the Grecians do expound themselves, the point of difference is not( as I conceive) fundamental; neither is it magni momenti, of any great moment, had not the chief Agents in this question been embittered one against another by the spirit of ambition, saith Peter Martyr: and it is a disagreement rather in words then in sense, saith the Master of the Sentences, Lombard. l. 1. qu. 11. c. 4 Touching this point, I have more amply written in answer to a jesuit, lib. 1. to p. 202, 203. It was a rash censure of Bellarmine, lib. 2. de Christo, cap. 30. to say that Constantinople the Imperial City of that Greek Empire was taken by the Turks in the year of our Lord, 1452. on the Feast of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, to manifest thereby their Error against the Holy Ghost. I say, that those Christians were ruined at that time, and are now justly in thraldom for their sins; but this great evil might befall them as well for their impious lives and base Idolatry, as for their error in this point. And it is more then probable, if we respect the judgement in itself considered, that God raised up the Turks as a corporal plague to punish spiritual Idolaters, Rev. 9.20. This wretched man blasphemes the Holy Ghost, saying, that his proc●ssion is absurd, as we hold it, and a senseless figment. The truth of whose infinite person hath been clearly proved, and his fallacies detected in a set Treatise. We do not admit reason, as now it is by the fall of Adam corrupted, to be the supreme Judge of these deep mysteries; but we do assert, that it is intolerable presumption, without the word to prie into these secrets touching the Almighty God; and like the steadfast looking on the glorious Sun, the more you gaze on it, the more dazzled are your eyes. As Saint Basil speaks on 1 John 1. a breaking through the bounds which God hath fixed, and approaching too near to the Mount of Gods secrets. There are many things demonstrated most effectually, and yet the manner is so obscure, that the contrary objections can hardly be answered; as the first original of occult qualities, the union and communion of the reasonable soul with the body, of the divisibility of quantity in infinitum; and as Besterfeld against Crellius hath avouched, we do believe the unity and distinction of the divine perfection in God more congruously, then the Adversaries can imagine to do by their opinion; for verily the unity of Essence is greater then the unity of that which is compounded of a subject and accidents: there is a greater essential unity of three, then a conjunction of many absolute things together; a more perfect distinction of three relations, then of ten absolute things: if it stands not with the divine perfection, that there are three persons in God, whereof every one of them is the divine Essence, and are so perfectly related one to another, that one of them can neither be, nor be perfectly known without the other; how is it then opposite to the divine perfection, that there are many Attributes in God, and none of them can be the divine Essence; and which are so distinguished one from another, that their essence is divers, and one after another, and one sometimes without the other, yea, one of them cannot subsist with the other, as they do dispute of Gods Justice and Mercy? Bidle. Observe, That it is not here said of the Holy Spirit, {αβγδ}, he proceedeth out of the Father;( yet essential procession could not have been solidly inferred thence) for {αβγδ} being spoken ●f a person, is wont to be understood of a local procession. See John 8.42. Acts 15.24. 1 John 2.19. But {αβγδ}, being spoken of a person, every Puny in the Greek can tell, signifieth his going from ones house or presence, and so intimates only a local procession; which made Beza in his Annotations upon this place ingenuously confess that this description concerneth not the Essence of the Holy Spirit; this place then quiter overthroweth the supposed Deity of the holy Ghost, since if he were God, he could not locally proceed from any one, in as much as he would then not only be in another mansion, but also change place: whereas God cannot be in any Mansion that is not his own, neither doth he shift place. Answer. In the holy Text, {αβγδ} is twice repeated, once in reference to the mission of the Holy Ghost, which is both from the Father and the Son, as being one in nature, and supposeth the Deity of the Son, in that he sends the Holy Ghost. Can the Creator be sent by the creature? This is spoken to the comfort of the Disciples, that the Holy Ghost should be sent to them: this is called a temporal procession or mission, He shall testify of me when he comes( to you,) outwardly, by signs and miracles, and by his instruction and assistance of Preachers; and inwardly, really convincing the hearts of the Elect, that Christ is God, and the Saviour of the world, and the works of saving grace hath been always the fruit of the holy Spirit from the beginning; and more eminently will he act thus in his office in all the Elect, and in all places to the end of the world. And doth not this sufficiently prove that he is the most high God? and that the second Person of the sacred Trinity must be God also? for who but an Infinite person can sand an Infinite Person? Secondly, And with difference from the former, he is said {αβγδ}, to proceed from the Father. Now in these words, by general consent, the eternal and essential procession of the blessed Spirit From the Father is confirmed. This is a Superlative comfort to persecuted Christians, that not a created Spirit gives testimony of the Son, but he doth it which proceeds out of the substance of his Father, who hath the divine Essence, and all the essential properties communicated to him, who must needs be a witness without exception; He is {αβγδ}, Emanatio Dei, as Allenagoras speaks: {αβγδ}, as the beam from the Sun, as light from fire, saith Justin Martyr. And I am confirmed in this exposition, because there is a description of the person to be sent, and it is said of him in the holy Text {αβγδ}, in the Present Tense, He doth proceed. 'tis an eternal Immanent act( as it were;) so that when he was not sent from heaven, yet then and always did he proceed from the Father: These high mysteries are far above us, and it is a far less impropriety to say, that the Firmament is a mercers-chapel, or the Sun is a Glow-worm, or to denominate the reason of man, from the apprehension of a fly or worm, then we to say, we can perfectly understand these mysteries; for there is some likeness betwixt these, but betwixt finite and infinite there is no proportion, saith Mr. Baxter against Mr. Kendal. We must say, God knoweth, and he must say to us; for else man could not hear or speak of God, if God condescended not to the language and capacity of men. Beza was a famous servant of God, and a gre●t instrument of the Churches good, and such was no doubt his piety and modesty, that he had a mind prepared and ready to yield to the truth, if it had been in this particular revealed to him; but his single testimony can be no prejudice to the sounder and common opinion of the Learned; yet doth that Worthy, notwithstanding his failing in the Exposition of that Text( in which kind the most able and orthodoxal may dissent) in the main agree with the Orthodox touching the Deity and Ubiquity of the Holy Ghost. Your arguing from earthly persons to the divine, is not safe, and sometimes destroys the faith; for every thing in this matter is superlative; and one is bold to say, that not one of the names that we attribute to God hath a notion which hath in God a formal object; nor do you say properly, that the Holy Ghost goeth; for what can go that hath not feet? The blessed Spirit is an incorporeal substance; Might not you prove by this reasoning, that God hath head, feet, eyes, a soul, a heart, because Scriptures do in a far fetched metaphor ascribe these parts to the Invisible, Infinite Spirit, and so infect the minds of men with anthropopophical conceits of the Great God? In these words is involved a double blasphemy; the one is against God the Father, as though the blessed Spirit by his procession from the Father, went from the essential presence of the most high God, and so it would follow that he is not every where present; and when he confines God to a certain place, saith, that yet he shifts not place; This must needs argue weakness in him, being supposed to be finite, not to be able to move from place to place. The other Blasphemy is against God the Holy Ghost, inferring unworthily from the propriety of the word in Greek, which is not to be urged in these divine mysteries, that the Holy Ghost by this procession and mission is locally and essentially present where the Father is not present; for he was not so sent from heaven, but only touching the manifestation of his presence by some rare works, as not being at that instant in heaven, 1 John 5.7. Bidle. John 16.7, 8. The Spirit of truth when he is come shall led you into all truth ( namely, of those things which Christ had yet to say to them) for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. ( Which words clearly intimate, that the Holy Ghost would not led the Disciples into the truth of all those things that Christ had yet to say unto them, unless they were first disclosed to the Spirit himself by Christ.) And he shall show you things to come; he shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and show it to you. Answer. The first part is thus answered, The Spirit will led you into all truth; not simply into all Moral, Philosophycal and Logical Truths; but in●o all truths which Christ had yet to say to them, v. 12. This is true, and is more fully explicated into all Truths which were necessary for their condition and salvation, which also they had not heard from Christ, or which they understood not, o● had forgotten, especially touching the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, conversion of the Gentiles, and plantation of Ch●●stian Churches. Whereas you interpret these words, Whatsoever he shall hear, shall be speak;] therefore till Christ revealed them, the Holy Ghost was ignorant of them. This is an abhorred Inference, and a sorry requital so●r Gods condescension to man: Thus, because Gods Son became the son of man, Socinians would dispute him out of his Godhead; and thus do unthankful wretches deal with the Holy Ghost for his condescension to our weak capacities, and do expound it properly, which is improperly spoken; for the Spirit is Omniscient, and was always every where; the Spirit speaketh not of himself; it shall be no private Doctrine which he shall reveal to you, but what he heareth, that he speaketh; they are no private Doctrines of his own which he shall reveal to you, but that which he heareth of the Father, that which the Prophets fore: old, and that which Christ wrought for us, those things the Spirit shall teach you. This phrase notes an order, but no inequality betwixt the divine Persons; as the Holy Ghost is not of himself in regard of his person, but from the Father and the Son, so doth he act from them both; and the phrase imports the consent that was betwixt the first and third Person, as if Christ had said, the Father shall not teach one Doctrine, and the Holy Ghost another, but both shall agree.( See my Defence of the Deity of the Holy Ghost. pag. 44.45.) In a word, the Holy Ghost doth not know these Truths by revelation, for he hath perfect knowledge of all things always; not by learning, but by proceeding, because the Father and the Son communicating the divine essence to the Holy Ghost, did communicate life, power, knowledge, and all the essential properties. I will acquaint the Reader with Learned Bisterfelds Exposition; Here, by a Metonymical Metaphor is to know those things that are pleasing to others. He shall take of mine.] Christ hereby excludes not the Father, he doth not intend to impropriate any thing to himself, nor will the Holy Ghost bring any new Doctrine to you or others; he will not set up a new kingdom, but establish mine, and glorify me, that is, by you and Believers; for the workings of the Spirit in you, and his applying of my righteousness, Wisdom and Holinesse to you, are to this end, that you may glorify me, that my Doctrine and Kingdom may be established, and that I may be acknowledged to be the natural Son of God, the true God; for the scope of the Holy Ghosts conferring extraordinary gifts to the Apostles, was that Christ might be owned by others, both by their Preaching and Miracles, to be( as in truth he was with his Father before the Creation) the natural Son of God, and that both Jews and Gentiles, by the powerful work of the Spirit, might be under him as the head of the Church: and ver. 15. All things that the Father hath are mine; the same Deity, Power, goodness, and Majesty belong to the Father and the Son; the Father hath them, and I have them. See Pneumatol. p. 54. Bidle. This thing doth set forth the transcendent glory of Christ; whereas on earth he was wont in many things to be taught by the Spirit, Isai. 11.1, 2. yet after his exaltation, he not only sends the Holy Spirit, but gives him instructions concerning what he was to make known to the Disciples; this was fulfilled in the three first chapters of the Revelati●ons, for he that there speaketh to John is not Jesus Christ himself, for chap. 1. ver. 1. the Revelation is by sending on Angel; and ver. 13. it is said, John saw one like the Son of man; then he was not the Son of man himself: who this Angel was, may easily be gathered from the Epiphonema or accl●mation put at the close of every Epistle, directed to the seven Asian Churches, where the Angel having spoken before in the person of Christ, now speaketh in his own person, Let him that hath an ear to hear, hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; thereby sufficiently giving us to understand, that he was the Holy Spirit, who being appointed by Christ to guide and instruct his people, ought to be hearkned to. Answer. That the Adversary contradicts himself, these words compared with those in pag, 39. hath been already observed. Christ in his human nature whiles he was on earth, had the fullness of grace, the gifts of the Spirit plentifully bestowed on him, but not on his person, and the Deity his better part; nor did our Saviour after his Exaltation instruct the Holy Ghost, who was ever Omniscient, Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counselor, who hath taught him? Isai. 40.13. But Christs sending him, implies not any Superiority over him, as his Lord; but an order in the principle of original, and an order of working agreeable to the order of subsisting. It is not doubted, that Jesus Christ, God Man, the Mediator betwixt God and man, is Head over all created Angels; and it is a part of his Royalty, to employ what Creatures he pleaseth to make use of, even a created Angel, as is clear from the Text Revel. 1. in the affairs of his people purchased by his blood; and it is their great honour to be serviceable to so mighty a Lord. To what end you city ver. 13. of the first Chapter is not specified; if to signify the Angel mentioned ver. 1. was meant thereby, what is this else but to illustrate a clear Text by an obscure one, as to the point of an Angel? nor is there the least probability of that bold assertion: but by the Context it will appear, if we consider what went before, and what follows after, that it can be interpnted of no other person but of Jesus Christ. As for your consequence, He was like the Son of man, therefore he was not the Son of man, is justly denied, for likeness is more then once in Scripture put for Identity. You might have learned from Mr. Brightman, who is afterwards alleged as one of your witnesses, what is the reason of that manner of speech: He is said to be like the Son of man, not because he was not the Son of man himself; but because he appeared in Vision to Saint John, not in that form which he took of the blessed Virgin, and in which he being full of glory sits at the right hand of his Father; and this may be the reason, why Articles are not prefixed, as is usually done in other places, as Beza hath observed; but he appeared in a form which suited to the condition of the Church of Christ, as it was in those dayes. The like was signified to Moses when he saw a Bush on fire and not consumed, Exod. 3. and Zach. 1.8. A man in vision( Christ) was seen in the night amongst the Myrtle Trees( the Saints which do flourish and are a sweet favour to God) that are in the bottom; signifying thereby the low and persecuted estate of the Church: so when the Spouse of Christ is in a better condition, and countenanced by many chief Rulers, Christ had many Crowns on his head, Rev. 19.11, 12. That by the Spirit is meant the third Person of the Holy Trinity, in the Acclamation at the end of every one of the seven Epistles, Let him that hath an ear, hear( and lay it to his heart) what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. This in the general is true without contradiction; but that this holy Spirit should be understood to be the Angel mentioned chap. 1. v. 1. is spoken without Authority of the Scripture, and( as I conceive) without the suffrage of any approved Author; yea, it is utterly to be rejected as an audacious figment of a seducing spirit: And that the holy Text, is to be understood of an uncreated spirit, may be collected, chap. 2. v. 7. partly, because if the Angel spoken of chap. 1, v. 1. had been intended, chap. 2. v 7. the Text would have run thus, to prevent mistakes, and ambiguities, He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Angel( not what the Spirit, {αβγδ}, and that with an Article prefixed) saith to the Churches: partly; because of the unlikelihood of the Adversaries exposition, for he cannot show one Text in all the Bible, where the Holy Ghost is called an Angel; not will that Interpretation stand with the Texts if they be compared together; for the Angel sent by Jesus Christ was to show this revelation immediately to his servant John, and not to the Churches, or Angels of the Churches, as the holy Spirit doth in these Epistles, and therefore that Angel and the holy Spirit are not one and the same individual person. Bidle. Ephes. 4.5, 6. 1 Corinth. 12 4, 5. God as the primary author worketh all in all; the Son as the secondary Efficient, and the Holy Ghost as an Instrument. These two passages are abundantly sufficient to confute the vulgar opinion of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, in that he is distinguished from that one God, and that one Lord of the Christians. Hence doth Tertullian Praescrip. advers. haeret. cap. 28. truly and appositely call him, Patris Villicum, Christi Vicarium; and he, as a wise and faithful Steward distributes the gifts there name for the confirmation of the Gospel. See also Heb. 2.3, 4. Answer. These Scriptures have been abundantly spoken to formerly, and your Inference from thence confuted. Is it agreeable to the nature of an Instrument to bestow spiritual gifts, as he will himself? 1 Cor. 12. Can there be any thing more appositely spoken of the first and principal cause? Tertullian is in the Catalogue of Fathers alleged afterwards, and he acknowledged and professed the truth of the Deity, both of Gods Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as shall be proved; yet is not the improety of his phrase denied, nor can be justly urged against us: He is called Villicus, or Dispenser of the gifts of the Father, as a coessential Person with him; and this is intimated, John 14.26. and 15.26. and 16.13, 14 as sent by Christ; and as Grotius saith, the Pation of the cause of Christians, on 16 Joh. 12. Bidle. If the Holy Spirit be neither that one God, nor that one Lord of Christians, but a ministering Spirit, it is palpably evident from hence, That the Trinity which the holy Apostle believed, consisted of one God, of one Lord, and of one Spirit; but not of three persons in one God, otherwise God himself will be one of the three Persons in God, which is absurd. Answer. It is very true, The holy Trinity consists of one God, one Lord, and one Spirit in a catholic sense; and that the Holy Ghost is distinguished, as in the Text, from that one God and one Lord, and the Adversary hath no reason to conceive that we do confounded the persons; yet is his Inference denied, and can never be proved; He is distinguished from God, therefore saith he, He is not God: The Adversary would always get some advantage from the homonymy of the word, God, but it will not, nor may it be allowed him; for God is not taken in those recited Scriptures essentially and absolutely; that is, for that one God which createth and ruleth all things, for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; but God is taken secundum quid, in a restrained sense; I mean, for God the Father, as is implicitly signified by the Context, which the Adversary neither can nor will deny. It is a Paralogism to argue from the signification of a word restrained, to an exclusion of all others from the common signification of the word, God. I grant, That God simply and absolutely taken is none of the sacred Persons, which would destroy Trinity, and raise up a belief of quaternity; yet God as here, being taken for the Father, is undoubtedly one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity; for so it is modus substantialis,& Entitativus. It implies the divine Essence, and a peculiar manner of subsistence, which are necessary required to personality; and consequently the divine Nature, as simply such, is not a person; and this is the very Doctrine of the rule of faith, which we are not ashamed to defend with our blood and dearest lives, sith it so nearly concerns the glory of God, and the salvation of men. Bidle. 1 Cor. 2 10.11. God hath revealed them by the Spirit ( Mark how the Spirit is not only distinguished from God, but also the Instrument whereby he revealeth the mysteries of the Gospel; for Gods Spirit searcheth all things,( pertaining to the salvation of men.) Answer. Still Mr. Bidle is like himself in making use of an equivocal term; God is here also in this Scripture taken for the first Person, and we do religiously and unanimously avouch that the Spirit of God is distinguished from God the Father; but your next assertion, that the Spirit is an Instrument,( if you take an Instrument in the proper notion) we do peremptorily deny. Your only ground is, Because he reveals the Gospel by the Spirit: an infallible witness; sometimes I confess the Particle {αβγδ}, by, denotes an Instrument under a principal cause. The Israelites came out of Egypt by Moses, Hebr. 3.10. God lead the Israelites through the wilderness by the hand of Moses. And thus( as most Divines do speak) we are justified by faith. Sometimes it signifies a necessary condition to obtain an end, as to enter into heaven through afflictions, Hebr. 2.10. and again, We must through many afflictions enter into the Kingdom of God, Act. 14.22. sometimes it implies Authority: the words of men many times will not be taken as infallible, and to end their controversies they swear by him that is greater then themselves; yea,& God swears by himself. And sometimes it signifies the efficient cause by itself, Act. 17.28. By God we live, and move, and have our being: And Rom. 11.36. God is said to make all things by his Son,& to reveal the Gospel by his Spirit; not as by an Instrument, as the Axe is to the Carpenter, but as a Coessential and Coeternal Efficient with himself: in the Indivisible Deity there is an order observed, the first person is in order first; thus doth a man understand by his reason; and writes by his hand: had the Adversary reduced his reason into a Syllogism, the fallacy would soon appear. Whosoever worketh by another, that other is an Instrument to the chief Worker. This mayor Proposition being general, is false; but if it had been thus framed, Some person that worketh by another, useth that other as an Instrument. This mayor is true in matter, yet being particular in the first figure is Assyllogistical, and against the rules of logic; nay, by this reason we may prove that God the Father is an Instrument, for some things are said to be done by him, as I have formerly proved. Bidle. Who knoweth the things of man, save the spirit of man that is within him? even so the things of God none knoweth but the Spitit of God,( he adds not as before, that is in him.) When the Apostle saith, That none knoweth the things of God but the Spirit of God, the exclusive Particle[ none,] is put to exclude some persons, they must of necessity either be human, Angelical or Divine; not human persons, for then the Holy Ghost will be in the number of men, since that only is excepted, which is otherwise comprehended under the general name, and which if it had not been expressly excepted, would have been thought to be included: not divine Persons, for then the second Person, as is commonly held, will be excluded, which overturneth the supposition of the Adversary touching the three Persons of God; it remaineth then that only all Angelical persons are excluded, and consequently the holy Ghost is in the number of Angels, otherwise he needed not by name to be excepted. Answer. Mr. Bidle takes notice, I see, of the different phrases, viz. of the spirit of man which is within him, but it is not said, the Spirit of God within him: but why you have noted this, I apprehended not the reason. To pass by this weighty consideration, that God is a most free Agent, and may speak as he pleaseth. I do apprehended two things may be alleged; first, because of the dissimilitude betwixt the Spirit of God and the Spirit of man; mans spirit is an essential part, constituting, perfecting and distinguishing man from all other things; or at least a chief faculty of the reasonable soul, which is the form of man; but neither of these two are verified of the Spirit of God. Secondly, Because there are innumertable spirits of men, even as many spirits as there are men, and all the rest are excluded from knowing the things of man, only mans Spirit within him, knows them very imperfectly: whereas there is but one eternal Spirit of God; therefore these two the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of God within him, are but one and the same individual person in all, and therefore it was not needful to add the Spirit of God within him; yet notwithstanding it had been true, if it had been said, The Spirit of God within him; both according to your supposition, judging him to be but a prime Creature, for all Creatures are in God, in him we live, Acts 17. as the creating or procreating, and conserving cause of them all: and according to the truth; for as the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so is it true of the Holy Ghost; he is in God the Father without separation, commixtion or confusion, in regard of the Identity of Essence with the divine relation. Your dis-junction doth contain a full numeration of all the parts; but your application in your discourse to one of the kinds singly and exclusively, is not full, but lame and imperfect: It is true, that all Angels are excepted from knowing the things of man, unless it pleaseth God, as sometimes he hath done, to reveal these secrets to them: but that men are not accepted, is very absurd to affirm, for Angels are of a more penetrating nature then men; if Angels know them not, much less can men: for certain neither men nor Angels ordinarily know them. Your Inference, that then the Holy Ghost should be a man, hath no foundation at all, no not from your own rule, for singular men are comprehended under the general, and [ none] is a general word extensive to men, and all intellectual beings, but the Holy Spirit. Gods own Spirit knows deep mysteries, be they never so secret in God, even as perfectly( yea, far more perfectly) then our Spirits do know our secrets: and therefore though none else,( my meaning is not to exclude divine Persons) yet his Spirit can reveal divine mysteries to us; and this argues infallibly his Divinity, and that he is not a created Person; See Pneumatol. p. 90. Bidle. The reason why the Holy Ghost is in the Scripture sometimes exempted out of the appellation of Angels, is because of his intimacy with God, and eminency above all the rest of the heavenly Host. Thus Peter is segregated from the Apostles, because he had the pre-eminence among them, 1 Cor. 9.5. And Saul is distinguished from the enemies of David, not because he was none of them, but in that he was the chief of them, Psal. 18.1. And upon the same account Christ Jesus is sometimes in the Scripture distinguished from men. See Gal. 1.12. Heb. 7.28. Answer. That God giveth more eminent gifts to some, then he doth to others, and that he more familiarly revealed himself to Moses then to all the Israelites, is no question at all; nor that such men exalted above their brethren, and higher then the rest of them, as Saul was from the shoulders upward by a kind of excellency, may be segregated, and that by a usual Trope from all others of the same kind; as to say, the Poet, meaning Homer or Virgil; the orator, meaning Cicero; the divine Apostle, meaning John; the doctor of the Gentiles, meaning Paul; is not to be doubted of. I do not deny that God hath used in former ages, and now doth also make use of the Ministry of his holy Angels to convey the knowledge of his will to his servants, which sometimes is known to men themselves, Deut. 8.19. and 9.21. and 10.14. and to many others recorded in the Scriptures; and sometimes this Ministry is secret and unknown; for these ministering Spirits have their hands under their wings, and do work invisibly both in Civil and Ecclesiastical affairs, Ezek. 1.8. But that the Holy Ghost is a created substance, and called at any time in any Text of the holy Scriptures, a holy Angel, is utterly denied, nor could the Adversary with all his curious search find out any more then one poor proof hereof;& that is in the first and second Chapters of the Revelation compared together, which yet is improbable, and further from the truth then the mention of the Angel in the first Chapter is distant from that of the Spirit in the second. The examples then which you have brought in as Parallels are not like these under debate, 1 Cor. 9.5. Peter had no Prerogative in that matter in hand; so that the naming of Peter the chief Apostle, the other Apostles are not excluded, nor had he in carrying about a Sister any privilege above them in the second place. The test were Davids enemies from whom he was delivered, as well, though not so great enemies as Saul. But neither is the Holy Spirit an Angel, nor do those Spirits ordinarily know the secrets of man. Nor is it any marvel that our Saviour was segregated from men, not only because he was more eminent as he was man then other men, but because he was more then a man, even the Son of God, who gave Commission to Paul to preach the Gospel. These things being urged by Bidle, supposing the Holy Ghost to be a person, he doth well maintain in the general the common opinion of the personality of the Holy Ghost, and he fondly confutes some mistaking Socinians, which do deny this truth and do believe him to be the divine power and efficacy. Thus are these heretics, like the Babylonian Builders, confounded by their jarring Languages. After the Adversary had sufficiently confuted his brethren in almost five pages, both to prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, and to refute objections against that truth, in the close of all he speaks of the peculiar privileges and operations of the Holy Ghost. I will not meddle with what is not controverted, but pass all over in silence. Bidle. Let no man be offended, whilst I intimate the Holy Spirit to be an Angel, for though he were not expressly so called in the Scriptures( as I verily believe he is, though the places are not such as to be altogether free from cavil) yet the thing itself is beyond all exception ascribed to him. For demonstration hereof, the word Angel originally Greek, and the Hebrew Maleac answering thereunto, signifieth any Messenger whatsoever; but it is in Scripture oftentimes appropriated to signify a Spirit or Heavenly Messenger; in both which respects the Holy Spirit is an Angel, being not only a Messenger, but a spiritual Messenger sent out of Heaven, as Peter testifieth, 1 Pet. 1.12. Answer. The Holy Spirit is never called in the New Testament an Angel, nor Maleach in the Hebrew, and your confident persuasion without proof, that he is so called, is no better then the Melancholists, who thought and said, that every ship which sailed into the Haven was his own. Every Angel, according to the signification of the Name, is a Messenger; but reciprocally, every one that is sent, is not in truth, nor is called an Angel, or to speak properly a Messenger; and he that can extract this out of Saint Peter, he must needs be an excellent chemist, and may safely undertake to draw water out of a Pumice ston. The Lord would have the Prophets know that they were employed about such divine Prophesies which were not to be fulfilled in their dayes, but that they should hereby do service to the Evangelical Churches; and he sheweth that as the Holy Ghost dictated these to the Prophets: so also that the same Spirit of Christ works wonderfully first and principally in the Apostles, and then in all faithful Ministers in the power of the Gospel: and that the Holy Ghosts mission imports not a servile subjection or any local motion from heaven, but some notable effect or sign of his presence, hath been demonstrated; and he is so far from being called an Angel or a creature Messenger, that he is manifestly distinguished from such a one. The Spirit reveals, and Angels desire to prie into those truths: the truths of the Gospel are such excellent mysteries, that the holy Angels with wonderful purity and singular exactness do desire to look into them, being in a readiness to do any service for the Church;( an allusion( as is thought) to the Cherubims above the Ark in the Sanctuary;) the Angels look on the affairs of the Church, as the Cherubims did look on the Ark, stretching out their wings, being in a posture fit to succour Gods people: and that which they most wonder at, is the marvelous favour of God in the mediation of Jesus Christ, reconciling God to man, justly displeased with him for the breach of his laws. As for the operations peculiarly belonging to the Holy Ghost, which are reckoned up by Mr. Bidle, they are very suitable to such a holy and eternal Spirit, which we contend for, but altogether inconsistent with a created Spirit. Thus have I held forth in brief an Antidote also against the poison of this sixth Article: And so I have by the help of God finished my Answer both to his Preface and to all his Articles. There remaineth a rejoinder to be made to his Additions to the twelfth Article, and to his Answer to the Ubiquity of the Holy Ghost. Bidle. Rom. 8.26. The Spirit makes Intercession, that is, prays apart for us. This Text with that in John 16.13. hath quiter non-plussed, not only modern Authors, but the Fathers themselves, by saying, that this is improperly spoken of the Holy Gh●●st. Answer. Here is nothing new for matter, but what hath been abundantly( I think) answered by me both in the Defence of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and in this Treatise touching the Text, John 16.13. but I take liberty to mention it once more, because the manner of speech is singularly vain, in that the Adversary looks upon these two Texts as his terrible goliath, which makes all the Host of Israel to tremble; but you cannot, I believe, name one Captain which hath gone into the field to encounter with the Socinians, but hath made it good, that these Texts are vainly produced, and that they do not make any thing against us. As for your reason, because we say Texts are improperly taken, it is lighter then vanity itself: for if all things which are spoken of God in Scripture must be literally and properly taken, and you will pled that they ought to be taken according to the sound of the words, and from thence draw us a system of Divinity; without doubt it will be a monstrous one. This will justify the Egyptian Monks, which were Anthropomorphiles, and hold that God was a bodily substance, and had human members, because the Scripture saith, God made man in his own Image; and because it is said, that God hath a heart, head, face, eyes, hands and other human members: thus to ground on the letter of the Scripture, is to ground on that letter which killeth: to take that properly which is to be understood tropically, is sometimes to expose such Interpreters to scorn and laughter; as Cassian Collat. 8. cap. 3. records of some simplo Monks, which when they had red those words in the Gospel, He that takes not up the cross of Christ is not worthy of me; took the words literally and made themselves wooden Crosses, which they carried about on their shoulders, not to their Edification, but to their scorn and derision. The Holy Spirit is without doubt the author of prayers; the servants of the Lord are bound to pray, and when they pray acceptably, it is by the Holy Ghost, judas v. 20. {αβγδ}, whether the prayers were ordinary, or whether they were extraordinary, as sometimes, especially in the Primitive Church, some special servants of God had that gift conferred, as the gift of healing& prophecy●ng. If they were prayers indeed, the holy Ghost was the Author and Moderator of them; and is it consistent with the happiness of the Holy Ghost to sigh and groan? this agrees well to the state of the Church Militant, not to the Triumphant. The Spirit prays, as he sighs and groans; he doth neither of them formally, but makes us to pray with sighs and groans. I demand then, with what face the Adversary could say, Ours are non-plussed because they say, the Holy Ghost prays for us improperly? when he himself is in the same verse forced to acknowledge an improper speech in sighs and groans attributed to the Spirit, which cannot agree to him that is perfectly blessed? Bidle. Secondly, the Holy Ghost is distinguished from him that is a searcher of hearts, ver. 27. This description is only made use of to make a difference betwixt God, and the holy Spirit; but how could this be done, when the Holy Ghost is also a searcher of hearts? For can a description that is common, yea, alike common to twain, be set to distinguish the one from the other? For instance, to prepare the passeover for Christ was common to Peter with John, Luke 22.8. wherefore can a description taken from this action be fit to distinguish Peter from John? It is plain then the Holy Ghost is not a searcher of hearts. Answer. The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Father in regard of Personality, not of Omniscience, which is an essential Attribute; nor will this alleged testimony prove what you intend thereby: for the Spirit willeth and desireth as he prayeth; that is, he makes us by his help to will, desire and pray. See Pneumatol. pag 90. and so it is true, that the Spirit in regard of the work wrought in his servants is distinguished from God, and we who have the assistance of the holy Spirit, are not the searchers of mens hearts: this is Gods Royalty. See against Bidle pag. 89.90. That Text is full, 1 Cor. 2.10. The Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God, and he knoweth the things of God. I will add but this one passage and convincing testimony touching this Subject, Rom. 9.1. where the Apostle appeals to the Holy Ghost, whose special office and Prerogative it is, as to plant purity and sincerity in the hearts, so to be privy to the secrets and motions thereof. I say the truth, and protest before Christ, and in the presence of the Holy Ghost, who is my witness; How could he be his witness, if he knew not his heart? Your Instance taken from two men falls to the ground, and serves not to illustrate what you intend, because of the homonymy of the word, Spirit, which is not taken for the third Person simply, but for the work of the Spirit in the Saints; and thus the Spirit is distinguished from the Father. Bidle. If it had been said in the Scriptures, The Spirit searcheth the hearts, it would not follow that he was God, unless he had such a faculty originally, and of himself( for God could confer it on others, as he hath de facto on Christ, John 5.22, 27. for such judgement requireth that he be a searcher of the hearts:) If this were so, I say, it would not follow that he is God. How clearly, how irrefragably doth it on the contrary follow, that he is not God, but inferior to him, in as much as he is destitute of such a perfestion which is inseparable from the divine Nature? Answer. The premises in your sense having been overthrown, the conclusion falls of itself to the ground; surely we never would contend for the Deity of the Holy Ghost, were we not persuaded that he is a searcher of hearts. You tell us, If the Holy Ghost preached hearts, yet would it not follow that he was God, unless he had this faculty originally of himself; but it might be conferred on him as on Christ to know all things. These words require explication. We do not hold that God hath a faculty as men and Angels have to search, distinguished from their spiritual substances, but the very essence of God doth immediately and without such faculty perfectly know all things: nor do we simply deny, that the Holy Ghost hath this faculty( as you call it) from another, for it is solely belonging to the first Person of the sacred Trinity to be of himself Principium sine Principio; and the Holy Ghost hath Omniscience communicated to him by eternal procession; but your meaning is, this gift conferred on him in time by God as his superior. What God may do, is one thing, and what he doth actually is another: Do you believe that he bestowed this gift on him, or not? If not, What needed this exception? If he did, Why do you deny it, and dispute against this his knowledge? I grant, That God may make known the secrets of this or that man to any one; to a Prophet, as he discovered to Elisha what was done in the Chamber of the King of Syria: and to Saint Peter the secrets of Ananias and Saphira his wife; yet are they not on that account said to search the hearts of men: It was not their searching, but Gods revealing a few particular secrets to his servants that made them known to them: And upon the Adversaries supposition it is not possible for a creature finite in Essence and virtue to know at once all the hearts of all the men in the world. This knowledge of God is incommunicable to any creature: the example of our Saviour Christ is not pertinent to this business; the common principle of this judgement at the last day, is the holy Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; the proper term of this great action by voluntary dispensation, is the Son of God, performed by the divine Nature principally, and by the human instrumentally and visibly, so that it is ascribed to the humanity, not in itself, but in the person by the grace of union. Bidle. Act. 5.34. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to deceive the Holy Ghost? This will overthrow the opinion touching the Holy Ghosts Godhead; for it would be all one, if he were God, as to say, Why hath Satan filled thy heart to deceive God, which seemeth to be blasphemy, for it importeth that God may be deceived; or else that Satan, or at least Ananias thought so, otherwise he would not have purposed in his heart to do it, and he pretended to have a command from the Holy Ghost to sel his farm, and lay down the price thereof at the Apostles feet; and so was guilty of Blasphemy and covetousness against the Holy Ghost in fathering that upon the Holy Ghost, which was injected into his heart by the unclean Spirit. Answer. It being supposed, but not granted, that you have well translated the Original, Deceived, as it is also in the Margin of our new Translation, You argue thus: He that may be deceived, is not God. This Proposition needs no proof. The Holy Ghost may be deceived, as he was by Ananias. To this I answer, by distinguishing of the third Argument or middle Term, deceived; A person is deceived either properly or improperly. 1. Properly, when there is an involuntary mistake out of ignorance. For instance, Good men may be deceived in judging charitably that a Demas is a Saint and an honest man, when he discovers himself to be a rotten hypocrite, a profane worldling, and a very Cheator. Or thus, when such or such a thing is promised to be done by such a man, and he failes to make his word good, he that gave credit to him was deceived by him. In this sense God to whom all things are exactly known, is never deceived. 2. One may be deceived improperly. When some things Analogically are attributed to God, which accompanies deceived man. Thus hope and expectation are in Scripture ascribed to God, which do not import in him any ignorance of the events of things, and future contingencies, but duty to be done by any in thankfulness and obedience answerable to mercies received, which being not performed, Gods expectation is said to be frustrated by them. God planted a noble Vineyard, and bestowed cost upon it, and he looked for Grapes( which were but due) but it brought forth wild grapes, Isai. 5.4. And the Lord sharply reproves Jerusalem, That whereas he had cut off the Nations for their sakes, And I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; But did they not make voided Gods hopes? Yes, for they rose early, and corrupted all their ways, Zephan. 3.7. The Proposition is true in the first sense, but false in the second; so the dint of the stroke is easily declined. You tell us, That the Holy Ghost may be deceived, or at least Ananias thought so. This is a poor proof against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, which a Puny in Divinity may be easily thought to answer; He thought he might deceive the Holy Ghost. What then? Ergo, He is not the High God. The Consequence is denied, as though foolish men may not have Atheistical thoughts of the Great God and think to keep their counsels from the Almighty, and their actions from him, that he knoweth them not nor seeth them? The wickedness of men sheweth there are many such Atheists in the world: Thus did this man and woman tempt the Holy Spirit, ver. 9. This was surely finis operis, whatsoever was finis operantium. They would make a trial whether he knew their sin, and would punish them for it. They that think thus to deceive the Holy Ghost, shall find in the end, that the Holy Ghost was not deceived, but that they themselves were deceived in thinking to deceive him. The substance of this Objection hath been at large answered in my Pneumatol. p. 3, 4, 5, 6. {αβγδ}, are the same originally spoken of the same Ananias, in the same matter by the same Apostle, in the same tract of reproof, and there concurred many sins, lying, fraud, hypocrisy, and sacrilege, and this was the principal, in robbing and depriving God of that portion which was vowed or promised; or for saying they brought the whole for the relief of poor Christians, part whereof they unconscionably detained: In this sense is God said to be robbed, Mal. 3.8. in that they paid not their Tithes and Offerings. What was given for holy ends, was really accepted by the Holy Ghost, as given to him, and laid at the Apostles feet, as the Jewish Oblations given to God, were brought to God and presented to the Priest. We do hence thus argue, He to whom Ananias told a lie, or whom he tempted, is God, for it is not a lying to men only but to God, Saint Peter tells us, that it is not unto man, but unto God; now had not the Holy Ghost been God, he would have said, you have not lied to man, nor to the Holy Ghost, but to God, and by consequence, either the Holy Ghost is a man,( which is absurd,) or God; or in counterfeiting the Holy Ghost, you have not counterfeited man, but God; nor is it likely that he pretended to have a command, as you say he had, to sell his farm; for the Text saith, he had {αβγδ}, a power of right, and a freedom of will to dispose it as he pleased, ver. 4. but his sin was aggravated hereby, that he pretended to give the whole. Bidle. Isaiah 6.9, 10. compared with Acts 28.29. In the one place, The Lord said; in the other, The Holy Ghost; therefore the Adversaries do conclude, The holy Spirit is the Lord, This arguing is very frivolous; for at this rate I may conclude, that Moses is the Lord. Compare Exod. 32.11. Israelites are called, Gods people, ver. 7. God calls them the people of Moses; and Isai. 65.1. I am found of them that sought me not. Rom. 10 20. Isaiah is bold and saith. I was found of them that asked not after me; therefore, Isaiah is the Lord. God is said, by his power to save us, 2 Tim. 1.8, 9. Paul attributes the same to himself, 1 Cor. 9.22. and to Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.16. therefore Paul, yea, Timothy is God. If the Adversary saith, These things are otherwise ascribed unto the Lord then to the men aforesaid: I answer, It is more then the Texts themselves hold forth, which neither express nor intimate any such thing: If they say, That if not in these, yet other Texts, and the nature of the thing itself d●th sufficiently teach it: I reply, That I can make the same Answer touching the Lord and his holy Spirit; But it is well that there is such an intimation in the Texts themselves; for in the one the Lord spake to Isaiah in a vision; in the other, that the Holy Ghost spake them by Isaiah to the Fathers. These two are different, since Isaiah onely heard those words in the vision; for had the Fathers been there, why should God bid Isaiah go and tell them to the people? Paul ascribes these words to the Holy Ghost, to intimate only that whatsoever is spoken in the Scripture was recorded by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so spoken by him. Answer. This kind of arguing and illustrating Texts in the old Testament, by the new, when the parallels are right, can never be too frequently used against the Adversary, but are always of a prevailing virtue to satisfy the lovers of the Truth, and to conquer the opposers thereof, albeit they will not aclowledge themselves to be conquered; for it is God whose testimony is infallible, who speaks both in the old and new Testament, as the Priest in the Tabernacle lighted one Lamp from another Numb. 8.4. Ainsw. which taught them and us also to unfold and enlighten a dark Scripture by the light of a clearer; and it is a common saying, The Gospel is veiled in the Law, and the Law is revealed by the Gospel. Isai. 6.1. The Prophet saw in a Vision, The Lord sitting upon a Throne, that denotes the Kingly office of Christ; and his skirts filled the Temple, that proves his Priestly Office; this was meant of Christ, as is expounded by Saint John, chap. 12.41. These things spake Isaiah of the blinded Jews, when he saw the glory of Christ, and spake of him: and he is the Lord of Hosts, ver. 5. and ver. 9.10. The Lord said to Isaiah, Ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not understand; Saint Paul expounds whom he means by Lord, Well said the Holy Ghost by Isaiah. Hence it is evident that the Holy Ghost is the Lord that sent Isaiah. Your elusions to avoid the strength of the Argument are vain, and your examples taken out of the Scriptures are fallacia parium, are unlike to this in hand: sometimes an Instrument speaks in the name of the great God that sent him. This must be your Evasion, therefore it must be so taken, Isai. 6. compared with Acts 28. this is a plain fallacy. Exod. 32. Moses calleth the Israelites, Gods people in Covenant with him; and God calls them, the People of Moses, being under the curse of the Law, by reason of their Idolatry: and because he was Gods instrument to bring them out of Egypt, and to conduct them in the wilderness; it is apparent to every one, and the Text holds it forth, that they were otherwise Gods people, and otherwise the people of Moses; he being a finite, distinct and separate substance from the Lord God Almighty. We grant, That because these are different, therefore it would be absurd to infer, That Moses is the Lord. Where is the Holy Ghost called Gods servant, or Gods Instrument? The second place, Isai. 65.1. with Rom. 10.20. in the one place it is said, I am found of those that sought me not; so saith God in another place. Isaiah saith the same words; therefore Isaiah is the Lord. It is clear, the Lord by Isaiah foretold the conversion of the Gentiles, and that he by his grace moved them to seek him before they looked for salvation by Christ. Saint Paul relating the same Text sheweth, that Isaiah freely spoken of the calling of the Gentiles. Who is so blind as not to see clearly, that Isaiah used those words as Gods Messenger in the name of the Lord, and what is more usual with the Prophets, then to use such words, to gain due respect to their words? Thus saith the Lord: This example then is not parallel to that under debate; it is not agreeable to the Scripture language for the Holy Ghost to speak in the name of the Lord. The third, touching Gods saving and Pauls saving is as unfit, and as far from the mark, as the former; for evident it is, that Paul himself could not plant, except God gave the blessing, and he always ascribes salvation to God as the principal c●u●e thereof, and confesseth that he is but Gods Instrument, by whose ministry he saved much people. A Creature cannot be properly called God, nor doth any other Scripture, or the nature of the thing itself teach any such thing; nor doth the new Testament, unless by quoting Texts out of the old shadows being gone, use such expressions, lest we should conceive Gods subordinate to the high God: this you grant; but you add withal, That you can make the same answer touching the Lord and the Holy Ghost. You have the face not to blushy at strange answers: What is it that you cannot writ? But if you should be pe●emptory in such an answer, you cannot make it good. What line in Gods Words, yea, what probability can you produce for this parallel? It is great reason, that if a man will forsake the common road, that he should give a good account of his going into by-ways not trodden by Passengers many hundred years together; it is well that by your own confession, the other alleged Scriptures do clearly distinguish betwixt the principal cause and instruments; and it will be requisite, if you look to be credited, that you demonstrate by the circumstances of the Text, Isai. 6. or by some other convincing proof; that the holy Spirit is a created Angel, and that he is in a proper notion Gods ambassador, and his instrument to inspire the holy Prophets, to discharge their embassy, which is a task, I know, impossible to be performed by you. There is( say you) an intimation in the Texts themselves; for Isalah only heard the words in a vision, and was to tell them to the people not present with him: But Paul ascribes them to the Holy Ghost, because whatsoever was spoken in the Scripture, is recorded by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and so spoken by him. This is then his meaning: These words were from the Lord as first delivered by him to Isaiah; and from the Holy Ghost as they were penned in the Scripture. This is a senseless and a groundless figment, as though the Holy Ghost spoken not as well to Isaiah, in that vision to deliver his message ot the people, as to inspire him to writ infallibly what he had heard in that divine Vision. Is there any intimation of different persons in these to be distinguished actions? And as though the Lord himself did not both? The current of the Scripture is to this purpose without a shadow of contradiction. Take that one place, 2 Pet. 1.20, 21. No prophesy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. Prophets proposed not to their Auditors their own sense, but Gods mind: for prophesy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; so that they were acted by the Spirit, not only in writing, but in speaking: Yea, those Prophets which were not Gods Penmen as Elias and Elish●h, yet were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Such vain fancies as yours are Mr. Bidle, can please none but vain and unsettled heads. Mr. Bidle spends many words to answer the grand Objection( as he rightly calleth it) to prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost; but the substance of his evasions is sufficiently confuted in my answer to the eighth Argument and sixth Article. It will be needless therefore to enlarge myself on this Subject; I shall only point at some novelties and conclude. Bidle. 1 Pet. 1, 12. Could the Spirit be sent down from heaven, if he was then on earth, and continued in heaven? And that his coming from heaven is properly to be taken, appeareth by the very sight, it was in the shape of a Dove. It is not said his bodily shape descended, but the Spirit in the shape; so that the descent did primarily agree to the Holy Ghost, but in a secondary way, and by accident to the dove. Is it possible to descend out of heaven, and not to change place? Or can there be any thing better then an ocular demonstration to evince a change of place? If notwithstanding all this, it is yet true, that the Holy Ghost doth not go from place to place; What assurance can I have, when the Scripture saith of any one whomsoever, that he is sent, or cometh down, or goeth out, that he moveth from place to place, and doth not abide where he was before? Answer. I will not enter into a dispute, whether the Spirit in himself invisible did at all appear in any bodily form, or whether the meaning of the Text was this, that when Christ was baptized, John saw( John 1.33.) the heaven opened,( or cleft asunder, not improperly, to note a clearer revelation of light, but properly not only to show that Christ was anointed with heavenly and extraordinaty gifts to impart to his, but that heaven itself is opened for believers) and he saw the Spirit descending like a Dove, and lighting upon Christ. The Spirit descendeth as a Dove, or something resembling a Dove with the wings spread abroad, and hovering over one, viz. Angels, the token of Gods presence. See Dr. Hammond on Matth. 3. Annotat. K. But take the ordinary meaning which is most probable, Luke 3.22. and it will not from thence follow that the Holy Ghost changed place in respect of his essential presence. But this mission from heaven the Palace of the great King, denotes a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, where he was not so manifested before, or a new manner of his presence, as touching some real operation, whether he be sent into the hearts of his children invisibly to sanctify them, or visibly in the shape of a Dove, or in fiery cloven tongues, which lighted on the Apostles, Act. 2. These were signs and operations of the Holy Ghost, the invisible God; no channels to convey the Holy Ghost or his virtue to them: and that there might be no offence taken at such expressions; the great God, as the Adversary will grant, is said to walk in the Garden, Gen. 3.8. and so according to his supposition, must needs come down from heaven; yea, and he professed that he would go down to sodom, and see whether those Citizens had done according to the cry of it, which is come to me, Gen. 18.21. and shall we from thence infer a local change in God, and that he by relation of Angels understood the state of Sodom, and would be more fully informed touching that report? But this is contradicted by the Adversary himself, who confesseth that God is every where touching knowledge, that he knows all things; and he saith by the confession of all, God cannot shift place, Article 6. pag. 46.47. If God then, being an infinite Being, cannot according to substance change place, when yet in regard of some operations he is said to descend, and to be where so he was not before; the very same do we avouch touching the holy Ghost, and that by the instruction of the holy Scripture, Psal. 139. and yet have assurance enough, where the Scripture speaketh of an Angels descending from heaven, that their persons then in regard of substance are where they were not before, because they are finite substances, and not every where; but do shift their places, though they be no where commensurativè, but definitive only. Bidle. The Adversaries do allege one obscure passage against many evident Scriptures, Psal. 139. Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? for to omit that the Psalmist( as the precedent and subsequent words, yea and the passage itself at large doth show) intendeth only to prove the Omnipresence of God himself, and not of his Spirit, and divers do by Spirit understand that knowledge or power of God, and not the holy Spirit: yet take it for granted, that by Spirit is meant the Holy Ghost; yet do they import no more then that David could go no where, but the Spirit could be there with him, and so signify not that he is in all places at one time, but can be in them at several times, accordingly as David should come into them. Answer. Metaphorical or borrowed expressions touching God are to be cleared by those which more properly do belong to him, and not evident and literal, reduced to those which are metaphorical. The Adversary would ward off the blow reached to him by this Text, Psal. 139. First, by relating what others say, and yet he himself approves not their judgement, and therefore he names it, but asserts it not; for if he should, then all his Arguments to prove the Spirit of God to be a person, will come to nothing: and if in the greatest number of Scriptures, or all other places where the Spirit of God is mentioned, a person is to be understood, why not here also? What reason can be alleged to the contrary? And if not in this Psalm, why in others? And if any of ours do understand Gods properties, as some there be, I deny not, of that mind; yet even they also are clear for the Ubiquity of the Holy Ghost, nor can Gods Power and Wisdom be any where, where the Holy Ghost is not; and this Power and Wisdom being essential Properties, are the Power and Wisdom of the Holy Ghost, and by consequence in their judgments, God is taken Essentially for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. By the Spirit( you grant) may be meant the Holy Ghost; and then( say you) he is every where present not at once; but where David should be, there might the Spirit be. This answer is very weak and against the holy Text: for it is not said, he may be there, but he is there: and as he is with David in the East, is he not with Peter also in the West, and with other Saints also at the same time; for, Why should he rather be essentially present with David, then with any other Saint or Creature? This Answer then is a plain and absurd corruption of the Text. Bidle. Again, should it further be granted( which cannot be proved) that Davids meaning is, that he could be in no place where the Spirit was not present; yet would not this presently argue, That he was there present in his person or substance, since it is sufficient for the truth hereof, that he is in every place by his knowledge; so that a man can be in no place whatsoever, but the Holy Spirit will know where he is; this Omnipresence which I verily believe belongeth to the Holy Spirit, doth not hinder him to go from one place to another. Answer. The Holy Ghost, I grant, is present every where both in regard of his Power, because he works all in all, and in that admirable manner that he orders all to his glory: He is present also in regard of his knowledge, for all things are naked to him; he sees, and he knows all things: But the concession of these is no prejudice to us, for he is essentially present every where, and he is not, nor can be distant from any Creature, no more then the soul is from the parts of the body, which it informs. You believe that God is present in regard of his All-seeing eye: but how do you prove, that his Essence is excluded from being every where? For as you will grant, that God is in heaven not only in regard of his Knowledge and Efficacy, but in regard of his Essence also:( If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there, saith the Text) in the same manner is he also out of heaven in all places, and according to his Essence also; If I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there also, &c. Since the Psalmist doth so manifestly set forth the immense Omnipresence of God, and of his face, what ground have we to make a Divorce, as it were, betwixt his Essence and his Knowledge, in explicating the words of the Psalmist, That he should be knowingly and powerfully there, where he is not essentially present? Is there any appearance by the Text, that his Nature should be separated from his Action and Power of Working? And whatsoever you believe, yet most certain it is, that the Omnipresence of the Holy Ghost doth not consist with local mutation and change of places. Bidle. The Psalmist intended no other Omnipresence of God himself, then that of knowledge and Power, for he saith, Thou understandest my thoughts afar off; whith implieth, That the Person or Substance of God was not upon the earth with David, otherwise he would understand Davids thoughts not afar off, but near at hand. Answer. It is an Argument of a wretched Blasphemer boldly to deny the infinity of God, and to offer violence to a clear Text, that it might serve his own turn, he makes a local and real separation betwixt Gods Essence and his Knowledge: Now since the Psalmist doth evidently show the illimited presence of God, and of his face, how dares he say, his face is any where, where his personal presence is not? He objects, That it is not said, he knew Davids thoughts near at hand, but afar off. An Exposition this is, both false in itself, and unexcusable in the Adversary, who is accustomend curiously to prie into the placing of the words in the Original; they are not thus, Thou afar off knowest my thoughts; but, Thou knowest my thoughts afar off;( viz. from me, not from God, but) long before I conceived them: And the Context justifies this exposition, for David having confessed that he could not attain unto, or comprehend this knowledge, ver. 6. he declareth that God did not only know him in secret, viz. when he was conceived in his mothers womb, and curiously wrought and embroidered with Arteries, Veins, Sinews, and variety of members, but they were all of them written down, and perfectly known of God, when as yet there was none of them, ver. 16. I will say no more, for the truth of Gods Omnipresence hath been proved at large in this Tractate. Bidle. Moreover the main current of Scripture runneth that way, and plainly intimateth that the Person or Substance of God is no where else but in heaven. Answer. God being essentially in heaven doth not exclude his Essential presence from other places, who is both in heaven, and in all real and imaginable places: but he is said most frequently to be in heaven for such considerations as these are, First, Because as God is most glorious, so no other place is so glorious as heaven, the highest heaven. Secondly, Because his infinite greatness, his Incomprehensible sublimity and eternal glory, his infinite Power and Goodness are more conspicuous and manifested in heaven, then in any other places. Thirdly, Because those heavenly Inhabitants, the holy Angels, and blessed Saints have a greater measure of his love and goodness, and of his special blessings communicated to them, then are conferred to any in other parts of his dominion; in this respect the soul also is said to be in every part of the body essentially, and to inform the meanest member, as well as the most noble; yet is it said to be in head, the brain or the heart, in regard of more excellent operations thereof in those prime parts, then in other members of the body. Bidle. As for the dwelling of the Holy Ghost in so many persons at once, he is said to dwell in all the Saints dispersed over the world, not in his Person or Substance, for then his person would dwell in all men alike; but this is made a peculiar privilege of the Saints, Rom. 8.9. but in regard of his gifts and effects( since no other dwelling can be imagined) which is an expression frequent in the Writings of the Adversaries themselves; but they forget it when they reason about the Deity of the Holy Ghost. Answer. The Holy Ghost( I grant) dwelleth in his Saints by his Gifts: He that is essentially present with all men, is graciously present by his saving Graces, whereby a holy person is become the Temple of the Holy Ghost. The Blessed Spirit is not said to dwell in any which have only common Graces bestowed on them for the good of others, for he rules not in them; and he will dwell no where, where he governs not: but such are said to have the Holy Ghost touching those Gifts; and because saving Graces are not equally bestowed on all the Saints, therefore they are said to have the Holy Ghost, but not equally. Augustin. Epist. 57. ad Dardanum. The more Holy, Charitable, Heavenly-minded any one is, the more abundantly and fully he hath the Holy Ghost dwelling in him, as one and the self-same sound in the air is more distinctly perceived by him that hath a quick hearing, then by him that hath a dull ear. So the Holy Ghost being in himself Immutable and filling all things with his natural presence, is not had at all of the wicked touching his gracious presence( as the sound in the air is not perceived by deaf men) and of some men he is enjoyed more then by others according to the degrees of holy graces bestowed on them. Whereas you say, no other dwelling can be imagined then by his gifts, not to speak of imaginary suppositions: The assertion in your sense is false, for you do fallaciously divide and separate what ought to be conjoined: for you do hereby exclude his personal presence, whereas his essential presence is not to be separated from his gracious presence, but it is necessary presupposed, where ever he dwells as Lord and Commander. It is a strange phrase to say, That a Prince which hath many houses adorned with rich Furniture dwells at once in them all, as the Holy Ghost doth at the same time in all the Saints all the world over: This Argument then is demonstrative, that the Holy Ghost is truly God. I have now done with the Additions which have any seeming strength in them. THE Adversary having finished the Articles of his Faith, and the supposed confirmation of them by the Testimony of the sacred Scriptures, and his corrupt Inferences out of those sacred Texts, in the next place he spends, and in truth mispends a great deal of precious time in the allegation of human Authors, the holy Fathers which lived especially before the happy dayes of great Constantine: We have no reason to conceive that he will be more candid in representing to us the mind of the ancient Fathers of the holy Church, then he hath been in the interpretation of the holy Scriptures. I will briefly lay down these three particulars, and then I will examine his sense of the alleged Authors. First, The holy Fathers which lived before Arius, had started that unhappy controversy touching the Son of God, might sometimes speak less warily and commodiously then in exactness of speech can pass for currant Divinity, for there was no Adversary to call them to an account for their harsh and irregular phrases. As S. Austin spoken of the Fathers which were before Pelagius, Free-will was not then called into question; and catholics dealing earnestly against the Manichees,( .i. Stoical Christians) sometimes were carried in fervour of Disputation to ascribe too much; and labouring to make a crooked piece of wood straight, {αβγδ}, bended it too much the contrary way, not suspecting that any would be so critical, as to draw from them a conclusion contrary to the catholic Faith. But the Pelagians defended their obstinacy by Antiquity, as Prosper writeth to S. Austin, Tom. 7. ad August. pag. 1249. and they affirmed that none of the Ecclesiastical Writers expounded the Scriptures as Saint Austin did: This might be observed in other Doctrines of Faith: I will instance but in one of them; the Son of God did properly assume the Nature of man, and not man which signifies a person; but divers Fathers scruple not to say, that the Word assumed man, as Austin often; their meaning was innocent and found, but they spake improperly and not so warily before Nestorius broached his heresy of two Persons in Christ, as they did afterwards, saith Estius in 3. Sent. distin 5. Sect. 4. Secondly, This wrangling Sophister doth frequently aclowledge, That the Fathers of the Church, which are cited by him, were all of them of a contrary judgement to him; viz. That they held, That the Son of God had a Being, before his Incarnation of the Virgin Mary; and he is so unhappy as to maintain an opinion not owned by any in the catholic Church, and defended only by known heretics, which he is ashamed to name; and it is most certain, that he cannot, nor doth he allege one Primitive Writer for his Tenet, but all of them are by his own confession against him; so that our Adversary regards not to prejudice his own cause, if he can thereby hurt his neighbours; he is far unlike to Arius himself, who gloried in an Epistle to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, that almost all the Bishops of the East were of his judgement. Theodor. lib. 1. Histor. c. 5. those that lived in his dayes. Thirdly, I will briefly examine all his Quotations set down in Pomp and at large, and where I shall be convinced that there is a cause, will confess that some unwary passages drop from their pens; which ingenuous dealing can bring no prejudice either to our cause, or the holy Fathers. Hierom answers this calumny, and saith; If faults are found in Writers which flourished before the Nicene Synod, and if before Arius as a Noon-Divel arose, they wri● some things less warily, which cannot escape the censure of perverse men, they are to be favourably expounded, Hieron. lib. 1. Apol. contra ruffian. I will then prove, that the same alleged Fathers held the same Faith touching the Deity of the Son of God, which the Church of God maintains at this day. He begins with Irenaus. Bidle. Irenaeus the first place. Irenaeus lib. 2 cap. 2. adversus haereses, saith, The Church dispersed through the whole world hath received from the Apostles and their Disciples, that faith, which is in one God the Father Almighty Maker of heaven and earth, and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God Incarnated.— Answer. Irenaeus the Scholar of Polycarpus, who was the Disciple of Saint John the Evangelist, bread in the Asian Churches, and afterwards translated to lions in France, being near the age of the Apostles, and venerable for Authority, is alleged eight times. The first place sets down the rule of Faith generally believed all the Christian world over touching the sacred Trinity; viz. Faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the same order and meaning, as it is set down in the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed, which is well styled the unchangeable rule of Faith, the immovable Basis of Christianity, and a character to distinguish Orthodox Christians from Pagans, Jews and heretics. Do we deny any branch of this Testimony which doth much advantage our Cause, and plainly confutes Mr. Bidle? Excellently doth Calvin, lib. 1. Institut. cap. 13. Sect. 27. answer the Antitrinitarians, alleging that the Father of Christ, is the only and eternal God of Israel. Either it is their shameless ignorance or notorious improbity to heap up Scripture Testimonies to that end; for they ought to have considered, that the holy man Irenaeus confuted Valentinus and his Disciples, which when they durst not deny Christ to be the Son of him who created heaven and earth, they denied the creator to be the Most High God; but there was one above him, whom they called, {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ} lib. 1. cap. 1. the holy Father proves there is no other God but the Creator of Heaven and Earth; and this one God( as in the Apostles Creed) is distinguished into Father, Son and Holy Ghost; And if the Father be called the One God, strange Gods are excluded, not the Son and Holy Ghost, which have the same Essence with the Father. Bidle. iron. the second place. The second Testimony is taken out of the same Book, cap. 19. For as much as we hold the Rule of Faith, That there is one God Almighty that created all things by his Word, whether Visible or Invisible: And after, God by his Word and Spirit made all things. Answer. This place is directly opposite to the judgement of Mr. Bidle, and to the old Arians, and it proves the Deity of Gods Son and Spirit, because the holy Father ascribes the Creation and Government of all things equally to the Son and to the Father, showing, that sith there is but one Operation; there is but one Power, Will and Deity of God the Father and God the Son. Let us see whether he is more happy in the next. Bidle. iron. the third place. The same Father, Lib. 2. Cap. 49. saith, If any one seek out the cause why the Father communicating with the Son in all things, is alone manifested by the Lord, to know the day and hour( of judgement;) he shall at present find by the only Truth speaking Master, that the Father is above all things; For the Father ( saith he) is greater then I am,— Answer. Both these Assertions are true, Christ knew all things, and Christ was sometimes ignorant of the day of judgement; but not in respect of the same Nature, but of his most different Natures. If our cited author had erred( saith Feuardentius in locum) we ought to excuse him, because he wrote against the gnostics, which boasted, that they knew more then the Prophets, more th●● the Apostles, and more then Christ himself. But there is no necessity nor reason to lay such an imputation on the Holy Father; not to insist on this answer, this knowledge is ascribed to the Father, because the Son of God hath neither life nor Deity from himself, but communicated to him by the Father by eternal generation. For answer, The Father here may be taken essentially; and ignorance is ascribed to the Son, not in regard of the Divine but human Nature; for Christ is often called Son in reference to the assumed Nature. Bidle. iron. the fourth place. The fourth Testimony is, Lib. 3. Cap 3. In the time of this Clement a great contention arising among the Brethren which were at Corinth, he wrote a most powerful Epistle to the Corinthians,— declaying the tradition which they had newly received from the Apostles, which shows that there is One God Almighty Maker of heaven and earth, declared to be the Father of our Lord Jesus. This Epistle is ancienter then they who now teach falsely, and withal fai● another God above the Maker of all these things that are. Answer. This Clemens,( which saw the Apostles, and is reckoned the Successor of Anacletus in the Administration of the Church of Rome, is mentioned by Saint Paul, Phil. 4.3.( if Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and others are not deceived) writes against those who damnably taught, there was another God above the Creator of Heaven and Earth; and the words cited by the Adversary do import no less; Is any title of this passage against us? Do not we abhor as much as any Christians, those pernicious heretics which do blasphemously maintain that there is another God above the Almighty God, who made all the Creatures, who drowned the old world with a flood, and called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, who brought the Israelites out of the Egyptian servitude, and spake by the holy Prophets? Bidle. iron. the fifth place. The same Father, Lib. 3. Cap. 6. saith, Neither the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the Apostles would definitively and absolutely at any time have name him God, who was not God, unless he were the true God; nor call him Lord, unless he exercised Lordship over all, even God the Father, and his Son, who hath received from his Father the Lordship of the Creatures,— Who said to Moses, I am that I am; and his Son Jesus Christ, who makes men Gods Sons, believing on him. Answer. Saint Irenaeus demonstrates by many Testimonies of the Scriptures, that there is but one God and Lord the creator and governor of the world, and not only the Father, but the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three distinct Persons are comprehended under that appellation, according to that received axiom mentioned by S. Austin, So often as in the divine Scriptures God is absolutely and indefinitely name, the three Persons are signified, lib. 6. de Trinit. cap. 9. Saint Irenaeus in this Chapter shows the truth of this Rule, Genes. 19. The Lord rained from the Lord fire and brimstone; he means his Son from the Father, which spake also to Abraham, Genes. 18. And O God, thy God hath anncinted thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellowes; the Holy Ghost calls them both( saith Irenaeus) by the name of God, both him that is anointed, viz. the Son, and the Person anointing him, viz. the Father. Again, God standeth in the Assembly of the Gods, Psal. 82.1. he meaneth it of the Father and the Son, by whom others are made the Adopted Sons of God. And Psal. 50.1. The mighty God, ●even the Lord hath spoken, and called the earth; i. Gods Son: which of the Persons doth he mean? Even he that spoken, even he that will manifestly come. Our God will not hold his peace. And a great deal more is spoken by the Father in that Chapter to the same purpose, this Chapter being Judge, cuts in pieces the sinews of Arianism, and is as clear as the Sun for the Deity of Gods Son. Bidle. iron. the sixth place. The same Father in the same Chapter saith, I invocate thee, O Lord, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who art the only true God, above whom there is no other God; Thou dost in domination besides our Lord Jesus Christ, rule also over the Holy Spirit: Grant to every one that readeth this Writing, to know thee, and to depart from every Atheistical and Heretical Opinion. Answer. This is( I grant) a devout and a holy Prayer of the blessed Martyr, entreating for the constancy of Faith, and the Conversion of misbelievers; a Prayer very consonant to the Holy Scriptures, and may not be interpnted to cross the express words of the Author in the beginning of this Chapter, calling God the Father, and his Son absolutely the true God; and these words, God the Father is the only true God, are verified also of God the Son, he is also the only true God, as hath been formerly demonstrated. Let the Christian Reader take notice of a gross corruption of the Fathers Text by a wretched translation, That God and our Lord do rule over the Holy Ghost: The words are, thou rulest also Diminatione Spiritus Sancti; and not as you falsify them, Dominatione in Spiritum Sanctum; and as others red them, Dominationem donas Spiritus Sancti; perhaps for Domination, should be red, Donationem, God rules by the holy Spirit. And this is so far from making the Holy Ghost a Creature ruled over, that it strongly confirms the eternal and consubstantial Divinity of the Holy Spirit, both against the ancient Arians and modern Samosatenians. Bidle. iron. the seventh place. The seventh Testimony is, Lib. 3. Cap. 9. It being plainly shewed that neither the Prophets nor Apostles, nor Christ himself confessed any other to be of his own person Lord or God, but neither naming any other God, nor confessing him to be Lord, and the Lord himself delivering to the Disciples, that the Father only is that God and Lord, who is the only God and Ruler of all. Answer. In this Quotation the Son is called God; viz. Coeternal and Coequal with the Father, who by him created all things; doth not this make much for us? And the like is to be said of the Holy Ghost, who is proved by the effects to be the true God, and therefore the exclusive Particle, Only, attributed to the Father, excludes not the Son and the Holy Ghost from being God; but the gnostics Aenoel, Pheromas, Propatra, and such monstrous terms, excogitated by them, which they absurdly substituted in the place of one infinite God in Essence and three Persons, unless we shall say( as some Learned do judge) that Father here is to be taken Essentially, and not personally. Bidle. These passages as well as the last save one, before quoted, clearly intimate in the judgement of Irenaeus, That others beside the Father and the Son, are sometimes in the Scripture called God, but not in their own persons; whereunto accordeth the Scripture, Exod. 23.20.21. Provoke not the Angel, for my name is in him: from whence it is apparent, that when an Angel at any time is called God as Exod. 3.2, 4, 6 and 19.24, 26. Judges 6.12, 14. the reason of this is, not because the Angel is a several subsistence in God, or an uncreated Angel, but because the name of the Lord is in him, and he accordingly denominated not from his own person, but from that of God and Lord, which he sustaineth. Answer. All the former passages out of this glorious Martyr have been examined, and how impertinently they have been alleged, I suppose hath been cleared, and the lost Quotation but one, if it bee narrowly looked into, shows not that any are absolutely called God, but the true God only, and holds forth a manifest difference betwixt the Son of God, called simply God, and all others which are called God by some addition, by which they are in truth manifested to be no Gods. Touching that Scripture, Exod. 23.20. where the Angel was called by Gods name, Jehovah; I ask, How you can make it out by any circumstance in the Text, this Angel was a created Angel? This Angel( say we) was the Son of God, an uncreated Angel, so called, because he was sent by the Father, and the Reasons are clear in the Text. First, Because if you provoke him( saith the Lord) he will not pardon your transgressions; and who can forgive sins but God? The holy Martyr himself allegeth this reason of the D●ity of the Son of God, Lib. 3. adv. Haereses cap. 10 plainly distinguishing his Natures: in regard of his human Nature he was the son of Abraham and of David, and was anointed by the Spirit to preach the Gospel; but in regard of his Deity, he knew all things, and forgive sins to those which were lead Captives, losing their bonds. 2. The other reason is, because my Name is upon him; he is called Jehovah, as I am called Jehovah, the true and eternal God▪ I, a Messenger,( suppose of the King of Spain or France) called by the name of the Prince which sends him an Ambyssador, the King of Spain or France? Our Saviour perhaps in his words to Philip, may have an eye thereto, Dost thou not know me Philip? he that h●●h seen me( by faith) that I am Gods Son, will not ask to see the Father, because they are one God. Zanch. de Incarnat. p. 198. and, Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? John 14.9, 10. And in this sense also Exod. 3.2. is expounded by Irenaeus. lib. 3. cap. 6. This Angel is called, The Angel of the Covenant. Mal. 3.1. the Angel that wr●stled with Jacob and blessed him, Genes. 31. Jacob had power over the Angel and prevailed, he wept and made supplications unto him, he sound him in Bettel, even the Lord God of H●sts; the Lord is his memorial,( a Name to be remembered by) Hos. 12, 4, 5. and the same Angel it was which redeemed Jacob from all his troubles, Gen. 48.16. To redeem is Gods Title, Psal. 19.15. and he is prayed unto, that he would bless Ephraim and Manasseh, and he is equally honoured with God the Father. Bidle. iron. the eighth place. For as much as this is firm, That no other God or Lord was published by the Spirit, but he that ruleth over all, even God with his Word—, We are enjoined to confess no Father but him that is in heaven, which is that One God and one Father. These passages do show, the Father to be that one God, the God of Abraham— and his Son Jesus Christ,( whom he believed without Scripture to have a being before his birth of the Virgin) to be that one Lord who received Dominion from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost to be neither that one God, nor one Lord. Answer. The holy and ancient Father proves against the gnostics, how erroneous their Tenet was, that the Creator of all things was not God and Father, but that there was another God above him, by the publishing of the Holy Ghost, by the judgement of all Teachers and Believers, by the unanimous Doctrine of the Apostles, and by the Authority of Jesus Christ, which commands all his Disciples to call on God our Father in heaven. So that Irenaeus doth not in calling God the Father the only God, exclude God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; for the Son is in God the Father inseparably, his Eternal and Essential wisdom, and the Holy Ghost the Eternal and Essential Power of the Father and of the Son; but he compares the Father with those Gods, which the Blasphemous heretics excogitated, and doth Religiously and justly exclude them from being in truth God at all. You conclude by a confession, that Irenaeus held, the WORD had a Being before his Birth of the Virgin: And this no doubt is a great comfort to you, that your author is your professed Adversary. Nor do we deny, That the Lord Christ received his Dominion from God his Father, both eternally as he was his Son, as all else by eternal generation; and in time also, as he was our Mediator, and became man; and in both respects the person of the Father is distinguished from his Son our Lord. By this brief Examination of the objected Testimonies out of Irenaeus, it appears, that he was far from favouring the Arian heresy, much more from the Samosatenian, which Mr. Bidle embraceth: yet it will not be amiss to recite in the close, a few passages out of this venerable Author, which will manifest his Judgement to be sound and catholic touching the Deity of the Son of God. 1. Book 1. Cap. 2. He calls Christ, Lord, God, Saviour, our King, to whom all knees in Heaven must bow; and that this is the Faith of the whole catholic Church, to believe in one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 2. Book 2. Cap. 19. God made all things Visible and Invisible; by the Word and his Spirit, he disposeth and governeth all: This doth properly belong to the true and eternal God. And Lib. 4 cap 37. The Father spake to the Son and the Holy Ghost, Let us make man after our Image and Similitude. 3. Lib. 2. Cap. 43. he saith, The Son was not made, but did always coexsist with his Father. And Lib 4. Cap. 37. The Word, that is the Son, was always with his Father. And chap. 48. he saith, His generation cannot be declared by Angels. 4. Lib. 3. Cap. 6.12. In many places he plainly teacheth, That he is of the same Essence with his Father, and by Nature, and truly God. And Lib. 2. Cap. 48, 49. He averreth, That the Word is God without all composition, begotten of his Father by an ineffable generation; neither Valentinus, nor martion,— no nor Angels nor Archangels can declare it. 5. Lib. 3. cap. 8. The Father made all things by the Word; those things that are made, are differenced from him that made them; for he is not made, he is without beginning, and without end; he stands in need of nothing, being All sufficient of himself; but those things which were made by him, had a beginning. Is not this clear enough to show that the Son is Coeternal with his Father? 6. Lib. 3. Cap. 10. He distinguisheth the Natures of Christ, and saith, That Jesus Christ, as he was of the root of David, and the son of Abraham, the Spirit of God restend on him, and he was anointed to preach the Gospel; but in that respect as he was God, he knew what was in man; he forgave sins; and freed Captives from the bond of their sins. 7. Lib. 3. Cap. 12. Christ is called, the Eternal Son of God: And Cap. 11. the Eternal King. See also Lib. 4. Cap. 10, 11. 8. I will conclude with another Argment, which if proved, is confessed by the Adversary to be convincing; If Christ satisfied for us, he is God; but Irenaeus saith, Lib 5. cap. 1. That Christ redeemed us with his flesh and blood: which place Theodoret, Dialog. lib. 2. cap. 26. cites, and saith, He bought us by laying down a price. Many other passages might have been collected out of this ancient Father; a glorious Martyr, and invincible Champion of catholics against the heretics, which opposed our Lord both before and in his dayes, whereby his judgement is manifest, that he held the Son of God to be true God, coeternal and coessential with this Father. Bidle. Justin Martyr the first place. Justin Martyr Apol. 2 saith, We are called Atheists, and we confess ourselves to be Atheists, in reference to reputed Gods; but not to the most true God, who is the Father of all virtues, and unstained with any evil; but him, and the Son that came from him, and the Host of the other good Angels, who accompany and resemble him, together with the Prephetick Spirit, we adore and worship. This passage sheweth how soon Christians committed Idolatry in worshipping Angels. Answer. The Gentiles objected to the Christians as a great fault, no less then Atheism, that they worshipped not their Jupiter, Mercury, and their reputed Demons; the Christians confess that charge, yet making it known to them, that they worship the true God, and plainly do mention the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: this is a good proof of the blessed Trinity. And whereas this author which lived in the same age with Irenaeus, yet was somewhat more ancient then Irenaeus, saith( as you red his words) That Christians did worship the Holy Angels. To this I answer, 1. If the holy Father had asserted that the persecuted Christians had worshipped the Holy Angels with the same worship and veneration, wherewith the most High God is worshipped, this indeed had been palpable Idolatry, even by the confession of the Idolatrous Pontificians themselves, as Perionius in locum. Justin. p. 57. observeth. But this is only spoken Indefinitely without distinction, and shows, that Christians had then a reverend esteem of the holy Angels in opposition to the made Gods of the Gentiles which they detested, for we desire to render a commensurate degree of honour due to the creatures according to their dignity; not an honour as to our Lords and Masters, but of love and charity as to our friends and fellow Creatures; which is of the same kind and nature with that which we give to the most holy and venerable men on earth. Secondly, I answer, that it cannot appear that Justin Martyr, or the catholics in his time, made Angels the Objects of Religious Worship. The Words run thus; We worship him, .i. the Father, and his Son coming from him, and teaching us these things, and the Army of the Angels, together with the prophetic Spirit. Papists make a distinction, and red in this manner, but without reason, as Scultetus hath observed: Justin teacheth, That the Son reveals the Father and all things to us by the Ministry of Angels: If Papists reading should take place, the Holy Ghost should be inferior to the Angels, and worshipped in the fourth place, and he should contradict himself, for a little below he sheweth the Father is to be worshipped in the first place, the Son in the second, the Holy Ghost in the third, the holy Angels not at all: and in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, he sheweth that the Angel that appeared to Lot was the Son of God, because he was worshipped, which had no strength at all, if Angels were to be worshipped. Bidle. Just. Mar. the second place. In the same Apology,— We do with reason honour him that taught us these things, even Jesus Christ the Son of the true God, and do account him in the second rank, and the prophetic Spirit in the third order. They charge us with madness, that we give the second rank after the Immutable and Eternal God to a crucified man, not knowing the mystery that lieth therein. Answer. The distinction of the glorious Persons of the sacred Trinity, and their order in regard of Principal and Original( as Divines do phrase it) is Religiously maintained by us. The Father being of none other, is the Principle of the Son of God, and is therefore called the first Person in order of subsisting; the Father and the Son are the Principle of the Holy Ghost, therefore the Son is in order of subsisting the second Person, and the Holy Ghost is the third being from Eternity, both from the Father and the Son of God: This order is observed by Justin Martyr, in a catholic, not Heretical sense. See Pneumatol p. 94. 95. Nor is there any strength to allege, that Justin calls the Father, the True, the Immutable and Eternal God; for this is true also of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost, albeit there are reasons( as I have often shewed) why these Epithets are often ascribed to God the Father. It seems the Adversaries heart smote him in this Quotation, in that he silemceth an explication immediately subjoined: We will show that we do rightly worship him; if this worship was insinuated in the precedent words, it is here particularly applied to the Holy Ghost; and if understood as formerly, this worshipping of the Holy Ghost is by praying to him, and praising him for his benefits. Bidle. Just. Mart. the third place. After the Father and Lord of all things, the prime power and Son is the Word; and in what manner he became a man, we will hereafter declare. Answer. The force of this Objection depends on the homonymy of before and after. The Son is after the Father, but how? Not in time, for Father and Son are Relatives: not in Nature, for the Nature and Essence of God the Father and the Son, is but one Infinite, Eternal and Undivided Nature; nor is the Son after the Father, if we speak properly, in Majesty and Glory, for herein they are equal; but he is after his Father in order of subsisting. Bidle. Just. Mart. the fourth place. The fourth place is out of the same Apology, where he sets down at large the three Persons of the sacred Trinity, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and that Plato was beholding to Moses for what he writes, though not accurately, in his Timaeus, touching these three. Answer. To this I answer, He is quick sighted that can discern how this passage can in the least, disadvantage us, but rather it makes much for us. That which Moses spake of the brazen Serpent, Plato not knowing it was the form of a cross, but thinking on a Saltier or Greek X, he said the power next to the prime God,( viz. the Father) was made X, in stead of a cross; this brazen Serpent was set up in the wilderness for the cure of those that were stung by fiery Serpents. It is allowable for Divinity( the mistress) to make use of Humanity and human Authors, when pollutions and blemishes are taken away; but it is intolerable for paganism to bring down Divinity, and to deface it, that it might be serviceable to the deformed Handmaid: He was also beholding( saith Justin) to Moses, for what he wrote touching the Holy Ghost, the third Person, reading these words, The Spirit of God moved on the waters, Gen. 1. Is this good Divinity with you, Mr. Bidle, to say, the Son of God was in the Creation the second Person, and the Holy Ghost the third? Bidle. Just. Mart. the fifth place. The next passages out of Justin Martyr are taken out of his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. nevertheless, O Tryphon, said I, Such a one is the Christ of God, albeit I cannot demonstrate that he was before, the Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man of the Virgin.— But if I shall not demonstrate that he did preexist, and according to the counsel of his Father, become man,— It is just to say, I am mistaken in this only, and not to deny that he is the Christ.— There are some of our kind( .i. Christians) which confess him to be Christ, yet hold him to be a man, to whom I assent not. They that said he was a man( replied Tryphon) me thinks, speak more probably then you, who say such things as you relate; for all we( Jews) do expect that the Christ shall be a man of men. Observe, 1. That Justin Martyr did not think it inconsistent, that Jesus should be the Christ, although he had no other then a human Nature. 2. Divers Christians did de facto, affirm, that Christ had no other Nature but the human, though Athanasius, and such like furious zealots pronounced such uncapable of eternal life. 3 That the Jews did not believe, that the Christ who was to come should be other then a man. Answer. The words of Justin Martyr are dark, and, as is clear, they are not spoken positively, but upon supposition, thus, If he could not prove to an obstinate Jew and wrangling Sophister( for there are many sublime and divine Truths, which an obstinate Adversary will not submit unto) that he was the Son of God before he was born of the Virgin, yet do they make nothing against us; but if we regard the tenor of his Discourse, they do directly contradict. Mr. Bidies assertion; for he constantly maintains that Christ did preexist and was the Son of God, as himself confesseth, pag. 38.39, before he was the son of Mary, yea, before the world itself was created. Your first observation hath no ground at all in the words of Justin, and it is a notorious fallacy to turn a supposition into a real position. For certain it is, that the words so resolved, are directly contrary to his clear judgement, who in many places proves at large by his apparitions in the old Testament chiefly, that Christ had a being before his Incarnation. 2 To the second I answer, It is true, there were some which were called Christians in that age: shall I say with a Learned man, that they were Catechumini, or new beginners to learn Christianity, which were not instructed then in the highest mystery of the eternal generation of the Son of God? Or rather, if I am not mistaken, Artemon the Montanist, Carpocrates, and some such like monstrous heretics in this Century, with whom you, Mr. Bidle, may shake hands, which held Christ was onely man. These profess themselves to be Christians, and are so called. And he saith in the same Tractate, and are in truth {αβγδ}, Atheists, and ungodly heretics, and no more to be called Christians, then the Sadduces, or the like Heresies Gevistarum,& Meristarum& Galilaeorum, are to be of the Jewish Religion, and the sons of Abraham. These are no otherwise Christians, then the works of mens hands are called Gods, they confess that Jesus was crucified, is Lord and Christ, and yet did pollute themselves with nefarious Doctrines, and practices, full of contumely to the divine Majesty. We will give you leave Mr. Bidle, to triumph in such Christians. 3 To the third I answer, That it is not much material what the blinded and besotted Jews believed in those dayes.[ I know( saith Justin, immediately before the words cited by the Adversary) that the Jews will neither understand, nor do those things that belong to God, but what their Doctors teach.] Yet the holy and ancient Jews( as Learned Gerhard and others do plentifully prove) were of a better faith touching their messiah; nor did those Jews then living believe that their Messiah should be crucified for the sins of the people, but be a glorious King on earth; and shall we deny plain and most comfortable Scriptures, to gratify the cursed and the hardened Jews? I will take leave to imitate the Adversary, and add an Observation out of the words of Justin Martyr, and Tryphans collections from them, set down by the blessed Martyr next to the objected words, and that he saith also, that he was man of man. Tryphon having made a long discourse touching Christ, saith thus,[ It seems wonderful to me, nor can it be proved that thou sayest, this Christ being God before the world was created, would afterwards become man, this seems to me not only to be wonderful, but foolish. Hence I do observe, That Justin taught( in Tryphons judgement) that Christ was God absolutely and positively before the Creation, and that not only against Mr. Bidle, but the old Arians; that he hath two natures, the Divine and the human; for if the Immortal Spirit had been created before all other Creatures by a privilege,( as Plato and his Disciples do fain, that souls were as Lamps lighted, and afterwards sent into the bodies, as so many lanterns;) Or as the Immortal soul that lives in a state separated from the body, shall according to our faith be re-united to the body; this is neither simply wonderful, nor foolish; but when this is done, there is still but one human Nature. But in Justins judgement, he that was God before the Creation became man in time, and so there must needs be two Natures, which Mr. Bidle denies. Bidle. Just. Mart. the sixth place. Demonstrate to us( saith Tryphon) that there is another God by the prophetic Spirit confessed to be besides the Maker of all things.— Moses the happy man of God intimateth that he was a God, that appeared to Abraham, with the other two Angels sent to Sodom to destroy it, sent by another that perpetually abideth in heavenly places, and never appeared. Answer. To this I answer, first, That these are the words of Tryphon the Jew, and therefore not too rigidly to be pressed. Secondly, this speech of Tryphon the Jew, doth clearly demonstrate that in the Martyrs judgement there is another Person confessed to be God, beside God the Father who was Maker of all things, and that he is, according to the Nicene Creed, Very God of very God. Christ is alius, another in person, but not aliud, and another in Nature; that is, there is another Person which is called God besides the Father, to whom the Creation of the world is attributed. And it is observed, that {αβγδ} is not to be construed with {αβγδ}, but there is another besides the creator of all things, i.e. the Father, which is called God. Besides Justin in his Apology to the Senate of Rome, doth ascribe the creation of the world to the Son of God. This being name, you make a long skip to the words of Moses concerning Gods appearing to Abraham; but if you would peruse the Text Isai. 40. applied by the Author to Jesus Christ, which is inserted betwixt those two Quotations, you must needs confess, that Christ is in the judgement of Justin the most High God, Behold the Lord will come with a strong hand, ver. 10. Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his fist. Tryphon saith,[ These words prove not what thou wouldst persuade unto.] Then replied Justin,[ If Prophesies had not failed among you, you would perhaps understand these things which are spoken of Christ. Can any thing be more clear for the Deity of Christ? It was the true God that appeared to Abraham; this Angel was an uncreated Angel, the Angel of the Covenant called expressly, Jehovah, Gen. 18.13. one that had power either to save or destroy Sodom, whom Abraham acknowledged to be the Judge of all the Earth. It was the Opinion of Justin, Tertullian lib. Adversus Praxeam, and other holy Fathers, that God the Father never appeared in any resemblance to the outward senses of any of his servants; but that he always sate most glorious in his Throne of Majesty in the Heavens, and never is sent, never immediately in his Person came in matters of the greatest moment; and what he doth in the Government of his Church, he doth it by his Word and Spirit, and therefore the Fathers called God the Father, the Invisible God, and the Son Visible, not in regard of his Essence, but of the visible form, which he for a time assumed, especially the form of man; which( as Irenaeus speaks) was praeludium quoddam of his future Incarnation, and in the fullness of time God was manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. by assuming our Nature into the unity of his Person. Bidle. Just. Mart. the seventh place. I will endeavour to persuade you, that that God which is recorded to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob and Moses, is another then the God that made all things in number; I say. Not in opinion, for he never did any thing, but what he that made the world, did will that he should do. Answer. This Objection is thus answered, He who appeared to Abraham Jacob and Moses( that is, Gods Son) is {αβγδ}, another in Person from him( the Father) who created all things, according to the manner of speech called, Appropriation. Creation is ascribed to the Father, as Redemption is to Gods Son, and Sanctification to the Holy Ghost. And the Martyr explaining in what respect he is another, he adds, He is another in number; this is evident: but not {αβγδ}, this you translate, not another in opinion, but without reason; and falsely if we speak exactly: but his meaning is, he is another in Person, and not another thing in Understanding and Will, which is his Essence: and no doubt Christ wrought all in reference to mans salvation, according to the Mind and Will of his Father. Bidle. Just. Mar. the eighth place. We do not( saith Tryphon) understand this from the forecited words, That it was an Angel that appeared in a flamme of fire, but God that spake to Moses, so that both God and an Angel were together in the Vision. And I replied, Although it so happenned, O friends, that both God and an Angel were together in the Vision presented to Moses; yet, as hath been demonstrated to you, It will not be God the Maker of all things, who said to Moses, I am God the God of Abraham— But he whom we shewed before, appeared to Abraham, ministering to the will of the Maker of all things, as he did also in the judgement of sodom; yet none will say, the Father of the Universe having left heaven, did appear in a small parcel of the earth. Answer. I aclowledge, God the Son is very improperly called, a Minister of God the Father, but when the Orthodox do thus speak( as sometimes they do) it is to be understood in a large and far different sense from the meaning of the Arians; for these heretics mean thereby, that he, as a separated instrument from the Father, did, and that in an inferior order of causality, minister to him: but the right believers are to be understood in a qualified sense, that Christ is one with the Father in Essence, and inseparably united to him, as the hand of man is called his Instrument in working: for to speak properly, the Son of God is not an Instrumental, but the principal cause of all works ad extra. It is the opinion of many of the Fathers, as I have hinted in answer to that sacred Text, My Father is greater then I, that the Son of God may in some sense be said to be less then the Father not in regard of his Essence, Essential properties, or Majesty and Glory; but in this regard only, that the Father is the principle of the Son, and in this regard it is, though very improperly, that the Son ministereth to the Father, is subject and obedient to him; meaning nothing else thereby, but this only, that the Son of God doth exactly correspond to the will of God the Father, from whom he had his Nature, and his Will. See Estius in lib. 1. Senten. distinct. 16 Sect. 2. Or more plainly and fully thus, I answer out of S. hilary de Synodis, Christ ministered not as a servant to his Master, but as a Son to his Father, in whom is the authority of principle, which is not in the Son; but what gloss soever may be put to such phrases, it is far the safest course to forbear them: and this which hath been spoken touching the appearing of God to Moses, serves fully to answer the next Quotation touching Gods judgement on Sodom; the Authors meaning is nothing else but that God the Father by his Son destroyed Sodom. The last words are to be construed according to the Martyrs supposition, that God the Father is styled Invisible, because he never appeareth on earth in any assumed form. Bidle. Justin Martyr the ninth place. God in the beginning before all the Creatures, generated out of himself a certain rational power, called also, The glory of the Lord, another while the Son, another while Wisdom, another while an Angel, another while God, another while Lord and Word, another while, the chief Captain that appeared to Joshuah; for he may be called by all these Names, he ministereth to the will of his Father, and was voluntarily begotten of his Father, as we see it come to pass even in ourselves; for in uttering a certain word, we beget a word,— As in fire another fire is produced, without diminishing that from whence it was produced. My Author is the Word of Wisdom, Prov. 8. Being that very God generated of the Father of the Universe, and also the Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and Glory of his Begetter. The Lord created me in the beginning. Answer. All these Titles, heaped up by Justin, and many others, do appertain, as we do religiously acknowledge, to our blessed Saviour and Lord; touching the first Reason, I have in the former Section spoken sufficiently to it. The strength of the Argument lies in this Word, that Justin saith, The Son was voluntarily begotten of his Father. The Arians were wont to use this fallacy. Either the Father did willingly or unwillingly beget his Son; if willingly, then he might not have begotten him, and then he was before the generation of his Son: If unwillingly, then he is miserable in that he is forced to do what he would not. To this Objection, which is a Dilemma, I answer with the Fathers, especially S. Austin, lib. 15. De Trinitate cap. 20. To omit, that exactness of speech is not in these high mysteries to be urged. The Father may be said to beget his Son voluntarily, not by the will of the Father preceding the generation of the Son, but by his will simply, and by his Eternal Will. Thus to beget the Son voluntarily( I say not freely) is not opposed to beget him naturally, in this regard his Generation was absolutely necessary; but it is opposed to unwillingly; the sense is, he did not unwillingly beget his Son; and therefore Damascene calls this mysterious Generation, {αβγδ}, a work of Nature; and this may be illustrated by Gods Internal Actions. To retort the Argument, Either God predestinated us willingly, I add, and freely; or unwillingly: If willingly and freely,( which is most certain) then were we predestinated by God in time, or after God, which is against Scriptures: So that the Father begot his Son by Nature, neither unknowingly nor unwillingly, but naturally and willingly; yet not so willing his Generation, that he could, as the Arians dreamed, not have begotten him, nor as if God the Father was willing to beget him after he was God; the reason is, because all the actions of God ad intra, are from his infinite Essence; he understands by his Essence, he wills by his Essence, he lives and generates by his Essence; and therefore all such actions in God, as they are called, are eternal, nor can one of them in time be without another. A catholic blunted the edge of this Dilemma, in the forecited place of S. Austin by another like it. Is the Father God willingly or unwillingly? if willingly, then he is not God by nature, and he might have chosen whither he would have been God or not: If unwillingly, then he is miserable, in that he is God against his will. And this stopped his mouth, As God could not will but to be God, so could he not will but to beget his Son; and as God is willingly just, good and gracious, yet is he not just, good and gracious by free-will, but by his infinite nature, and must needs be good, just and gracious, for otherwise he could not be God. So here, an eternal Father must needs have an eternal Son. In like manner the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, per modum voluntatis, not as will is free, and so may be carried ad oppositum; but as will is nature: which we may learn from our own wills, which do both voluntarily, and yet necessary will that which is( seemingly) good, and they cannot simply will what is apprehended to be evil and destructive. And that the holy Martyr Justin meant of the generation of the Son by nature, may appear by his comparisons, which are brought by him to illustrate the point, comparing it to the light of the Sun, and the heat of fire, which, as all men know by a natural emanation, are contemporary to their subjects whence they are derived. As for that Text cited by Mr. B. Pro. 8. where it is spoken, that God in the beginning, {αβγδ}, created, but in the Hebrew it is, {αβγδ}, possessed me; It is so far from favouring the Arians, that it plucks up those noisome weeds, sown by them, by the roots, There was( say they) a time when the Son was not. For Justin speaks expressly in the Text, which you omit, that he was created from eternity; whatsoever was before heaven and earth( if it had been properly created, had a beginning, and time, before the creation of heaven and earth; but this cannot stand with the Text, Genes. 1.1. for in the beginning of Creation, and time, which began with the Creation) must of necessity be from eternity. Many are the Expositions of the catholic Fathers to answer this Objection of the Arians, which are related by Sixtinus Amama in locum. Nor did the Septuagint, as is probable, by their {αβγδ}, mean, that Christ was a Creature; for to create, in a sense, is to generate, and produce a thing according to substance: hence are parents said to procreate; and to propagate children, is to beget children: So that no solid Argument can be drawn from the Septuagints Translation against us, which in this particular is not consonant to the Original. but by the antecedents and consequents of the Text, the native sense of the word is, to be preached out, which is clear for the eternal generation of Gods Son, Athanas. Orat. 3. contra Arianos. Bidle. Just. Mart. the tenth place. Had you understood the things spoken by the Prophets, you would not have denied Christ to be a God, the Son of the only unbegotten and unspeakable God. Answer. There was a real difference betwixt Justin and Tryphon the Jew, and he saith, Had they understood the Prophets, they would not, as they did, have denied Christ to be God. And may not I say as much to Mr. Bidle? If he had understood the Prophets and Apostles, he would not have denied Christ to be truly God. There is no difficulty in the place, nor show of advantage to the Adversary by it. The unbegotten God is to be taken personally for God the Father, as appears by his Relative opposition to his Son. To be unbegotten belongs not to the divine Nature simply and in itself considered, unless it be called so in this regard, because it hath not its original from any other nature; for otherwise it would belong to the 3 glorious Persons, and every one of them might be said to be unbegotten: but to be unbegotten belongs only to the essence( when it is said to be unbegotten, as sometimes it is by some Authors, it belongs to it only) in regard of the Person of the Father: nor is the word unb●gotten contradictorily opposed to begotten, for then the Holy Ghost would be unbegotten, for to be sure, he is not begotten, but proceedeth: to be unbegotten in the usual acception of the word, is all one as to be a person without a Principle and Original from any other: And thus the Father alone is said to be unbegotten, because he hath his Essence and existence from no other person, which is not verified of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and upon this ground is he said to be a principle without a principle; and in regard of the order of the Persons, being first, may in that regard be called unspeakable; which is also true of God the Son, and of God the Holy Ghost. Our God is {αβγδ}, unconceivable with our minds, and cannot be expressed by our words. Bidle. Just. Mar. the eleventh place. I repeated what I had formerly alleged out of the Prophet Moses, and explained; whereby he, when he appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, was demonstrated to he subordinate to the Father and the Lord, and to minister to his will, and to have been styled a God to the other patriarches. Answer. Such passages relate not to the Son of God in regard of his Office of a Mediator, by counsel, voluntarily submitting by consent to undertake to be our Reconciler to God, and as in time he was to assume our Nature, and in it, and by it to be our perfect Saviour; and thus in some sense he may be said to be subordinate to God in his actings for us, which is not strange. It may be granted, That the Father sometimes speaks figuratively, and all the words he useth are not to be taken in rigor, but to be interpnted in a commodious sense, sith his mind and sense in other places is clear and manifest for the Deity of the Son of God. And thus to be expounded, The Son of God doth whatsoever his Fathers will was to be done by him; and that he improperly is said to be subordinate to the Father, and less in this then the Father, in regard of the authority of Principle, as he communicates his Divine Nature to the Son; and as he is the first in order, as of subsisting, so of working, as hath been often shewed. Bidle. Just. Mart. the twelsth place. When it is said, God went up from Abraham,— Do not imagine that the very unbegotten God himself did descend, who abideth in his place and moveth not, who cannot be contained in a place, no not in the whole world, who was before the world had a being. None ever saw the unexpressible Father, but him who is by his will a God, and ministereth to his purpose and pleasure, Answer. Nothing is here asserted which hath not been formerly examined: God taken personally for God the Father is in this respect styled Invisible, not simply by way of opposition to the Son and Holy Ghost, who are in nature Insisible, as is the Father; but because he was never seen, according to the Hypothesis of Justin, in any visible form; and touching the great affairs of the Church, he works by his Son in a special manner, who hath appeared to some eminent servants in a bodily shape: yet doth not the Son( to speak properly) nor can he through his infinite perfection leave heaven, but he is said to descend from heaven to earth, because he manifested his presence on earth by some unusual and remarkable works or symbol of his presence. Mr. Bidle forgets himself in this Quotation, for Justin prefixeth an Article before God, {αβγδ}; God here must needs be taken for the Son of God, for the Ma●tyr saith, that God the Father neither ascends nor descends. Oftentimes hath the Adversary insisted on this Critiscisme, to take an advantage against the Deity of the Son of God, because the Article was omitted: and will not the addition of it to {αβγδ}, undeniably( by your own grounds) confirm his Deity? Bidle. Just. Mart. the thirteenth place. The Lord rained down fire on Sodom from the Lord; the prophetic Spirit intimateth twain in number, the one on earth, the other in heaven, who is the Lord, even the Lord on earth, the Author of his existence, and of his being powerful, and Lord and God. Answer. It is true, the Father and Son are two Persons, not one and the same person, which is Sabellianisme, and yet not two in Essence; and both Father and Son are distinctly called Jehovah, which is Gods proper Name; The Lord rained from the Lord, the holy Martyr speaks improperly after the manner of men, in saying the Son appeared on earth, and the Father in heaven in the sense before specified: but in truth, he is the eternal Father of his eternal Son, and in a qualified sense we do acknowledge, That the second Person is God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, as the Nicene Creed professeth. Bidle. Justin coming out of Plato's School to the contemplation of the Gospel, and( as preconceived opinions are wont to stick very close, and over-rule the following Doctrines which we receive) imagining John the Evangelist to be of the same opinion with Plato, believed there was a Son of God before Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Virgin; yea, before the world was created, yet he never believed him to be from Eternity. So for the Holy Ghost, he no where saith, he is God. Answer. You are injurious to the blessed Martyr, to say, that he being prepossessed with the Notions of Plato, would expound Saint John in a Platonical sense, for he renounced in his Dialogue the Testimony of Philosophers( as Mr. Bidle himself hath done the Principles of Religion, which he hath learned from the Church of Christ) and adhered to the Scriptures only, which made Tryphon more willingly harken to his Discourse; nor did he ground his faith only on the Testimony of Saint John, who hath sufficient Authority to be credited, when rightly expounded; but as you may perceive, to the conviction of his Adversaries, by his own principles on the Testimony of Moses and the Prophets. Nor did Plato understand the mystery of the sacred Trinity, something he had in his speculations tending that way, but not the same with the faith of Christians,( Aquin. par. 1. q. 32.) and what he obscurely represented on that sublime mystery to others, he borrowed it out of the Scriptures, and transformed it to his preconceived Opinion. That which you add touching the Holy Ghost, that he no where calleth him God,— If you mean, totidem verbis, it may, I think, be granted; but equivalently he doth, in that the divine Names and Attributes are claerly ascribed to him, Isai. 6.9. compare Act. 28.16. But this your Assertion is, I suppose, sufficiently confuted in my Answer to your twelve Reasons. Bidle. Neither let any object his Book entitled, An Exposition of Faith, which is spurious, and was written after the Counsel of Nice; nor do Eusebius and Hierom make any mention thereof; though both of them diligently reckoned up the Books of Justin. Answer. This author, whoever he was, is most clear for the Unity of the Godhead and Trinity of Persons. There is truly one God of all, and he is known and understood in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And because the Father hath begotten the Son out of his own Essence, and out of the same the Holy Ghost proceedeth; they most rightly, which have one and the same Essence, are to be acknowledged to have one and the same Divinity. And much more to this purpose. If this author was spurious, he discovers a great deal of hypocrisy in the front of that Treatise, whereby he would unquestionably be taken for Justin himself: The words are, We have at large confuted the Jews( in his Dialogue with Tryphon) and the Gentiles( in his Apology to the Senate of Rome, and to Antoninus pus the Emperor) let us now expound the right and sound reasons of our faith. No marvel then, if not only Pontificians, but Protestants generally do not stick to ascribe that accurate piece to Justin, and question it not, as they do reject that Book entitled, Respons. ad Orthod. de quibusdam neces. Quaest. And this is done not only by Protestants, but the Pontificians themselves, Sixtus Senensis Bibliotheca, lib. 4. verbo Just. Azorius Institut. Moral. Tom. 1 lib. 4. cap. 23. Bellar. lib. 1. de Sanctor. Beat. cap 4. And which is more, the sixth general council at Constantinople under Constantinus Pogonutus, about the year of Grace 681. do confirm that Christ had two Wills and two Operations; and in the tenth Action the Testimonies of many Fathers are alleged, and Justin Martyr is one of that number: And certain it is, that in this Book two distinct Natures, and two distinct Operations in one Agent are asserted by that Father. But because of that Negative Argument, the omission of this Book both by Eusebius and Hierom, and the difference of style betwixt this and Justins other unquestionable Treatises, there may, as the Centuriatores do writ, be some doubt, whether this excellent Treatise is justly fathered on the holy Martyr or not; and because Scultetus in his Medulla Patrum, and that not without alleging reasons, doth say, this profitable book was written about the year of Grace, four hundred, I will leave this difference to the judgement of the Learned, and will add to what hath been formerly alleged, some other Testimonies from his indubitable Writings. This Author, who was born in Palestina, and flourished in the year of the Lord 150. as he himself saith in his Apology to Antoninus the Emperour, towards the beginning, hath these words, being english●d, We are without the gods of the Heathens, and in that regard we are Atheists; but not without the true God; and we do worship him with Prayers, the Son which comes from him, and the prophetic Spirit. Observe how he opposeth the worship of the Trinity to the Worship of false Gods, and consequently, not only the Father, but the Son and the Holy Ghost are the true God. And towards the latter end, Exod. 3.6. he spake to Moses out of the Bush, I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and Jacob; and himself saith, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And a little below speaking of the Eucharist, he saith, The Minister gives thanks, and glory to the Father of all in the name of his Son and the Holy Ghost. And after he adds, In all things we praise the Father of all, by his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. And in the first Apology of Christians to the Senate of Rome, not far from the beginning, he saith, Christ he Son of his Father, who alone is properly his Son, the Word which before all creatures was begotten by him. Christ then is God, Son properly, and in a more excellent way then men and Angels are; viz. by eternal generation. Thus much touching Justin. Bidle. Tertullian the first place. Tertullian de velandis Virginibus cap. 1. The rule of faith is altogether one, and immutable; namely, to believe in one God Almighty, the creator of all the world, and in his Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary; Crucified under Pontius Pilate, on the third day raised from the dead, sitting at the right hand of God.— Answer. Tertullian was a most Learned Writer, and stout Champion of the catholic faith against all heretics, and of Christians against the Gentiles; he was an African, a Presbyter, born at Carthage, and flourished in the dayes of Severus the Emperor, towards the end of the second Century. This Father sets down the Creed very briefly: The rule of Faith is to believe in one God Almighty maker of all things; he is the first and principal term( as they call it) of all things, and the a-Principle of his Son, and of his actions: and a Christians belief is also in Jesus Christ, as is set down in the Articles of the Apostles Creed, only his Descent into hel is omitted. Is this denied by any of us? Do not we believe in God the Father and his Son? And afterwards he mentions the Holy Ghost: A little above he saith, Christ calls himself truth, and not custom; If Christ is always and before all truth, he is Eternal. This Testimony might well have been spared, being not in the least prejudicial to our faith. Bidle. Tertul. the second place. tart. de Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos cap. 15. The rule of faith whereby we profess what we believe, That there is one onely God, not any other besides the creator of the world of nothing, by his Word first sent forth, that that Word is called the Son of God, that he variously( or in divers forms) appeared to the Patriarks in the name of God, and he was in the Prophets always heard, and was at large brought down by the Spirit, and virtue of God the Father, into the Virgin Mary, made flesh in her womb;— then preached a new Law. Answer. Tertullian having engaged himself in the cause of Christ against the whole body of heretics, produceth against them the rule of faith, and the Articles which were opposed by any heretics either before or in his age: and concludes, this Rule instituted by Christ himself, as will be proved, admits of no doubts amongst us, but such as Heresies produce, and which heretics make against it: there is nothing in this passage which may not pass for currant with a favourable construction, that namely( for the rest are clear) per verbum suum primo omnium Emissum; which may be rendered thus, Which first of all came from him, or, was sent out: But when? Not in time, but from eternity, by eternal generation; according to that of the Prophet Micah, His goings forth have been of old from everlasting, Mic. 5.2. Bidle. tart. the third place. Adversus Hermogenem, cap. 3. Since things began to exist, whereon the Authority of the Lord might act, sithence by accession of Authority, he was both made and called Lord; for God is both a Father and a Judge; yet not therefore always a Father and a Judge, because always God, since neither could he be a Father before a Son, nor a judge before Sin; but there was a time when sin and Son were not, which made the Lord a judge and a Father. These passages evince, that he also believed the Father only, not the Son, nor the Holy Ghost to be the one God: though he imagined with the forecited Authors, Justin and Irenaeus, that the Son had two Natures; yet did he not suppose him to be Co-eternal and coequal with the Father. Answer. This Hermogen●s was a Painter, and held that the matter, that rude and indigested Chaos was always, and neither had beginning, nor shall have an end: such heretics Tertullian calls elegantly Materiarios; but not only Tertullian, but all the Fathers of this age believed and professed the Deity of the Son of God. See Centur. 2. cap. 4.7. and yet sometimes this Father speaks incommod●& periculose, unfitly, and in rigour of speech dangerously of the Trinity, and of Jesus Christ; and if in any place, surely in this under debate; and yet unless we will say that Tertullian grossly contradicts himself, as shall be proved,( which is not to be granted) The Author is thus to be expounded, That he speaks not of Gods natural Son, but of his sons by the grace of Creation and Adoption. See Pamelius in locum, and Bellar. lib. 1. de Christo, cap. 10. for he speaks not of Christ, but of a reasonable creature without, and which calls God Father in time. And this appears to be his meaning by the Analogy of the next words. Nor a Judge without sin, which must of necessity relate to those that are judged, as our learned Junius hath observed; for the same Tertullian libro contra Praxeam, saith, The Word was always in the Father, as Christ himself saith, I am in the Father: and with God always, as it is said. The Word was with God, and never separated from the Father; for he saith, I and the Father are one. And before those words in the same Treatise, God was alone before all things; alone, because nothing was without but God; but then he was not alone, for he had his Reason with him. There needs no Commentary on these passages, which are clear for us against the Adversary. Bidle. tart. the fourth place. Yea, that very Book of his against Praxeas, where the Adversaries think the Opinion concerning the Trinity held by them, doth by the tenor of his Discourse, and sundry express passages sufficiently show, That he went not about to prove, either that the Son, to whom he frequently giveth the appellation of God; or the Holy Spirit, whom he in the close calleth, Tertium numen Divinitatis,& tertium nomen Majestatis, The third numen of Divinity, and the third name of Majesty, did exist from eternity, and were that one most high God. Answer. Praxeas, whom Tertullian confutes, held but two Persons, and that the Father was incarnated and died, and that he was Jesus Christ;& his followers are called Patripassians. The words are a clear Testimony of the Trinity; and that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not one Person, but three distinct Persons; the Father in order is the first Person, the Son is the second, and the Holy Ghost the third; yet are they, albeit thus distinguished, but one and the same High God. Bidle. tart. the fifth place. They say in the beginning,( as in Genesis, according to the Hebrew, the sacred Text begins) God made himself a Son, though this be not firm, yet I am moved by other Arguments from the very disposition of God, wherein he was before the constitution of the world, even to the generation of the Son; for before all things, God was alone, being to himself both world and place, and all things; but alone, because there was nothing without besides him; yet even then he was not alone, for he had within him, what he had in himself, namely, his Reason, which is in Greek called {αβγδ}— not a vocal word from the beginning.— Reason is elder, as its substance, then the Word or speech itself. Answer. Were you well advised( Mr. B●dl●) to allege these words for yourself, which do clearly prove, that the Son was generated before the Creation of the world, yea, from all eternity? Why? because he being {αβγδ}, was always with his Father; and God the Father was never without God his Son, and this is proved to be meant by {αβγδ}, because not far off he calls him, The Wisdom of God, according to that appellation, Proverb. 8. which he interprets to be meant of the Son of God: and afterwards, as I shewed in answer to the third place, he applies to him that Text, John 1.1 The Word was God, and never separated from the Father, or another( in Essence) from the Father; and God produceth his Word as the Sun doth the Beam; nor will I doubt to call the Son, the Beam of the Sun, second to it, not separated from it. These words and much more do evince the soundness of Tertullians Faith as touching the substance, not all the expressons used by him in this great mystery of our faith. Bidle. tart. the sixth place. Then the word or speech itself taketh its ornament, sound and voice, when he said, Let there be light; this is the perfect birth of the word or speech, whilst it proceedeth from God: having been first made of him by cogitation, in the name of Wisdom, The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways: then effectually generated, When he prepared the Heavens I was with him. Answer. It is not denied, That Tertullians terms in this sublime mystery, are sometimes harsh, and his words not fitly spoken, but candidly to be interpnted, according to the mind of the Author himself. In that Book he saith, that this word was always in the Father; and Prolatum dicimus Filium à Patre, said non separatum. The Church might bear with that dark expression in so great a man as Tertullian, to say, the Word was made, for the Word was begotten, as he saith he was, and rejects them which say, he was made, and not begotten. He was always the Son of God, and the wisdom of his Father, and then declared effectually to be regenerated( viz from eternity) by his creation of the world, that Word whereby all things were made in the beginning. Bidle. tart. the seventh place. I who derive the Son no otherwise then from the substance of the Father, doing without the will of the Father, having attained all Authority from the Father: How can I in truth destroy Monarchy, which being delivered from the Father to the Son, I keep in the Son? Let this also be said by me touching the third degree; for I think the Spirit is no otherwise then from the Father and the Son. See therefore lest thou dost not destroy the Monarchy, who subvertest the disposition and dispensation thereof, constituted in as many names as God would have it. Answer. This Quotation makes nothing against us, who are no enemies to the Divine Monarchy, but are zealous Propugnators of it to the death, that there is one God, one supreme Ruler; only take notice, that Tertullian by the second and third degree, is not to be expounded in regard of Essence, as though the substance was by degree to be distinguished in the Persons: for he saith against Hermogenes, The Divinity hath no degrees, because it is most singular: but he means the third degree of Original, the third Person in order of the sacred Trinity, Verba pro illo tempore non malè dicta, pro hoc autem nostro commodè accipienda. Bidle. tart. the eighth place. The Spirit is the third after God, and the Son as the fruit from the branch, is the third after the root; and the Brook from the River, is the third after the fountain; and the Apex the Point from the Ray, is third after the Sun. Answer. I deny not but these words strictly taken, according to their native sense, are termini satis duri& horrendi. We do not defend them; but similitudes, as is said, prove not ratione circumferentiae, said Centri; and they are not to be pressed beyond the scope and intention of the Writer; they are not to be taken Logically, but they do onely show a real distinction betwixt the Divine Persons which Praxeas denied, and Tertullian contends for, and the Divine processions in this mystery; his similitudes are unfit for this purpose, yet, as is reason, let him have leave to expound himself, and you will find, as is afterwards proved, that he acknowledgeth no difference of the Divine Persons in Substance, Power and State; and touching terms, there was a verbal difference in the Church. when there was real agreement. jerome could not endure to hear of three Hypostases, because he understood thereby Essences, Epistola ad Damasam. tot a secularium literarum Schola nihil aliud Hypostasia, nisi {αβγδ} intelligit. See Baron. Annal. Tom. 4. ad annum 362.& 372. yet now this word is currant. Tertullian himself useth the Word, Oeconomie, for the personal consideration of God in the same Essence, and opposeth it to the Essential consideration of God. But other Writers do, by Oeconomie, understand the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ, and of our Redemption by him. These comparisons then are only to be taken in this sense, That there is an order in the Divine persons and a procession, and that they are co-essential. The Father is the fountain, the Son as the stream, the Holy Ghost as the River the third in order. Bidle. tart. the ninth place. The Father is the whole substance, the Son a portion and derivation of the whole, as he himself professeth, My Father is greater then I,— Thus is also the Father another from the Son, whiles he that generates is another then he that is generated, whiles he that sends is another then he that is sent, whiles he that acteth, is another then he by whom he acteth. Answer. Tertullians language is very harsh to us at this day, and to be excused, because, as Dr. Hoornebech hath well observed, he was the first latin Father that writ on that high mystery. Lib. 2. de Deo, c. 5. when the use of phrases and terms was not confirmed in the catholic Church. Tertullian avoucheth, the Divinity hath no degrees, nor can have any, because it is simply one and Indivisible. That term which is very strange to us, calling the Son a derivation of the whole, that is, to whom the whole substance is communicated, cannot be meant otherwise then of the distinction of the Persons, and that the Son is from the Father, which he endeavoured to prove against Praxeas, he then calls the Father the whole subsistence, and the Son a portion( not a part) because the Father is the Fountain and principle of the Son, as a portion( which may be the whole Inheritance) is derived from the Father to the Son; and we say, The Lord is our portion; and in that respect, as the Father expounds himself, the Father is greater then the Son, as he that begets, is greater then he that is begotten, and he that sends, is in that respect greater then he that is sent( which may be understood of Christ in respect of his office as our mediator,) and so he is simply greater. Mark, that the Father saith not, he is aliud, another thing in substance, but alius, another, viz in Person, which clearly confutes Praxeas for denying the distinction of Persons. Bidle. tart. the tenth place. I will not say, Gods, nor Lords, but follow the Apostle; and if the Father and the Son are to be name together, I will call the Father God, and name Jesus Christ, Lord; but Christ by himself I may call by the name of God, As the Apostle saith, Of whom came Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Answer. Tertullian here delivers sound Divinity, and consonant to the Creed of Athanasius though the Father be God and Lord, and the Son also both God and Lord, yet are there not two Gods, and two Lords, but one God and one Lord: and the reason why the Father is called God, when the Father and the Son are name together, is, as I have often said, because the Father is from no other, but of himself, and as a Fountain communicating the divine Nature and Attributes to the Son; and because of the Office of Mediator, which the Son of God in our flesh did voluntarily undertake for our salvation. And who can doubt of the meaning of the Father, considering that he acknowledgeth that High elegy without restriction to belong to him? Rom. 9.5. That he is God over all, blessed for ever. Bidle. tart. the eleventh place. As therefore the Word of God is not he whose he is, so neither the Spirit, although he be called, yet is not he whose he is said to be; nothing of any one is that very thing whose it is; indeed when any thing is from some one, and so while it is from him, it may be such as he is from wh●m it is, and whose it is; and therefore the Spirit may be God, and the Word God, because of God, yet not that very one of which each of them is, because God of God as a substantial thing, will not be very God himself; but therefore God because of the substance of God, which is also a substantial thing, and as a portion of the whole. To add the last, place, I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God: Pater ad Patrem, the Father to the Father, or the Son to the Father, the Word to God. Answer. This Learned and acute Carthaginian, by many strong and convincing Arguments proves the distinction of the Divine Persons against Praxeas, and as by many others, so by these here, which the Adversary to no purpose or advantage to his cause hath alleged: For take notice, which is a most certain truth, that by the name God, in his language, and frequently in the Scripture phrase, God the Father is understood; and all grant, the Son is not the Father, though he is truly God; nor is the Holy Ghost, God the Father, or God the Son, yet truly God. This is evinced from these words of Tertullian; for tell me( I pray) is not he truly God, and Co-essential with his Father, who is of his Fathers substance? or doth the Father use any such expression touching any Creature? Saith he of it, as here he doth, that it is a substantial thing, because it is of the substance of God? Bidle. Now forasmuch as Tertullian sufficiently explaineth himself, that his intention was not to assert, that the Son and Holy Ghost were that one God, but on the contrary to refute Praxeas, who holding,( as the Sabellians afterwards did) that Christ and the Holy Spirit was that one God, as well as the Father, did thereby confounded the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in as much as the distinction betwixt Essence and Person of God was not invented: This, I say, doth warrant us to make use of his testimony against the Adversaries in the business of the Trinity; so that we need not fly, which some, and that justly enough have done, to make use of, when they are urged with the words of Tertullian, cited out of his Book against Praxeas, namely, that the high notions which he there uttered, were learned from the new Prophet Montanus, whom he impiously calleth the Paraclete, and expressly mentioneth in the beginning of the Discourse, and intimateth in the close thereof. Answer. Tertullians judgement touching the Trinity was sound, and the distinction betwixt Essence and Person, well known in the Church, as I have sufficiently cleared in my answer to what hath been objected out of that ancient Father; his meaning was catholic, though his expressions were sometimes dark, and harsh in our ears, being accustomend to other phrases, and to dispute ad hominem, to allege testem è sinu. Your own Jonas Schiltingius in Praefat. adver. Bathus. Meisnorum de S. Trinitate, confesseth that Tertullian was the first, or at least the chief author of that Opinion of the Trinity, which he learned from the Prophesies of Montanus, which he commended and obtruded on the Churches, which is a bold Assertion, contrary to truth and the knowledge of Antiquity. This Praxeas, confuted by Tertullian, learned out of the Scriptures, that there was only one God; he also red, God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost mentioned, and not being able to distinguish between Essence and Person, said, There was only one Person, God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; the Neotians afterwards, and Sabeltians, as S. Austin saith, De Haeresibus, were of the same Opinion; now 'tis most certain that these heretics questioned not the Deity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost, but took that for granted, saying, The Father the most High God was conceived, born of the Virgin, &c. Nor doth Tertullian in any place( to my best remembrance) confute Praxeas for maintaining the Son and the Holy Ghost to be God, but only for confounding their persons. As for the Socinians, which( most justly, as Mr. B. saith) do avouch that Tertullian learned that Doctrine touching the Trinity, from Montanus the heretic; this is sooner said then can be proved. For( as shall be shewed) he defended the Trinity before he was seduced by the dreams of Montanus, nor did Tertullian derive this divine Truth from Montanus, but Montanus himself retained the pure Doctrine of the Church in this particular; his dotage being, that the Spirit, the Advocate, the Paraclete was more fully poured on him, according to the Promise of Christ, then on the holy Apostles; and he and his fanatical women Priscilla and Maximilla boasted of their Prophesies and ecstasies; they denied also the lawfulness of second Marriages, Euseb. Eccles. Histor. lib. 5. cap. 16. Augustin. de Haeres. cap. 26. But these Cataphryges are not taxed for introducing any new opinion touching the Trinity, but they held the Doctrine which the catholic Church professed, saith Epiphan. Haeres. 48. I will in the close add a few Testimonies out of Tertullian, which declare his faith in this Article. Tertullian in Apologetico advers. Gentes cap. 21. excellently speaks of Christ, Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus,& prolatione generatum,& idcirco filium& Deum dictum ex unitate substantiae; nam& Deus Spiritus, ut Radius ex Sole porrigitur,— ita de Spiritu Spiritus,& de Deo Deus, ut Lumen de Lumine.— Mark, that Tertullian saith, That this Doctrine touching the Son of God was not invented by him, but he had learned it from others, That the Son was generated of the substance of the Father, that he was Spirit of the Spirit, God of God, and Light of Light; from whence it seems, the words in the Nicene Creed were borrowed,[ Christ was very God of God, Light of Light—.] After, that which of God is God, and the Son of God, & unus ambo; .i. one God in Essence, not in personality. And in his Book, De Carne Christi, Non potes dicere si natus fuisset,& hominem verè induisset, Deut esse desisset, amittens quod erat,& assumens quod non erat; periculum enim statûs sui Deo nullum est. Christ by his becoming man ceased not to be God,— nothing is equal to God. Created things, when they become other things, do cease to be what they were before; but Christ when he became man, remained still God. And after, as he is not the Son of man, but because he is of man, .i. Mary; sic nec Deus sine Spiritu Dei, nec Dei Filius sine Deo Patre; ita utriusque substantiae census hominem& Deum exhibuit, hinc natum, ind non natum; hinc carneum ind Spiritualem, hinc infirmum ind perfortem, hinc morientem ind viventem, quae proprietas conditionum divinae& humanae aequa utique naturae veritate dispuncta est, eadem fide Spiritus& caro; virtutes Spiritum Dei, carnem hoins probaverunt. And lib. 3. adversus Marcionem, he calls the divine nature of Christ his inward substance, and reproves martion for holding that Christ had a fantastical body, because he might as well call into question his Divine Nature as his human: Ita( Inquit) Christus jam caro, nec caro; homo, nec homo; proindè Deus Christus nec Deus, cur enim Dei phantasma non portaverit? An credam ei de interiori substantia, qui sit de exteriori frustratus? quomodo verax habebitur in occulto, tam fallax repertus in aperto? And to omit his other Treatises in his Book against Praxeas, he shows, there is no repugnancy to say, three Persons are one God in Essence; he calls the disposition and distinction of the Persons, Oeconomiam, and he proves them to be one God in the Unity of Essence. We say( saith he) that do believe, and always have believed, that there is one only God, but under this dispofition, which we call economy, Ut unici Dei sit& Filius Sermo ipsius per quem omnia facta, hunc missum à Patre in Virginem& ex ea natum hominem& Deum, Filium hoins& Filium Dei— Praxeae perversitas existimat se meram veritatem possidere; dum unicum Deum, non alias putat credendum, quàm si ipsum eundemque,& Patrem& Filium,& Spiritum Sanctum dicat; quasi non sic quoque unus sit omnia, dum ex uno omnia per substantiae scilicet unitatem,& nihilominus custodiatur {αβγδ} Sacramentum, quae unitatem in Trinitatem disponit, trees dirigens, Patrem,& Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum; trees autem non statu said gradu, nec substantiâ said formâ, nec potestate said specie, unius autem substantiae,& unius statûs,& unius potestatis, quia unus Deus ex quo et gradus isti, et formae, et species, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritûs Sancti deputantur. Observe, that Tertullian doth thrice inculcate the consubstantiality of the Father, of the Son, and Holy Ghost; they are of one substance undivided, without division, of one Power, and of one State or Dignity: But there are more degrees, propter originationem; and more species, propter plures {αβγδ}; and more in form, .i. more Persons then one. And afterward in the same Tractate he saith, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one only God; by whom also the Christians do swear. And a little before the close of the Book,[ It is Jewish( saith he) so to believe in one God, that you will not take the Son into the reckoning, and the Holy Gh●st after the Son; for what other is the difference betwixt them and us?] Si non exinde Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus trees credi●i●uxum Deum sistunt? Sheets might be filled with Quotations to this purpose out of Tertullian. The Learned and Acute Mr. Gunning hath industriously and at large collected all the passages out of this Father touching this Subject in his Treatises, De Carne Christi, and against Praxeas, and made the obscure places clear by his judicious Commentary on them; by which it is evident, and as clear as the Sun, that in his opinion, these three Persons are consubstantial. Bidle. Novatianus the first place. Novatianus de Trinitate, cap. 1. The rule of Faith requireth, That first of all we believe in God the Father and Lord Almighty, that is, the most perfect Creator of all things. Answer. Tertullian wrote a Treatise, De Trinitate, of the Trinity, as Eusebius witnesseth, and this, albeit a Learned and Elegant piece, fathered on Tertullian, as his own genuine fruit, by some of ours, as Zanch. de Trinitate, lib. 8. yet Mr. Bidle, doth warrantably follow the judgement of other Divines, and ascribes it to Novatianus, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, and perhaps written by him before he was a schismatic, yet was he in this point of Tertullians judgement; he was seduced by Novatus, who proved both a schismatic and an heretic, and a great Disturber of the peace of the Church, as S. Cyprian relateth, Epist. lib. 1. Epist. 6. and made a Conspiracy against Cornelius Bishop of Rome, and against the Ecclesiastical Discipline. Tertullian could not be the author of that Book De Trinitate, because he makes mention of the Sabellian heresy, and calls it Temeritie also, which lived about the year of the Lord, 256. long after Tertullian: Bellar. lib. 1. de Christo, cap. 10. Pamelius Annotations on that Book; and Hierom faith, The Book De Trinitate was penned by Novatianus; and upon this ground I find some Authors of note, as Estius, who do reject his Testimony, as not worthy to be answered: yet because Novatus himself is not branded with the Antitrinitarian heresy, I see no reason, why his judgement should be slighted in this particular, wherein he is not censured by the catholic Church. Whatsoever an heretic holds is not Heretical. To the first place I answer, That God the Father is the most perfect creator of all things, is not contradicted by us. The same Assertion is true of Gods Son, he is the most perfect creator of all things; and so is the Holy Ghost also, for Creation is a common work of the sacred Trinity, wrought by the Essential Power of God, albeit by Appropriation it is attributed to the Father. Bidle. Novat. the second place. The same rule of truth teacheth us to believe, after the Father, likewise in the Son of God Christ Jesus our Lord our God, but the Son of God, of that God which is both one and only Creator of all things. Answer. These words may have a catholic sense, Creation is appropriated to the Father as the principle of the Son and Holy Ghost, which are also true of the Son of God, who is both one and one God, the only creator of all things. Such a phrase of speech is used. John 17.3. Matth. 11.27. Not one knoweth the Son, but the Father. which is thus resolved, Only the Father knoweth the S●n; And 1 Cor. 2.11. Only the Spirit of God knows the things of God. In these and such like places the exclusive Particle excludes such things that are not one in Essence with the Subject, and such only: as if I say, God the Father only created the world, none can rightly infer from those words, that my meaning was to exclude God the Son and God the Holy Ghost from the creation of all things, but creatures only, which are not of the same Nature with God the Father. See Estius in lib. 1. Sent. distin. 21. Sect. 2. Besides, the Father is the one and only God, for there is but one God. Bidle. Novat. the third place. It is a great hazard( or danger) to say, that the Saviour of mankind, the Lord and Prince of the whole world, to whom all things have been delivered from his Father; by whom all things were instituted, all things created, all things ordered, the King of all ages and times, the Prince of all Angels, before whom was nothing besides the Father, to say, he is only a man, and in these to deny him divine Authority. Answer. Scarce can any thing be more fully spoken to prove the Deity of the Son of God then this passage, if it had been fully related. The Adversary catcheth at those words, Nothing was before the Son but the Father. Here is a seeming advantage, the Father was before the Son: But how before him? Relatives we know, as Father and Son, are not in time the one of them before the other? It is not possible, if we will speak properly, to conceive a Father without a child: How then? He is said to be before him in regard of the order of subsisting, being( as Divines do speak) the Principle of the Son. But why stop you at those words? It follows in Novatianus, This contumely of the heretics doth redound also to God the Father, if the Father who is God cannot beget a Son who is God: Haeretici quasi hoins in illo fragilitatem considerant, quasi Dei virtutes non computant, infirmitatem carnis recolunt, potestatem Divinitatis excludunt. &c. Bidle, c. 13. Novat. the fourth place. It is manifest in the Scripture, That Christ in the Scripture is called God, that most of the heretics moved with the greatness and truth of his Divinity, have dared to declare and think him to be not the Son, but the very Father. Answer. Are not these words, I pray you, directly opposite to your Assertion? These heretics were such as denied the divine Persons, as Praxeas, Sabellius, which never questioned this truth, Christ is the true God: which you cannot avoid, unless you will deny God the Father to be the true God; for this was their heresy, they confounded the Divine Persons, holding but only one divine Person, called by several names upon several considerations. So that this passage fully proves, that in the judgement of Novatianus, the Son of God was truly and properly God; and doth not your conscience smite you( Mr. Bidle) when you city this author, which both asserceth and proveth the Deity of Gods Son by the same Arguments that the Trinitarians use at this day? He saith in this Chapter out of 1 John. Deus crat Verbum, et Verbum care factum est— Christuw, cujus est nativitas, et quia caro factus est, esse hominem, et quia Verbum Dei, Deum ni cunctanter edicere esse, praesertim cum animadvertat Scripturam Evangelicam, utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederâsse concordiam. And much more, as shall be shewed. Bidle. Novat. the fifth place. Whiles therefore Christ receives Sanctification from the Father, he is less then the Father. Answer. If by Sanctification the gifts and graces conferred on the human Nature are meant, it is granted, the Saviour in this regard is really less then the Father; for we are not so far destitute of Reason, to believe an equality betwixt the infinite creator and a finite creature. But if by Sanctification you mean the divine and Essential qualities( as Divines do call them) which the Father communicates to the Son by eternal generation, then in truth, albeit, in regard of the Divine Nature and qualities simply considered, he is not less then the Father, but equal to him, yet according to the idiom of some of the Ancients, The Father is called greater then the Son in this respect, because he is the Principle of the Son, and himself is without a Principle. And as touching his Sanctification and setting him apart to the Office of a Mediator, so is he also inferior to the Father. Bidle. Novat. the sixth place. The Spirit receiveth of Christ what things he declareth: if he receives from Christ, then is Christ greater then the Paraclete, for he would not receive from Christ, unless he were less then Christ. Answer. This Text admits the same answer which was given to the former, and clears it up, the Holy Ghost may( though improperly, I grant) in this respect be said to be less then the Son of God, who is both from the Father and Son, not in time, but by eternal procession. Bidle. Novat. the seventh place. The order of Nature, and the authority of Faith admonisheth us, having digested the words and letters of the Lord, after these things also to believe in the Holy Spirit heretofore promised to the Church.— And in as much as the Lord was about to go away into the heavens, he necessary gave the Paraclete to his Disciples, lest he should leave them in a manner orphans( which was not fit) and without an Advocate and a Tutor; for he it was who strengthened their hearts and minds, who distinguished the Mysteries and Sacraments of the Gospel, who was in them an Illuminator of divine things, by whom they being confirmed, neither feared prisons nor bonds for the name of the Lord; yea, trod under foot the powers and torments of the world, as being armed and strengthened by him, having in themselves the gifts which this same Spirit distributed and directeth to the Church, the Spouse of Christ, as certain Ornaments: for this is he that appointed Prophets in the Church, Instructeth Teachers, directeth Tongues, doth mighty Works and Cures, affordeth discerning of spirits, contributeth Governments, suggesteth Counsels, and composeth and directeth all other gifts, and therefore maketh the Church of the Lord on every side, and in all things perfect and complete. Answer. Thus have you taken leave of this author, without the least Annotation on his sentences; and these last words cited by Mr. Bidle himself are divine, and he acts his part, as if he had been hired to betray his own cause; and as if the Holy Ghost had infatuated him to make choice of a real foe in stead of a fast friend to him: for in these words are held forth two strong Arguments to prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost; the one, That we are to believe in him: the other is from the admirable gifts which he confers in all times and places, which no finite creature( as if he be not very God, he needs must be) can possibly effect. And after he saith, he is Sanctitatis effector, ad aeternitatem& Resurrectionem immortalitatis corpora nostra perducat, dum illa in se adsuefacit cum coelesti virtute misceri& cum Spiritus Sancti Divina aeternitate sociari. This author is very clear for the Deity of the Son of God. Cap. 9. The Scriptures do declare Christ as well to be God, as to be man, & tam hominem descripsit Jesum Christum quam etiam Deum; non tantum Dei Filium, said& hoins,— ut dum ex utreque est utrumque sit,— ut enim praescripsit ipsa natura hominem credendum esse qui ex homine est; it a eadem natura praescribit,& Deum credendum esse qui ex Deo sit. As Nature teacheth us, that he is to be believed to be man, which is of man; so likewise that he is God who is of God. As man he was made under the Law, as God, he was Lord of the Sabbath—; and as he ascended into heaven, as he was man; so as God he descended from heaven, and chap. 12. Why shall we doubt to speak that, which the Scripture doub●eth not to expound? Behold( as Hoseas saith in the person of the Father) I will save them in the Lord their God,( Hebr. Jehovah) If God saves in God, and saves none but by Christ, why doth man doubt to call Christ God, who is called God by the Father? Yea, if God the Father doth not save but in God, Salvare non poterit, he cannot be saved by God the Father, which confesseth not that Christ is God. He proveth, Cap. 13. the Deity of Christ by the same Scriptures and Arguments which the Church makes use of against Socinians; his Divinity is clearly proved, By him the world was made. If God only knows the secrets of our hearts, and Christ knows them; if none but God doth forgive sins, and Christ doth forgive sins; if this can be the voice of no man, I and the Father am one; but he spoken these words, De conscientia Divinitatis; and if the Apostle Thomas, being instructed in all the proofs of Christ Divinity, saith, My Lord and my God; and he accurately distinguishing touching Christ, saith it. The Apostle Paul saith, That Christ is of the Father according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever; saith the same Apostle saith, he was not made an Apostle by man, but by Jesus Christ; and saith moreover, that he learned not the Gospel by man, but by Jesus Christ; Christ is God. And Cap. 14. If Christ be only man, how did he create Angels? How is he present every where, prayed unto, sith this is not consonant to the nature of man, but belongs to God to be every where? So that this Father acknowledged Christ to be true man, because he was of man; and true God, because he was of the substance of the Father. Bidle. Theophilus. Theophilus ad Autolicum lib. 2. The God and Father of all things is Incomprehensible, and not found in a place, for there is no place of his resting; but his Word by whom he made all things, being his Power and Wisdom, assuming the Person of the Father, and Lord of all things, came into the Garden in the Person of God, and discoursed with him. Answer. This Theophilus was Bishop of Antioch about the year of the Lord, 180. in the dayes of Verus the Emperor; it is recorded, that he wrote many Treatises, but all are lost but the three Books which he wrote to Antolycus a Heathen. In the first, he treats of God and of the Resurrection, he hath an excellent sentence which I will transcribe, God cannot be seen with mortal and carnal eyes, {αβγδ}; that is, in regard of Glory, he is Incomprehensible; in regard of greatness Inconceivable; in regard of height, he is above our understanding; in regard of strength, none are to be compared with him; in Wisdom, none can be equal to him, nor can any in goodness imitate him. I do not deny, that there are certain passages in his second Book, from whence the Arians sucked their poison, say the Centuriat. lib. 2. page. 56. and some, which require a more favourable construction then these words cited out of this author by Mr. Bidle, as there are many the like sentences of the holy Fathers which wrote in this second Century, and spake less accurately when they were to deal with the Gentiles to win them to the faith, by using notions taken out of Plato, yet was their faith sound in these mysteries of our Religion; and they would teach them that what Christians held was not incredible: as Virgil. 6. Aeneidos. What the Platonists said of {αβγδ}, that it was diffused through the vast body of the immense world, in imitation of them. Principio Coelum& Terras campósque liquentes, Lucentémque Globum Lunae, Titaniaque Astra Spiritus intus alit: totámque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem,& magno se Corpore miscet. Yet do the Father and Word mentioned by Plato, differ much from the Father and Word believed on by Christians, Petarias Operis Theolog. Tom. 2. The sentence which Mr. Bidle citeth out of Theophilus, crosseth Mr. Bidle in two particulars; first, in that he saith the old world was created by Christ; secondly, because he limiteth not Gods Essence to a certain place, as Mr. Bidle doth; nor is there any such difficulty in it, but it may admit of a fair interpretation. Theophilus, as Justin Martyr and other Fathers, maintained, That God the Father is called the Invisible God, because he never appeared Visibly to man in any form; and that it was the Son of God which came to Adam in Paradise, and afterwards manifested himself to Abraham, Gen. 19. and wrestled with Jacob, Gen. 32. and to Moses in a Bush which burned and was not consumed; then likewise to Joshuah. Thus he appeared to Adam, both in his Fathers and in his own Name; this neither overthrows the Co-essentiality, nor the Eternity of the Son of God. Theophilus doth confess three Persons of the Divinity, {αβγδ}. The first three dayes which preceded the Creation of the heavenly Light( the Stars) were Types of the Trinity; that is, of God, of his Word, and of his Wisdom; are not Gods Word and Wisdom Co-eternal with him? Bidle. Origen. In many places we have found Origen( saith Epiphanius lib. 2.) alienating the only begotten Son from the Deity and Essence of the Father, and also the Holy Ghost. Answer. Origen was an Egyptian, he dwelled, and was educated at that famous City of Alexandria, after his father Alexander was martyred: he flourished about the year of our Lord 230, his father much rejoiced at the forwardness of his Son, and trained him up virtuously, Clemens Alexandrinus,( as Eusebius saith, Lib. 6. Eccles. Histor. cap. 6.) and Ammonius the Christian Philosopher, were his Teachers. This Origen was judged by many to be an heretic, and the Father of heretics, as Justinian in his Epistle to Mennas Arch-Bishop of Constantinople, shows by many examples out of the holy Fathers. See been. Tom. 2. council. page. 48. And Pope Gelasius prohibited the reading of his Books, Idem page. 265. And Aquinas calls him, the fountain of the Arian heretics, Part. 1. qu. 34. Art. 1. ad. 1. And Melchior Canus locor. lib 7. cap 3. saith, The Church was always, not only wary, but sharp against the Origenians, as bringing a plague upon the Christian Doctrine; yea and the first general Council doth Anathematize him, as it doth Arius, Nestorius, and other heretics. This is the Writer of whom it is commonly said, Where he writes well, none writ better; where ill, none writ worse; and therefore in reading this Author we must be cautelous, lest in drinking down his good liquour, we swallow also his poison. So that albeit Origen had been truly against the catholic Doctrine in this point, the Adversary could not be a gainer by his Testimony. But there are not wanting Learned men which have pleaded for Origen, and that with good reason( saith Scultetus Modul. Patr. Orig.) as Pamphilus. This was Eusebius Cesariensis, saith Bellarmine de Viris illustribus, out of Hireom, ruffian, Socrates, Ecclesiast. Histor. lib. cap. 13. And besides some of ours,( Sixtus Senensis, lib. 5. Bibliot. et 6. Genebrardus, de Origenis Vita,) defend him touching the Doctrine of the Trinity; and yet ruffian his Apologist, will not justify the Works which go under Origens name, which have been corrupted, as many other Fathers have been dealt withal, See Leci Consum. veterum Patrum Praefat. ad Lectorem et pag. 68. Either Origen himself, or such as corrupted his Writings, laid the eggs, which by the incubation of proud and unstable spirits, brought forth the cockatrice of Arianism; yet Origen in this point is generally held to be a catholic, having such an excellent Instructor as Clemens Alexandrinus and Gregory Thaumaturgus his scholar, both which were sound in the faith. And Athanasius cites him in an Epistle touching the Decrees of the Nicene Synod; yea, and Didymus Alexandrinus who admires origen so much, that he embraceth his Errors, as Hierom. Apolog. adver. Ruffinam, was sound in the Faith of the Trinity, as appears by his three Books written, de Spiritu Sancto. The testimony of Origen is clear enough, in the beginning of his Works, in his Commentary on the first words of Genesis: In the beginning God made heaven and earth: This he expounds of the Son of God, our Lord and Saviour. He made all things in this beginning, as Saint John the Evangelist in the beginning of his Gospel saith. And Homil. 9. in Exod. he makes the Doctrine of the Trinity a fundamental Article. A threefold cord is not easily broken, which is the Faith of the Trinity, on which dependeth the whole Church, and by which it is sustained. In his Book de principiis, Prooemio, He was Natus à Patre before the Creation,— and in the last dayes emptying himself, he was made man; he was Incarnated being God, and he that was God remained man. And lib. 1. in the beginning of the second Chapter, We are to know, there is one Nature of the Deity of Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and another Nature which is human, which he assumed in these last dayes, pro dispensatione. In his Books against Celsus he defends this truth against the calumnies and flanders of that Pagan Idolater, who objected, lib. 2. If Christ had been God, he would not have fled, nor could he have been bound as a Prisoner; and then he upbraids the Christians for persuading him to believe that Christ was God. The first Book, De Principiis, the first Chapter is De Dec, viz. Patre, the second De Filio, and the third touching the Holy Ghost, which are the true principle of all things; and towards the end of that Chapter, he saith, Nihil in Trinitate majus minusa e dicendum est, Nothing in the Trinity is to be said greater or lesser, sithence the Fountain of Divinity holds all things by his Word and reason, and by the Spirit of his mouth sanctifieth; as the Psalmist saith, The Heavens are established by his Word, and all their Hosts by the Spirit of his mouth. At the end of the fourth Book, {αβγδ}, Anacephalaeosis, of what he had written formerly of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, As light cannot be without brightness, no more can the Son be understood without the Father; how then can it be said, the Father was, when the Son was not? that is all one as to say, he was when he was not Truth, when he was not Wisdom, when he was not Life; for in all this is the substance of the Father perfect; for these, though they are many in our understanding, yet are one in truth and substance, and they are to be understood to be before all Time, Ages, and Eternity, which are spoken of the Father and the Holy Ghost—. These things which are out of the Trinity, are to be measured by Age●—. The Word which was with God is not contained in any one place, neither as he is Wisdom, nor as he is Truth, nor as he is Life. This is clear enough. And lib. 7. in Epistol. ad Romanos, cap. 9 ver. 5. Christ is one thing according to the Spirit, another according to the Flesh, here he is called, God blessed for ever. I do marvel, how some reading what the Apostle saith in another place, There is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, do deny to profess the Son of God to be God, lest they should believe in two Gods; and what will they say to this place of the Apostle, in which he is evidently called, God above all? But they do not observe, which think so, that as the Apostle doth not so call Jesus Christ, one Lord, to deny thereby the Father is Lord; so doth not he so call God the Father one God, as not to believe that the Son is God—; for the Scripture is true, which saith, Know ye that the Lord is God; both of them are one God, because there is not another beginning( or principle) of the Sons Divinity but the Father, who is purissima emanatio ipsius Unico paterni fontis—, for he is not after the Father, but of him.— If then the Son of God be above all, and the Holy Ghost contains all, and the Father from whom are all; The Nature of the Trinity is evidently shewed, and one substance which is above all. Once more: Origen was clear for Christs satisfaction for us, which is founded on the Deity in Levit. Homil. 3. not far from the beginning: and in 4. Homil. in number. If there had not been sin, it had not been needful for the Son to have been a Lamb, and to be slain, but he might have remained always as he was in the beginning, God the Word; but he came into the World; this required necessary a propitiation; a propitiation is not without a Sacrifice, and who can give any exchange for his soul? God gave a Propitiation, the precious blood of his Son. Tom. 2. in march. 16. Thus far Origen. So that albeit( as ruffian in his Apology for Origen acknowledged) some Adversaries thrust something into the Writings of this author to countenance their own Cause, as himself complains in his Epistle to his friends of Alexandria: And albeit he was not without his spots and Errors, yet was his Faith for substance sound touching the Trinity. Bidle. Arnobius the first place. Arnobius, who lived within the three first Centuries, Advers. Gentes, lib. 2. saith,— And therefore Christ, maugre you, a God; Christ, I say, a God; for often I must repeat this, that the ears of the unbelievers may cleave asunder and burst, speaking by the command of the principal God under the form of man. Answer. Arnobius was an African, and a Heathen author in the dayes of Dioclesian, and not without difficulty at his request, admitted into the bosom of the catholic Church; and to demonstrate the sincerity of his heart and faith, he wrote five Books against the Gentiles, about the year of Christ, Three hundred, as himself saith, lib. 1. minus vel plus aliquid. He is reckoned among the Fathers of the fourth Century. The strength of the first Citation lies in those words, Christ spake by the command of the principal God. To this I answer, 1. That you do deceive the Reader by a false Translation, for the Author speaks not as you do english his words, under the command, Dei Principalis, under the command of the Principle God. You would intimate thereby that albeit Christ is a God, yet was he a God subordinate, and properly at the command of the Principal God; but his words are, under the command Dei Principis jussione, Of God the Prince. 2. This phrase of the Father is a Scripture phrase, Joh 14.45, 50 And this command notes a signification of the Fathers will to the Son of God as sent, and the interest the Father hath in him; and it doth not infallibly prove superiority on his part that commands, yea, the Scriptures do not abhor to avouch, that the Great God is at the command of his servants Prayers, Isai. 45.11. Which shows only the Creatures interest in God, and his gracious compliance with the Creature: and if these words are spoken of Christ as he is God, they note only a concurrence of will betwixt the Father and the Son in the great work of mans Salvation. Thirdly, This command may respect Christ in regard of his human Nature, and as he was our Mediator: the words of Arnobius led us to this sense; this commandment was given to our Saviour as he was under the form of man; and who doubts but a Creature ought to be at the command of the Almighty creator? Bidle. Arnob. the second place. It may be the Almighty God, the only God, then at length sent out Christ, when mankind was more broken, and our nature began to be more weak. Answer. These words do hold forth this Truth, That the Almighty God, the only God, sent out his Son to be Incarnated in the fullness of time, as the Apostle speaketh, Gal. 4.4. to redeem his people. Do we pled for many Gods? Or do we acknowledge any other God, but the One Almighty God? Do not we profess, That God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son( to die for us) that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have life everlasting? This Citation thencrosseth not us, and might well have been spared, which is not contradicted by us. Bidle. Arncb. the third place. We may in the mean time say( to discharge the worship of Divinity) the prime God is sufficient for us( I say) the prime God, the Father, and Lord of all things, the Constitutour and governor of all things, in him, whatsoever is to be worshipped, we do worship; whatsoever is to be ado●ed, we adore; whatsoever requireth veneration, we please with veneration. Answer. And is God only to be worshipped in the judgement of Anobius? How is it then( Mr. Bidle) that you do pled for divine Worship to be exhibited to the Son, which as you contend, is not this prime God, but a Creature? Secondly, I answer, These words, The prime God and Father of all, is not taken Personally, but Essentially; however, not in opposition to Gods Son, whom the Socinians do worship; for Arnobius himself saith expressly, Lib. 1. pag. 34. That Christ was worshipped, and his Divinity adored; and therefore if we will say, that Arnobius is true to his own Tenet, the Son must needs be comprehended in that term, The High God: but in this Text the prime God, and Father of all, is opposed to the many made Gods of the Gentiles, which Arnobius took to task to confute, and which Gods they Idolatrously worshipped; and the Context makes this construction good, if you( say the Gentiles) had any respect of the Divinity, why do you( Christians) worship other Gods with us? Then do the words follow which you have cited. Bidle. Arnob. the fourth place. Lib. 1. Pag. 50. But if Christ be a God( say Gentiles) why did he appear in the form of a man? Why was he slain after the manner of men—? He assumed the form of a man,— in it he hide his power, that he might be both seen and viewed, and teach; observing the command of the supreme King, and effecting those things which were so to be done in the world without a counterfeit man—. But he was slain after the manner of a man; not he himself, for death is not incident to divine things. Who died then? The man whom he had put on, and carried about with him. If Sibylla the prophetess at what time she uttered those Oracles, being( as ye say) full of the power of Apollo, had been slain by impious Cut-throats, would Apollo have been said to have been slain in her? If Helenus and Martius and other Prophets had been deprived of life, Would any one say, that they were exstinguished by he Law of Humanity, who speaking by their mouths, explained the way of things to such as demanded? That death which you speak of was the assumed mans, not his; the burdens, not the bearers. Answer. There is nothing of any moment in this Quotation which is against us, but much for us. The Gentiles objected, that Christ was simulatus homo, a counterfeit man, say you; and what if the Gentiles had thought so as the Marcionists also did conceive, could their error overthrow the Christian truth? But we may rather judge, that this is not spoken of the human Nature, as though it was only in appearance, and not really such: For how could the author say, He was killed after the manner of men, and he assumed the form of man, and the similitude of our kind, hiding therein his eternal power? In sum, he was not only that substance, which to outward senses he seemed to be, viz. only a man; but he was more then a man, even God as well as man. And this is clearly proved by the Sibyls cited by Justin, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Lactantius, and other ancient Fathers. Unus& aeternus Deus hic servator& idem Christus pro nobis passus.— And speaking of Christ coming to judgement, saith, Unde Deum cernent incredulus atque fidelis. See Bellar. lib. 1. de Christo cap 11. Bidle, Annotations. It appeareth by what we have quoted out of Arnobius, That he also believed the Father alone to be the prime and only God and supreme Monarch. Answer. This language the Father used( as I have shewed out of the main scope of this Author) in opposition to all Creatures, and the false Gods of heathen people, but not in opposition to the Son of God or the Holy Spirit. Bidle. It is worth the observing, of what ill consequence the opinion of two Natures in Christ is; for Arnobius having( as others did before) imagined a pre-existence of Christ before he was born of the Virgin, thereby to remove the scandal of the cross, and take off the reproach commonly cast on Christians, That they worshipped a man put to death in a vile and most ignominious manner, doth accordingly in plain terms say, what his opinion concerning Christ lead him unto, That not Christ himself dyed, but the man whom he had assumed—; thereby giving the lie to the holy Scripture, that frequently saith, Christ, and not a counterfeit man assumed by him, dyed for our sins. Answer. This passage is a mere slander ignorantly objected against Arnobius, and that not without a contradiction; for how should a counterfeit man die for the sins of men? The Fathers meaning, who was not yet a baptized Christian, but a Catechumen or catechised Christian in the grounds of Religion, is plain, that the whole of Christ suffered not, died not for our sins; for the divine nature is impassable; but the man, that is, Christ dyed in regard of his human Nature. This sense you might have learned from the examples alleged by him, which are not( I grant) in all things answerable to this of Christ. If a Prophet of Apollo be killed, yet Apollo himself acting him to prophesy, is not in the judgement of heathens killed. Christ was put to death touching his flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. But I would gladly learn of you( Mr. Bidle) how you can make this collection good? They that hold Christ had a pre-existent nature before his Incarnation, must hold that the Saviour died not, but a counterfeited man assumed by him. Is this a genuine fruit of this assertion, and that we are ashamed to own a crucified Christ? Nay verily, this is so false, that we do glory and take great comfort herein, as the very foundation of our happiness. Do not you observe, that millions of Christians do put this into their Creed, That they do firmly believe, that Christ had a pre-existent Nature before the Assumption of ours into the Unity of his Person, and that he was crucified for us in reality? This then is to allege Sophistically, Non Causam pro Causa. Bidle. This is the less to be admired in Arnobius, since we find Tertullian himself, Adversus Praxeam, to have used the like expression. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? This speech of flesh and soul, that is, of man,( not of the Word, nor of the Spirit, that is, not of God) was therefore uttered, that he might show God to be impassable, who in this manner forsook the Son, whilst he delivered his man unto death. See whither the opinion of two Natures in Christ leadeth men, causing them to deny the Son of God died for them, contrary to the Apostle, Rom. 5.10. We were delivered from death by the death of his Son. And Rom. 8.32. God delivered up his Son for us all. For according to Arnobius, and the greatest part of Christians, if they will be true to their own Principles, not the Son of God, but an assumed man was given. Answer. If Arnobius, Tertullian or any other should deny, That the Son of God dyed for us, we will not pled for them against clear Scriptures to the contrary; nor should you ever be able to prove, That the asserting of two Natures in Christ doth infer, The Son of God was not crucified for us; we all of us do maintain the former, and do disclaim the later as irrational. But I do not see any reason to cast off these ancient Writers for some unwary expressions; yea, I do avouch, that it is but toying and trifling away precious time, to catch at the advantage of a word against the common, and well known sense of the Fathers. I answer, There is but one person of Christ, consisting of these two Natures: this Person was given to us, and died for us, but not in both his Natures; for the Deity( without question) was impassable, and I add, he dyed not accordingly to the whole of the human nature; for mans soul is Immortal, and cannot die, though the union betwixt the soul and body is dissolved; and yet it is true, the Son of God, that is God by his blood purchased a Church, and such actions as these in a reasonable Creature are the actions of a Person. I look upon such unworthy objections as these are fitter for children and Sophisters, then for grave understanding men, as they would be reputed which desire to embrace the truth in love thereof. Bidle. When a Person assumeth any thing, and the thing assumed die, you cannot therefore say, that the assuming person dies. Otherwise when a man assumeth a garment( I use the similitude because the Adversaries are wont by it to explain the Incarnation which they have imagined) and the garment is rent or taken away; the man may be therefore said to be rent or taken away. Answer. I explain your rule, When a thing assumed by a Person dieth, we cannot say, the Person assuming death wholly and absolutely; yet we may truly say, that the Person, in regard of the human assumed nature, dieth; that which doth appertain to a part of the whole is by a Syne●d●che ascribed to the whole by a communication of properties; that is, the parts of man hypostatically united to the Person of the Son of God, were separated not from the Person of the Son of God, but touching that essential union which was betwixt themselves. The similitude taken from an assumed garment holds not in the main, the Garments are not assumed to the Person of man, as a part thereof, as the human nature subsists in the Person of the son of God, and therefore though I cannot properly say, if the garment be rent, the man is rent; yet I may truly say, if the flesh of man be rent, the man is rent, according to that rule in logic, Quicquid est parts, qua pars, illudest totius secundùm illam partem. Bidle. But the Adversaries will reply, The Scripture saith, The Word was made flesh, John 1.14. And doth not this imply an Incarnation, and consequently two Natures in Christ? Nothing less, for the Text may as well be rendered, The Word was flesh. Since the Greek {αβγδ}, here used in the sixth verse of this very Chapter, and Rom. 11.6. and in sundry other places is so rendered in our English Translation. Answer. The Adversary takes an unreasonable occasion to speak against the Incarnation of our blessed Saviour, which more fitly he might have spoken to in the third Article, where he would prove that Christ had only a human Nature. In this strange work Christ exceedingly humbled himself, and yet manifested the glory of his Power, Wisdom, and Mercy most eminently. I will follow his wandring steps, and after I have explained his words, I will speak to his allegation. The Word spoken of in the first verse, John 1.1. which was God, became flesh, not in its own Nature, and in the form of God, but in the assumed form of a servant in regard of the Identity of the Person: Flesh may signify the human nature precisely, as often in Scripture; or the humanity simply, as 1 Tim 3.16. Or grant, that by Spirit is meant the condition, or the adjunct qualities of frailtinesse, that is, a frail man; as it is also taken in other places of Scripture, Gen 6 12. Psal 65.3. Isaiah 45. and 49. Psal. 145 21. 1 Pet. 1.24. And thu● also the soul which is a part, is very usually put for the whole man. Now, that there is a Synecdoche, appears by other Scriptures wherein Christ is called man; and so it is taken here, as the Adversary will readily yield: the question is, how {αβγδ} is to be rendered. I do not doubt but that word hath various significations, and that it is to be translated in that sense which is most suitable to the subject matter in hand. It is a sign of a proud spirit, to affect singularity without cause in translating and expounding Scripture. Where is the Translations old or new which have turned {αβγδ}, as you have done? I have consulted with many, and canno● meet with one of your m●nd. The Learned Grotius nameth Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertul●ian, which make mention of the Word being made flesh: and what Father ever contradicted it? I make no question but when {αβγδ} is spoken of an existing thing in regard of time and place, and such like circumstances, it may and must, if not always, yet most frequently be rendered, Was: It sounds not well in our English tongue to say, John 1.6,( the first alleged place to avouch this Translation) There was made a man sent from God, for he was a man, before he was sent to be a Preacher. The other place, Rom. 11.6. If of Grace, then not of Works, otherwise grace is no more grace: thus we red it. Nor is this Text pertinently alleged, because it is not spoken of substance; but when it is used to denote a notable change( as it were) from one extreme to another; then is it most fitly and fully translated to clear the Text, Was made. Thus in change of condition, to instance in Joseph, He being a poor imprisoned slave, is made Ruler over all the Land of Egypt, and when a poor man is become rich by the liberal gifts of a friend, {αβγδ}, He was made rich( as we say) by such or such means. And when Paul a persecutor of Christians was turned Christian, we say, he was made a Christian, viz. by Gods grace and rich mercy; and this rule holds most firmly when {αβγδ} is spoken of a thing which had no existence by being made. There was a time when the Word was not made flesh, In the beginning was the Word: The Word did not begin to be, when the world and time first began; for by the Word all things were created. The Virgin Mother of our Lord had no being at all for the space almost of four thousand years from the beginning of the Creation, and her Son, in respect of what he had from her, could not be in the world before his own mother. Well then, The Word was made flesh, say our translators; others, which is all one with ours, The Word became flesh; you say, the Word was flesh. These are different expressions, but an Orthodoxal Interpreter will observe the same sense in them all. You say, the Word was flesh: I ask, How the Word was flesh? Must not you be forced to say, That it was flesh by being made flesh, as all others are, as they are by being made so: the Word neither is, nor was, nor is made flesh, but by Incarnation: If the Word be flesh, it cannot be the same with flesh, for there are different descriptions of them, and the one of them could not be separated from the other, as flesh is from the Word; and yet Socinians say, That now Christ hath no flesh in heaven; but if the Word was flesh, and not made flesh, then is it necessary and essentially flesh, and it would perpetually and immutably continue flesh, and it would be an implicit contradiction to deny it to be flesh, which the Adversaries will not admit. Again, the Word was made flesh in the Virgins womb; but the Word, as it is the Word described by Saint John, was not made the Word in the Virgins womb, and and therefore the Word was the Word before it was made flesh. We say, The Word was made flesh, because the Word assumed that thing into the unity of his sacred person, which was made, and is flesh: and after the same manner is the flesh said to be made God, Damascen. lib. 4. Orthod. fidei, cap. 19. Deified {αβγδ}, not really in itself, but because it is personally united to him, who is really and truly God: there is a just reciprocation betwixt these two, the Word was made flesh, and the flesh was made the Word, by a communication of Properties in a large sense; and so the Word is said to be made poor and subject to miseries, not in regard of the Divine, but assumed Nature: The Word was made flesh by assuming the flesh which he had from his mother, into the subsistence of his Person. Gal. 44. Rom. 1.3. The Word( a subsisting person) did not assume the person of man pre-existing, the least moment of time before his assumption, as Nesterius dreamed: but he took the flesh and nature of man; and remaining what he was before, he took that which he had not; viz. he was both perfect God, and perfect man. Bidle. Add hereunto, So to render the Word, is far more suitable to the scope of the place. For how absurd would it be for John, having already spoken of the things which the Word had done as man, as that he was in the world, enlightened man; came to his own, and his own received him not; afterwards to tell us that the Word became flesh, that is a man? Answer. That which is spoken of the Word, In the beginning was the Word, John 1.1. Could not be meant of Christ as man, but of the Word as God; for in the beginning of that Chapter, there is no mention made of the Gospel at all; nor doth the Text inform us what Christ did, but where and with whom the Word was; viz. with God, {αβγδ} is the principal subject. Besides, if Mr. Bidle saith true, and the natural order had been observed, the words would have run thus, In the beginning the Word was flesh; but the word, was in the beginning, and afterwards made flesh. but they say, The Word in the beginning was flesh, and afterwards was made God; besides, {αβγδ} is not to be turned, Was, because if we look into the Context, it speaks much of the Word, and seven times at least {αβγδ}, was; and never {αβγδ}. And what reason can the Adversary give why the Evangelist would not use in this fourteenth verse {αβγδ} also, if he had meant any such thing? Bsides, it is added, All things were made by the Word. If this had been meant of all things pertaining to the Gospel; all things were not made by him in the judgement of the Socinians, as the opening of heaven, the descent of the Holy Ghost in the shape of a Dove, and many the like. Nor is it clear, That there is any mention of what Christ had done as man, till the fortieth Verse; to be sure, not till the sixth Verse; for what you object to the contrary is answered by some learned Writers. He was in the world, say you: For so he was( say they) in the beginning, and so eminently that the world was made by him; not that other, enlightening every man with the light of reason and understanding that is born of a woman; for he is that true, heavenly and divine Light, like the Sun to enlighten the world; nor the last, which is most likely, he came to his own viz by his choice and favour; all the world is his by right of creation; but the Jews more specially his peculiar people, which in a peculiar manner he owned above all Nations and instructed them in his ways. Well, grant that the meaning is, he came amongst them as man; he was born, lived and wrought Miracles in that Nation, yet this is only in general terms asserted; but for more clear explication, which is not unusual in the Prophets and Apostles, the manner how he came amongst them, is not described till the fourteenth verse. I add, if all these things which you have particularly name do belong to the Word( as you say) as he is man: What reason can you yield why it should be more absurd to say, he was made flesh, then he was flesh, that is, man? for did he become man after he had done all these things before? Doth he set that in the last place which was first? Bidle. But if our Interpretation be admitted, all things exactly agree, for having spoken divers excellent things of Christ under the name of the Word, and having ascribed Divinity to him, a Scruple might thereupon presently arise in the minds of the Hearers, what might be the Nature and substance of the Word, whether he was a Spirit or God himself; wherefore to exclude all doubting concerning this matter, he telleth them that the Word was Flesh; that is, a mortal man. Answer. The Apostle John, I grant, speaks most glorious things of the Word in that Chapter, which are so eminent, that no Creature is capable of them: And he proves his Divinity by three Arguments in the Text. 1. His Eternity, because he was always with God. 2. His Omnipotent power, because all things were created by him. And 3. In that he gives grace to the Elect, and natural light and understanding to all men: and then in the fourteenth verse, which was a wonderful condescension, he shows, that the Word was made flesh As for your Analysis, it is both false and absurd, for what reason had any to question his Deity, when the Holy Apostle saith expressly, The Word was God? Or how could they have any Scruple in their minds, that those things mentioned afterward could be meant of a mortal man? and upon your supposition, that all the while he conversed with them, they saw him to be a man, and heard him speak with the tongue of a man,( unless they should with Marcionists dream, that he had a fantastical body) how could they, I say, make any scruple that he was flesh, that is, a man, a mortal and an afflicted man? Bidle. Furthermore, That the Interpretation of the Adversaries, together with their Inference thereupon, can at no hand consist; but that they must of necessity come ever to our opinion touching one Nature in Christ, I thus evince, If the Word was made flesh, then either h● was something when he was made flesh, or nothing: if nothing, there was no Incarnation( since that impli●th the adding of flesh to that which is already something) and consequently, but one Nature in Christ. If something, then a Spirit( as the Adversaries grant;) if the Word being a Spirit was made flesh, he ceased to be a Spirit, and was changed into flesh; for in the Scripture when one substance is said to be another, it signifieth that one is changed into another; John 2.9. The water was made wine; when the water was made wine, it ceased to be water, and was turned into wine, as the Ruler well perceived by his taste, telling the Bridegroom that he had( contrary to custom) reserved the best wine till the last, ver. 10. Answer. This Adversary is very confident that his Bulrushes are wounding weapons, and no remedy, we must yield to his sense; he hath a strong imagination like a deep Melancholist, that things impossible must needs be, as he conceiveth, and being giddy in his brain, he doubts not but all things turn round. I answer to this Dilemma, The Word was something before he was made flesh, and we doubt not but he was an Infinite, uncreated Spirit: But your Inference, That he ceased to be a Spirit, when he was made flesh, is most false, and the strength of your proof drawn from an instance of water turned into Wine is very fallacious, from a particular to infer a universal; and by consequence, of Christ being before a Spirit, to be turned into flesh; for Christ becoming flesh, is not to be turned into flesh, into another substance; but the phrase importeth, that he assumed another nature and became man, whereas he was not man till then; and yet he remained the Word as he was before. God the Word was made man, as the council of Chalcedon defined, {αβγδ}, neither by turning any thing of the Word into the flesh, nor any thing of the flesh into the Word, but as the Apostle saith, Philip. 2. and Heb. 2. He took the form of a servant, the seed of Abraham into the Unity of his person. Your Achillean Argument is thus framed, Something that is made another is changed into the substance of that other, as water is into wine; and therefore the Word being made flesh, is turned into flesh, and ceaseth to be a Spirit. Do you see your error? You might have observed from the next ensuing words, how far remote your Interpretation is from truth. The Word dwelled amongst us, in our flesh as in a Tabernacle; our human Nature was as a Tent for him, to appear amongst us most gloriously. {αβγδ} comes originally from {αβγδ}, Schecina, A habitation for God. So that in a large similitude he was made flesh, as brass, or Marble, or ston are made a Pillar, as a Logician is made an Orator, as Aaron was made an High Priest, as David was made a King; these ceased not to be in substance what they were before, but they began to be what they were not. But more fitly is the Word compared to a three, and the human Nature is as it were engrafted into him; or like the body of Adam, the infusion of the immortal soul into it, makes it not to cease to be a body. Bidle. Wherefore though it should be granted to the Adversaries, That Christ had a spiritual nature before he was born of the Virgin Mary, yet for as much as in the place under contestation( which is the chief, if not the only Text alleged by them to prove the Incarnation) it is according to their own Interpretation said, that the Word was made flesh: This clearly importeth, that he ceased to have a spiritual nature, and was changed into flesh, and so still had but one, namely, that of flesh, or the humanity, which was the thing to be proved. Answer. If you will grant that Christ had a spiritual nature before the Incarnation, which is {αβγδ}, the thing your Adversaries contend for, your Cause, to be sure, is lost; for that nature being spiritual and immortal cannot cease to be, it cannot be changed into a creature, which is flesh and mortal. Your Inference whereby you would bring us to an absurdity, is grounded( as I have shewed) upon a false Interpretation of these words, The Word was made flesh; which is a very strong, but not the only Text to prove the Incarnation of our Saviour, for there are many others which you cannot elude; for, Heb. 2.16. The Son of God took not the seed of Angels, but of man; that is, he was made man by assuming the Seed of Abraham into the Unity of his Person. How can that which doth not subsist, assume any thing? Of necessity then there must be another nature of the Son of God besides the human; and this is necessary to be believed, 1 John 4.2. And the Apostle Paul is plain, God was manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. And this is made good by two Arguments in the Text, John 1.14. First, because it is said, We saw his Glory; What glory? His glory manifested by working Miracles, Joh. 2.11 Secondly, Because he is called, The only bogotten Son of God. His generation then from the Father is different from all others; others are Sons by Grace, and therefore he is the Son of God by Nature. Your Supposition, which was the position of Eutiches and Dioscorus, related in that famous Synod of Chalcedon, Act. 1. That there were two Natures of Christ before the union, afterwards one was made of both, that great Synod consisting of six hundred and thirty Bishops, cried out Anathema to them which say so; and in the fifth Action, they put into their Creed, We confess the only begotten Son of God, in the last dayes— is to be acknowledged one Christ in two Natures, without confusion, without conversion, without division, without separation, and that the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union. After a long Digression taken by occasion of a phrase out of Arnobius, and the examination thereof, I return to the author, and do avouch that it is an unworthy practise by searching to pick out a few harsh phrases, and to urge them as the Authors sense, when he is a professed enemy to that Tenet, which I will now briefly demonstrate; and albeit he was but a Catechumen, yet was he taught this prime and fundamental Doctrine of the Deity of Christ, which he professed and propugned against the Gentiles. He was that sublime God( speaking of Christ) he was in truth God without ambiguity, Lib. 1. pag. 37. And he sheweth in the next page., that he wrought Miracles by the power of his Divinity; and demonstrates afterwards, that he gave power to his Disciples to work miracles. Moreover, If Christ was God( as the Gentiles objected) why was he seen in the form of man? Why was he killed? An aliter potuit invisibilis illa vis(& habens nullam substantiam corporalem) infer& accommodare se mundo,— quàm ut aliquod tegmen materiae solidioris assumeret, quod oculorum susciperet injectum?— Assumpsit igitur hoins formam,& sub nostri generis similitudine potentiam suam clausit, ut& videri posset. Whence it appears, that Arnobius was a catholic, touching the Deity of Gods Son. Bidle. Lactantius the first place. Lactantius Divinar. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 6. God the framer and maker of all things, as we said in the second Book, before he set upon this famous work of the world, begot a holy, incorruptible Spirit, whom he called his Son. Answer. Lactantius Firmianus was scholar to Arnobius, an Italian by birth, and called Firmianus from the town Firminus the place of his Nativity; he was a most fluent Orator, and therefore called Lactantius from his sweet Eloquence, as Chrysostom from his excellent Eloquence, a golden mouth. This author lived under the Emperors Dioclesion and Constantine the Great; he hath some blemishes, as is thought, touching the nature of God, which are severely enough observed by the Magedburgians, albeit other Writers do make a favourable construction of his sayings. The first place may easily be answered, he begot his Son before the Creation of the world; who doubts of that? He doth not say He created him, but he begot him before the world. Doth he tell you how long before the world? We also do say, if it will do you any pleasure, that he begot this incorruptible Spirit before the world was made: but for a suller manifestation of the truth, we add, from all eternity. Bidle. Lactan. the second place. Chap. 11. He( the Son) kept touch with God, for he taught there was one God only, and that he alone ought to be worsh●pped; neither did he ever call him God, because he had not discharged his trust, if being sent to take away Gods, and to assert one God, he should introduce another besides one—; therefore because he was so faithful, because he assumed nothing at all to himself, that he might fulfil the commands of the Sender, he received the dignity of an eternal Priest, and the honour of a sovereign King, and the power of a Judge, and the name of a God. Answer. These words in my Book, are not in the thirteenth, but fourteenth Chapter. Lanctantius often speaks of a double Nativity of Christ, and in this Chapter of that Nativity which was in time; in which regard he was, as he saith, {αβγδ}, without a Father, as he was in the former Nativity, {αβγδ}, without a Mother. And look back to the thirteenth Chapter, he saith, Christ is both God and man; the power of his Godhead appears in his Works, and the frailtiness of man in his passion. And he proves that he was true God by Heb. 1. and Isai. 1. God is in thee, and there is no other God but thee; and by that in the Psalm, Thy Throne( O God) is for ever and ever; and also by the Prophet Jeremy; yea, in this quoted Chapter he saith, They laid their wicked hands on their God: and much more to this purpose. What then, Shall we by looking on your Quotation say, there is a contradiction in these words, if they be compared with the former? I do profess, I had rather aclowledge mine own ignorance touching their meaning, or reconcile him to himself by a favourable construction, then do so. Thus he speaks of Christ as our mediator, and of the assumed nature, which in the abstract is not to be worshipped with religious Adoration, for this is a Prerogative due to God, which he taught, only ought to be worshipped. And whereas he saith, Christ called not himself God, though you will make no scruple so to call him, yea, and to worship him; and gives a reason, because he should have introduced another God besides one. To this I answer, That Lactantius often calls him God, and out of the Scriptures( as I have shewed) proves him to be God; yea, and Christ himself would have the Jews conceive, that he was God, both by his miraculous works, and by his forgiving of sins, and when they whispered and counted it blasphemy, For who( say they) can forgive sins but God? He proves that he is truly God, because it is one and the self same infinite power to work a miracle and to forgive sins: and when they objected against him, in that he being man made himself equal to God, he deneis it not, but proves that he might challenge to himself that Title; if they are called Gods to whom the Word of God came: and by his silencing the Jews by that question, Mat. 22. The Lord said to my Lord, How doth he call him Lord-being his Son? How then can we salue the words of Lactantius? Thus: The human Nature of Christ which was visible to the Jews, was without dispute a Creature, and not God; and if any should have given divine worship to that Creature abstractedly taken, he should by that anlawful act introduce plurality of Gods. Bidle. Lactant, the third place. Chap. 29. I will use a nearer example: when any one hath a Son, which he entirely loveth, who notwithstanding is in the house and power of his Father, although he grant him the name and power of Master, yet in the Civil Law it is called but one house, and one Master: In like manner, this world is one house of God, and the Son, and the Father, who unanimously inhabit the world, one God, because both one is as two, and two as one.— And no marvel, since both the Son is in the Father, because the Father loveth the Son; and the Father in the Son, because he faithfully obeyeth the Will of his Father, and never doth nor did, but what the Father willed or commanded; for there is one only free most High God, without Original, because he is the Original of all things; and in him both the Son and all things are contained, wherefore since the mind and will of the one is in the other, or rather one in both, both are deservedly called one God, because whatsoever is in the Father, issu●th out to the Son, and whatsoever is in the Son descendeth from the Father; wherefore this supreme and singular God cannot be worshipped but through the Son; he that thinketh he worshippeth the Father only, as he doth not worship the Son, so doth not he worship the Father; but he that entertaineth the Son and beareth his name, he together with the Son doth also worship the Father, because the Son is the ambassador, and Messenger, and Priest of the sovereign Father. Answer. The words of lactantius, wherein is any seeming proof against the Deity of the Son of God, are meant of Christ as he was our mediator; in this regard he was Gods ambassador, Messenger and Priest, for the performance of which Office, both Natures, the Divine and the human do necessary concur in one Person: In this regard, and simply as he was man, he was at the command of God the Father. And whereas it is objected, That in the Father both the Son and all things are contained: I deny it not; but Gods Son and other things are not in God after the same manner: They are in God as the essential conserving and upholding Cause; but Gods Son, as in his Original: and as there is one and the same Mind, Will, and Majesty both of the Father and of the Son. There are very many Arguments in this Quotation and Chapter to prove the Deity of Gods Son; for the first, he saith, The Father and Son are one God, that they have( simply) one mind and will, and thereupon are justly called one God; and whatsoever is in the Father issueth out to the Son. Can this be truly spoken of any Creature? He that worshippeth not the Son, worshippeth not the Father. So that, when he said, Chap. 14. That one God alone is to be worshipped, he had no intention to exclude the Son from the honour of divine Worship. Look we now forward to the beginning of this Chapter, and the matter will be fully cleared: and we may take notice with what fidelity Mr. Bidle cites the Testimonies of the Fathers. Lactantius meets with an Objection, When we say, that we worship one God, and yet do say also that the Son is God, how is it then that we do not worship two Gods?— This is a trouble to them, that they suppose we confess that there is another God, and that the other is a Mortal God; I have spoken of his Mortality( viz. as man) and now will discourse of his Unity. When we say God the Father and God the Son, we do not say a divers thing, nor do we separate the one from the other, for neither can the Father be without the Son, nor the Son without the Father;— for as the Father makes the Son, so doth the Son make the Father, Relata●se mutuo ponunt. And then he adds, Una utrique mens, unus Spiritus,& una substantia est; There is one Mind, one Spirit, and ore Substance to them both. Could we wish for a clearer confutation of the Adversary? And then he illustrates the point by these comparisons, That God is as the Fountain, Christ as the River; God is as the S●n. Gods Son as a Beam of Light issuing from him; the Water of the River is in the Fountain, and the Light of the Sun in the Beam. After some words of the Adversaries quotation, he omits these which are used by the Author, and lie betwixt those words, which the Father willed and commanded; and these, For there is one only fr●● most High God; Lastly, That God the Father and God the Son are one God; Isaiah sheweth, They shall worship thee, because God is in thee, and there is no other God besides thee▪ And in another place, Thus saith the Lord God, the King of Israel, and the eternal God which delivereth thee; I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no other. When he had pronounced two Persons of the God of Israel, that is, the Person of Christ, and of God the Father.— And relating to the words of the Prophet Hosea, he speaking of both Persons, yet infers, Besides me there is no other God: he might have said, besides us, Praeter nos. Cast up now your Accounts, and you may, according to the Proverb, put all your gains from Lactantius into you eyes, and see never the worse. Bidle. Lactan. the fourth place. Lactan de Ira cap. 2. The first step whereby we do ascend to the house of truth is to understand false Religion, and to cast away the impious forms of divine worship f●amed by the hands of men. The second is, to perceive in the mind, that there is one Most High God, whose Power and Providence made all things from the beginning, and governeth them ever sithence. The third, to know his Minister and ambassador whom he sent into the world, by whose teaching being freed from Error we might learn righteousness. From the first step, we see them slide, who when they understand the things that are false, yet find not out the truth. From the second step we say, they fall, who consent that there is one Most High God, yet being estranged with false reasoning, do think otherwise of that only Majesty then the truth is, either denying that God hath any shape, or thinking that he is moved with no affection, because every affection argueth weakness, which hath no place in God. From the third they are tumbled headlong, who knowing the ambassador of God, the Builder of a divine and immortal Temple, yet either receive him not, or receive him otherwise then the faith requireth. Answer. 1. Christ ministered not to God as a servant to his Master, but as a Son to his Father. Christ, considered as he was man, and our Mediator, as Lactantius understands, thus did minister to God, was obedient to him, and is called his servant, Isai. 42 1. And in this respect he was in regard of his office inferior to him. 2. In the next place, where Lactantius taxeth them that say, God had no shape or figure; I do dislike the phrase, as not consonant to Scripture, which do proclaim that God is a Spirit: No nor to Lactantius himself( unless he means, as Tertullian did, that God had a body; that is, he had not a fantastical, but a real being) for lib. 7. Institut. cap. 9. he saith, That God cannot be seen with mortal eyes, nor apprehended by any real sense; yet by the effects he is seen, and by his admirable Works: and thus other things there are which cannot be seen, as a voice, a smell, and the wind; yet by their effects they are seen: quid voice clariùs, aut vento fortiùs, aut odour violentiùs. However, whether Lactantias erred in this particular or not, the words make nothing for the adversary. The third step concerns the Adversary, for he receiveth Christ otherwise then our holy faith requireth. I have now answered what is objected out of Lactantius against the Deity of Christ, and have already proved it, in opening and clearing the Testimonies cited out of him; and this will further appear by these two considerations, which will put the matter out of doubt, that this author was orthodox in this Article of Faith, albeit I will not deny that he hath harsh expressions, which cannot( if they be taken in rigour) be excused. 1. The first is, That he is owned as a catholic by the Homoousians; his testimony is alleged to this purpose, and he is not reckoned by them in the number of the Arians. And ours do much wonder that he is brought upon the Stage to act a part against the Trinity, who hath given clear testimony of the soundness of his faith in these high Mysteries. Secondly, Because the author reckons by name the Arians, with the Novatians, Valentinians and Marcionists, which cease to be Christians, and are called by the names of men, and saith, It is the catholic Church alone which retains the true worship, and he that is not as a Son in the bosom of this Church, or forsakes the communion of it, hath no right to heaven, lib. 4. cap. 30. I conclude with his Verses De Beneficiis Christi. Et mox, Quisquis ades, medii queen subis in limine Templi, Siste parum, insontemque tuo pro crimine passum, Respice me.— Te propter vitamque tuam sum Virginis Alvum Ingressus, sum factus homo, atque horrentia passus Funcra.— Bidle. Eusebius. Eusebius Pamphilus that renowned scholar, who was in so high esteem with Constantine the Great, that he was deemed worthy to be Bishop of the whole world, Lib. 3. de Ecclesiastica Theologia cap. 3. He that is beyond all things, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, being an unexpressible good, and withal the governor of all things, and of the Holy Spirit himself, yea of the only begotten Son of God.— And he only may be called that one God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but the Son, that only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father; and the Holy Ghost neither God nor Son, not having his production from the Father in like manner as the Son, but is one of the things which were made by the Son, for all things were made by him. Answer. In the Catalogue of Books written by Eusebius( many of which are lost) I find no mention at all of this Treatise either by Papists or ours, reckoning up the Fathers Works, or in their Polemical Writings; and I not having such an uncharitable opinion of Mr. Bidle, that he would mention an author of his own devising, and being at a loss, I writ to my learned friend, known to me only by Letters, Mr. Smith, bachelor in Divinity, and Student in Christs college, a great searcher of Authors, and he at length acquainted me, that this Treatise, Contra Marcellum de Ecelesiastica Theologia, is printed lately at Paris, after his Book, Demonstrat. Evangelicae. I do red indeed, that Socrates lib. Eccles. Histor. cap. 17, allegeth Eusebius contra Marcellum, to prove him orthodox. But whether these Books now printed are truly his, or falsely fathered on him, I am not able to give an account, but do refer the decision hereof to the learned, which have better abilities and opportunity to search the truth herein, then I have. And touching the sense of this author, I am not solicitous to inquire, not can I give an answer, but only from the Citations of Bidle, and his acknowledgement touching this Author, who confesseth afterwards that he was no Arian, but an Homoousian. Eusebius Pamphilas, who was suspected at first to be an Arian, and scrupled for a time, yet afterward he subscribed to the council of Nice, Socrates Eccles. Histor. lib. 1. cap. 5. And he adds a form of Faith of his own penning, with this Preface red before the most pious Emperour Constantine the Great. [ This Faith( saith he) was the faith of the Bishops which were our Predecessors, and which we received in our Baptism, in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which we held and maintained when we were a Presbyter and when a Bishop; so we believed and so we taught; and now do declare our faith to you in this manner: We believe in one God the Father Almighty,— and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only begottten Son,— begotten of his Father before all worlds,— who was incarnate for our salvation.— We believe also in the Holy Ghost.] In this faith he resolved to live and to die. Socrates Eccles. Histor lib. 1. cap. 5. Theodoret lib. 1. Histor. cap. 12. And this symbol of Faith was approved to be Orthodox, both by the Emperor and Fathers. And in the fifth Book Demonstrat. Evangelicae, he proves by many Arguments that Christ is true God. This eminent Writer then was neither Ebyonite nor Arian. Bidle. Lib. 2. cap. 17. The addition of the Article to the Name God, teacheth us to esteem him the prime God; but John 1.1. the omitting of the Article shows the Word was that very God over all, but yet that he also was a God. Lo here( say you) the observation of Eusebius himself, that the Article restraineth the word to the most strict and excellent signification, and by putting our indefinite Article[ the] before it, the God; or without it to use the indefinite Article[ a], A God. Answer. There may be good use sometimes, I confess, of this Observation; but there can be no general rule hereof; for sometimes it signifies the generality of a kind, as well as that which is most excellent of a kind; as {αβγδ} signifies mankind, and {αβγδ}, all the Divels; nor is it allowed without limitation, either by the suffrage of the Scriptures, or the Testimony of the ancient Fathers, Justin Martyr and Chrysostom, as I formerly have shewed. Bidle. Neither will this observation seem nice to him who shall consider, that the English Translators themselves make use of it in rendering that passage, Acts 12.22. Its the voice of a God, and not of a man. Act. 28.6. They changed their minds, and said, He was a God. And Hebr. 8.10. I will be to them a God. Answer. To this I answer, 1. In General, and then Particularly to the several Scriptures. 1. I say, That our translators may use their liberty in their Translation and render the true God, a God, and be far from your meaning: What is more usual then to say( they are the words of Mr. Culverwel, a young man famous for deep Speculations) You that are reconciled to a God of Peace, and redeemed by a Saviour that breatheth out nothing but love; you that are sealed and sanctified by a spirit of unity, and have embraced a Gospel of peace in all meekness and subjection of mind. 2. Particularly, I answer to the first place, That it makes nothing for the Adversary, but rather much against him; for these Applauders did not call Herod a God; for they saw him to be a mortal man; but they said, It is the voice of a God, and not of man: and this differs much from the former, for whether they were the Tyrians or Sydonians, which after a Peace concluded heard this Oration, and like flattering Parasites so highly extolled his excellent Speech, the truth whereof is not now in question; their meaning was, that God spake it by the mouth of Herod, as he was wont to speak by Prophets and Prophetesses. And if they were Idolaters in worshipping many Gods, most probable it is, that their chief and highest God was meant thereby. And if it be the voice of his Subjects after the departure of the Tyrians ambassadors, as is most likely, then doth it make much against the Adversary, for they acknowledged but one only God; so that to them, a God, and God, are the same God, and he is plagued for not ascribing glory to God who enabled him to speak in that excellent manner. To the second, Though it is not material what Barbarians and ignorant people do speak in such matters; they said, Paul was a God. And did they not judge him to be in truth a God and not a Creature, when they saw he had no hurt by that poisonful Creature which did hang on his hand? The third place, Heb. 8.10. I will be to them a God, is opposite to your observation; for was not this God called a God, the most High God, and this people a people, the people of God in the most strict and excellent signification? Verily he is blind that sees it not. The like may be observed in many other places, to name but one, Jer. 23 23. which is in effect, I am a God not only at hand but afar off. Exod. 6.7. I will be to you a God. Bidle. Where now is that usual brag of the Adversaries, that the universal Church ever since the Apostles time hath held the opinion touching three Persons in one and the supreme Godhead? Did not Eusebius ( that great Antiquary and searcher of the Christian Libraries, and first Writer of the Ecclesiastical History) know better then any man that hath lived since his time, what hath been generally held amongst Christians concerning the holy Trinity—? Answer. No Sir, we do not brag, but praise God for this unity of the Church touching the Trinity, and do comfort ourselves that we do walk in the old way, that good way trodden by the Church of God in every age before our dayes: And who would not judge by this exclamation that Mr. Bidle had found out an Author of great note of his judgement? but you shall hear him by and by sing another Song. It is a small thing to allege the Testimony of a few branded heretics, which before those dayes most notoriously lifted up their heads, and made a violent assault against this truth in the dayes of that active and subtle heretic Arius. When Christianity was publicly embraced and countenanced by Great Constantine& when the devil was cast out of his Throne, and Paganish Idolatry was much weakened, then doth he craftily and in a rage invent a new plot, and stir up his choicest Instruments to infect the Church with the pernicious heresy of Arianism; and had not the Christian Emperor by a holy council, summoned and assembled by his Princely Authority, stopped that inundation, the Church had been in danger to have been swallowed up, Revel. 12.14, 15. Much may you make of such Patrons of heresy; yet what is this to the disadvantage of the catholic Church, which cast out, as the Sea doth froth, such detected enemies, and that most justly, out of her communion? Bidle. Neither let any man go about to traduce Eusebius ( as some have done) by saying he was an Arian, for that doth not invalidate his Testimony concerning Antiquity; But whosoever shall diligently peruse either his Oration to Constantine, or his Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration, or those Books of his, de Ecclesiastica Theologia, shall find him to be no Arian, but an Homoousian; For whereas Arius held, that God before he created the world of nothing, created a Spirit, his Son, which was afterwad incarnated: Eusebius on the contrary affirmed, That God before he made the world did in an ineffable manner generate out of his own substance a Son, who afterwards assumed a bumane nature. Answer. I may with reason apply that speech not belonging to our Saviour, which his Adversaries made use of: What need we any more witnesses? we hear Mr. biddles own confession, whereby he contradicts himself, and makes voided his observation, touching the omission of an Article where Christ is called God. For if Eusebius was an Homoousian, and held the Son consubstantial with his Father, he was a catholic, for that term was a symbol used to distinguish betwixt an heretic and a catholic: why then is his Testimony alleged to the contrary? For though Eusebius did stick at the word consubstantial, for a time, yet having explained his meaning to the satisfaction of the Christian Emperour, he subscribed to the Nicene Creed, and that upon good reason; for sithence the infinite Nature of God is Indivisible, yea and God himself, it is not possible that he to whom this infinite Nature is communicated, should be a Creature: but he must of necessity bee very God: and did he not as I have shown) embrace the catholic faith, and Anathematize every evil Sect contrary to that symbol? as Theodoret relates, lib 1. c. 12. I may now, to your shane, retort those your swelling words touching Eusebius. Did not Eusebius, that great Antiquary and Searcher of Christian Libraries, and the first Writer of Ecclesiastical History, know better then Mr. Bidle or any Antitrinitarian, which have lived since his time, and as it were but yesterday, what had been held amongst Christians concerning the holy Trinity? Now this author telleth us expressly, That his Predecessors held his faith, that he sucked it from his baptism, that he learned it out of the Holy Scriptures, and embraced the Doctrine and Faith which others before him had taught out of Gods Word touching the Deity of the Son of God. You might with as good reason say, That the Nicene Fathers, against whom the men of your faith are wont to ratle, held there was a time( if I may have leave so to speak) when the first Person of the holy Trinity was not a Father. Bidle. Object. Eusebius pronounceth sentence against me and my opinion. I answer, He thwarteth as well what they hold as what I, in that he expressly denieth the Son to be the prime God; so that in the main I have Eusebius on my side, and not only him, but the Fathers also which lived in the two first Centuries, or thereabouts: neither could I ever meet with a passage in the undoubted Books of them, who wrote in those times, which did assert the Son or Spirit to be that one most High God. Answer. Eusebius and all the forealleged Fathers are against Mr. biddles Opinion; which me thinks should put him to a serious pause, and afford could comfort to his heart, when he cannot by his search find one holy Father to pled his Cause. The Father is the first; viz. in order of subsisting, and some pre-eminence is ascribed to him by the Fathers, in this respect, because he is a principle of the Son, and is himself without a Principle: and if in this sense any of the Fathers do call God the Father, the prime God, their catholic judgement in the main is not questioned by us. Whereas you tell us, That you never met with any undoubted Book written within two hundred years of the Lord, which asserted either the Son or the Holy Ghost, to be the most High God. Perhaps you regarded not all that you have red. But what need is there to hunt after terms? If by necessary consequence this Title must be attributed to God the Son and the Holy Ghost, albeit no such phrase is used by the Fathers, is it not wilfulness to require a term and a phrase, when the thing itself is sufficiently demonstrated? Now that the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are the Most High God by these concessions, which are obvious in the Fathers, must needs be granted. 1. That there is but one God, not many. 2. That this one God, is most high. 3. That the Son and Holy Ghost are God, and equal in Wisdom Glory and Power with God the Father. Now all these are confirmed by the Testimony of the Fathers which lived within the first two Centuries. if you could prove that the Son was but a Creature, and that the prime God and most High,( in your sense) subsisted when the Son was not, then I confess, you had strongly confirmed your Cause. But Eusebius himself, will discover your ignorance, as Theodoret shows, Lib. 1. Eccles. Histor. cap. 8. Ancient Bishops confuted some which said, Christ was a Creature, and not consubstantial with his Father; and used this word, the Son is of the same Essence with the Father. And Eusebius was not ignorant hereof, for he saith, There were some old Doctors and learned Bishops, which used the word coessentiality of the Deity of the Father and of the Son. And in the second general council held at Constantinople, about the year of Grace 384. in an Epistle to a roman Synod, the Fathers say, The Decrees of Faith by the three hundred and eighteen Bishops( at Nice) do please you and us, and all that do not pervert the word of true Faith, because it is most ancient, and a Consectary of Baptism, teaching us to believe in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; that there is one Divinity and Power of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, a Dignity of the same Honour, and a coeternal Kingdom in these three perfect subsistences. Your words, Mr. Bidle, are but light, if weighed in the Balance with these Worthies. Bidle. Hilary, who lived in the time of Constantius, son of Constantire the Great, Lib. 2. de Trinitate. explains those words, Matth. 28.19. saying, in the name of God, and of the only begotten, and of the Gift, and no where saith, the Holy Ghost is God, or to be worshipped: and he concludes the twelfth Book De Trinitate, thus, Custodi— Keep I beseech thee, this undefiled Religion of my Faith, being baptized in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which I have professed in the symbol of my Regeneration; and grant that I may always adore thee our Father, thy Son together with thee, and that I may obtain thy holy Spirit which is from thee by thy only begotten Son. Answer. hilary that eloquent Father, Bishop of poitiers in France, means the Father by the Name God, and he adds a Paraphrase to the other Persons: He saith expressly, Lib. 9. de Trinitate, Si unus Deus Pater, Christi non adimit ut unus sit Dominus; ita solus Pater verus Deus, Jesu Christi-non aufert ut unus Deus sit; showing that Christ is one God, and one with the Father, as he is one true Lord with the same Father. But say you, He no where saith, the Holy Ghost is God, or to be worshipped. This is( say I) but a Negative Argument, and concludes nothing Affirmatively. Doth he any where deny the Holy Ghost to be God, and that he ought not to be worshipped? It is true, Erasmus and others out of him, say, Scarce doth he mention the Holy Ghost to be God; the reason why he is so sparing in his Works to speak of the Holy Ghost, was, because( as Erasmus saith) he chiefly laboured to maintain the Deity of the Son of God, then opposed, because the human Nature made the matter more hard to be condescended unto; and because the controversy touching the Holy Ghost was not on foot in the Church in those dayes: yet is this intimated in his Book De Synodis, asserting, that they are reproved which say, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods. And Lib. 12. de Trinitate, he would not at any time confess the Holy Ghost to be a Creature, 1. because he searcheth and trieth the profound things of God; this is proper to God: nor do we know when he comes and goes away. And 2. because he is called the Spirit of God. Verily, if Hilary had erred in this main fundamental Article of faith, the catholic Church do not stand in need of a single Testimony though eminent in gifts, so far-to honour his memory, that they which delight in such Titles should usually name him Saint hilary. This excellent man did not only writ against the Arians, but constantly adhered to the Truth, and rather then he would revolt, was a banished man into Phrygia,( as Hierom in his Catalogue and Chronicle affirmeth, Anno Domini, 361. by a council held at Milan by the authority of Constantius the Emperour,) with four other eminent Bishops, Sozomen. Eccles. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 8. Bidle. I would have cited the Testimony of Ignatius, for he concurreth in the same opinion with the foregoing Authors; namely, that the Father only is that one God; yet in as much as the common Copies are interpelated, and that which is held the purest taken out of the valentine Library, hath something in it which argueth the Epistles to be supposititious; I have omitted them. Answer. It is true, Ignatius that ancient Father and Martyr agreeth with those which you have cited touching the only God; and if you had alleged his Testimony, the impertinency thereof, might easily have been shewed, as is already done in the Quotation of the foregoing Authors, he will be found so far from being your real friend, that I dare say the Arians can with no colour allege him for their cause You might have done well to have shewed, that all the Epistles that go under his name are supposititious. And if it be a good reason rendered by you, why you omit the Testimony of Ignatius, how happens it, that you have alleged Origen, whose Writings, as is confessed, have been notoriously corrupred? But I will prove that Ignatius was Orthodoxal in this point. Bidle. I will shut up all with a Testimony taken out of Mr. Brightman, which though contrary to the Opinion which he held touching the Son and the Holy Ghost, yet the tenor of the Revelation, as he intimateth, did extort from him, Rev. 1.4. Where he speaketh thus, We must know, that through this Book mention is made both here and elsewhere in general, of God, as the highest and chiefest governor, for which cause he hath a Throne given him; as also of the Son and Holy Ghost as ministering unto him, as by whose more nearly jayned help all things are made and done; wherefore they are said to stand before the Throne, as it were in a dreadfulness, and as though they did wait for the beck and bidding of the Highest governor. Doth not this Observation of Mr. Brightman quiter subvert his own, and consequently the common opinion touching the Trinity? Answer. Doth not this Observation of Mr. Brightman( say I) teach you( Mr. Bidle) that you have wronged the holy Fathers in citing them for your Opinion, because they sometimes and but seldom do use this term, and apply it to the Son of God, that he is the Minister of God? This is expounded by Saint hilary, de Synodis, your last alleged author, to be meant of ministering, not as a servant to his Master, but as a son to his Father, betwixt whom there is not inequality of nature or dignity, but the Authority of principle in the Father, which is not in the Son; and that this is so, yourself doth confess: for you say, He held, the Son of God and the Holy Ghost were coessential and coeternal with the Father; his words in the exposition of the Text do evince it. The Apostle John sets down one true God, yet three Persons: To be the Author of grace, peace, and truth, is common to the three Persons; but because the execution of Gods decrees was principally to be done by the Son and Holy Ghost, it is ascribed to the Father, whom the order of doing makes the Author of promising, and the fountain of bounty. And concludes thus,[ Those things which belong only to order, are not to be wrested to overthrow Nature. Grant then that Mr. Brightman( who is professedly sound in the faith) doth use an unfitting term touching Gods Son and the Holy Ghost, as Irenaeus lib. 3. advers. Haereses cap. 8. & lib. 4. cap. 13. and Tertullian, lib. adver. Praxeam, and others have done before him, which in these ancient Fathers was the more tolerable, because it was securely written, before the Arian controversy, to call the Son an Instrument. Nor was Mr. Brightman alone, for Luther also on Genes. 1. and Aretius on Rom. 11. do speak in that manner, yet neither did they nor Mr. Brightman use that term in the sense of the Arians, intending thereby to make them inferior to the first Person, and of another Nature, subordinated to him, and separated from him, as good Angels are, which are sent to walk through the earth, Zach. 1.10. and curiously to prie into all things, to bring( as it were) intelligence to God of the state of things abroad: But they mean hereby thus much only, that the Father in regard of the principle of order, and counsel, is before the Son;— Nor doth Mr. Brightman positively say, that God is the Supreme Monarch, and the Son his Minister; but he fetcheth a comparison from earthly Princes and their custom; there is some resemblance betwixt them and betwixt God the Father, and his Son; yet he would not have the comparison stretched too far, but writes cautelously with a qualification, quasi, as the Father is( as it were) the Supreme Governor; the Son and the Holy Ghost,( tanquam, as it were) his Ministers, implying that in propriety of speech they are no Ministers. Bidle. This Book of the Revelation doth give an exact and clear Testimony to my opinion touching the Holy Trinity; for Worship, Praise, judgement, Dominion& Salvation are no where throughout al the whole Book ascribed to the Holy Spirit, but only to God and to Christ; and when they are ascribed to Christ, he is no otherwise considered but as a man, for he is either called the Lamb, or said to have shed his blood, or to be the Christ of God. Chap. 1.5, 6. and Chap. 5.8, 9. Were Christ the most High God, coequal with the Father, how cometh it to pass that the Elders and Angels derive his worthiness to receive glory, not from that sublime consideration, but from one far inferior; namely, from his being a man slain? Answer. Christ is sometimes considered as the Son of God, simply; and sometimes as our mediator in threefold Offices, as Judge sitting upon a Throne( an allusion, as Mr. meed thinks and proves, to the Tabernacle; in the Tabernacle was the Sanctum, where the Ark was, in which God sate, see Chap. 4.5. in Revel.) the Angels of heaven in great multitudes attending on him; and as a Lamb slain, signifying his Priestly Office, Chap. 5.6. The seven horns do denote his Kingly power; and his seven eyes, taking and opening the Book, his Prophetical Office; but there was a concurrence of both Natures to the execution of his Offices: as to the Priestly Office, the human Nature was sacrificed, but the worth, merit and efficacy of his precious blood, whereby we were redeemed, flowed from the Divine Nature; there is no doubt at all but the person of Christ, whole Christ, both God and man is to be worshipped with Divine worship; but not the humanity, considered in an abstracted notion from the Person. It is true, this nature had a just claim to all the glory which God gave him after his Resurrection in this nature, by virtue of the hypostatical Union; and that would have been derived to it by a natural emanation, as I may say, had not the redundancy thereof been stayed by the unspeakable goodness of God, that he might save us by his bitter passion, which by Gods decree was appointed to be the Antecedent, or in a general sense the cause of all the Glory and Dignity communicated to him after his Ascension: and now do Angels and multitudes of Christians ascribe honour to him by a second Title, as a just reward of his sufferings, whereby he hath dearly bought us; yet is not this worship acquired in time, and exhibited to a Creature simply Divine, but inferior to it, as the Manhood, the object of it is inferour to the Divinity: Or else, if this Worship be simply Divine, and the same in kind with that which is exhibited to God the Father, it is to the divine Majesty and Person of the Lamb, for this new and rare benefit purchased for us by his blood; and hence is that Doxology called a new Song, Revel. 5.9. and Chap. 14.3. as Psal. 40.3. because this new benefit is a new Motive and Argument with joyful hearts to worship him. Bidle. Were the Holy Spirit the most High God, yea or so much as to be worshipped, how cometh it to pass, that in this famous Doxology, Chap. 5.8, 9. set down for a pattern to all succeeding ages, there is no honour and glory ascribed to the Holy Ghost, but only to him that sitteth on the Throne, and the Lamb. Surely the Doctrine of three Persons in God, was not known in the time of the Apostle John. Answer. The Lamb of God is {αβγδ}, and reigns with God over all; and this is clear by comparing these Scriptures together, Isai. 6. with Johu 12. Ezek. 1. with Apoc. 3.21. and 21.5, and 22.1, 3. And Christ as our Mediator reigns in a different manner in respect of his divers natures; for as he is God, he reigns by an infinite, as man by a finite Power, each nature working according to its kind; the divine works divinely, the human humanly, yet in communion with the other. God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, one blessed God for ever, do sit upon the Throne, and do judge, which is a common work of the sacred Trinity. Can you charge us that we say, the Holy Ghost is another God, and not the same with God the Father? So that if the first Person be meant by him who sits upon the Throne, yet is not the Holy Ghost excluded from that honour, but included in him, and so all the glory given to the Father and the Son redounds to him, who is very God; and the reason why the Holy Ghost is not mentioned, as Bisterfield against Crellius hath observed, and confidently enough, is because the Texts do not speak of the eternal Kingdom of the Holy Ghost, but of the kingdom of the Father and the Son, begun and consummate in this life. Here are divers troubles set down, which agree not to the Church Triumphant, This is so certain( saith he) though it seem new and strange to pious Writers, that without it many Prophesies will be nothing but darkness. And that the Holy Ghost hath glory ascribed to him, appears not only by Eusebius, lib. 1. de Vita Constantini cap. 7. and by Polycarp, a Disciple of the Apostles, yea and by Saint John himself, in whose dayes you do both vainly and falsely say the Doctrine of the Trinity was unknown, for if the Holy Ghost is God, he ought to be worshipped. What can be more full then those words? There be three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one. Nor i● it obscurely intimated Revel. 1.4. where, by seven Spirits, not only the greatest number of Protestants, but Primasi●s, Ambrose, Rupertus, Haimo, and anselm, as Ribera the jesuit relates in locum, do understand the Holy Ghost and his perfection, the manifold gracious operations of his Spirit whereby he is known to the Church, Meton. Eff●cti. And to be ●rue, as Grace and Peace is from the first and second Person, so are they likewise from the third, who is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Holinesse: and it is the Spirit that enables us to pray, and Prayer is an honour and worship exhibited unto the person prayed unto. God will not give his honour to a Creature, and good Angels will not take it from him, but do protest against this will-worship, Revel. 19.10. but the Holy Ghost is the object of Religious Invocation, 2 Cor. 13.13. and it is his glory that we are baptized into his Name, Mat. 28.19 That we do put our trust and confidence in him: and, Are not we the Temples of the Holy Ghost? &c. 1 Cor 6.19. And shall not he who dwells in his Temple be glorified with the Worship exhibited in his own Temple? Bidle. Revel. 6.16. and 7.89. and 11.15. and 12.10. and 14 4. Why not the first fruits to the Spirit also, if the common opinion be right? Chap. 20 6. and 21.22. and 22.1. Out of the Throne of God and of the Lamb; Why not out of the Throne of the Holy Spirit, if he be God? But it is well that some of the Adversaries have observed, that the Holy Spirit is never throughout the whole Scripture said to sit, which is the posture of sovereignty. Answer. In all these places the Lord is described in regard of his actings towards men, towards his Creatures, in which respect, as it is unanimously asserted, the works of the Trinity are undivided, and not so to be ascribed to one Person, as to exclude the other from the same individual operation, and a Throne is ascribed to our Mediator, who hath purchased our Peace and freedom by his obedience, and who is our King, and the Judge both of the quick and dead. And if in express terms it should no where be said in Scripture, that the Holy Ghost sits upon a Throne, yet by necessary consequence this sovereignty is not to be denied to him, as I shewed in the former Section: and to me it seems very apparent, that you, and those which in this are of your mind, are mistaken; for Isai. 6.1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne, high and lifted up, here is the unity of the Godhead; and he said, Go and tell this people, ver. 9, 10. which S. Paul, an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, tells us, was the Holy Ghost, Act. 28.26. Bidle. These human Testimonies above written have I alleged, not that I much regard them, as to myself,( who make use of no other rule to determine Controversies of Religion but the Scripture, and of no other authentic Interpreter, if a scruple ariseth concerning the sense of Scripture, then Reason) but for the sake of Adversaries, who continually crack, the Fathers, the Fathers. Answer. If the Testimony of these Authors had really been for your purpose, Mr. Bidle, though they had not been so eminent, as in truth they are, you would have regarded, and highly commended them; but you are injurious to their Works, in that you do value them according to your pleasure; if they seemingly are for the Socinians turn, highly; if otherwise, then basely, using them as Arithmaticians do their Counters, sometimes they stand for pounds, sometimes for Shillings, sometimes for nothing, as they be next at hand to make up their accounts. Far be it from me to speak one word that should tend to the staining and eclipsing of their due honour; yet do not we so far advance their Testimony, though we have the stream of the old doctors, whole Churches, and the most excellent Divines to pled our Cause, as to make them the rule of our faith, as Popes in Divinity, and as visible heads of the Truth militant, and to look upon their Works as if they were the irreversible Decrees of Verity; yet are they much to be regarded, as much confirming our Faith, when we discern their unanimous consent in these great mysteries; and we look upon them as good helps to make us understand the only Rule, and we have cause to bless God for assisting his faithful servants to leave behind them such painful monuments, which do proclaim their great zeal for Gods glory, a love to the truth, and the Church of Christ. You call Reason an authentic Interpreter of Scripture: This is a Title too high for so blind a Guide: Do you mean hereby,( as some of yours have done) that reason left to itself, without the divine assistance and light, if not prepossessed with prejudices and depraved affections, can piously and savingly apprehended these divine Mysteries? There is a difference betwixt knowing God simply, and to know him to be my Father; the Object is the same, but the manner of knowing is different; as I may at a distance know such a one to be a man, but not to be my father or my brother; as it is not all one to have the knowledge of a City by a Map, and to know it by the sight of the eye: The former is yielded, not the latter. Besides, this magnifying of Reason not enlightened by the Spirit, doth too often bring down the Scriptures to reason, and conforms not Reason to that Heavenly rule, whereupon they do by this light of Reason imagine contradictions in the divine mysteries; for most of their Arguments against the Trinity, are built upon this false principle, that we are after the same manner to judge hereof, and of Gods infinite being, as of a finite Creature; which to sanctified Reason is a gross paradox. What saith the Spirit? The Wisdom of the flesh is enmity to God, Rom 8.7. And they thought they had good reason, which judged the preaching of the Gospel to be a folly, and proved a stumbling block to them, 1 Corinth. 1.23. The authentic Interpretation of the Scripture, is taken from the Scripture itself; it is both a Text and a gloss to itself; and albeit our reason( if we look to know it) must apprehended the Truth, yet needful it is that our reason, if we would know it savingly, should be guided by the unerring Spirit: that Spirit which breathed out the Word at first, doth convince and satisfy our souls in the interpretation of so much as is necessary for our salvation. Bidle. Though Protestants, when they have to deal with Papists about sundry points of controversy, lay this plea aside; yet do they take it up again, in a manner, waving the Scripture, when they argue with me, and others of the same judgement with me. Answer. Here are two palpable untruths in a few lines. For 1. Neither do we wave the plea of the Fathers in confuting the upstart opinions of the Papists, as is evidently seen in all our Polemical Authors against them. Nor 2. Do we decline the Authority of Scripture, when we argue with the Antitrinitarians, as is evident by all the Books that are penned against them: And indeed, the very ground of our persuasion in these mysteries, is Scripture; for though they are not contrary to, yet are they above our reason. Bidle. It is apparent by what hath been produced, that the Fathers of the first two Centuries, or thereabouts, when the judgements of Christians were yet free, and not enslaved with the determinations of councils, asserted the Father only to be that one God; and so were in the main right, as to the faith concerning the Trinity? However they went awry in imagining two Natures in Christ; which came to pass, partly, 1. because they were great admirers of Plato; and( as Lipsius saith) did in outward profession so put on Christ, as that in heart they did not put off Plato. 2. Partly, That they might thereby avoid the scandal of worshipping a crucified man, a thing then very odious among Jews and Pagans, and new amongst deluded Christians, who unless there was another nature in Christ which was not crucified, account it Idolatry. Answer. By my Answer, I hope it doth sufficiently appear that you are much mistaken in this matter; and whosoever asserted the Father to be that true God( as divers have done both before and since the Nicene council) their meaning was not to exclude the Son or Holy Ghost from being that one only God; but the Father is so called most frequently, because he alone is God of himself, and the Son, as the Son, hath the divine Nature and Attributes from the Father. You tell us, That the Fathers of the first two Centuries, when not enslaved with councils, were for the main, sound touching the Trinity. councils do not enslave men to Errors, but these councils against whom you speak, are the most probable means under heaven to keep Heresies out of the Church, and to preserve the purity of the holy Faith; and what the Fathers in councils determined, was no innovation, but a continuation of the faith which they received from their Predecessors. And take notice of that loud untruth, The Fathers( say you) for the space of two hundred years, were for the main, sound touching their belief of the Trinity; viz. in your sense. But I say, you are so far from having all the Writers of the two first Centuries on your side, that you cannot produce rightly so much as one of them for you. And great Athanasius, a curious examiner of all Authors, saith, That the Arians could not allege the single Testimony of any ancient Writer for their error, Epistola de Decretis Synodi Nicae. And Orat. 2. against the Arains, he saith, The heresy of Arius is a new heresy, and unheard of in former times. Are not the words of this Writer of more credit then Mr. biddles? And wilt not thou( Christian Reader) say, That Mr. Bidle is infatuated, if he really doth justify Athanasius, and tacitly contradict himself? Mark then how this is proved: He saith, That the Fathers of the two first Centuries held two Natures in Christ; and this was their Error. The human Nature of Christ consisted of a human body, and an immortal soul which animated his body, And what is the other Nature, I pray you? Is it not the Divine? Can you prove that they meant any other thing by the other nature, then the Deity of Gods Son? This their assertion then, yourself being judge, is against your profession: a sad thing( me thinks) this should be to you, thus to think, There was not one of the reputed ancient and holy Fathers of the Church of my Opinion. Your Reasons why they held two Natures in Christ are false, and foolish, and intolerably injurious to those happy men. 1. Because they did so admire Plato( if you slander not Lipsius) that they continued still Platonists in their hearts, and embraced his high Notions. First, This I say, is false, for when they were Christians, they rejected the Notions of Plato, which were not consonant to Scripture, even as other Fathers, which were admirers of Plato no less then the former, which lived at the time and since the Nicene council; Justin Martyr procured the most eminent Teachers in all the Sects of the Philosophers; at length he was taught by a Platonist the notions of incorporeal substances; and then he retired into a solitary place, that he might without interruption give himself to contemplation, and refine his former Notions: a reverend old man( for so he seemed to be) appeared to him, and convinced him, that none of the Philosophers had the knowledge of the truth; the ancient Prophets, which were the true Prophets, were filled with the Holy Ghost. These both knew themselves, and declared to others the truth of God: he counseled him to red them, and above all things to pray unto God. This is related by Justin himself in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. Secondly, I answer, If Plato, Trismegistus, or the Sibyls had any knowledge of the Trinity, they had it from the Scriptures, or by peculiar Inspiration from the Holy Spirit, or a prophetic Spirit, as Balaam an Idolatrous Pagan prophesied truly of some things concerning our Saviour. Thirdly, The Philosophers and Plato,( which mention the Son of God, and that beginning of Saint Johns Gospel, In the beginning was the Word, and proved by many reason, August. confess. lib. 1. cap. 9 and as a Platonist said, deserved to be written in Letters of Gold, and be set up in eminent places in all Churches,) did not understand {αβγδ}, the Word, which was the Son, in the sense of Christians, namely, for a subsistence distinct from God, and begotten of his substance; but they meant thereby operative reason in God, and being from him, as practical reason is from the soul, whence are the operations of man; which {αβγδ} is not a person, or the very soul, or consubstantial to it, but an accident thereof. Fourthly. The Holy Fathers were sound in the faith of the Trinity: yet( as Petavius Oper. Theol. To. 2. Praef. asserteth) when they disputed with the Gentiles touching the Christian faith, the better to persuade them to condescend to the capacity of the hearers for their benefit, spake less accurately and conformed their notions of the Christian Religion to Plato's form of speaking, as afterwards the Catechumeni had the rudiments of Religion delineated to them, under the plausible Notions which were in use amongst Philosophers; and so did Saint Paul, when he would teach the Athenians the Christian Religion, he accommodates himself to their custom; for when he red an Inscription on an Altar, To the unknown God, he so applies it, as if the God whom the Christians worshipped was that unknown God; whereas this Inscription( as is thought) was not meant of him, but as Hierom on Tit. 1. saith, of the unknown Gods of Europe, Asia, and Africa: or as others, of the Tutelary God whose name they concealed, lest if his name had been known by their enemies, he might be drawn away from the protection of their City: but Paul applies it to that one God which the Gentiles did not worship. What can be spoken more fitly to this purpose? 2 As for your second reason, The Primitive Christians were so far from regarding any scandal which might follow for worshipping that Person, which, as he was man, was crucified on the cross, that they openly gloried therein; and they could distinguish( though Mr. Bidle cannot) betwixt that Nature which was crucified, and that Person which in our human Nature was ignominiously put to death: but the true reason why they held two Natures in Christ, was because they had learned it from their. Teachers when they were young; but chiefly because that Doctrine is plainly delivered in the words of truth; the infallible Rule of our faith; and Christians do indeed with good reason judge the worship of a Creature with divine Authority to be Idolatry, unsufferable Idolatry, which robs God of his glory. I have now by Gods merciful assistance done with Mr. biddles Book, and have answered whatsoever I conceive to be material in it. My desire in the next place is to show, that other ancient Fathers omitted by this Author, which lived before the Nicene Synod, were of the same judgement with those of Nice, and none of them Arians, much less of Mr. biddles faith. THe Testimony of enemies against Christians is not to be regarded; but their relation in favour of Christians is not to be contemned: Heathen Writers being our Witnesses, will pled our cause against the Socinians. Century I. Plinie. Plinie the second, Lib. 10. pag. 318. in an Epistle to Trajane the Emperor, makes this report out of the mouths of revolted Christians, That they were wont on a set day to meet before day, and to sing a Song to Christ as God, and bind themselves by an Oath, not to steal, not to commit Adultery, not to deceive, &c. This was very timely in the Church, in the first Century, the latter end of it; by which we may probably learn, that Christians then believed him to be God. And this was so well known in the Christian Church, that the very Pagans in their Writings make mention of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Lucian. Lucian, who lived also in the dayes of Trajane the Emperour, brings in a charactered Christian catechizing a gentle in the Doctrine of the Trinity, in Dial. Philopat. towards the end; and the Infidel demanding of him, By whom he should swear? Answered, By the Most High, Heavenly and Eternal, by the Son of the Father, and by the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father, Unum ex tribus,& ex uno trina, trees; haec tu Jovem puta, hunc Deum existima. Lucian could not have recited this to scoff at, as he did, had he not learned it from the commonly received doctrine and well known Christians in those days. This is so fair an evidence for the Trinity that Socinus confesseth in deafen. Animad. contra Gabrielem Eutropium, he never red any thing which seemed so strong for the Trinity as this Testimony touching the faith of Christians in those dayes. But to omit the Testimony of Infidels, I will now produce the judgement of blessed and renowned Christians. Clemens. Clemens Bishop of Rome, over Christians in that City both Jews and Gentiles, mentioned by Saint Paul, Phil. 4.3. in that famous Epistle written to the Corinthians, to quell the Schism in that Church which sprung from want of reverend subjection to the Presbyters, doth not( I grant) directly mention the Deity of Christ, yet by sound consequence this is inferred and intimated, because he often mentions the Redemption of Christ, and his satisfaction, not owned by the Adversaries. Christ( saith he) in love, {αβγδ}: Christ gave his blood for us, and he gave his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls; not far from the end. Ignatius. Ignatius that famous Martyr and Bishop of Antioch, the third from Saint Peter, as Saint Hierom saith, and contemporary to Saint John, the last Apostle, will afford us his suffrage; and( not to make use of that Epistle to the Philippians, suspected with good reason not to be genuine, but branded with a note of Bastardy) I will allege his Epistle to the Church of Tralles, which is reckoned as his own by Eusebius, lib. 3. Eccles. Histor. cap. 32. and by Dr. Rivet, and Vedelius, two Protestant Divines, who have narrowly examined the Epistles which are entitled to him; and Vessius, speaking not only of this, but of the other Epistles taken out of the valentine Library, saith in his Dedicatory Epistle, That they are pure, Ubique sibi similes, ubique sanctissimi Martyris pietatem& zelum testantur& spirant. In his Epistle to the Tralles, the Martyr condemns those that say, Christ was only man, and that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the same; and that say; All things were created by God, and not by Christ. And after he saith, He was truly begotten of God, and the Son of Mary, but not after the same manner, for he is not God and man in the same respect: he saith that Mary had {αβγδ}: and in his Epistle to the Magnesians, reckoned by Eusebius as his, he saith, Christ was begotten of God before the world, he was the Word, God, the only begotten Son; and he calls him, {αβγδ}, the substantial word. The like might be alleged out of the other Epistles which are accounted genuine in the Edition of the Reverend Primate of Armagh. To these I add, That Athanasius de Synodis Arin.& Sel●uc. allegeth out of Ignatius his Epistle to the Ephesians, {αβγδ},— There is one Physician carnal and spiritual, begotten and not begotten, God in man, true life, both of Mary and of God. This Testimony is preferred before a hundred Socinians. Polycarp. Polycarpus, Bishop of Smyrna in Saint Johns dayes, as Irenaeus witnesseth, when he was to be offered in Sacrifice to God as a Ram taken out of the flock of Christs sheep, and his hands being bound behind him, concludes his Prayers to this effect, Glory be to the Father, together with the Son and the Holy Ghost( take notice good Reader, that glory is equally ascribed to all the sacred persons) both now, and throughout all generations. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 4. c. 15. In his Prayer the holy Trinity is expressly mentioned, and equal glory, which Mr. Bidle allows not, is ascribed to all the sacred Persons of the holy Trinity. Century II. Athenagoras. In the second Century, besides those Fathers already name by my Mr. Bidle, are some eminent Writers. The first I name is Athenagoras, who flourished at Athens, and wrote an Apology for Christians to Antonius the father, and Commodus the son, two roman Emperors, about the year of Grace, 180. He is clear for the Trinity. As we do assert God and his Son, the Word, and the Holy Ghost,( th●ee according to potentia, but in act and essence one;) the Son is the Word of the Father in form and efficacy, and all things are made by him;— the Father and the Son are one; the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son. Who would not stand amazed to hear us called Atheists, who do say, God the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, demonstrating their power in union and distinction in order. And below, That we may know God, and his Word, and this holy Spirit to be of equal honour and power. Clemens Alexandrinus. Clemens a famous Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria in Egypt, a few years after Athenagoras; and to distinguish this Clemens from others of the same name, he is called Clemens Alexandrinus. This Author saith, Paedag. lib. 1. cap. 6. in the beginning of that long Chapter, That it is {αβγδ}, most absurd to think that any thing should be wanting to Christ; and if so, then had he need to learn: but being God, it is not agreeable to reason that he should learn; none is greater then the Word, nor can there be a Master and Teacher of him, who alone is Master. Shall not they then be forced to confess him to be the perfect Word of his perfect Father—? And at the end of the third and fourth Books of Paedagogus, he saith, Let us give thanks to one Father and his Son; his Son, I say, our Master and Teacher, together with the Holy Spirit, {αβγδ}; All things are to one, in whom all things are, by whom all things are,— to whom be glory for ever and ever. He celebrates one and the same glory equally belonging to the three sacred Persons. And Lib. 7. Stromat. pag. 702. speaking of the Son of God, he saith, His Nature is, {αβγδ}, Most perfect, most holy, most principal, which chiefly rules, most Kingly, most beneficial, and( in order) next to the Omnipotent God( the Father) he sees the most secret and hidden motion; he is always in this Watch-Tower,— which is not divided, nor passeth from place to place, which is always every where, and contained in no place.— He is wholly mind, wholly eyes, hears all things, sees all things, knows all things—, assuming a sensible nature which was seen of men. This Father doth evidently distinguish the two Natures of Christ, the Deity is every where, the humanity is circumscribed. Severianus. Severianus Episcopus Gabatarum de Nativitate Christi, writes thus, O mystery! which is truly both heavenly and earthly, which is seen, and which doth not appear: Such a one was Christ, born both heavenly and earthly, which did contain, and was contained, which was seen, and which was Invisible: He was heavenly according to the Nature of his Divinity, and earthly according to the Nature of his Humanity; he was seen according to the flesh, he was not seen according to the Spirit; he was contained in regard of his Body; but as he was the Word— he could not be contained. Theodoret re●●●● this passage out of Severianus Dialogo secundo ad finem 〈◇〉. Century III. hippolytus. In the third Century we have the suffrage of hippolytus Bishop, about the year of the Lord, 230. who then flourished( saith Eusebius) in Chronico, ex libro qui est de Distributione Talentorum: They which say, Christ is only man, do deny the Talent of his Divinity; and they which say he was only in appearance man, as Valentinus, martion and the gnostics do, do cast away one Talent, viz. the assumption if human flesh. And in the Interpretation of the second Psalm, He which came into the world is both God and man; it is easy to understand that he was a man by his hungering, suffering; and his Divinity also is manifestly to be seen, in that he is adored by the Angels,— by his working Miracles, forgiving of sins, and giving power to his Disciples.— Theodoret Dialog. 2. relates all this. Dionysius Alexandrinus. Great Dionysius, as Eusebius stiles him, born at Alexandria, and Bishop of that famous City, that constant Confessor of the Truth which could not be overcome by the threats of his Adversaries, by banishment or dangers, by persecution, or sentemcing him to death. This excellent man writing against Sabeltius, lets fall some passages which the Arians abused to confirm their heresy; and being suspected, that he held Christ was only a Creature, and accused hereof to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, makes an Apology for himself, and saith, God was ever a Father—; and afterwards acknowledgeth, the Son of God to have been always, the Word, the Wisdom and Power; and that the Son was begotten of the substance of his Father, that he was the splendour of the eternal Light, and was himself also eternal; for the Light existing always, it is certain the splendour also exists always—. If the Sun was eternal, the day would likewise be eternal.— Now God is an eternal Light without beginning:— the eternal Father always existing, the eternal Son must always exist, Light of Light; if the Father exists, the Son must needs exist also. And he speaks in the same manner of the Holy Ghost; We do dilate the unity which is Indivisible into the Trinity, and we do consummate the Trinity into the Unity, which cannot be diminished; and yet we are accused as if we should say, the Son is in the number of Creatures, and not consubstantial to his Father; it is falsely laid to my charge to say, that I deny that Christ is consubstantial with God. This is related by Athanasius, and much more to this purpose in an Epistle touching the judgement of Dionysius Alexandrinus, De Synodis contra Arianos, not doubting to pronounce that the author was Religious and pious, and that he dyed in the communion of the Church, that his memory is blessed, and related in the Catalogue of catholic Bishops. Saint Basil in his Book De Spiritu Sancto, sets down his form of giving Thanks, which he received from his Elders, which with joint consent thus praised God, Glory and Dominion for ever and ever be to God the Father, and his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, Amen. He died in the year of our Lord, 251. Dionysius Romanus. The next witness is Dionysius Bishop of Rome. Great Athanasius in the former Epistle touching the Opinion of Dionysius Alexandrinus, saith, that this Dionysius Bishop of Rome wrote Volumes against those which said, the Son of God was a Creature; and avoucheth, that the Arian Rebels against the Son of God, were not now only in these dayes, but formerly condemned of all. And in an Epistle treating of the Nicene Synod, he repeats these words of Dionysius Romanus. There are some, as I hear, which being opposite to Sabeltius, which do contend that the Father is the Son, and the Son the Father; these do not without Blasphemy in a manner make three Gods in asserting three substances—. But the true Disciples of Christ, as they do plainly know the Trinity to be held forth in the sacred Scriptures, so do they acknowledge, that three Gods are set forth neither in the Old nor New Testament. And they are no less faulty, which do believe the Son of God to be a Creature, sithence the sacred Word ascribes Generation and not Creation to him.— The admirable and divine Unity is not to be divided,— and so both the profession of the divine Monarchy and the divite Trinity may be preserved. Thus, the Arian not yet born and known in the world, the Tritheites and Samosatenians in this third age were condemned. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Theodorus, who was afterwads called gregory, and for the gift ( as was supposed of working Miracles) Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neocesaria in Pontus, had the symbols of Faith, some of which are recited by Saint Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, and by Socrates: his Creed is in Eusebius translated by ruffian, lib 7. Histor. cap. 25.[ There is one God the Father of the living Word, a perfect begetter of a perfect Son, the Father of his only begotten Son,— a true Son of a true Father, Invisible of the Invisible, Incorruptible of the Incorruptible, Immortal of the Immortal, and Eternal of the Eternal: One Holy Ghost, having his substance of God,— by whom God over all, and in all things is acknowledged, perfect Trinity in Majesty and Eternity, and kingdom not divided; therefore nothing is made or ministering in the Trinity, or superinduced, as though not subsisting before—; the Father was never without the Son, nor the Holy Ghost without the Son, said invertibilis& immutabilis eadem Trinit as semper. Cyprian. That famous Martyr Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, a true Disciple of Tertullian, Who was wont to call to his Notary; Da Magistrum, Hieron. in catalogue. speaking of Christ, De Idolorum vanitate, he saith,[ This is the power of God, the Reason, his Wisdom and Glory; he in the Virgins womb took our flesh, God is always mingled with man, this is our God and our Christ, who being Mediator betwixt two, brings man to God.] In his Tractate on the Lords Prayer, he plainly names the Sacrament of the Trinity. And lib. 2. ad Quirinum, cap. 6. he proves, by Texts of Scriptures which are applied to Christ, which do confessedly belong only to the true God, Genesis 35.7. Make an Altar to God, which appeared to thee when thou fleddest from the face of thy brother Esau. And Isai 45.21. I am the Lord, a just God and a Saviour, and there is none besides me. And Adversus Judaeos lib. 2.[ He that was from the beginning the Son of God, would be born again according to the flesh; in the second psalm, The Lord said to me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: and this is further insinuated in that he acknowledgeth Christ to be a Person that satisfied God for our sins, and when he was no sinner, himself yet did bear our sins, Lib. 1. Epist. 8. & ad Cecilium de Sacramento Dominici Laticis, or which is all one, Lib. 2. Epist. 2. Christus portabat omnia nostra peccata. I have done with single testimonies; This Age, that the zealous Pastors might stifle an heresy in the beginning, before it spread far, was careful in two Synods to maintain the Truth against Paulus Samosatenus, so called from a famous Town of Syria, called, Samosata, seated on the banks of Euphrates; this Samosatenus was Bishop of Antioch, as Eusebius saith, about the year of the Lord, 264, he believed( as Mr. Bidle doth) that Christ was not before the Virgin Mary, that he was only a man. Synod Antiochen 1. To repress this heresy, divers Fathers, out of several Nations, convened at Antioch, about the tenth year of Galienus the Emperor, the event whereof was, as Theodoret saith, lib. 2. Haeret. fabulorum, that by persuasion this Samosatenus renounced his heresy and abjured it, and so the Synod by joint consent dissolved the meeting with a hymn to God. But this Paulus Samosatenus, like a dog, returned to his Vomit, and forgetful of his Promises, returned to his former heresy. Antioch. 2 And then a second council at Antioch was held by the Bishops which met at the first council, and many others with them; and by common consent he was condemned in this Synod, and excommunicated out of all Churches; and another, viz. Domnus the son of Demetrianus, who ruled that Church before Samosatenus was chosen to succeed him; and when he refused to leave the Church, the council prevailed with Auretian a worthy Emperor( in whose reign this Synod was held, to eject him out of the Church by his Authority. This third Age of the Church hath this commendation from their pens, which are not blamed for being too favourable in their censures of the Fathers, that all the Fathers of this Century acknowledged the Divinity of Christ, and that his Person was distinct from the Person of his Father. Magdebur. Centur. 3. cap. 4. They taught also, that the Holy Ghost is a person distinguished from the Father and the Son, and that he had the same Majesty and Omnipotency with the Father and the Son of God. In the fourth Century began that great breach in the Church touching the Head of the Church our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The first occasion of discord was thus: Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria disputed in an Assembly very acutely touching the unity of the divine Essence in the Trinity, Arius then a Presbyter of that Church, being a better Logician then Divine, thought that his Bishop intended to introduce Sabeltianism; namely, that there is only one Person, called sometimes Father, sometimes Son, and at other times the Holy Ghost, and opposed him with an Argument drawn from human reason, and not from the principles of faith. If the Father( saith he) begets the Son, he hath a beginning of his being, and so there was a time when he was not, and consequently should have his Being ex non existentibus. From this spark the fire was soon kindled all over Egypt, Lybia and Thebais, and the neighbouring Nations, Secrates, lib. 1. Histor. cap. 5 6. Epiphan. lib. 2. Tom. 2. Haeres. 69. Arius being questioned of his Faith in a Synod, and being found obstinate, was cast out of the Church and deprived of his Office, and afterwards expelled out of Alexandria. At that time Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia was in great Authority, because Constantine the Emperour was then in Nicomedia, and many favoured him, by which means the contention grew so violent, that the Christian Religion itself was in contempt, and openly derided and scoffed at on the Theators: The good Emperor, whose fatherly care was great to preserve the honour of the Church and Christian Religion, was much grieved at these jars, and used a remedy to cure this growing Disease; he sent Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain, a man famous for Piety, Learning and Authority, with his Princely Letters to Alexandria, to quench, if it were possible, the flamme which was spread over many Nations, and to procure peace and tranquillity to the Church; the Copy of this Letter is in Eusebius, lib. 2. de Vita Constantini. Hosius goes into Egypt with these Letters, but his Negotiation ends without success; then doth the godly Emperor summon a Synod, which was held, with a vast expense of his Treasure, at Nice, a City in Bithynia, which was the first general council, consisting of three hundred and eighteen Bishops, about the year of our Lord, 325. just the number of Abrahams trained servants, which he lead out against the Kings which carried away Lot Captive, Genes. 14.14. In this great Assembly of renowned men, it was concluded, according to the Scriptures, that Christ was true God, begotten, not made, coessential with his Father, &c. That which I desire to be well observed by the Reader, is, That this was the ancient faith, unanimously till then held in the catholic Church; and when Arius would have induced an Innovation in the Faith, he was presently detected and condemned for his heresy; and since the time of that venerable Synod, which is called by the Adversaries of the Truth, a Synod of Adtichrist( setting aside a short time under Arian Emperors) the Faith touching the Deity of the Son of God, hath been generally and purely maintained over Christendom, as it is now in our dayes in the Church of England. CHRISTIAN READER, I Having by Gods assistance finished my Answer to the Blasphemous Book of Mr. Bidle against the most glorious Trinity, as it is clearly held forth to us in the holy Word of Truth, do conceive that thou mayst in the close justly expect at my hands to set down some convincing Arguments hereof, to reduce, if God be pleased to work with a weak Instrument, such as are erroneous, and to settle such as are wavering, upon sound foundations, and to present to the eye and comfort of the Orthodox some divine evidences of their Faith in this ever to be adored, and unspeakable Mystery, and yet which is little thought on. Learned Bisterfield against Crellius, who had often in the fear of God considered hereof, professeth that the mystery of the Trinity seemed not so perplexed and Incomprehensible to him, as the being of the first ens of himself from all Eternity, is; because to be, and to be of itself, is more simplo, then to be one and three. I shall not need to waste my time in the proof of the Deity of the Father, the first Person in order of the holy Trinity, for this is readily assented to by all Christians, by the Adversary and all Socinians: Nor will I trifle away my precious hours to prove the Holy Ghost to be a distinct Person from the Father and Son of God, for this is done to my hands by this enemy to truth in his sixth Article, against the judgement of his dear friends. Nor that the Holy Ghost is the true God, for this I have endeavoured to demonstrate in a set Treatise, as yet I think unanswered, which if thou pleasest thou mayst peruse for thy satisfaction; there remains then only for me to prove the Deity of the blessed Son of God. The intellgent Reader cannot but observe, that this in part is already done by several Arguments scattered here and there in my reply: My main business now will be to recollect them, and set them down in a Method for the fuller satisfaction of those Readers which are of weaker judgments. I am not ignorant that the Adversaries can say something, though in truth it be of no great moment, to weaken their strength, and to blur these fair Evidences of our Faith; and should I pursue at large these graceless wits and deceitful Sophisters in this kind, this Book would swell to a proportion far greater then I desire it should do. I am confident that the choicest Agents of the devil, may as soon eclipse the glorious Sun in the Firmament, as they can with all their subtlety obscure these divine Arguments. I do know full well that many Learned Pontificians, which in these points under debate are Orthodoxal, have taken a great deal of commendable pains; and that many famous Lutherans, as they for distinction are called, and Calvinists especially, have laboured to admiration in the confirmation of these truths, and confutation of the cunning evasions of the upstart heretics in large Volumes. The more to be blamed was Mentzer a learned Lutheran, who from doctrinal Principles of the Calvinists lays down this Conclusion, He that would avoid Photinianism must eschew Calvinism, Decr. 3. And railing Fenardentius a Pontifician, doth accuse tacitly Calvin and other Reformed catholics, to have derogated from the eternal Deity of Christ, in 2 Pet. 1.1. An impious and impudent slander. I am not so well conceited of my abilities, to think that I can add any thing which is weighty to what is written over and over in many Books touching this Argument, and I hope the ingenuous Reader( if he hath red much) will not expect to red any new Arguments to confirm this ancient and necessary truth to be believed for salvation; and if I could or should device new and unheard of proofs, not approved by reverend and sober Divines, in these and former dayes, I myself should suspect them to be vain and worthless, and to have no solidity in them. red unpartially, judge by the light of the Word what thou readest, and pray as for thyself and others, so for me, an unworthy servant of the Lord Jesus, and the God of all grace give a blessing to thee, and to these weak labours. ARGUMENTS To prove The DEITY of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. ARGUMENT I. THE first Proof of this Divine and fundamental Truth is taken from the very Names of God, which are in express terms in holy Writ attributed to Gods Son. He is called, God, Deus, of the Greek {αβγδ}, as {αβγδ}, semideus, of {αβγδ}, who is most to be feared: others of {αβγδ}, because the Lord sees and knows all things; others derive the word from {αβγδ}, to run and move, because he is a most pure act, and gives also virtue and motion to the Creatures. Others( see Becman. de Origin. lat. linguae) à {αβγδ}, which is the name of Jupiter, and commonly among the Grecians the name of God: but Learned Junius against Bellarmine lib. 2. derives it from {αβγδ}, a Dialect of the Aeotians, for {αβγδ}, Jupiter, and both of them from the Hebrew {αβγδ}, All-sufficient. This name of God signifies a being, which is an individuum, and most simplo without all composition in his Being; its a name of Essence and not of Office. Hence I argue thus, He to whom the name of God doth properly belong, he is truly God, or the most High: this cannot be denied: But the name of God doth properly belong to Christ: Ergo, He is God. I deny not, that the name of God is sometimes given to Angels and Magistrates in the Old Testament, but never in the New by way of subordination, but only of opposition, 1 Corinth. 4.4. because of the dark or glimmering light shining to the house of Israel, in which dispensation the Angels sometimes appeared and were called Gods; but now the Sun of righteousness being risen, and the Lord of Angels being revealed in his own person, this improper Divinity vanished, and now they are called but servants, and the servants of Christ their Lord, Apocal. 19.10. and 22.9. The Name of God, I say, is sometimes given to Angels and Mag●strates, and they were called Gods by grace and favour, Psal. 97.7. Heb. 1.6. Worship him all ye Gods: and they are styled Gods to whom the Word of God came, Psal. 82.7. to whom by divine Vocation the Office of Magistracy was committed. And again, I said, Ye are Gods; But this is spoken of them only equivocally( as they say) or figuratively; and they do differ from the true God, genere& plusquam genere, according to the wise observation of the ancient Father Irenaeus, lib. 3. adver. Haeres. cap. 6. Either this is not spoken in the singular number; I said, Ye are Gods, so runs the Text; when as the true God without question is singularly one; there is but one God: Or if it be spoken of one Person, then there is annexed to it a limitation to prevent mistakes; I have made thee( Moses) a God to Pharaoh, Exod. 7.1. Who is so rude of understanding that will not readily conceive, and without contradiction grant, that a made God is not a true God? or else there is such an explication in the Text itself, that a simplo Reader can hardly be deceived; I have said, Ye are Gods: But what follows? they are but mortal Gods, for as there they are threatened, They all of them must die like mortal men; but the true God is univerversally acknowledged to be immortal. And say, that some which are called Gods, are immortal, as the holy Angels are, yet the Scripture is express, that they were all of them created, Col. 1.16 they were then but creature Gods; but the Lord God is the Creator of Heaven and of Earth. Be it granted then that some Creatures in the Scriptures are called Gods, yet are they not properly so called, as our Saviour Christ is called God; the name of God is not simply and absolutely attributed to them in all those holy lines as it is to our blessed Saviour, without addition, limitation or correction of speech; for he is called God as the Learned speak, both subjectivè& attributivè. 1 Subjectivè, 2 Sam. 23.3. The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spake to me. This Swan like Song of David is a prophesy of the Kingdom of Christ, and can only be meant of him as our Mediator( saith Bisterfield) for in the same verse it is said, He ruleth in the fear of God; and in the next, He shall be as the light of the morning when the Sun ariseth, even as a morning without clouds. These fitly belong to Christ and to no other. But a clearer Text is, 1 Tim. 3.16. God was manifested in the flesh; which name was meant of Christ, as the Context undeniably sheweth. And 2 The name of God is spoken of him by way of Attribution. He is called the Mighty God, Isai 9.6. and in Hos. 1.7. I will have mercy upon them, and I will save them by the Lord their God. God the Father doth absolutely call his Son God; the Person saving, is distinguished from the Person by whom they are saved. None can be a God to God by whom are all things. God is a Father to his Son, but to us the Father is God, and the Son is God. Hilar. lib. 4. de Trinit. And Thomas being convinced of his folly, cried out, which is the confession of us all, and which hath also the approbation of our blessed Saviour, My Lord and my God, John 20.28. both these names are properly belonging to the eternal being, and( as Zanchy conjectureth) are taken out of Deuter. 6.10. The Lord thy God. Again, The Word was God, John 1.1. yea the true God, 1 Joh. 5.20. opposed to false and made Gods, and the Great God, Tit. 2.13. Both these, the Great God and our Saviour are referred to one person, the Son of God: Thus when we red in the same Apostle; God the Father, the first Person is only meant: So here, The Great God( saith the Text) shal appear( at the last day) which we look for. Do not the Saints expect the glorious appearing of the Great God? And who shal gloriously appear to judge all the world, but the Son of God? Once more, Christ is over all, God blessed for ever, Rom. 9.5. Is not this full and plain enough without a Commentary? When the Apostle saith, Christ is God, this satisfieth Christians,( saith Cassianus, lib. 3. de Incarn.) but when he adds, He is God over all, this stops the mouths of all blasphemous and perfidious heretics, which he calls, {αβγδ}, Fighters against the glory of Christ. Is not the Holy Scripture dictated by the blessed Spirit to his Penmen? and doth not he know best to give to every one their own names? And sithence he frequently gives our Saviour the name of God, how dares a sinful man of corrupt judgement, out of his wanton fancy, deny these fair evidences, and pervert them, to the great dishonour of the glorious Father, and his blessed Son? How can he hold up his head, and look for glory, when the great God shall appear in glory, when he hath sinfully laboured to cast him out of his Throne of Majesty, and to reduce him into the rank of Creatures? 2. Another name of God, which is altogether incommunicable to the Creatures, is Jehovah, which most properly signifies the eternal Essence of God, and it is derived from a word which imparts being, and it is so composed, that it denotes, that he hath his being perpetually, and by whom all other things do exist. Saint John Revel. 1.4. thus expresseth it, To him which is, which was, and which is to come: {αβγδ}, he will be, {αβγδ}, he is being; and {αβγδ}, he hath been. Schindl. lay. whereby Gods eternity is described; God himself makes this his name known to his people, And Moses said unto God, when the people of Israel shall say to me, What is the name of God that sent me? What shall I say to them? God saith to Moses, I am that I am, Exod. 3.14. When Moses desired to see Gods face, Exod. 34. he proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord, merciful and gracious,—. first he shows what he is touching his Essence, the Lord, then what he is touching his essential Attributes, Gracious, Merciful, Isai. 44.6. Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts, I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. And the Psalmist, Psal. 83.19. Let them be put to shane and perish, that men may know that thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth. And it is observed by Gerhard and others, That the name Jehovah hath never the Emphaticum or Indicativum before it. 2. That it never hath an affix to it. 3. Nor the Plural number. And from these they do collect, that it is the proper name of God, and that it is never in Scripture attributed to false Gods or Creatures. I do confess, that there are some eminent Divines which do acknowledge, that the name Jehovah, as well as that of God, is improperly ascribed to some Creatures, because something of God is more eminently in them then in other things. But others of great note, which have more narrowly preached into these sacred Texts, will not yield thus much unto them For, Object. 1. Whereas it is objected, Exod. 17.15. It is said, That Moses built an Altar, after the Amalekites had been discomfited, and called the name of it, Jehovah Nissi, The Lord is my Banner: This is spoken, saith Junius in Bellar. lib. 1. de Christo cap. 7. An Altar is built( understand, to the Lord) and he is, The Lord my Banner: Nor is it simply called Jehovah, but Jehovah Nissi, with the adjection of another word, as pointing at him after a Sacramental manner of speech, who was the Banner of Israel, which that Altar could not possibly be, being destitute of life; and whether you respect the matter, or the form, or the end thereof, there could be no occasion to suspect that that Altar was Jehovah, and so there was no danger at all in that appellation; nor is there any Text, any Argument in Scripture which intimates that the Altar was Jehovah; nor could that Altar be the Exaltation or Banner of Israel, as the Lord is. Besides, that Altar was a Monument and Type of Christ and the great God, who was their real Banner, and not that Altar. And by consequence the name Jehovah, is not properly given to the Altar. Object. 2. It may be further objected, That the name of the City of Jerusalem shall be from that day called, Jehovah Shammah, The Lord is there, Ezek. 48.35. I answer, That neither was this City or any other ever so called simply and absolutely, but with the addition of some words; and the addition doth manifest, that the City itself was not called Jehovah, as we call the City of London, London, and the City of Constantinople, Constantinople; but another that was Lord there, to put us in mind of him that is truly the Lord; and that he is always graciously present with his Church, which was typed by Jerusalem. Or as others give the sense, the presence of God the Father, of God the Son, and of God the Holy Ghost shall be the happiness of all that now are, and that shall be in heaven for ever. Obj. 3. Lastly, It is objected; That the name of Jerusalem wherewith she shall be called is, The Lord our righteousness, Jerem. 33.16. Thus it is rendered in our English Translation, but the word, Name, is not in the Original: and to hint this to the Reader, It is printed in lesser letters then the rest, which is the sacred Text; nor is there any pronoun in the Hebrew, which signifies, [ She;] nor is there any necessity to red the word in the Passive signification, to translate it thus, She shall be called; but in the holy Tongue it is word for word, as Arius Montanus doth turn it; and he that shall call her, is, The Lord her righteousness, and then the name is given to Christ: and the Text, if rightly translated, confirms this name Tetragrammaton, of four letters, which some do say is {αβγδ}, and cannot be pronounced to be incommunicable, and that our Saviour is by nature the true God. It is frequent in Scripture to say, that God calls the Church, Rom. 8.30. 1 Thess. 5.24. and experience proves it, but who doth or can say, that the Churchis the Lord our righteousness? and if it had been said so of the Church, it had been as 1 Cor 12.12. Christ; the name of the whole is attributed to the principal part. I shall now demonstrate, that this name Johovah is without contradiction ascribed to Christ, Jerem. 23.6. The Prophet foretells by the blessed Spirit, that the people of Israel and of Judah, shall call a King that shall reign and prosper, the Lord our righteousness, a spiritual King, a spiritual safety and security. He that is our righteousness, is Jehovah, and so to be called in Gospel times, as the Son of God, and not the Father, who by his righteousness doth move the Lord, the Judge to justify us, and free us from the condemnation of sin. Now albeit these conjunctim, were not nomen appellationis, as Divines do distinguish of names, I mean, the proper name of Christ; yet was it nomen officii, and doth abundantly prove that he was simply Jehovah, for no creature can properly be called Jehovah, and be our righteousness. And these attributed to him do demonstrate that he is the true God: Nor is our Saviour called by that name only in one place, but in many others; Isai. 40.3. Prepare ye the way of Jehovah: if you demand who this Lord is; Saint Mark will tell us, that it was Christ Jesus, Mark 1.2, 3. And in the Prophet Zachary, chap. 11.13. Jehovah said to me, cast it unto the Potter, a goodly price that I was valued at! which is an ironical exclamation joined with indignation. Saint Matthew hath put this out of doubt, that this was a prophesy of the base and unworthy sale of our blessed Saviour, Matth. 27.7. with which price the Potters field was bought; so called, either because Earthen Ware was here in abundance made, or because it was an inconsiderable place where sherds and broken-pots were cast, as into a by corner, to bury strangers in. He that in Zachary was to be sold for thirty pieces of silver is the Lord Jehovah, the God of Israel; for the Lord said, This is a goodly price that I am valued at: But Christ is he that was sold for thirty pieces of silver, Matth. 27. Therefore he is the true God of Israel. And in the 12 Ch. of Zach. v. 10. the Reason is this. He whom the house of David shall look upon, whom they have pierced and crucified. is properly God; but Christ is he who was crucified by the house of David. The mayor is in the words of the Prophets, The Lord saith, I will pour on the house of David the Spirit of grace, and they shall look on me whom they have pierced. The Minor is John 19.37. and Revel. 1.7. and in that Prophetical psalm of the Kingdom of Christ, Psal. 97. Christ is six times called Jehovah. Upon this account also it is that Christ is styled an Angel, an uncreated Angel. In an outward form God the Father never appeared to the sons of men, for no man hath seen God at any time; but Christ hath thus appeared, which apparitions were a praeludium of his future Incarnation, Gen. 18. he who appeared to Abraham accompanied with two Angels, is called both a man and Jehovah, and Abraham took him for both; he is often called Jehovah, ver. 1. The Lord appeared unto Abraham: ver. 13. The Lord said unto Abraham: ver. 14. and 17. The Lord said, ver. 20. Abraham yet( ver. 22) stood before the Lord: ver. 26. and ver. 32. And the Lord went his way when he left communing with Abraham: and he appeared in the figure of a man, he walked, he washed his feet, he did eat, and talked as a man; And this was to signify the future revelation of the Son of God in our Nature; and for this and the like apparitions our Saviour saith, Abraham saw my day( my coming into the flesh) and rejoiced, John 5.56. This Angel then was none of the created Angels, but the Son of God. And this is manifest, 1 Because the Divine Name Jehovah is frequently attributed to him. 2 Because the two Angels, which were Gods Messengers distinguished from him, ver: 22. are not so much as once in the Text called Jehovah. 3 From his Office and Work. Is any thing too hard for God to do? Can any thing be hidden from God? Should I hid any thing from Abraham which I am ready to do? And Abraham acknowledged this Lord to be the Judge of all the world. Can these things belong to a created Angel? This story put it out of question, that he with whom Abraham talked was not a created Angel, but the Most High God. Nor is it without great strength to the Cause in hand, that in the next Chapter; chap. 19. ver. 24. The Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom from the Lord. A manifest distinction here is betwixt the person that rained fire, and the person from whom he rained; why else should be added, The Lord rained from the Lord? For if it had been only said, The Lord rained, it had been evident enough that the rain had been from the Lord; Is this latter, From the Lord, added in vain in this place, which is not so expressed in any other place? It being so rare a thing, must needs affect the Reader with the consideration of it. Nor can it be said, that it is therefore added, to signify that he rained immediately from himself, for then the Text would rather have been by the Lord, then from the Lord, for he might do a thing from himself, and yet use the ministry of men or Angels. John 10.28. I lay down my life of myself; Doth this exclude the romans and the Jews from being the Instrumental causes of his death? Nor is it likely that the Ministry of Angels were excluded from being Instrumental Causes of the destruction of Sodom, Gen. 19.13. for they profess that they were purposely sent to destroy Sodom: The Son raineth from the Father, or the Father by the Son; the one person appearing on earth, and the other sitting in heaven. It was an Angel( so called) with whom Jacob wrestled both corporally and spiritually, and through faith he had princely power, and prevailed over God and man. It is not obscure that this Angel was the Angel of the Covenant, even the Lord himself. 1. Because Jacob expected a blessing from him. 2 Because he made Prayers and supplications to him, Hos. 12.4. Are Angels religiously to be invocated? 3 In that this Angel blessed him. And 4 Because Jacob thankfully acknowledged this Blessing, and called the name of the place where he wrestled, Penuel. He found him in Bethel, there also he spake with us( being in the loins of our Father Jacob,) Gen. 35.10. And 5 To put all out of doubt, who this person was that encountered at this time with Jacob, the Text adds, Even the Lord of Idosts, the Lord is his memorial, Hos. 12 4, 5. To omit many instances both in Genesis and other caconical Scriptures, I will instance but in one more; there was an Angel that called from Heaven and said to Abraham, Kill not thy Son, Genes. 22.12. and saith, Moreover because thou hast not withheld thy only son from me: And then addeth, By myself have I sworn, for he hath no greater to swear by: Assuredly( saith Jehovah) because thou hast not withheld thy son, thy only son from me, surely I will abundantly bless thee, ver. 17. Lay all these things together, which I have here recorded, and it will be evident, that the Angel which spake to Abraham was the Lord himself, speaking in his own name, and not as a Messenger in the name of another. Nor will that Objection to the contrary be of any force to elude the Argument, Heb. 1.1. In former times God spake to the Fathers by the Prophets, in these last dayes by his Son: by this reason it would follow, that God never spake to the Fathers by the holy Angels, which yet the Socinians will confess that he hath employed in the service of the Church? or will it follow that sometimes God did not immediately by himself speak to them? Or that the Spirit of Christ in the Prophets spake not? See 1 Pet. 1.11. Or that the Son of God could not manifest himself at pleasure; and be called an Angel in regard of his Office, the Angel of the Covenant; and because in regard of external shape he was so accounted, albeit if we consider his Nature, he was no Angel? This is the glory of the last times above all former Ages, that God now speaks to us by his Son manifested in the flesh. Nor will that refuge of the Antitrinitarians serve their turn, An Angel is Gods Ambassador, acts and speaks in the name of the Lord that sent him, and saith, I will do thus and thus, I will not hid any thing, I will bless. For I grant, that a commissionated Ambassador doth negotiate in the name of his Prince, which employed him about any public service for the Sate, and what he acts according to his Instructions, is as effectual as if the Prince himself had done it. But mark the dissimilitude betwixt an Ambassador and this Angel; an Ambassador never calls himself by the name of his Prince, he will not say, I am Emperor of Germany, I am King of France, though he represents the person of the Emperor, or of the King of France; nor do any call such Agents, Emperor, or King of France. In like manner an Angel, when he is Gods Messenger, is never absolutely called God or Lord, but the Angel of the Lord: And this is also true of Gods Ministers, He that receiveth you, receiveth him that sent you; yet would it be arrogancy in them to usurp to themselves the name of God; nor are they ever in any one place of Scripture called Jehovah; nor are they considered as one singular person, though they be one in representation; nor is Religious adoration due to them as they are Gods Ambassadors, and if it was tendered to them, they would reject it, and teach them to offer it to God, as the Angel that talked with Manoah, judge. 13.16. and another that talked with John, Revel. 19. and ch. 22. and for this reason, because he was his fellow servant. Thus much of the first Argument. ARGUM. II. Secondly, I frame another Argument in this manner. If the Divine Attributes do truly and properly belong to the Son of God, then is he truly and properly God: But the Divine Attributes do properly belong to the Son of God: Therefore, He is truly and properly God. For the clearing and proving the Consequence, this must be laid down as a fundamental conclusion, that God is in himself a most simplo Essence, without all true and real composition; for every thing is either God or a Creature, there is no medium, no third betwixt these. This one God, as considered without the Divine Persons, is not a Person, neither precisely Father, Son or Holy Ghost, but the Essence itself, which subsists in those three, and is in truth those three; for albeit God is a Concrete word, as the Learned speak, yet being conceived essentially, it doth not signify the Divine Essence with the personal subsistence, but only with the substantial existence, and is those three only: for it is a fiction to think, the Divine Essence is neither Father, Son and holy Ghost. This subsistence which belongs to the Divine Essence, as it is the Divine Essence, is communicable: Every one of the Divine Persons hath the whole Divine Essence, but not adequately and reciprocally. To proceed, God being in himself most perfect, stands not in need of any qualifications, as created substances do, for their operations. These then which we call divine essential Attributes, must not be conceived to be in God as Understanding and Will, or at least as Justice, Mercy, and such like are in men, as accidents inherent in a subject; nor are they actually many, and really distinguished in themselves, for if an Accident should be in God, it must needs be Equal, superior, or inferior to God: If the first, then besides, that it is contrary to the nature of an Accident to be equal to the subject, it is impossible that any thing which is not God should be equal to the Most High. Much less can the second be true, for the same Reasons; or else God should be less then he is in truth, without the addition of such Accidents. If the last, it is a great indignity and dishonour to God, to receive that actually in himself, which is less then God himself: nor can it be conceived how a finite being should enure in that subsistence which is infinite. The difference then betwixt the many Attributes of God is only virtual, according to our weak apprehensions, which cannot attain to or apprehended an infinite Essence, but by framing different conceptions of God, according to the different Objects and effects of those Attributes. So that these Essential Attributes are Infinite and Eternal, and( as I said) the very Godhead itself, which doth eminently contain all real perfections; which are indeed many in the Creatures, but all of them in God are in truth but one single and infinite perfection. See Dr. Cheynel fully discoursing of the eminent distinction of Divine Attributes, pag. 116.— And if these divine Attributes were truly Accidents in God, as the Socinians hold, yet upon supposition, that the Son of God was the subject of them, he must needs be the Most High God. The Assumption is proved by enumeration of some particulars. First, Eternity is an Attribute which is proper to God alone. Eternity is an infinite duration without beginning, without end, without innovation, without succession, always one and the same. That Eternity properly taken belongs to God only, will not be denied by the Adversaries. This Attribute belongs to the Son of God, John 1.1. In the beginning was the Word; in the beginning of the Creation of the great world, Was the Word, which was God. Now if Christ was before the Creation of all things, as this holy Text saith he was, he must needs be from all Eternity; for how can it possibly be otherwise, that he which was then, when there was nothing but God, should not be God? A parallel place to this is, Prover. 8.22. where Wisdom( the Abstract is put for the Concrete, put for the Son of God, who is eminently wise, as he is called, Life, Light, the Truth, and Wisdom, Luke 7.35. and 11.49. The Wisdom of God saith, I will sand Prophets.—) Wisdom saith, The Lord possessed me before his works of old. Ver. 23. I was set up from everlasting,— or ever the earth was.— Wisdom belongs to the Son of God, as doth the name of Light: he is called Light, because in him is the fullness of Light; and Wisdom, because all the treasures of wisdom are hidden in him. Bidle would make him younger then his Virgin mother, but the Spirit of God makes him more ancient then the world. John 17.5. Our Saviour thus prays, glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world: But how had he glory with him before the world? Not only in predestination, touching the exaltation of his human nature; that is very improperly said to be had, when the subject thereof is not in being: but glorify me, by manifesting that glory to be mine, which I enjoyed with thee before the foundation of the world, even from all eternity; which glory was clouded( as it were) in reference to men, by his human nature subject to sorrows— And this is further proved by that description of the Son of God, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,( which is not true of any Creature to be the first and the last) Revel. 1.8. Which was, which is, and which is to come, Revel. 1.8. and 22.13. I am the beginning and the end. These Titles do belong to God, Revel. 1.4. Isai. 41.4. and 44.6. and 48.12. He that is first and last, is truly God, the God of Israel, as the Texts do prove: But Christ is first and last, he that is, was, and is to come; therefore he is truly God. Now this description is not to be taken properly, as time is ascribed to us; but it is to be understood {αβγδ}; for in regard of God there is no time past or future, for then God should be subject to change and instability, to grow older. These differences then of time ascribed to God, are taken from the similitude of our time, and do show, that he doth always coexist with all the differences of our time, yet removing all imperfection from him. To this truth Christ himself gives testimony, John 8.58. Before Abraham was, I am. I am is Gods name, Exod. 3.14. The present tense is the fittest to denote the permanent duration of Christ, and that his Being was not interrupted, as some vainly thought he was John the Baptist raised from the dead; others Elias, and others Jeremias.— I am, implies Gods eternal and unchangeable being: Did ever man or Angel without vanity speak in this manner of himself, Before Peter the Apostle was, I am? The Jews judged Christ to blaspheme in that Discourse.[ Behold( saith Saint Austin) the Jews understood that which the Arians professed, Christians understand not. Since God is the Author of his own Being( I mean it is from no other) he must therefore have the best and the most incomparable being; and that is both à parte antè, as they say, and à parte post, alike infinite: This duration is from all eternity to all eternity. Christ is always the same, and his years fail not, à parte post. And thou Lord Christ) in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the Heavens are the works of thy hands, Psal. 90. Hebr. 1. there is his Eternity à parte ante; hence is it that the afflictions of Moses are called, the reproach of Christ, Heb. 11.26. for albeit Christ was not then born according to the flesh, yet in regard of his Spirit he was the Guide of Gods people; and that must then be, or else how could his afflictions be called the reproach of Christ? Secondly, As no number of years can express the Eternity of the Son of God, so can no place contain his Immensity; the extent( if I may have leave so to speak) is infinite; he is every where, and hath an unlimited Ubiquity; nor as the Heaven of Heavens, no nor the whole world can confine him in his being; so cannot the least creature exclude him from being with it. Matth. 28.20. Our Saviour made a gracious promise to be with the Apostles and their Successors in the Office of Teaching( for the Apostles were mortal, and dyed like other men) to the end of the world. It is true, that the person which promised to be present with them, was both God and man; but yet it follows not, that he in his human nature should be every where present, as some do unreasonably infer; for he said, They should not have him( as man) always with them; but by a usual Synecdoche, I am with you, namely, by my Divinity and eternal Spirit, graciously upholding and blessing the work of the Ministers of the Gospel for the saving of souls. Again, He came down from Heaven, John 3.13. because he being very God, condescended to become man, and yet notwithstanding this his humbling of himself, he was still in heaven; the reason is, he became man, yet ceased he not to be God, who is every where present; and therefore he being on earth, doubted not to avouch that he was then in heaven. And to this purpose Christ is said to walk in the midst of the seven golden Candlesticks, Revel. 1.13. and 2.1. signifying that he is always present with his Church, and needeth no Vice-gerent to supply his room, for all Commissions of supreme terrene Officers do cease in the presence of the Prince. Christ is always present with his Church, rules and protects her, and continually provides all good things both for the Angels, the Ministers and people: this gracious presence supposeth the essential presence of Christ; he is not personally absent, when he is graciously present. Thirdly, Omniscience is an undoubted property of the most High God. Thou Lord alone knowest the hearts of the children of men, 1 King. 8.39. 2 Chron. 6.30. This was not only true in Solomons time, but through all the ages of the world; for why he should rather know them in those dayes then at all times, no shadow of reason can be rendered. God understands all things in their proper Being, and he understands all things in his own infinite Essence, which is a most perspicuous glass: The Creatures are the Objectum quod, which are known, and the Divine Essence, without the help of any species, doth sufficiently and most perfectly represent all things, with all their perfections. He that beholds a thing in a glass, doth immediately look on the species; but actually, suppose on Peter and John, from whom are the emanations of those species, the ideae and images of their persons. Gods eyes do pierce into the bottom of hell, and the dark grave hath no covering before him, Prov. 15.11. The bodies of all the dead which lie in the darkest places of the earth, and in the bottom of the deepest waters, yea, and the damned Spirits in hell are before the Lord; he sees how the dead bodies do consume, and he sees what is become of the dust of those that are resolved into their first principles: He sees also how and what the cursed spirits and souls do suffer, and what be their thoughts which do groan under such Infernal torments, How much more( as wise Solomon argueth, not in respect of God, to whom all things are equally known, but in regard of our apprehensions) are the hearts of the children of men before him? and Gods foreknowledge of future contingencies infallibly and most certainly, is a proof that he is God; and because Idol Gods do not infallibly know them, they are therefore no Gods. This Argument would be weak, unless God did most certainly know all future things: besides( as I said) he is styled, {αβγδ}, Acts 1.24. because the reasonable will of man is under God, and he being the principal Object, and the utmost end thereof, can immediately work in it, Aquin. pag. 1. quest. 57. This properly belongs to our blessed Saviour: This is Saint Peters confession, Lord thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee, John 21.17. Hence is it, that he needed not that any man should tell him any thing, for he knew what was in man, John 2.25. He could dive into the inside of a man, into his secret thought. Hence the Word, a Title well known to belong to the Messiah, John 1.1. is called the living Word, so called, not only from the effect, giving life in all the degrees thereof; but because the eternal Son of God is coessential and ever living with his Father,( as Cassian. Collat. 7. cap. 13. Gazaeus in locum, and Junius in his Parallels, lib. 3. cap. 4. ad Hebraeos, do expound it) this Word is also sharper then any two edged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of the soul and Spirit,( mark his exact knowledge of all the acts of the animal and rational faculties) of the joints and marrow( that is, of outward and inward works) and he is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart( he knows what we think, and in what manner we do think, and what are the ends of our thoughts better then we ourselves do know them, 1 John 3.20.) and as he himself doth profess, he knoweth the works of his faithful servants by a knowledge of approbation, Revel. 2.13. so shall all men likewise know, that it is he that searcheth the reins and the heart, Revel. 2.23. which is Gods sole prerogative, as I proved; for who is he that reads those words in Jer. 17.9. The heart of man is deceitful above all things; Who knows it? I the Lord that searcheth the heart and rains; Who is he that perpends these words( I say) will not yield, that to search the heart and rains is a property belonging to God, whereby he is distinguished from all Creatures? And therefore since Christ takes this to himself, and speaks of it very Emphatically, he saith not, that all Churches shall know that I search hearts and rains; but that I am he that searcheth, a searcher of the rains; that is, of the affections, not because the reins are the seat of the affections, but because they are most remote from our eyes; and the secretest of the bowels, saith Mercerus in Psal. 7.9. Or because they are the subject of the strongest affections of lust; how else should he give to every man according to his works? as in that place is plainly expressed Rev. 2.23. A righteous judge on earth will not pass his Sentence on things unknown to him. The Lord requires that Judges should follow, {αβγδ}, Justice, Justice, justissimam Justitiam, Exact Justice, Deuter. 16.20. Christ is the righteous Judge of all the world, and nothing can be hidden from him, but all things are {αβγδ}, anatomised, as it were; or as the Sacrifices had their skins taken off, and then they were cut down the back, that the Priest might examine the Sacrifice, whether it was perfect or not. So are all, even the most secret things conspicuous to the eyes of Christ; he is a searcher of the hearts of all men, and knows whatsoever was done by all men, whensoever, or wheresoever they lived before his Incarnation; for he is the Supreme Judge of all men, which no created understanding possibly can know. To know the hearts of all men is more incomprehensible to conceive, then that God should be manifested in our flesh; for this hath nothing in it repugnant to reason, and it is both honourable and profitable for us, and agreeable to holy Scripture; but to attribute an infinite virtue to a finite Understanding, that is, an infinite Accident to a finite Subject, is an implicit contradiction. 4. A fourth Attribute of God, whereof I will speak, is his Omnipotency. The God of Israel is Almighty, and can do whatsoever he pleaseth, yea, and he can do more then he will do; for his will is terminated to the actual being of things, which have been, are, or shall be according to his purpose; for whatsoever he wills, he works; but whatsoever he can do, he works not; nor can any opposing power hinder him from doing whatsoever he will in all the world. He which is Omnipotent is God without contradiction. But what is this to Jesus Christ? Is he Almighty? Yes verily. This Attribute doth belong to the Son of God; and upon this account it is that he is called the Power of God, 1 Cor. 1.24. and more convincingly then so, he is called the Mighty God, Isai. 9.6. The Great God, Tit. 2.13. The Lord of Hosts, Hos. 12.5. The Angel which wrestled with Jacob is so styled, The Lord of Hosts is his name and his memorial. Zach. 2.8. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, after the glory hath he sent me; This Person that was sent is Christ, and yet is the Lord of Hosts: the Father that sent him is the Lord of Hosts, ver. 9. he that is sent is also the Lord of Hosts; and therefore there is no Argument to prove that the Sender is superior or greater then the Person sent; for one Lord of Hosts cannot be greater then another person that is Lord of Hosts. And if all that hath been written is not sufficient to convince the Adversary, yet this( me thinks) should stop his mouth, that Christ is expressly styled, Revel. 1.8. {αβγδ}, The Almighty, and his Almighty works do prove his Omnipotency. But of them hereafter. Fifthly, Absolute Power to work as the Person himself will work, is a Royalty peculiar to God: It is the High Lord only that can claim this honourable Title, because the Creatures, even the highest of them all are under a Law; and they are as Inferiors to comform their wills to the will of their Supreme Lord. But this Title belongs to the Son of God, as he himself beareth witness, John 5.21. that he raiseth and quickeneth whom he pleaseth. And he saith again, I do give to my sheep eternal life, John 10.28. As he was man, he prayed to the Father for his Church and chosen people; and as he was God he saith, Father, I will that those which thou hast given me shall be where I am, that they may behold my glory John 17.24. Is it the custom of inferiors to use such language to their Superiors? Or is not the Sons equality with his Father held forth thereby? Lastly, It is God alone that doth decree and make choice of some men to eternal life. Intellectio& volitio divina are comprehended under Gods Attributes. Gods decrees, which we conceive as many, are but one pure, vital, Eternal Will, and rational unchangeable act in God, and to speak properly, are nothing else but God decreeing; there is no potentiality in God, but he is glorious in ultima perfectione; he is semper in actu intelligendi,& volendi, as the Sun is always in actu lucendi. Nor must we conceive that we are able to comprehend with our shallow understanding these actings of the great God, but our apprehensions thereof are inadequate to the Object, Partly, from the Perfection of him that is apprehended; and partly from the imperfection of mans understanding: for how is it possible for a finite creature to have perfect knowledge of the infinite Creator? More probable it is( as Mr. Baxter saith) that the soul of a Beast should know what mans reasonable soul is, and that a mercers-chapel should comprehend the spacious heavens, then that man should comprehend the infinite God; and there is more resemblance betwixt the light of a Glow-Worm and the light of the glorious Sun, then betwixt God and Creatures, for there is some proportion betwixt the former, but in this later there is none at all, yet must we speak of God agreeablie to our apprehensions and the divine revelation. I proceed thus, In Deo non distinguuntur, esse, posse,& velle operari. Gods Decree or eternal immanent act considered in itself, and in reference to God, is nothing but God himself; for in Gods most simplo Essence there is nothing but God, and Gods Decrees make no composition in him. But now if this Act be considered as Relative to the term or execution of that act, or of Gods will, as it hath tendency to an Object out of God, or to the thing decreed; then there are many decrees, and thus they are not necessary, but free. God elected Peter, and passed by Judas, when it was truly and fully in his power to have elected or rejected them both, and consequently he doth in time give Peter a being in the world, and works grace in him, according to the counsel of his will. This is illustrated by a comparison of a circled. There is a circumference and Lines and a Center: now these Lines are many, and contrary one to another, and do make many parts in the Circumference, but all these are from the Center, and do flow from that indivisible point. Thus is it in Gods Decree, from an immutable act, there is a tendency to many external objects, and all the change is not in Gods decreeing, but in the objects decreed. We cannot fitly say, Deus potuit aliter velle: but we may truly say, Deus potuit velle ali●er: See Dr. Hoornebeck lib. 2. de Deo, cap. 7. And when God is said to will any thing freely, it is not to be understood of liberty antecedent to the Will, or act of the Will, as it is in God, but of liberty following the will; not as if God could will, and not will, or otherwise; or by another act of willing or another manner will this or that; not so, for this will is necessary in God, and cannot be separated from him: there is no other liberty but that of Essence and necessity, but God wils that things should be done freely and not done. In a word, this liberty respects the things themselves, and not Gods will. Some Learned Divines think, that they do most clearly explicate the obscurity of Gods Decree of Election, and more satisfactorily as to themselves; by saying, That Gods Decrees are not his Will, and consequently, himself simply, but modus voluntatis; which modus is no accident, nor opposeth Gods simplicity. His will( if I may have leave so to speak) freely modified and affencted to a reasonable creature capable of Glory. To apply this: Election to Eternal Life is an act of Jesus Christ: for these are his own words, I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen, John 13.18. And this is meant of Election to happiness, because Judas, though he was chosen to be an Apostle, yet was he an hypocrite, and a Traitor among the Apostles: He was chosen thus( Matth. 10.4.) and yet not chosen, namely, to eternal life: and John 15.19. The wicked of the world do hate you, but I have chosen you out of the world; and this Election was before the foundation of the world, Ephes 1.4. None of these forementioned Attributes are communicable to any Creature, and therefore Christ having them all, I mean, Eternity, Immensity, Omnipotency, Omniscience, an absolute Power to do what he will, and making choice of some men to inherit eternal life, I may fairly conclude, that he is God. ARGUM. III. A third Argument to prove the Deity of our blessed Saviour, is by comparing parallel Texts of the Old Testament cited in the New. These two Testaments are as the two lips of the mouth of God, by which he hath made known his pleasure concerning his own blessed self, his Worship and our Salvation. We shall take notice that some Texts which in the Old Testament are without controversy meant of the true and everliving God, and not cleared in that Divine Instrument to be spoken of the Son of God, are in the New Testament expounded of our Lord Christ. Out of many I will instance in a few choice particulars. 1. Numb. 14.12.& 21.5. The Lord said, I will smite them with pestilence, and dis-inherit them; and the people spake against God and against Moses, and the Lord sent fiery Serpents amongst the people;( so called, because their venom burned like fire:) If we ask Saint Paul, that infallible Interpreter of Gods Word, who it was that was tempted, he will inform us, That the people tempted Christ, and were destroyed of Serpents, 1 Corinth. 10.9. Is not this place enough? He that was tempted of the Israelites, was the true God; this is proved by the Text in Numbers: But Jesus Christ was tempted by the Israelites, as Saint Paul faith: Therefore, He is the true God. There is no other Accusative Case can be understood, but {αβγδ}, Neither let us tempt Christ as they tempted, viz. him, to add God, as they tempted God, is dangerously to corrupt the Scripture; and if the Apostle meant God, why did not he, to prevent mistake, express him? Nor can Moses, as some would have it, be meant hereby, for it is no where said in Gods Word, that the Israelites tempted Moses; the Israelites are said to speak against, but it is not said that they tempted him, but God; nor is Moses in all the Scripture called Christ: nor is there any reason to say, what ever befalls the Type, doth belong to the Antitype; no more then to say, Christ was born in Egypt, and drawn out of the waters, because these befell Moses. 2. A second parallel is in Psal. 102.26. there it is said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my dayes, thy years are throughout all generations. Long since hast thou laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure.— Thy duration is permanent and necessary, thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end:( years are ascribed to God by a Metaphor) sc. thy duration is an everlasting duration, and always the same. God is no elder this year then he was thousands of years by-gone. If these words which belong only to the Great God are verified of our Lord Christ, his Deity is thereby fully confirmed; but the holy Apostle applies this as spoken of our Saviour, Hebr. 1.10. who is the Creator of heaven and earth, as is clear by the whole Context, making a comparison betwixt the Son of God and the holy Angels, and proves by an Argument drawn à minori, as Logicians speak, That Christ is more excellent then those heavenly and immortal substances. First, in respect of the Dignity of his Office; and then in regard of the excellency of his Person; which he neither proves from his name, nor from his glory, but from his Omnipotency, which was manifested by the Creation of the world, and by the Eternity and Immutability of his Essence, which is without vicissitude and change of time; and this is so evident, that no Christian, who is not a Socinian, no Jew, no Mahometan, no Pagan, if he advisedly red that first to the Hebrewes, but will say, Saint Paul did teach the eternity of Christ. The Creator of Heaven and Earth is from eternity. The Son of God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, as the Text shows: Therefore, He is eternal. Again, He that remaines always the same, both before the Creation, and after the destruction of the world, he is from eternity. The Son of God always remains always the same, both before the Creation, and after the destruction of the world. Ergo, He is from Eternity. And this Psalm is meant of Christ; not of God the Father, for he was not immediately spoken to in the Old Testament, but by a mediator; nor is the Psalm referred but to the building of Sion ver. 14. When God shall appear in glory, ver. 17. which is, When the Nations shall fear God, and all the Kings his glory. scil. ver. 21, 23 and it is he that heareth the groanings of prisoners, and loseth them that are appointed to death. And the Psalmist comforteth himself against the miseries and shortness of his life, by nothing, but opposing thereto Gods eternity, as having a necessary connexion with the restauration of the Church, now laid( as it were) in the dust, from the Life, Resurrection and immortality of Christ; there is a necessary Inference, that they which are his members, shall have Resurrection, Life and Immortality. See Placeus lib. 1. Disput. 31. 3. The Evangelical Prophet, Isai. 6.1. saith, I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne; and this Lord is twice called, The Lord of Hosts. This glory was not foreseen and foretold, but at present seen: and seeing the glory of him that sits upon the Throne, he saw the glorious Lord; then he said, Wo is me, I am undone, for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts—. Then was he sent with this message, Go and tell this people, hear ye, but understand not,— Make the heart of this people fat, lest they should hear and believe. He whose glory Isaiah did see, is the true God of Israel: But Isaiah did see the glory of Christ as judge, sitting upon a Throne. This is proved by the Testimony of Saint John the beloved Disciple of the Lord: though Christ had wrought many miracles in the sight of the people, yet they did not believe on him; why? That the saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled;— and then concludes; These things said Esaias, and foretold them, when he saw( in a vision) the glory of Christ and spake of him. John 12.37.41. And who is he that heals his people, but Jesus Christ the Physician of our souls? Isai. 6.10. Besides the hardening the heart and healing them, cannot but be referred to the same person, He hath blinded their eyes, lest I should heal them, John 12.40. 4. Isaiah 25.6, 7, 9 Hos. 13.14. The Lord of Hosts will make a feast of fat things, he will destroy the face of the covering( i. death cast over all people) he will swallow up death in victory, and wipe away all tears from off all faces. Who is this Lord God that shall swallow up death victoriously, that shall destroy death for ever, so that from that time forward, there shall be no more death at all? Who but the Lord Christ, as Saint Paul saith, 1 Corinth. 15.54, 57. Who is this Lord of Hosts that shall wipe away all tears from the eyes of his servants, and take away all cause of sorrow for ever? It is the Lord that makes all things new, revel. 21.9. and in the same Chapter, Isai. 25.9. And it shall be said in those dayes, Lo this is our God, we have waited for him, and he will save us; we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation. This Lord God is meant, whose coming the Israelites did wait for; Who was the expectation of Israel, and the salvation thereof, but the promised messiah? And yet he is called by them, Our God, and Jehovah whom they expected. John the Baptist he came but as a Minister and Forerunner of Christ; the Apostles came also, but they were sent by Christ their Lord. 5. A place parallel to the former, is, Isai. 35.4. Fear not, your God will come with vengeance, he will come and save you. This is to be understood of the coming of our blessed Saviour, as appears by the Miracles which he should work; for as it followeth, ver. 5. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.— then shall the lame man leap like an Hart,— and the end of the coming of their God was to save them; ver. 4. And there is no name we know whereby we may be saved, but by the name of Jesus. This is the work of the Most High God, and fulfilled by our Saviour, as himself beareth witness, Luke 7.22. Go and tell your Master John what Miracles ye have seen wrought, the blind do see.— John sent these Messengers to inquire of Christ, and said to him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? ver. 20. not that he himself doubted, that Christ was the messiah; for at his baptism he knew by divine Revelation, He saw the sign, and bare record that Jesus was the Son of God, John 1.34. And the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, ver. 29. but he sent to Christ for the satisfaction of his Disciples, that they might not be shaken in their faith( if he himself now a Prisoner should be cut off) but believe that Christ was the Saviour of the world, and so might adhere to him. 6. Isaiah 40.3. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness( of Judea) Prepare ye the way of the Lord( by repentance) make straight in the Desert a high way for our God; every valley shall be exalted, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed to all flesh. This voice of the Crier in the wilderness is John the Baptist, Matth. 3.3. the immediate forerunner of our blessed Saviour, who coming not long after him, is the Lord and our God; why else should be proclaim, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, long time before foretold by the Prophet, but that his coming was at hand? And this cannot be meant of any coming of the Father, for then it would rather have been said, the voice of Christ, then of John the Baptist; for Christ in the wilderness did more fully preach repentance, then John the Baptist did. I reason thus, He for whom John was to prepare the way, is the true God Jehovah: But Christ was the person for whom John prepared the way: Therefore He is the true God. And in the next verse after this voice, and this way prepared, The glory of the Lord shal be revealed to all flesh: What glory of the Lord was revealed after the preaching of John the Baptist, but the glory of Christ made flesh and dwelling amongst us? And we saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God, John 1.14. And in the same 40 Chapter, ver. 8. The word of our God endures for ever: this our God is Christ, the Word, the Gospel of Christ, 1 Peter 1.25. Math. 24.35. Again, Isai. 40.10, 11. Behold the Lord God will come, and his arm shall rule for him.— He shall feed his Flock like a Shepherd. Behold his reward is with him; which is meant of Christ the righteous Judge, and King of the Saints, Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, Revel. 22.12. 7 Isai. 44.6. Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts, I am the first and the last. And in these very terms doth our blessed Saviour describe himself to the comfort of John almost fainting at the terribleness of the Vision which he saw, Fear not, I am the first and the last, Rev. 1.17. 8. Isaiah 45.23. I have sworn by myself: the word is gone out of thy mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God( who is the one Supreme Judge of all.) He that thus swears is the God of Israel, but Christ is the person that swears every knee shall bow to him, as the Apostle applieth the words, We shall all stand at the Tribunal of Christ to be judged by him; for it is written( in the forecited place of Isaiah) As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, Rom. 14.10, 11. Phil. 2.10. For every person to bow the knee to Christ, and to be judged at the Tribunal of Christ, as the Supreme Judge, from whom there lies no appeal, and who hath all power without exception both in heaven and earth, are equipollent and reciprocal phrases. 9 Once more out of this Evangelical Prophet, and then I have done with this Argument, Isaiah 8.14. sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself, and he shall be a Sanctuary; but for a ston of stumbling, and a Rock of offence to the house of Israel. He who was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah, to be a ston of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, is the true God: But Christ is the Person foretold by Isaiah to be a ston of stumbling: And therefore, He is God. The Minor is proved, Luke 2.34. Rom. 9.30, 31. 1 Pet. 2.8. And this is agreeable to the scope of the words, which was to take off the scandal at the incredulity and rejection of the Jews, which had so often( by the Prophets) the messiah promised to them, and yet when he came they owned him not, but put him to a shameful death. But now what pious man can be scandalised hereat, when he reads, that this was many ages before foretold by the Prophet Isaiah, who is {αβγδ}, called a ston of offence, and none but he; nor is Christ so called in any place of the Old Testament, but in this of the Prophet Isaiah. By these few Instances it is evident, that what in many places of the Old Testament, was undoubtedly spoken of the Most High God are by the convincing light of the New Testament clearly expounded of our blessed Saviour. Many more places are alleged to this purpose by many Writers, more particularly by Junius in his Learned Books of Parallels, by Crumerus in his Schola Prophetica; by Gerhard, De Christo; by Becman, Exercitat. Theolog. 14. & sequentibus; and by Placeus Professor of Divinty at Salmur in France, lib. 2. per totum, which the Reader, if he desires further satisfaction, may( if he please) red, collected to his hands by the Authors themselves. ARGUM. IV. A fourth Argument to prove the Deity of our blessed Saviour, is drawn from the Relation betwixt his sacred Person and God the Father; he is the Son of God. Nor let any subtle Adversary think to cut the sinews of this reason, by objecting to us, That it is no marvel that Christ should be called the Son of God, for the holy Angels are described by that relative Title, they are called the Sons of God, Job 1.6. and 38 7. because they resemble him in their qualities, as in Power, Dignity, Spirituality and in Holiness, and do not serve him as Slaves do their Masters, but as Sons do obey their Fathers, both willingly and readily, and they are honoured also with the privileges of Sons, being always near him, and having the happiness continually to behold his glorious face; and not only have those heavenly Creatures, but all the faithful also this great privilege graciously conferred on them to be the Sons of God, 1 John 12. This I grant, yet this weakens not the strength of my Argument; for albeit the holy Angels and faithful ones are the sons of God, yet are they not so the sons of God, not sons in the same kind as our Saviour is Gods Son. The Angels received this honour by grace in the day of their Creation, and holy men of God had this grace conferred on them to be the Sons of God in the day of their Regeneration, and by consequence they are improperly called, the sons of God. But Christ is Gods Son by generation, and this generation is a most proper generation. Christ hath taught us to say, Our Father which art in Heaven, but he himself never useth this form of speech; sometimes he calls him the Father, sometimes My Father, sometimes, Your Father, but never including us, saith he, Our Father: he makes no such conjunction of us to himself, as to make no distinction betwixt us and himself. That imperfection which cleaves to the generation of Creatures, is as a defect removed from God; and what is perfect in that natural work is eminently ascribed to him, See Zanch. de tribus Elohim, par. 1. cap. 7. First, It belongs not to the transcendent excellency of God the Father to give the same specifical nature to his Son, as is done by a created Father, but the same numerical Essence, which none but God can do. Secondly, The Father communicates his Essence to his Son, not in time, but from all eternity; whereas the Nature of imperfect Creatures in comparison of God, is so weak, that they cannot generate the like in kind, till they are grown to strength of body. Thirdly, Nor is the generation a transient act of God the Father begetting a Son without him, as it is for certain in all generating substances. Fourthly, Neither is it done by efflux, {αβγδ}, that which is begotten is not separated from the Father that doth beget his Son; whereas this separation is visible in all the Creatures. Fifthly, The Father and the Son are {αβγδ}, they have the same individual substance, they are not {αβγδ}, of a like substance; the Father begets the Son without change or motion, after a most glorious and wonderful manner wirhin himself, and essentially one with himself; and therefore albeit he is the Son of David according to the flesh, as the holy Word distinguisheth, yet is he the Lord of David by his Eternal Spirit. 6 This relation is coaeval with the Essence: as he is always God, so is he always Son; but such is the fluctuant condition of human generation, and of relations which arise from thence, that he which is this day a Son, may be to morrow a Father, and the next day, without any real alteration in himself, be neither son by the death of his Father, nor father by the death of his son: But in the Divine Nature it is otherwise, the Father was never Son, nor the Son Father, but fixed. The truth of this assertion is manifest, because he is said to be begotten of his Father this day; this day is the day of Eternity, Psal. 2.7. This is a Title too high and sublime for the holy Angels: it is not said in Scripture touching them, This day have I begotten you. Micah 5.2. The goings forth of him that shall be Ruler in Israel, have been of old from everlasting, {αβγδ}, These jointly are always taken for eternity: and it is said, v. 4. That he shall be great to the ends of the earth. Of whom can such words be verified but of our blessed Saviour? See this Text cleared from all Objections by Spanhemius Dub. Evangel. part 2. Dub. 47. And for the same reason is he said to be {αβγδ}, the proper Son of God, Rom. 8.32. and God is said to be {αβγδ}, his proper Father, John 5.18. He is son in such a manner as no Creature is; that is, a son of the same nature with the Father: Every thing is known {αβγδ}, by its proper fruit, Luke 6.44. Andrew findeth his own brother Simon, John 1.41. a proper Son then is a Son begotten of the same nature and substance of his Father. He is called the only begotten Son of God, John 1.18. and 3.16. Herein appeared the love of God towards us, because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him, 1 John 4.9. If he be begotten, he is not made, not created: if he be begotten of his Father, he is of the same substance with his Father; if he be the only begotten Son of God, it is in regard of a more excellent manner of being his Son, then in men or Angels, and that is, he is a Son of God by Nature, and not in regard of excellency of parts and gifts, for magis& minus non variant speciem. If a father have a son which hath a more excellent Office and better gifts then the rest of his children, these do not denominate him to be an only begotten Son, or more truly a man then the other sons; believers are not called Gods proper sons, Gods only begotten Son, sons of their Fathers own substance. These limitations do hold forth a peculiarity and propriety which Christ the Son of God hath above all other Sons, and for the same reason is also called the first born of every creature, Col. 1.15. As man he was a creature, but as God he was before every Creature: And there is a difference betwixt Christ the first born, and others in Scripture called the first born; for 1. the first born amongst men is of the same kind with those in regard of whom he is called the first born; but it is otherwise here, for Christ is not of the same kind with the holy Angels. 2. He that is first born amongst men is so called, because they in regard of whom he is the first born, be also born too; and so are not Angels, in regard of whom Christ is chiefly the first born. 3 The first born is not a cause of those in respect of whom he is called the first born, as the first begotten and born son is not the cause of his, brethren; but all things were created by Christ, as it follows in the Text. Observe moreover, to clear this point, that Christ is called the Image,( the substantial image) of his Fathers Person, Heb. 1.5. When we look upon a Perspective glass, our Image like ourselves is naturally produced. Bellar. Explicat. Doctr. Christi, cap. 18. So when God with the eye of his understanding, beholds( if I may have leave so to speak) the glass of the divine nature from everlasting to everlasting, there results the son, an essential image of himself; this is an immanent act, called generatio, which is prima ac multiplicativa processio, as spiratio is called, secunda& completiva processio: And as the Understanding in order of Nature is before the Will, so is the first production by the Understanding & ad modum intellectus, as touching the original, before the second production of the Holy Ghost, which is ad modum voluntatis, and there is no further procession. Hence is the Son called, Gods Image, and not the Holy Ghost, because in this he is more like to the first Person, then the third, because he with the Father communicates the divine Essence to the Holy Ghost per modum spirationis. And as the Son is the image of his Father, so is he also said to be splendour, {αβγδ}, a coeternal light from the Father, who is as the Sun: and upon the same account( as the Schoolmen speak) is he said to be always generated in regard of the eternity of generation, and always born in regard of the perfection of it. 1. Nor was he therefore the Son of God, because his mother conceived him by the Holy Ghost in a most rare and singular way: that Because, Luke 1.35. refers not to the Conception of Christ, as the cause of the divine Sonship, for he was the Son of God before his Incarnation; but it is referred to the fulfilling of the prophesy recorded Isai. 7.14: nor doth the Text say, therefore he shall be the Son of God, but therefore shall he be called, that is, declared and manifested hereby to be the Son of God. 2 Nor was he called the Son of God, because he was sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and had in our Nature gifts given to him without measure to qualify him to be our Saviour, John 10.35. for he was the Son of God before he was the son of Mary; and his being anointed with gifts above his fellowes, Hebr. 1. was to enable him to be a perfect mediator to reconcile us to God. And that Chapter plainly proves his Deity, before his assumed humanity. 3 Nor was he called the Son of God, because of Gods special love to him above all others, Matth. 3.17. He was indeed {αβγδ}, the Son of his love, but he was not therefore his Son, because he was dearly beloved; but because he was his only begotten Son, equal to himself, and the express Image of his person, therefore he dearly loved him. 4 Nor was he called primarily the Son of God, because of his Resurrection from the dead to die no more, Act. 13.33. As Lazarus and others raised by our Saviour did die again and see corruption; for evident it is, that he was the Son of God before his Resurrection, Rom. 1.4. And his divine Sonship was veiled for a time under the form of a servant; but by the manner of his Resurrection which was by his own power, he was declared to be the Son of God Rom. 1.4. 5. Nor lastly, is he the Son of God because of his exaltation in heaven far above all Angels, for he was often so called before that time, and the position of this cause would be the exclusion of the former. That in Psal. 2. This day have I begotten thee, is often cited in the new Testament, to teach us( as Dr. Cheynel hath divinely observed) to fix our eyes on the Divine Sonship of Christ, when ever we meditate or discourse of his Conception, of his admirable gifts in time bestowed on him, on his Birth, Transfiguration, Resurrection and Exaltation to Glory, Chap. 7. of the Divine Trin-Unity. If then none of the former recited particulars were the causes why Christ was the Son of God, as they were not, there remaineth but this one, that he must needs be the natural Son of God, and by that divine way of the Fathers communicating his divine Essence by eternal generation: And this may be further proved; The Title that God the Father gives him by calling him his Son, this is a Title which advanceth Christ above all Creatures. And as the Father, so Christ calls himself the Son of God, John 5.18. as never man did in Scripture: now the Jews were not so blind, but they understood these two Titles, to be the Son of God, and God, to be all one; and for his saying, that God was his Father, and hereby equalizing himself to God, they would have stoned him, and they judged that Christ blasphemed in that he called God his Father, and made himself God, John 10.33, 34. This must of necessity be understood of Gods Son in regard of his Godhead: for to be the Son of God by grace of Creation or Adoption, and to call God Father in a general way, is a usual phrase in Scripture, and they would have heard this language without any offence at all: It appears then, that Christ alleged his Sonship according to the Godhead. And observe further, that our Saviour did not excuse his speech, though it was offensive to them: And Nathaneel discovered Christ by his Omniscience to be God, and his expressions no doubt were suitable to his apprehensions, giving him this Title to be the Son of God, John 1.49. which in his judgement was as high as to be God. And the High Priest asked him, when he was arraigned before him, Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed? Mark 14.61. this Answer was present and positive, I am Gods Son: the High Priest hearing this profession, rent his clothes, which for the dead he might not do, and conceived this to be blasphemy; which surely, had he not judged it a Title equivalent to his being God, he would not have done it, if his being the Son of God had been no higher a Title then is compatible to a Creature; and then passing his own sentence, he saith, What need we any further witnesses? And asking the people, they also said, What need we any further Witnesses? for we ourselves have heard out of his own mouth, that he professeth himself to be the Son of God; they all condemned him to be guilty of death, Mark 14.64. and Luke 22.70, 71. Whereby they committed the greatest sin in itself that could be committed, and that was Deicidium; so far as they were able, they did murder God, which must needs imply, that they did not take that his confession to be meant of a Son by Grace, but by Nature, and that he was very God indeed. ARGUM. V. A fifth Argument to prove the Deity of our blessed Saviour is this, Because we are enjoined in Gods holy Word, to worship him with that Religious Adoration( with that honour I mean) which is properly and solely due to the living God, and to him alone. Now for certain, Divine honour is not to be yielded to the Humanity of Christ, as it is considered in itself, and abstracted from the Deity, but to the whole Person, to the Deity and Humanity hypostatically united; for neither doth the grace of Union nor the grace of Unction, confer more honour upon the Humanity, then a Creature is capable of: Divine Excellency, infinite Majesty, and uncreated perfection, are the formal and adequate ground of divine Worship; nor will the Lord give this his glory to another, Isaiah 42.8. and 48.11. It is true, God will give glory to those which believe in Christ, which is happiness and eternal life; which is called the glory of God, because it is a most excellent condition, and God alone is the author and Giver of it. But the glory which he will give to no other, consists in the Honour, Worship, and Adoration due to God, and his most glorious Attributes, for which this Worship is due to God. This his glory he will not give to Angels, to men, to any Creature; nor can it be said, that glory is due to any but God, as to the prime author of all good, but as they are Instruments under him, subordinate to him, and dependent on him, as all Creatures are in regard of their Being and Operations. For this assertion makes this solemn protestation of God to be of no effect, yea, and to imply a contradiction, as though God could give his glory to another, not depending on him, and subordinate to him, or as if Gods glory was given to any Creature, it was not given to another. Shall we say, that the Effect is not another thing from the Cause, the Subjects from the King, albeit they do depend on them? And to speak the Truth, it is not possible for God to give, or a Creature to be capable to receive his glory; nor can that Creature possibly be the first author of good things, which is the receiver in time of all good things; but now Christ having this glory of God, is not another thing from him, but one and the same God. God gave not his glory to another thing: But God gave his glory to Christ: Ergo, He is not another thing, but the same with God. It is agreeable to the Socinian catechism, and the exposition of the first Commandment, which containeth these two things: 1. That God is to be our God, and he is to worshipped by us with Divine Worship. And 2 That no other besides him is to be worshipped with Divine Worship and Honour. If no other is to be acknowledged and worshipped with Divine Worship, then are we forbidden to worship any Creature with divine Worship, tending thereby to the Worship of the great God, which is a pretence of Idolaters. If a King shall say thus to his Subjects. you shall acknowledge me alone whilst I live to be your King. Or if a husband shall say to his wife, Thou shalt have no other Husband whiles I do live; are they to be taken in this sense, you shall have no King nor Husband which is not subordinated to me? Nor was there under the Legal Dispensation any such subordinate Gods: But the Israelites took the words, as there was cause to do, without any such distinction. And this being a Moral Law, it doth perpetually bind men, not under the Law, but under the Gospel to obey it. But it is no breach of the first Commandment; it is no Idolatry to yield Religious Worship to our Saviour. all men must honour the Son of God as they do honour the Father, and he which honoureth not the Son which is sent, honoureth not the Father which sent him, John 5.23. And therefore it was no fault in him,( nor could he commit any) to equalize himself with God; but great hypocrisy in them to pretend a great deal of zeal to God the Father, and yet to despise and disparaged his Son. I do believe, that Christ our Mediator, God and man, is to be honoured, not only as he is the only begotten Son of God, but as he is {αβγδ}, God-man: The Exaltation of our blessed Saviour after his Passion and glorious Resurrection, was only in regard of the human Nature, which the Son of God assumed into the Unity of his Person, in which regard it is said, that God, {αβγδ}, graciously communicated, and freely bestowed glory on him, Philip. 2.10. But if we look upon the divine nature in that consideration, he was not a Usurper, in that he equalized himself with God the Father; and this glory he had not by Grace, but by the necessity of nature from all eternity, according to his heavenly Prayer, O Father glorify me now with thine own self with the glory I had with thee before the world was, John 17.5. Although the open use thereof for a time( according to the will of his heavenly Father) was not manifested to the world, yet having right by nature, he might always have challenged the same, and he might have spoken hereof as he did of his life. I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again, John 10.17. For Christ voluntarily took upon him the form of a servant and was crucified, when he could have rescued himself out of danger of death by his own power, and with many Legions of Angels, which were all of them at his command; yet he freely offered up himself to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for our salvation, and afterwards he resumes his former glory, a short time veiled in our flesh in the state of his humiliation; and the glory of Christ which followed his passion, as it had reference to the human nature, was not the Divine glory, though it is nearest to it, and as great as that Nature was capable of, and far above the glory of the highest Angels; yet is not this glory in itself considered, a Cause why Christ is to he adored by us; but this nature is( as it were) an assumed part of that Person, which is the object of Religious Adoration. Now because the Divine Nature is joined with the human in one Person; upon this account it is, that our Mediator is not worshipped with two kinds of Worship Divine, but only with one; in which the formal object, or the term( as the Schoolmen speak) of this divine Worship is only the Divine Nature, and the human Nature is as an adjunct to that Person which is to be worshipped, Synod. Ephes. Tom. 1. council. Can. 4. Anathematismo Cyrilli octavo. As that Honour which is due to a King and a man, had they been divers subjects, would not have been the same in degree to both, yet he being but one person, the honour is but one which is exhibited to the King. There are divers honours which are Gods peculiars, and they do all of them belong to Jesus Christ. 1. The first is. Religious Worship in spirit, which is the exhibiting that Reverence and Worship which is due to the great God, in all places, at all times, and in all things; and this Spiritual Worship is Gods Prerogative, peculiarly due to him, whereby we do first apprehended his transcendent Excellency; and this is an act of the Understanding. Secondly, It is an act of the Will, whereby we do something to his honour, to testify our acknowledgement of his greatness, and our subjection to him, as being the everliving God, the Creator and governor of all things, and author of all that is good; outwardly by actions to testify his Superiority over us, and our Inferiority to him, as to bow and use reverend gestures with our bodies in our Devotions, to testify that the mind and heart do acknowledge the glorious Person which is worshipped, to be very God. We honour the blessed Saints, but we do not worship or adore them or any Creature, neither Saint nor Angel, a practise as heathenish, and condemned by Saint Paul, Col. 2.18. as having no other ground for this Devotion but the carnal fantasy of Idolaters: These misled people, condemned by a council of Laodicea, as Theodoret reports on the Text, did not think the Angels to be Gods, or equal to the most High God, neither did they worship them in such sorts as to ascribe infinite greatness to them; but Worship was directed to them in an inferior and lower degree, because they thought they were gracious with God▪ and mediated betwixt God and man in a very high degree and excellent manner; yet were these heretics for thus worshipping Creatures, condemned, because this spiritual Worship is restrained to infinite greatness. But this Spiritual Worship is to be exhibited to our Lord Christ, whose excellency appeareth not only here and there and in a limited time and confined place; but presents itself to the holy ones in every thing, in every time and place; in so much that the holy Angels which refused to be worshipped themselves, yet these Creatures excellent in power and dignity, are exhorted all of them to worship him, Psal. 97.7. Worship him all ye Gods, that is, Angels, as Saint Paul expounds it, Hebr. 1. And Saint John, Revel. 1.6. ascribes to our Saviour and Redeemer, Glory and Dominion for ever and ever; which is as much as we can render to God the Father, the eternal God, and which is as much as Christ himself teacheth us to attribute to his Father in heaven( if Father be taken personally) Matth. 6 13. thus, Revel. 5.13. I heard every creature which is in heaven, and which is on earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the Sea, and all of them heard I saying, Blessing, Honour, Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for ever. How can all Creatures, not one excepted, give glory to the Lamb? Not by their words, for some of them cannot speak; but as voices are to them which can speak, so by a Metaphor are faculties and operations to other things: and as words are signs of the mind by institution, so are actions by nature, which do( as it were) speak by their excellent Creation of the glory of their creator, as an excellent work doth declare the virtue, skill, and praise of the Workman. This then is meant of the Creatures as they are Creatures, that do alike ascribe glory to God and to the Lamb, as Chap. 4.12. Because thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created; as therefore this Doxology is ascribed to him that sits upon the Throne, because he created all things; so likewise to the Lamb for the same reason; for there is not the least difference in the holy Text betwixt the glory of God the Father, and his Son the Lamb of God. See also Revel. 14.7. and Rom. 9.5. He is over all, God blessed for ever. Which is as much as can be spoken of God the Father; nor can it be replied, that God is to be adored as the first author of all things, for is there a second author of all things? Be there more Creators then one God? Then would not he transgress the Law which should worship a creature, but not as the prime author of all things; What Idolaters then will not have a cloak for their Idolatries? For many Nations worshipped Gods, which they did not believe were the prime Authors of all things; nor would the devil desire thus to be worshipped by Christ; for he boasted, All the kingdoms of the earth and their glory were given him, Matth. 4. yet Christ repelled this temptation by the Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, Luke. 4.8. Nor did Cornelius believe that Peter was the first Author of all things, yet did worship him, and he refused it, Acts 10. Nor did John take the Angel for God, who manifestly declared himself to be a servant of God, and when he would have worshipped him, he rejected that honour with indignation, See thou do it not: and he insinuates the command, Worship God; implying that God only is to be worshipped with Religious Adoration. 2. The High God alone is the object of Religious Invocation. We are both commanded and encouraged to make our requests known unto him. Call upon me in the day of trouble,( and by the same reason at all other times) and it is enforced by this strong Motive, I will hear thee; i. grant thy requests, Psal. 50.15. But we are no where commanded nor encouraged to pray unto any Creature; This Religious Worship is an honour which God would not have exhibited to the work of his own hands; for no revealed excellency,( for ought we can learn) can either see, or know, or intermeddle with all our particular affairs, nor do they ordinarily know our hearts, which are open only to Gods eye; nor with what affections and intentions our prayers are directed to them; nor can they possibly at once receive them, which have many various and contrary objective conceptions. This is peculiar to God, who understands not by help of external or concreated species, as Creatures do; but by the intention of his own infinite Essence, which is most singularly one, and by one intellect à parte Dei, God understands all things at once, who is the wise and mighty Creator of our souls, and is both within us and without us, and every where present, unto him therefore alone we are to make our addresses, and by so doing the holy Angels and Saints will love us in him, and what lies in them procure our welfare, seeing every one that is good, doth love and desire to please him, who is the Supreme good. To this truth some of the Socinians have readily subscribed, and afforded us their suffrages, and do account their Brethren to be no better then Idolaters, because they, notwithstanding their Principle that Christ is but a Creature, yet do they acknowledge and prove that he is to be invocated. The reasons of these dissenting brethren, which are our reasons also, are these. First, They are true Idolaters which do serve and call on them, which are not the true God. This Proposition is proved, Gal. 4.8. But in the opinion of the Socinians, Christ is not the true God. Therefore, They by doing service to him are Idolaters. Secondly, They that call on their fellow servants and adore their brethren with Religious worship, they are reproved by the holy Angel, Apoc. 19. But Christ if he be a pure man, is our fellow servant and our brother. Thirdly, He that calls on a Creature is blasphemous to God. Deuter. 4.6.10, 17. Matth. 4. But Christ is a Creature, say the Socinians. Fourthly, Jeremiah the Prophet speaking in the name of God, pronounceth him cursed that trusts in man, as they do which religiously invocate his person, 5. Lastly, Religious Invocation is Gods glory, which he will give to no other, Isaiah 42. and therefore not to Christ, if he be not God. These Arguments are alleged out of Franciscus Davidis Budnaeus, and Christianus Franku, by Learned Hoornbeck, Apparatu. pag. 33. And Legate, obstinate Legate, burned in Smithfield Anno Domini, 1611. professed to King James, That he for seven years prayed not to Jesus, though formerly in his ignorance he had invocated his Name. See Mr. Fuller Church History 17 Cent. an. 1611. pag. 62. But the other Socinians do account these men for denying the lawfulness of prayers to Christ, to be impious, and do renounce their Brother-hood, and do not esteem them to be Christians, Socin. in. Catech. page. 32. Catech. Cracov. page. 157. And the truth is thus confirmed; for our Saviour, the Husband of his Church( being exempted from possibility of offending his Father) requires his Beloved( and therefore it is lawful) and calls upon her to pray unto him, and he delightfully hears her prayers, which are as sweet melody to his ears, Let me hear thy voice, for it is sweet, Cant. 2.14 And his faithful servants in their due acknowledgement of his infinite greatness, and in obedience to him their great Lord, honoured him with their homage of prayers to his Divine Majesty: and father Jacob wrestled with Jehovah, he wept and made supplications unto him, and would not let him go till he had blessed him. Christ said not to him by way of reproof, as he did to his wife Rachel, with indignation, Am I God, to bless thee with children? Gen. 30.1. Or as the King of Israel spoken of the Letters of the King of Syria, 2 King. 5.7. Am I God, to kill and make alive, and to heal a Leper? Or as the Angel admonished John {αβγδ}, See thou worship not me: but he accepted of his prayers. And when the enraged enemies of Saint Stephen,( who had this high honour, to be the first Christian Martyr) were unmercifully stoning him, He kneeled down and said, Lord Jesus receive my spirit, Acts 7.59. This was so common a practise amongst Christians, that the Disciples were described by this Character, to be such as called on the name of Christ, Acts 9.14. And this was famously known to the enemies of Christianity, which were amazed at this wonderful Conversion of Saul, because not long before he was bloodily bent to destroy them which called on the Name of Jesus, ver 21. and the same blessed Apostle writes, That the Saints in every place called on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Corinth. 1.2. These two are Synonymaes of equal latitude, to be a Saint, and to call on Christ, and this latter is an explication of the former. And to conclude, Saint John( with all that out of their ardent affection desire more fully to enjoy him whom their souls do love) prayeth fervently, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Revel. 22.20. Hence I argue against the Socinians: That Person which knows the hearts of all men, and hears the Prayers of all the men in the world, at all times and in all places, is the true God, because a Creature,( as Christ must be if he be not the Creator) is limited both in Essence, in virtue, and in operation, nor is it possible for him to hear at once all prayers in all places, and at all times, that is not of infinite perfection. But Jesus Christ knows the hearts of all men, and hears their prayers, as is proved; else were it in vain to pray to him: Ergo, He is God. 3 It s an honour peculiar to God to be the Object of Religious trust and confidence. He that is the Object of Religious Trust and Confidence, is God: But Jesus Christ is the Object of Religious Trust and Confidence: Ergo. The mayor is thus proved; Because it is reasonable and expedient, that the Person on whose word we do depend for all the good things of this life, and the life to come, be 1 Eternal. On this account Princes are not to be confided in, for they must die, and then they fail those that hope in them: but God is one and the same for ever. 2 That it be such an eternal Cause, on which all others do depend: for why should we rely on that person which is under the power of another, and may be overpowered by a Superior? 3 He must be infallibilis veritatis, who infallibly gives being to all his Promises for those that do rely on Aquas defluentes, are carried down with those running waters, and they do depend on a broken staff, which will deceive them. It is not only the King of Egypt, that is a staff of reed, but all creatures are like the floods of Job, Job 6.15, 16, 17. which will then deceive us, when we have the greatest need of them; yea, and a curse is denounced in the Prophet Jeremy, chap. 17. against those which trust in man, and which do rely on the arm of flesh. How should any Creatures be firm props to lean on, when all of them from the lowest to the highest do depend on God for their being, their preservation and their operations? God set up the world as a fair and goodly Clock( as Mr. Culverwel a young man of rare abilites, saith) to strike in time, and to move in an orderly manner, not by its own weights, but by fresh influences from himself, by that inward and intimate spring of immediate concourse that should supply it in a most uniform& proportionable manner( Ch. 2.) viz light of nature Its true, that Israelites are said, not only to believe the Lord, but his servant Moses, Exod. 14 31. that is, they believed Gods Word spoken to them by Moses. They believed not on the Messenger of God, but on the message which he brought; to believe on the means is to go a whoring after strange Gods: and as it is an Argument of a bad sight to be terminated by the air, which is medium videndi, so is it of a bad hope to rest on the means of grace. The Minor is proved, That Jesus Christ is the Object of our faith, and it is a great sin, for which the world shall be condemned, Because they believed not on him. John 16.9. Again, Whosoever believeth on him shall have everlasting life, Joh. 3.16. But most convincingly, John 14.1. Our Saviour Christ invites his Disciples and all believers in a way of absolute adherence to depend upon him, as they do upon God the Father, Let not your hearts be troubled, ye believe in God, believe also in me. The strength of this Argument is evident, He that is God is to be believed on: But I am God; therefore, I am to be believed on. And if ye ought to believe in me, and are commanded so to do, you ought not to be troubled with worldly cares or fears. Now this being a commandment without all limitation or exception, proves that the Disciples were to depend upon Christ after the same manner that they are to rely on God the Father, and consequently doth evince, that he is true God, and not a divine man. Nor is it credible, that he in the same sentence being joined with God, would not have set a mark of difference betwixt believing in God the Father, and believing in him, if he had not been true God. It is true, Exod. 14.31. The people believed the Lord, and his servant Moses; that is, they believed Gods Word made known to them by his servant Moses: but would God endure it, or would any divine man, as Moses, speak in this manner, Believe in God, believe in me also? Prophets and Apostles were sent by God to be believed. but not to be believed on, that is Gods peculiar right. And would not any man judge it arrogancy to hear another thus speak? Believe in me. And would it not be an inducement to give divine honour to that Creature, and make it equal with God? The Son and the Father are then to be looked on by the eye of faith as that one Supreme Object of their confidence. 4. To swear is a part of Religious service, when performed in Judgement, Truth, and Righteousness, which analogically is ascribed to Christ himself. I reason thus: That Person which is the object of a Religious Oath is God, Deuter. 6.13. Thou shalt swear by his Name, who is a most infallible witness, judge and Avenger of all perjured persons, and such as take his Name either rashly or falsely. It is true; that in Oaths by Creatures, the Lord is indirectly called in as a witness, and such oaths redounds to God, as, He that sweareth by the Temple, sweareth by him that dwelleth in the Temple; and he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by Gods Throne, and by him that sits on it, Matth. 23.21, 22. yet doth it not follow, that Christ approveth such Oaths, because they are not agreeable to the Word of God and do exalt the Creature above its state and condition into Gods Throne; and do ascribe Omniscience and Omnipotency to them. But Christ is the Object of a Religious Oath; and because he hath no greater to swear by, he swears by himself, Isai. 45. I have sworn by myself, every knee shall bow to me; here Christ swears by himself, and the words immediately before, ver. 22. I am God, and besides me there is none other, Psal. 6. ult. Rom. 9.1. Saint Paul expounds these words of our Saviour, Rom. 14.10 Before whose Tribunal every knee must bow; and by bowing of every knee, he p●oves, We must all stand before the Tribunal of Christ. If this Lord be one person, ad the Judge before whom we must appear be another, there had been no good consequence betwixt these two. We must bow the knee to the Lord, and be judged by Christ; for according to the Socinian Doctrine the consequence is good which is taken from the Worship of Christ to the Worship of God; but from the Worship of God to the Worship of Christ. the Inference is rejected, for God may be worshipped when Christ is not worshipped, but the honour done to Christ redounds to God. So they. 5. Lastly, to name no more, Divine service is an honor solely due to God, both in the Old Testament, Deuter. 6.13. Thou shalt serve him. And in the New no less then in the Old; for Christ repeating that Law, Deuter 6. of serving God, a duty of inferiors founded on the Divine Nature, as most worthy to be obeied, adds the exclusive Particle, which is not in the Hebrew, Deut. 6. It is written, the Lord thy God thou shalt[ only] serve. Inward and outward service, which is absolute, illimited and univerfal, is to be performed only to God. This honour is due to Christ: and as he is the great Lord, he is thus to be served; all people, Nations, and Languages are bound to serve him, and not the meaner sort only, but the greatest Kings, Dan. 7.14. Psal. 2.10, 11, 12. And this was foretold, Psal. 72.11. All Kings shall fall down before him, all Nations shall serve him; And those enemies which will not have Christ to reign over them, as a King over loyal and obedient subjects, they( as his enemies) shall be slain before him, Luke 19.27. But if any man will serve me( saith our Saviour) he shall be where I am, and my Father will honour him, John 12.29. And not only men, but the holy Angels are bound to serve him, Dan. 7.10. Heb. 1.6. Thus much of this fifth Argument. ARGUM. VI. All true knowledge of things ariseth either from the apprehension of their inward nature, or from a consideration of their outward works and actions: The holy Scripture hath opened the mystery of the Godhead of our Lord and Saviour both these ways: the former is more excellent and perfect, but the view of the wonderful glory of his works, which is my sixth Argument, is a more easy and a more compendious way, I do not say, to comprehend the infiniteness of his Nature, but to discern infallibly that he is infinite. 1. The first Work of Christ, is the first Creation. I argue thus: The Maker of Heaven and Earth, and all things in them, is the God of Israel. Jesus Christ is the Maker of Heaven and Earth: Ergo. The mayor is proved by Scripture and by Reason. The Reason is, Because Creation is a work of Omnipotency, making the first matter out of the barren womb of nothing, not as the matter of the Creatures, but as the term from whence they came, and all the Creatures, which were made of it( for Accidents are not properly Created, but concreated) by no less infinite Power then the first mass or lump itself without form was made. If Adam in his first estate, or if the holy Angels of God had been created before the first matter, and if that first matter when once it was made, had been brought by the Almighty power of God to them( as the Creatures were to Adam to give th●m names, Genes. 2.19.) it had not been possible for them, I will not only say, to have made the other Creatures, but so much as to have devised the form and Workmanship, which now they do with delight see and wonder at in the meanest Creatures. It must then always be remembered, that Moses in the very beginning of that divine Scripture lays down this as a main foundation of Religion, Genes. 1.1. In the beginning God created heaven and earth: And this is a glory to be creator, which belongs to none but to God himself: for, I am the first and the last( saith the Lord) surely my hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens, Isai. 48.12. And that the Israelites might not forget this, the Lord, Exod. 20.11. in the fourth Commandment, spake in the hearing of all Israel, In six dayes the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them: as by those things which are in the earth, men by an excellency are to be understood; so by all things in heaven Angels are to be understood, and consequently, there was no Creature did exist before the six dayes, but all of them were made in the compass of that time. And the Lord doth arm the Jews which were to be carried into captivity against all Idolatry, with this spiritual sword, Jerem. 10.11. They are no Gods which have not made Heaven and earth. So also, he who hath made the Earth with his Power, and establisheth the World by his Wisdom, and stretched out the Heavens by his Discretion, is the true God, ver. 12. Who can then doubt, but that he who made heaven and earth is the Almighty? And if we can find any one to have made all these things, we may know him thereby to be the true God; for God cannot possible make any thing Omnipotent, and able to create something of nothing; for though he be Omnipotent, yet is it a contradiction to say, there can be two Omnipotents, the one uncreated, the other created; and all one as to say, there are two Gods, a made and an unmade God. Now Christ is the Maker of Heaven and Earth, and all things in heaven and earth: whatsoever had any beginning of their Being( as all things in the world except God himself) had that beginning and being of theirs by the Word or Son of God; John 1.3. All things were made by him, and if any thing can be more full to take away all exception, there was nothing that was not made by him; he made the world, ver. 1●. There is nothing so glorious in heaven above, nothing so mean on earth below; nothing so hidden in the depths of the sea or bowels of the earth( saith Chrysostom, Homil. 66. ad popul. Antioch.) but had their substances, qualities and operations from our Saviour Christ. Nor can this be meant of the new Creation, which is, without all necessity, to leave the literal sense, and to fly to a Metaphor: by this Interpretation, the allusion to the History of the Creation, Gen. 1.1. is lost, and the Analogy betwixt the Type and thing represented by it, is not observed, if in the first Creation God made all things without the Word, but nothing without the Word in the new. But that you may be assured the words are not meant of the new Creation, it is said of the world that was made by him, that he was in the world, and the world knew him not. Surely the renewed world, the new Creatures knew him, and therefore it cannot be meant of them. And to say, if they were not reformed, it was no fault of the Saviour; and therefore he may be said to make the world, because what in him lay he reformed it. If this should have been the Evangelists meaning, he might have said, the world was made by John the Baptist, and by the holy Apostles, for they laboured what was in them to draw them to repentance and bring them to Christ. But what Christian ears would endure such a saying. John the Baptist and the holy Apostles made the world? And upon the same account it might be said, that the most impious livers and abominable Idolaters were reformed by Christ; and that Moses brought the Israelites which perished in the wilderness, into the Land of Canaan; and that a Physician hath healed his Patient which grows weaker daily, and dies of his Disease; for none of these were wanting to do what was in their power for the good of their charge: nay it may be said, that a vanquished Army which fought valiantly, conquered their enemies, yet every one knows that such manner of speeches are both false and unusual in the world. To say nothing, that many were reformed in the old Testament, and yet this reformed world could not, in the opinion of the Adversaries, be made by Christ, for that which was not, could not work at all. I will add but one place more, Colos. 1.16. All things were made by Christ, things visible, and( such as are not expressy mentioned by Moses in the Creation) things invisible, all things in earth and in heaven, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities or Powers, &c. to show, that nothing at all is excepted; the Apostle adds, All things were created by him, as the efficient cause of them, and for him as the end. The Apostle makes mention of these Angels however distinguished, and proves thereby that Christ is the first born of every Creature, ver. 15. that is, he is before the Creature in time, in dignity and authority; and shows that Christ doth infinitely excel the most excellent Creatures of all, even the holy Angels and the highest of them all; much less can any inferior Creature be compared with him, for Christ is the Creator of them, and they are but Effects. There is as much difference betwixt them and Christ, as there is betwixt the Cause and the Effect, the Creator, and the Creature. If Saint Paul had meant the new Creation, why used he not such words as might express his meaning? And how can that be extended to all things mentioned by Paul, when many of them are not capable of the new Creation? Such are all senseless and unreasonable things in earth and in heaven; nor is the new Creation agreeable to the state of the holy Angels; for reformation always presupposeth a deformation. The holy Creatures were never old Creatures, ●. i. defiled with sin, therefore they cannot be made new Creatures. To say, as Adversaries, they were made by him; that is, they had him a new Lord, which before they had not over them, is to use the word in such a sense as the Scriptures never use it, and otherwise to expound Making when referred to men, and when to Angels; and by this exposition, so often as there was a new King in Israel, we might say, That all things that were in the Land of Canaan, were made by this new King, which is absurd, nor will a wise man ever speak in that manner. If any Angels then were made by Christ in the Socinians sense of the new Creation, they must be Divels; and such stomacks have they, that they can concoct this, that the divels are made new Creatures and reformed by Christ; .i. they are subject to Christ, and their power is weakened by him. But is Christs rule over them as rebellious enemies, is his frustrating their wicked designs a creating of them? By this reason we might say, the divels were made by the Disciples, for by the power of Christ they were made subject to them, and cast out of the possessed by them. This of the first Effect. 2. He that is the Preserver of all things is God: Christ is the Preserver of all things: Ergo, He is God. The mayor is thus illustrated, Preservation is a work equivalent to Creation; and it is a continuation of those Creatures which Gods hands have made. All that is in the world hath been created by him, and so are all things preserved, upheld and continued by him; they had been a non entity, nothing, but for him; and such is their imperfection and dependency on the first cause, that they would fall back to nothing without him, as those Religious Levites, Nehem. 9.5. do aclowledge; Of him, and to him, and by him are all things, Rom. 11.36. All things are of him as the Creator of them; all things are for him, as the utmost final Cause for which they were created; and all things are by him as the conserving cause of them all. Creation and Preservation are not properly two acts, but one Action, yet with this difference; in regard of the first instant, it is called Creation, in regard of the continuation of the same influx begun, which adds nothing to Creation, it is called Conservation: As for example, The Sun enlightens the air by beams, and without any new act of the Suns to enlighten, the light of the air, by the continuation of the same rays, is preserved. So that Conservation is a continued Creation. Creation builds the house, but Conservation holds it up and repairs it. A house might as well stand without a foundation, and the work of Art without the substratum of natural Creatures, as any thing of itself can stand without God. What can a Mason do without stones? or a Carpenter without wood? just nothing: no more can natural things subsist without God, who is Natura Naturans, as the Schoolmen speak. Hence is it that the annihilation or reducing a Creature to nothing, is but a suspension of Gods concourse from that Creature. See Rada part 2. page. 57. All the Reformed Churches, yea, and the Papistical also do agree in this Tenet with one consent, albeit there is a difference touching the actions of the Creatures, whether Gods concourse be immediate and undivided from the Creatures, which is denied by Durandus, Lodovicus à Dola, and others; which say, that they being preserved, can act by the general composure of their natures, which is as improbable, as that an Instrument of music set in tune can make any music, and sound forth in a sweet and harmonious manner the praises of God, without the finger of a skilful Musician. Yet all do well agree, that God doth immediately by his concourse or influxus conservationis uphold all Creatures; and not only the meaner sorts of them, but the heavens themselves, our immortal souls, and the Angelical spirits. Conservation is the work of our Lord Christ, he upholds all things by the word of his power, by his powerful command, his holy will and pleasure, Hebr. 1.3. So long as Creatures remain in their being, so long it is the will and pleasure of Christ to work that they should continue. And not a few things only, but all things are upheld by him, ver. 2. In the former verse it is said, that by him were made the worlds; not the world to come, for that is not called simply {αβγδ}, but with an addition, the world to come, Hebr. 6.5. and cap. 2.5. Nor doth the Apostle speak in the time to come, He will make; or present, he doth make; but of a thing already done, He hath made the world. And ver. 10. The old Creation is directly proved to be by Christ. Hence I argue, That world which was created by Christ, is upheld by Christ: The old world and natural Creatures were made by Christ: Ergo, The world is upheld by Christ. A parallel Text of Scripture to confirm this truth, is Colos. 1.17. All things; viz. all Angels and things on earth which were created by Christ, ver. 15, 16. do subsist in Christ. The generality is expressed, All things; all things without exception, not only the kinds of things are contained in their-being, but all the Individuals in every kind do subsist in him, together with the preservation of the essential qualities of all the Creatures. This is also confirmed by the immediate voice of Christ himself. My Father doth work hitherto, and I do work, viz. hitherto, John 5.17. In the first six dayes he created all things, and then he restend touching the Creation of new kinds of Creature; yet doth the Father and the Son of God still work to preserve the world by his power, to govern it by his Counsel and Wisdom, and to cherish it by his goodness. Whatsoever things the Father doth, the Son doth the very self-same things likewise, {αβγδ}, Heinsius in John. After the same manner, with the same Wisdom communicated to him by eternal generation. Thirdly, Infallible knowledge and prediction of future Events, which are merely contingent, and which in nature have no reason at all of their futurition, is an Argument of the Deity. These have fundamentum cognoscibilitatis, as Suarez. Opusal. lib. 2. de scientia media, cap. 2. saith, that is truth which is the foundation of knowledge. Whatsoever can be known is infallibly known by God, but not infallibly known by any created being, no not the future actions of natural things, as of the motion of the Sun, and burning of combustible things cast into the fire; because all future things, both in regard of their being and actions depend on Gods concourse. For instance, A Water-Milne, be it never so well fitted to grinned, yet without a fresh supply of streams to turn about the Wheels, and of blasts of wind to wheel about the sails of the Wind-milne, moves not at all. Now God is a free Agent, and can suspend his concourse at his pleasure, he can alter and over power the second cause; and therefore no man can certainly say, no not the holy Angels themselves, whether combustible bodies shall be burnt in the flames, for we see that three men cast into the fiery Oven perished not, Dan. 3. nor had their bodies or garments singed with the heat thereof; and the Sun hath both stood still in Joshuahs dayes, yea, gone back in the reign of Hezekiah. But the Angels have neither light enough of their own to manifest a future object, nor eyes strong enough to pierce into it. But God knows his own determinate will and purpose concerning all things, and he exactly knows the created principles of all mens actions, and what they would do by Gods assistance when such and such objects, are presented to them, when they are most dubious, hovering betwixt esse& non esse; he plainly perceives which way they will incline, when man only sees an equipoise and neutrality; he always sees a contingency, in termino, in eventu, in periodo. What is more contingent then the future mutable thoughts of man? yet he doth infallibly know our thoughts long before they were conceived by us, Psal. 139. even from eternity, as S James teacheth us, Acts 15.18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world: otherwise he should begin to know them when they begin to subsist, and his knowledge by new emergent cogitation would be increased, which argues imperfection. And this is incompatible to the All-seeing eye, to which all things are naked and open; and this absurdity would also follow, that God should not be always Actuatissimus, Scientissimus, as profound Bradwardine argueth, De Causa Dei, lib. 1. cap. 1. And God should have a desire to know them, as every rational creature doth naturality to know things which are unknown. I will not enter into a Dispute in this place, how God knows future contingencies; this I have endeavoured to open at large, lib 3. pag. 351. Tertullian saith elegantly, Prophetical predictions, are infallible demonstrations of the Deity, Lib. 2. contra martion. cap. 5. Yea, and our Omniscient God challengeth other Gods to bring forth their reasons to prove their Divine Nature; and it is this under our hand, Let them show us what things are to come( infallibly and at all times) that we may know that ye are Gods, Isai. 41.23. Hence is he called, a God of knowledge, 1 Sam. 2.3. And a God infinite in understanding, Psal. 147.5. By the same way and means God knows something he knows all. Nor doth God only know future things, which the Divine Essence as willing them represents to his infinite understanding, but also he knows future conditional things, which never shall have a being; he knows them as a potent cause to produce them, though not as a working Cause to effect them, Halens. de Trinitat. quaest. 23. art. membro. 3. artic. 1. See Scriptures and many reasons to prove this, page. 360. The denial of Gods knowledge of future things, is to put away one of the strongest and convincing proofs that we have, that the holy Scriptures are the Word of God. See 1. Book pag. 145. It is a great dishonour to God to deny, as the Socinians do, the Election and Reprobation of singular persons to be from eternity, because, as they dream, he doth not infallibly know the future contingent actions, which are the issues of free will. Our blessed Saviour foreknew and foretold things to come; not to insist on the Predictions to Abraham and others in the Old Testament, he visibly sometimes appearing, but the Father never, as is conceived. Peter acknowledged this truth; Christ asked him, Peter, lovest thou me? He said, Lord, thou knowest all things. And, as he was God, exactly knew whatever in time to come should be in the world; for there can be no reason given why he should foreknow some contingencies, and not all. But he did foretell that Judas should betray him; he sent Peter and John to prepare the Passeover, and tells them, when they are entered into Jerusalem, there shall a man meet you bearing a Pitcher of water, follow him into the house where he entereth in, and say to the Master of the house, The Master saith, Where is the Guest-Chamber? and he will show you a large upper room furnished. And they went and found as he had said, Luke 22.8. He did also foresee and foretell that Peter, notwithstanding his confidence to adhere to him, would deny him thrice, and it fell out accordingly. There is not the least footstep, that these( in time) were revealed to his person; but that as he by his Spirit, by his divine Spirit knew the secrets of mens hearts, Mark 2.8. and dived into the inside of a man, into his very thoughts, John 24.25. so by the same spirit could foretell infallibly future contingencies. The truth of Divination is an evident proof of the Divinity, saith Tertullian Apologet. A fourth work to prove the Deity of Christ, is taken from his Miracles. And I argue thus: He that works Miracles by his own power, is God: Christ wrought Miracles by his own power: Ergo. For the opening and proving of the mayor, observe, that a Miracle, to speak properly, is an outward sensible work, Mat. 9.8. and 11.3, 4. which doth exceed the utmost ability of any created being. Many things( I grant) are marvelous and wonderful to us, which are not Miracles, albeit they are produced above nature extraordinarily, as the Creation of the world, where divine Providence settled the course of Nature; and every dayes creation of immortal souls, and the comfortable infusion of sanctifying graces, are not properly Miracles, August. de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 6. And it is further required, that a Miracle be done perfectly without defect, and presently without delay. I do not mean simply, for then those Instances, 2 King. 4.33. and Mark 8.24. would confute me; but they are done without delay, because they are effected in the same moment that the Lord would have them done. Now that Miracles are Gods royal Prerogative, and his peculiar works, the Psalmist avoucheth. The Lord above doth wondrous works, Psal. 78.18. What can be more plainly or more fully spoken? No holy man on earth, no Angel in heaven, no not the human Nature of our Saviour dignified above all Created excellencies, could originally from itself produce a Miracle. Jehoram King of Israel shewed his just indignation against the Letters of the King of Syria, 2 King. 5.7. saying, Recover my servant of his leprosy, Am I( saith he religiously) a God, to kill and make alive? This then is a glory peculiar to the Lord God Almighty. 1 Our Saviour wrought Miracles when and where he would, as none else ever could do; My Father quickeneth whom he will; there it will follow, that the Son working Miracles, is proved thereby to be God: But the holy Apostles which were happy Instruments to raise some from death to life, could not always raise their own beloved friends from their beds of sickness, Act. 28.8. 2 Tim. 4.20. In the prevailing famine in King Ahabs reign, there were many( poor and) widows in Israel, but unto none of them all was the Prophet sent, but to the relief of a poor widow in Sarepthah. And there were many Lepers in Israel in the dayes of Elisha the Prophet, yet none of them all were miraculously cured by him, but only a stranger, Naaman the Syrian, Luke 4.25. But now when it is said, as the Father, so the Son raiseth whomsoever he pleaseth, this proves that he is the principal efficient, and not the Instrument of working Miracles: Is the work done according to the will of the Instrument, or of the principal cause? Joh. 5.21. It is Gods property alone to do whatsoever pleaseth him. Psal. 115.3. Secondly, I add, That Christ wrought such Miracles as no man ever wrought, and that by his own power, as to cure a man and give him sight, who was born blind, John 9.32. and which is more wonderful, to raise up his own dead body. I may truly say, since the world begun, this was never yet, nor shall ever be done. And as himself saith, If I do not the works which no man ever did, they had not sinned, John 15.24. But now they have seen, and their malicious opposing them doth evidence that they do not only hate me, but my Father also. Doth not this prove that he wrought Miracles in a far more excellent way and manner of working, then could be found amongst men? So that his Miracles were very potent, yet not alway prevalent; for there were many Spectators of them which were hardened by them. Thirdly, Christ did the same works which his Father did, and after the same manner, John 5.17. whereby he is fully distinguished from all others, which were instruments under God; for which of them all either can or dare say, that he worketh after the same manner that God doth work. Fourthly, Christ works his Miracles by his own power and virtue, for he commands both the tempestuous winds and the raging sea, and they do obey him, and there is a great calm, Mark 4.39. As God commanded light to shine out of darkness, so did our blessed Saviour exercise his Authority and sovereignty in his commands to the Creatures, and well might they say one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him? But men do not, nor can thus work as Christ wrought his Miracles. It is true. That Christ( as himself confesseth) can do nothing of himself, John 5.19. And whatsoever Christ hath, he hath it from the Father by communicating it to him. Yet is it also true, that he hath this Almighty power in himself, and works all by himself; nor do those words import any impotency in Christ without his Father; but they show his most absolute and perfect equality with God the Father, as the next words do evince. Fifthly, He did not only Miracles himself, but he gave power to work them in his name. They should cast out Divels, they should speak strange Languages( without any study) they should not be hurt by Serpents nor by drinking poison, and they should by laying on their hands recover the sick, Mark 16, 17, 18. which promise began to be fulfilled Acts 2. and 3.12. Christ gave them such an admirable gift, that upon the using of his Name, the forementioned and other such wonderful effects should follow, that could not be done by the sons of men. It is true, that Christ Jesus himself wrought Miracles in the name of his Father, John 10.25. for we do confess that our Saviour, as he was man, derived his Power and Authority to work them from God, and was in this consideration his Instrument; yet even then neither whole Christ, nor the whole of Christ was Gods Instrument in such miraculous works; nor is inferiority necessary implyed by him, who saith he doth a thing in the Name of another, as appears Mat. 28.19. Baptize in the Name( not in the names) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: here is implyed a co-equality or infinite power in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: And if such a collection should be sound, Christ himself will have Authority over his Father, for he sends his Spirit in the Name of Christ, John 14.26. If we shall by name understand Power and Authority, then did Christ work Miracles by his own Authority, as he did in truth, Acts 3.16. Peter saith, Christs name hath made this Cripple strong and sound. Now when it is said our Lord wrought Miracles in his Fathers name, the meaning is, he wrought them to glorify his Father, and then it is no inconvenience to say, they were done by his own Authority, to his Fathers honour. Christ then( to return to my Argument) gave power to his Apostles and others to work Miracles, but these could not give it to any others, albeit some by the imposition of the hands of two Apostles, Peter and John, had extraordinary external gifts, as of healing Diseases, and prophesy conferred on them, and the Apostles sharply rebukes Simon Magus because he profanely thought that gift might be bought with money, Act. 8.20. Sixthly and lastly, This is strongly proved from this consideration that Christ was by his working of Miracles demonstrated to be the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God, and equal with his Father, John 5.18, 19. And again saith Christ, Whether is it easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Take up thy bed and walk? Matth. 9 5. These are impossible for men, both of them do belong to God. To conclude this Argument, that I might prevent mistakes, it must be remembered, that I do not argue from the working of Miracles simply in themselves considered, That Christ because he wrought them was the most High God. For it is apparent that many Disciples, especially in the first plantation of Christian Churches had this gift of working Miracles. But here lies the strength of my Argument, That the Miracles of our Saviour were wrought by his own power, in his own name, to his own glory, and that as he was Lord of his Creatures, which obedientially served him, and were wrought on by his commanding way, when ever he would himself use this power; and in that he gave power to others to work Miracles, which Saint Peter would have all the people of Israel to take notice of, Acts 4.10. And this was also his gift,( which is a remarkable circumstance) after his ignominious death. It is no great wonder, that a great and potent Monarch having store of moneys, which are the sinews of War, and a numerous Army of valiant Souldiers, should achieve notable and famous Victories; but that our blessed Saviour after he was truly dead and butted, should give power to others to work wonders on the Land and in the Sea, which neither man nor Angel can imitate, as Saint Chrysostom saith truly, is a strong Argument of his Deity, Homil. 66. ad p●pul. Antiochen. And these Miracles which were wrought by Christ, have their tongue to speak, the Author of them is God. Aug. Tractat. 24. in Johan. for none can change nature, but he that is the God of Nature. These recited Works are wrought by Christ, and appertained to him as a powerful Creator; and like to these are those works which do belong to him as a merciful Redeemer; yet for the clearer evidence hereof I will allege them as a distinct Argument. ARGUM. VII. Seventhly and lastly, It was requisite that Christ should not only be a true man, but very God also, for the accomplishment of Gods glorious design and gracious purpose in mans Redemption. It is true, Christ was mediator before his Incarnation; viz. by his Word and Spirit, and acting there in reference to the Nature which should in the fullness of time be assumed into his Person; but he was not so perfectly a Saviour as now he is. This second Person of the glorious Trinity is name Jesus, and he is so called from the end, which is most excellent, to save men from their sins and hell, and to confer righteousness and life on all Believers. And the name of messiah and Christ imports his Offices, which are the divinely instituted means to attain that end, that is, the salvation of mens souls: a mere Creature Priest, a mere Creature Prophet, and a mere Creature King, could not perform those several actions which were necessary to be done by Christ, who was a Priest, a King, and a Prophet, all three happily meeting in him, and in him alone. Christ in regard of his Priestly Office( which was not after the order of Levi, but after the order of Melchisedech) offered up his body as a propitiatory Sacrifice by his eternal Spirit, to reconcile us to God the Father, to obtain remission of sins, spiritual graces and life eternal by an All sufficient price laid down for us. It is true, That God is said to love the world, and out of his love to the world to give his Son to die for the Elect, John 3.16. and freely to forgive all our sins. But this is not opposite to the merits and satisfaction of Christ, which belong to him as a Priest and Sacrifice; for we must consider a double reference of Gods love; the one is towards the Creature, the other is towards his Justice and hatred of sin. God would have his Son to satisfy them both with due recompense: he satisfied his love to the sinful Creature, when he gave his Son to be our Mediator: he satisfied his love to justice and his hatred of sin, when he gave his S●n to die for us, and by his blood to expiate our sins: he satisfied his love to the Creature, because out of love he forgives sins freely in regard of the Creature, though it was by laying the punishment of our sins on his dear Son to satisfy his Justice; for notwithstanding his love to Justice and hatred of sin, he out of his love to the Elect forgives their sins, and gives unto them eternal life; in which respect it may be truly said, God satisfied himself, and appeased himself in his Beloved Son. Now the blood of a mere man which was to die, cannot give due satisfaction to Gods Justice for those gross and innumerable evils which sinful man hath committed against the most pure and infinite Majesty of God. If the Church be not redeemed by the blood of God, as for certain it is, Acts 20.28. then is the Church not redeemed at all; then is our faith, and our preaching, then are all our holy Duties in vain, and we are under the guilt and dominion of our sins; then hath not God received a satisfactory Ransom for our souls: but Christ being God manifested in the flesh, is able to bear Gods wrath to the uttermost, and not sink under the burden of it; he is able to pay the utmost farthing of our debts, and purchase no less then a Kingdom of Heaven, and a Crown of glory for us. It is storied of Archimedes, that he should say, he would remove the world, in case there was a Center assigned to him out of it, to fix his Engine; this work in a spiritual sense was effected by the man Christ Jesus, and by such a manner as the other was contrived, by having the humanity as an Engine united to the Deity as the Basis thereof, whereby he removed the whole spiritual frame of the world, to cast out the Prince of darkness, and to draw all things to himself, Joh. 12.32. Besides, this is such a glorious way of mans Redemption, that the Truth of God, the Holinesse of God, and Gods hatred of sin do shine forth in their brightness to the eyes of every spiritual Beholder: when we shall consider, that God would not spare his only natural Son, being voluntarily interressed in our cause, but proceed in rigour of Justice against him as our Surety, as if he had been the greatest Malefactor in the world, to receive an infinite satisfaction from him; for albeit his Justice will not be corrupted, yet it will be satisfied; if the wrath of God be infinite against sins, yet may a Sacrifice of infinite worth appease it. Christ was a Saviour meritoriously by his bitter death and passion: his suffering was in his human Nature, but the force and efficacy of his bitter passion throughout all generations depends upon the Deity, because the Person that suffered in his human nature was true God. And albeit nothing is actually infinite in being, but God only in that he is God; nevertheless as the sin of Adam was finite in regard of the act, but in efficacy is said to be infinite, because it subjected all the race of Adam to damnation, why may not much more the passion of Christ, finite in time, be infinite in value, being the passion of an infinite God? for as a number is said to be infinite by possibility of addition, and a line by possibility of extension, so are there no limits which can be set to the value of Christs sacrificed body, it hath no measured bounds of efficacy, but is infinite extensively in possibility of application, even to the Redemption of a thousand worlds, if there had been so many, and is more available to acquit us of all our debts, then if all the men in the world had been everlastingly damned;& when all is suffered, a finite sum can never discharge an infinite debt: All the sufferings of this world, yea, and in hell itself, are not worthy the future glory, though one man should suffer them all, is a very great, yet a true amplification. Bern. Serm. 2. in Annun. Nor was it sufficient that Christ should be a Saviour in regard of merit( for without some further actings of Christ we cannot be saved) but he must be a Saviour also in regard of efficacy. It was not possible for Christ to be long detained under the dominion of death, nor for the Guard about his sepulchre to hinder his Resurrection. Death( as Luther saith) is an Omnipotent Queen and Empresse of all mankind, destroying Kings, Princes and generally all the sons of Adam. This death did mightily encounter with Christ, who is life itself, and thinking to overthrow him utterly as all other men, did indeed kill his body, but because his life was immortal, when it was overcome, did at last overcome and get the victory;( in cap. 3. ad Galat. ver. 13.) and by catching at the Bait of his Humanity, was caught with the Hook of his Divinity, Christ( I say) is a Saviour in efficacy, working those heavenly graces in us, whereby we are meet to enjoy Heaven: And upon this account it is, that he is able to save us perfectly, Heb. 7.25. He efficaciously applies to us the benefits which by his death he merited for us. His death was as the Gold and Silver, which gave the value to the precious coin; but Christs Resurrection, his sitting at his Fathers right hand in heaven, and his Intercession there for us, are like the stamp of the Supreme Magistrate, and his Picture, which makes the coin to be currant and passable amongst men. So that Christ ceased not to be a Prophet, Priest and King, when he ceased to be a mortal man, and to live in this inferior world; but he executes his Offices most powerfully and gloriously, being exalted far above all Principalities and Powers, and there he is our Advocate, and such an Advocate, as can pled the worthiness of his Person, his perfect obedience and meritorious sufferings, and can do whatever it pleaseth him to promote our happiness. I will instance in a few particulars. First, Conversion, Illumination, and all-saving Graces are the free-gift of Jesus Christ. This is frequently prayed for in the beginning of the Apostolical Epistles. Grace and Peace from God the Father, and from Jesus Christ. The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and live, not only they which are dead in their bodies, but in their sins, shall be raised( as it were) out of the grave of sin, and live, John 5 26. Grace and Truth from Jesus Christ. Hence is his greatness manifested( as Saint Chrysostom speaks) that he planted Churches all the world over, without weapons and without money, and that also by unlikely means, by twelve inconsiderable poor men, not trained up in human Learning, and bringing with them a strange Doctrine to their ears, to renounce their Idols and customary conversation, to put their confidence in crucified Christ, to deny themselves, and to renounce all their sinful Lusts, and resolve to lay down their lives, and to forsake all they had for Christ; And albeit their enemies were all the Divels in hell, and all dissolute and profane persons on earth, and so must needs be transported with a violent Antipathy against them; so that the task undertaken by the Apostles to convert the Idolatrous and profane world, was as likely to miscarry, as if they had been sent to tame the Wild Beasts of the Wildernesses; and surely, had not a mighty power assisted his servants, Religion had been choked( as it were) in the first uprising, and strangled( as it were) in the Cradle or Infancy. As Aarons Rod among the Socerers, so did the Word of God bear down all oppositions, and moved their enemies to submit their necks to the yoke of the Gospel; and this argued a divine power that cast down the walls of Jericho by the blasts of such Rams-hornes. Secondly, As this Divine and Spiritual King finds no Subjects in the world, but such as he had dearly purchased by his blood, and effectually called by his Word and Spirit, So when they are once under him, he governs them by his holy laws, which do strictly require a pious and a righteous life, and protects them by his grace and power, and doth singularly care for them, as for his precious Jewels, and tenderly is affencted to them as the father to the child, and the Shepherd to his flock, carrying the Lambs in his arms, and professeth to their great comfort, that they shall not perish, John 10.28. but he kept in safety till they be actually possessed of the eternal in heritance, 1 Pet. 1.5. Thirdly, The same holy Jesus, who was anointed and beautified by the Holy Ghost, as he was man, insomuch that he had graces bestowed on him without measure; yet considered in his Person, as he was the Son of God, he sends the Holy Ghost to his servants, who dwells in them as in his Temple, whose glorious style it is to be the Comforter, which is a precious cordial to them in the saddest times; and this doth also prove, that Christ is the true God, in that he can sand the Holy Ghost, who is also the everlasting God. Fourthly, Our blessed Lord, as he quickened his own dead body efficiently by his eternal Spirit, so will he likewise raise all the dead at the last day: he hath so triumphantly shattered the mighty chains of the grave into so small pieces, that it cannot perpetually be shut against the meanest of his servants, which shall be mercifully raised by him to their salvation; as the wicked shall also be quickened by him as their severe Judge to damn them. Hence doth he call himself, The Resurrection and the Life, John 6, 40. and as by the first Adam came death, 1 Cor. 15.21, 22 so by Christ Jesus the second Adam shall come the Resurrection of the dead. And is not this a work of Omnipotency? Fifthly, The dead being raised by Christs Almighty power, he will sand his Angels to gather them all together, and to present them, though to the great horror and amazement of Divels and wcked ones, and they shall be forced to bow the knee to him who is the Lord of Hosts, Isai. 45.23. Rom. 14.10, 11. And he shall pass sentence on all, which cannot be done( as I shewed before) but by his Omniscience. And who do we expect to be the Judge of the quick and dead? Not God the Father, but we look for the glorious appearing of the great God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, Tit. 2.13. Lastly, to name no more, Christ will give unto his sheep Eternal life, John 10 28. and he saith, Father, I will that they which thou hast given me, be where I am, John 17.24. He speaks with Authority, I will, and like a co-essential and co-e val person to the Father, he carries them up with himself to heaven, where they shall be happy for ever. He gives up his kingdom, the Elect, as he is Mediator, and their God will be all in all. The enemies which do deny the Deity of our Saviour, would rob us of the comfort of the full assurance of the invaluable merits of his passion, of the full satisfaction to the Divine Justice for our sins, and of the perfect redemption purchased for us by his blood, and of his graces wrought in us by his Kingly power, and of his intercession for us, all which do depend upon his Deity, and the excellency of his person being God. These Arguments are strong and convincing demonstrations, which the cunning Divels by their seducing Instruments, with all their struggling and Sophistical Evasions, can never elude, but they will be like the Sun in the Firmament, the Motto of which excellent Creature is this, Acrior emergit, which breaks out of the clouds of opposition more brightly and more gloriously. try all things, and hold that which is good, 1 Thess. 5. Excipite Verba contradicentium,— But do with them as the Lord did with the bitter Potion, he tasted, and refused: So do you, red( my mistakings, and) my Adversaries Errors, and reject them. Aug. Tract. 9. in Joan. Omnes qui haec forsan lecturi sunt, obsecro& contestor ut quicquid in rebus ipsis, quae utcunque digestae fint, reprehensionis invenerint, vitio meae rusticitatis ascribant,& mihi dignanter indulgeant.— Ea autem quae secundùm fidem Catholicam dict● probaverint, deputent Deo qui dat omnibus affluenter,& non improperat,& pro his omnibus illi mecum gratias agant. Prosper l. 3. de Vita Contemplat. cap. 24. Si quid in hoc opere dixerim quod placeat& sufficiat, vel si sufficiat, saltem placeat sancto defiderio tuo( benign Lector) non est meae indigentiae, said Divinae sufficientiae; si quid vero forsan ita dixerim ut nec sufficiat sancto defiderio tuo, nec placeat, non est suficientiae divinae, said indigentiae meae: proindè Christiana charitas utrobique operis sui partes exhibeat,& sufficientiam Dei humiliter agnoscat,& indigentiae meae patienter ignoscat. Fulgent. Epist. ad Prob. 3. FINIS. A Table of principal points, both Scriptures and Inferences, discussed in this Treatise. TOuching defection from the true Religion. The Doctrine of the Trinity is no pollution. pag. 1 1. Arg. Reasons against the Trinity. First, it introduceth three Gods, as Peter, James, and John are three men. 5 Two conclusions are laid down. First, that there is but one God, and this is proved. Secondly, that this one God is distinguished into three Persons, wherein is shewed what a Person is, and how the Divine Persons are distinguished. The proposed Argument is answered. 15 Touching human Reason, and that God is not an universal. 16 2. Arg. The Doctrine of the Trinity hindereth from praying unto God in the name of the Son, for that was all one as to say, hear us O Son for thy Sons sake. 19 Further, it is objected, that a man could not ask the Holy Ghost of the Father, then the Spirit would be the Spirit of himself. The word God cannot be appropriated to the Father 25 3. Arg. The Doctrine of the Trinity prohibits to love and honour God as we ought with the highest love and honour. ans. Whether the Son be beholding to God for his being. 28 Of love and honour due to the Holy Ghost, John 16.14. explicated. Whether is the Holy Ghost dependent on God. What is required to make one thing depend on another. 33 Whether is God only in Heaven. 295, 315 4. Arg. This Doctrine thwarteth the common notion in all. God is the same with the first cause. Whether the Son be caused by the Father 6 5. Arg. This tenet hinders the conversion of Jews. Terms, trin-unities, hypostatical unions, fitter for Conjurers then Christians a. 44 6. Arg. This tenet is contrary to the promise, Zach. 14 9. The Lord will be one. Of complaints for persecution: ans. Mr. Biddles Confession of Faith touching the Trinity in six Articles. There is but one most high God, and this is no other then the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ a. 67 John 17.3. The Father is the only true God, and Inferences a. 69 1 Cor 8.5, 6. But one God, the Father, and Infer. a. 75. 154 Ephes. 4.4. One God, the Father a. 77 Mat. 24.36. Only the Father, not the Son knoweth when the day of judgement shall be, Mark. 13.32. 80 Rom. 15.6. Jam. 3.9. Joh, 6.37. God and Father are all one 84 John 8.54. 2 Tim. 1.3. Act. 3.13.31. cap. 22.14. 86 If the Son be not the same God with the Father, much less is the Holy Ghost, since he is sent, and disposed of by him, Nehem. 9.6. God is Lord alone. 89 Obj. Gen. 1.26. Let us make man, proves not( saith he) plurality of persons, for the like phrase is used of one Person a. 90 Nor is the Holy Ghost, a created person, meant thereby 91 Obj. Had the Son been meant he would have been name, Gen. 1. 94 Mat. 19.4. Not Christ, but God created Adam a. 96 1 Pet. 1.20. Christ was fore-ordained, and Rom. 5. Adam was a type of Christ. Gen. 3.21. The Man is like one of us, let us go down Gen. 11.7. Esa. 6.8. who shall go for us? the Spirit meant a. 98 Prov. 8. By wisdom the holy Ghost is meant a. 102 7, 8, 9. chap. of the wisdom of Solomon, and Siracides or Eccl. 1.24. 104 Job. 25.10. God is my Makers, saith Elihu a. 105 Article 2. There is one chief Son of God, set over the Church by God, and second cause of all things pertaining to our salvation, and the intermediate object of faith and worship a. 106 Reasons why the Son of God was incarnated Touching hypostatical union, what it is Luk. 1.32. Christ is called the Son of the most high a. 119 John 10.28. The Father is greater then I am 121 Phil. 2.6, 7, 8. largely handled 125 Act. 2.39. Phil. 2.9, 10. 1 Pet. 1.21. Joh. 12.44. Rom, 16. and 16.17. 1 Cor. 15.25.28. The Son himself shall be of Christs kingdom 155.158 Rom. 10.9. If thou confess that Jesus is Lord, a, 166 Athanasius his Creed requires more to salvation a. 168 The third Article. Christ hath no other but a human Person, and in that is our Brother, our Lord, and our God, confuted 170 1 Tim. 2.3. One Mediator, the Man Jesus 173 Joh. 3.13. he that descended from heaven, is in heaven a. Joh. 6.62. 181 Joh. 8.40. Christ is called Man, John 3.14. the Son of Man. Joh 5.27. 1 Cor. 15.21.22.41. Mat. 24 31. an Inferen. Dan. 7.13, 14 184 Deut. 18.15. Christ a Prophet to be raised up and Infer. a. 189 Act. 2.23.26. God raised up Christ, wrought miracles by him, and made him Lord and Christ 190 Esa. 9.6. Unto us a child is born, examined 198.251 John 20.28. Reach hither thy hand Thomas, and he said, my God a. Joh. 10.34, 35, 36. Thou being man makest thyself God, I said 203, 272 Mat. 1.20. That which is conceived, is of the holy Ghost a. 206 Luk. 1.35. Act. 7.38. God anointed him with the holy Ghost 210 Luk 22.48. An Angel comforted him a. 213 Mat, 27.46. My God why hast thou forsaken me? 214 Biddles zeal to the Son of God 217 Touching Christs satisfaction of Gods justice for us, his Sophisms ans: That it was needful for Christ, not only as a Priest, but as King and Prophet to be God 218 The fourth Article Christ is our God, yet subordinate to the most high God a. 233 John 20.17. I ascend to my God. Eph. 1.17. Heb. 1.8, 9. 234 He. 7.1. The Father is the most high God, a God of Gods Deu. 10.17. 138 The divers appellations of God attributed to Christ. 240 1. It denotes him that hath a supernatural substance Isa. 31.3. 240 2. It denotes him that hath a supernatural dominion, Num. 26.27. 242 3. him that hath sublime dominion conferred on him in a supernatural way, Exod. 7.1. Ezek. 31.11 243 4. him that is a Bestower of supernatural benefits, Exod. 3.6. 245 5. him that is a sovereign Benefactor In all these respects Christ is rightly styled a God a. The difference betwixt the miracles wrought by Christ and the holy Ghost 9.246 Rom. 9.5. Christ is a God over all, the article is omitted 251 Rom. 1.3, 4. The Spirit of holinesse, what that is. 256 That Christ hath a true human body in Heaven 261 Heb. 9.14. Christs eternal Spirit is not a spiritual body 263 Christ made an offering for our sins, not on earth, but in heaven. Answ. not proved by the type of the Levitical Priesthood 265 Colloss. 1 15. Christ is the image of the invisible God. Nothing can be the image of itself a. 274 1. John I. In the beginning was the Word, largely handled 276 Q. Whether Christ before his death ascended into Heaven, Joh. 6.38. 291 John 8.42. I went out from God, from the Father, Joh. 16.18. 294 Article 5. Christ hath received his Godhead by grace from the Father, yet may we not say, that he is another God from the Father, or that there are two Gods 273 B. 1. Cor. 8.4. Hebr. 2.10. a. Of Arius his death 277 B. Article 6. I believe there is one prime Minister of God, and Christ, i.e. the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the holy Trinity a. 279 B. John 14.26. The Holy Ghost is the Paraclete of the Word, and that he is sent 283 B. John 15.26. Of the Procession of the Holy Ghost a. 285 B. John 16.7, 8. He shall hear what he shall speak a. 290 B. Christ on earth was taught by the Holy Ghost, but being in Heaven he sends him a. 292 B. 1 Cor. 12.4, 5. Ephes. 4.6. Whether the Holy Ghost be the Instrument of God 295 7. B. Whether the Angel, Revel. 1. be the Holy Ghost 294 B. 1 Cor. 2.10, 11. 1. Pet. 1.12. The Spirit is distinguished from God, and is his Instrument a. 296 B. The Holy Ghost is never in Scripture called an Angel 300 B. Rom. 8.26. The Spirit prayeth a part from us 302 B. The Holy Ghost is distinguished from him who searcheth hearts a. 5. Acts 3, 4. The Holy Ghost may be deceived a. 305 Esa. 6.9, 10. compared with Acts 28, 29, justified against Biddle 307 1 Pet. 1.12. The Spirit( properly) came down from heaven a. 311 Psal. 139. Whether shall I go from thy presence? cleared The holy Ghosts ubiquity is proved by his dwelling in all Saints at once. 316 Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers cited by Biddle to consute our Tenet of the Trinity. Three particulars to be observed in answer to the Fathers 318 Irenaeus a. 320 Justin Martyr a. 328 Tertullian 344 Novatianus. 356 Theophylus ad Autolycum. 361 Origen& Arnobius 6, 363. 1 John 14. The Word was made flesh, cleared 373 Lactantius 381 Eusebius Pamphilus de Ecclesiastica Theologia 387 Touching the Article omittted, when the Father, the true God in Biddles judgement, is meant, and the translated, a God, not, the God, examined 389 Hilary 393 Brightman calls the Son and holy Ghost Ministers of God 395 Biddle saith by testimonies out of the Revelation, that the holy Ghost is not to be worshipped a. 387 Reason( saith he) is the authentical Interpreter of Scripture 401 Testimonies omitted by Mr. Biddle, which prove the Deity of the Son of God. Centur. 1. Plinie Junior, Lucian, Clemens, 406 2. Ignatius, Polycarpus, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Severianus 407 3. Hippolytus, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Dionysius Romanus, Gregor. Thaumaturgus, Cyprian, Synodus Antiochena prima,& 2. against Samosatenus 410 Arguments to prove the Deity of Gods Son. 1. From the names of God, Christ is absolutely called God and Jehovah 418 2. The Divine Attributes belong to him, as eternity, immensity, omniscience, omnipotency. 428 3. From some in the Old Testament, which without question were meant of the most high God, in the New are expounded to belong to the Son of God 436 4. This Relation of a natural Son to God the Father, evinceth it 442 5. Divine worship, invocation, to swear by him, to trust in him, prove it 448 6. The works of Christ prove him to be God, viz. Creation, preservation, infallible prediction of future contingences and miracles 458 7. It was requisite he should be God to satisfy Divine Justice, to save us meritoriously, and efficaciously: converting his people, guiding and comforting them by his Spirit, the raising of their dead bodies, and giving to them eternal life, evince it. 470 Take notice( Christian Reader) that after the page. 304. the Printer hath prefixed p. 273. again, and so proceeds for thirty and two pages together: to distinguish this latter from the former, I have added the letter B. Some of the faults of the press are to be thus corrected: Note that the letter r is put for red, the letter a for add and the letter o for omit. IN the Epistle Dedicatory p 7 l 11 r effects. in the Preface p 8 l 12 r pests. p 2 line 3 o religion p 3 l 16 o John, and r ad Thrasim. p 6 l 1 r tactu. p 7 l 10 r Tritheists, p 8 l 27 r {αβγδ}, marg. Bisterfield p 9 l 10 r in●tation. p 10 l 8 r hanc. p 15 l 12 rule, r comparisons and particularly, l 35 a nor. p 21 l 35 a not daemon. p 25 l 6 o when the. p 26 l 27 r strict. p 29 l 3 r contumelious p 30 l 10 r emanation. p 35 l 25 r {αβγδ}. p 42 l 38 r extent p 43 l 5 r import p 45 l 36 a old, p 47 l 20 r absolutely 6 3 add, p 52 l 8 o to, l 10 r {αβγδ}, p 44 l 37 r the Lord one is, p 56 l 37 o out, p 65 l 24 r Omoousians. l 25 r related. p 66 l 37 r Nicene council, p 67 17 r try, 37 learned, p 68 l 8 r then, 36 r social. p 70 l 16 r antecedents, p 71 l ● r only the Father, p 72 l 8 r Hornbeck,, p 74 l 23 r no where, l 36 r mortal, p 76 l 7 r prepositions, l 17 preposition, p 78 l 36 r contend, p 79 l 20 r Sobnius, l 35 a from, p 86 l 27 r not, p 87 l 7 a not. l 15 r {αβγδ}, p 89 l 24 r examination, p 90 l 33 r not, l 390 as, p 91 l ●r Placens, l 9 r app oved, p 92. l 35 r leaving, p 94 l 23 r antecedenter& formaliter, p 95 l 5 a not, p 101 l 1 r as equal, l 29 r sixth, p 102 35. r transnomination, r by. p 103 l 6 r Amama, l 13 r was never, I think, dreamed by any. p. 105 l 9 r {αβγδ}, l 30 r concreated, p 106 l 39 r propriety, p 107 l 31 r {αβγδ}, l 32. {αβγδ}, p 112 l 15 r now, p 116 l 32 r Brockman, l 38 r soul, p 126 l 11 r consequently, p 140 l 19 a not. l 27 r molis, l 28 r of, l 32 r quantity, l 34 r p 14 r l 5 r creantes, l 7 o in, l 14 a not, l 33 r thing, p 143 l 11 r yes, p 144 l 19 r and they are short, p 145 l 1 r justified, l 14 r they, l l 25 l 37 r fallacia, p 146 l 2 r denied, l 33 r by, p 148 l 7 r meant, p 149 l 25 r Sabel ius, l 30 r all, p 151 l 9 o so, p 153 l 19 22 if, p 156 l 3 r {αβγδ}, p 159 l 19 r oeconomiam l 29 r cure, p 170 l 20 r dissenteth, l 27 r Liberius p 172 l 18 r Fathers, p t 73 l 18 r present tense, p 181 l 23 r {αβγδ}, p 182 l 38 r where he was before, p 183 l 6 r Word, p 188 l 8 r was, p 189 l: 8 r revealed, p 196 l 16 r not, p 198 l 5 r unite, p 201 l 1 r {αβγδ} p 203 l 26 o not. p 212 2 add, 7 recorded by S. Luke 1.31 p 215 l 6 a union, p 218 l. 37 o unheardly, p 230 l 27 r {αβγδ}, p 237 l 16 r form, p 240 l 22 r eve y person, p 241 l 4 r pretend, l 23 Menander 36 r George, l 38 Knewstub, 244 l 18 r Psal. 82 1, p 269 l 8 r on, p 276 l 20 r there, l 26 r sallen, 284 l 3 r to our understanding, p 297 l 38 l 3 r Hornb. l 27 r Socinians, p 273 l 27 a is more concise then the text B. p 289 l 18 r {αβγδ}, p 290 r anthropomorphical, p 299 l 17 r Daniel B p. 324. l 17 r A●●nes Pleromat. Bythos propatoras, p 332 l 32 r Genistarum, p 340 l 11 r {αβγδ}, 340 l 21 r not, l 22 a if such, p 347 l 23 r but one, p 349 l 2 r generated, p 350 l 12 r hypostasin, p 353 l 17 r Schichlingius, l 27 r Noetians, l 38 r Sabellians, p 362 l 9 r {αβγδ}, l 35 r Petavius, p 369 l 2 r fift, l 11. r medulla, l 18 r Coci censura, p 366 l 8 r unius, l 36 r orator, p 373 l 21 r flesh, p. 374 l 16 r {αβγδ}, l 20 a but by, p 376 l 17 r fourteenth. p 401 l 6 r worths, p 4●3 l 24 r heathen, p 421. l 26 r he, p 428 s 12 inhere, p 441 l 37 r {αβγδ}, p 453 l 12 r intuition, p 465 l 15 15 r actualissimus, p 466 l 24 r John 2 p 475 l 35 r then, p 477 l 2 a non.