THE DOCTRINE OF THE Glorious Trinity, NOT Explained, but Asserted BY Several Texts, as they are expounded by the ancient Fathers and later Divines.  
For the Satisfaction of such as doubt, the Conviction of such as deny, and the Confirmation of such as believe this Mysterious Article of the CHRISTIAN FAITH.  
{αβγδ}.  Basil. M. adv. Calumn. S. Trin. p. 623. Edit. Parisiis. 
{αβγδ}.  Dionys. Areop. de Div. Nom. p. 173, 174. Edit. Lutetiae Parisiorum. 
By FRANCIS GREGORY, D. D. and Rector of Hambleden in the County of Bucks.  
LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's-Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1695.   

TO THE Reverend, Pious, and Learned Dr. Richard Busby, Prebend of Westminster, and Chief Master of the ROYAL-SCHOOL there.  
honoured SIR,  
I Have made bold to prefix Your Name before this little Tract, knowing that it wants some Great Patronage, and therefore Yours; who are so able to confute them, who oppose the Truth here asserted; and so willing to countenance such, as own and would defend it. I was also ambitious, before You leave the World, to acquaint it with my great Obligations to You. If there be herein any gross Mistakes, they are mine; if there be any thing of Worth and Learning, I owe it to You; who, in my Minority, were to me, not a Master only, but even as a Father; and, which is a Relation more rarely found, a real Friend; for, I was not only protected under, but nourished by, Your warm and cherishing Wing.  
Such You were to me, and to Thousands more; so that I may, within Truth, and without Flattery, tell the World, That there is scarce any Man in it, who hath done more Good than You. To You doth the Church of England owe great store of her choicest Divines; and it is no Fault of Yours, that I myself am none of that happy Number. To You do the Cities and Towns of England owe very many of our ablest Physicians; and to You doth Westminster-Hall, both it's bars and it's Benches, owe many of our most Learned Lawyers. So that Your daily Care, Your unwearied Industry, and prudent Conduct, have had a very signal Influence upon every thing, that may prove most Advantageous to the Estates, Bodies, and Souls of Men: And how can any Person oblige a Church or Nation more?  
And were I not afraid to put Your great Modesty to the blushy; I think, I might justly say, That more Scholars, well grounded in the Principles of Morality, Piety, and Learning, have been trained up under Your happy Government, than were ever bread by any one Master, in any one School, since the World begun.  
'tis indeed much to be feared, that some of Your Scholars, who have proved debauched and vicious, will, in the Event, fare the worse for that virtuous Example, and those pious Instructions, which You often gave them; for their Christian Education in Your School and Family, will add many Ounces to the Weight of their Crimes, and double their Iniquities. Nor can we wonder, if such profligate Wretches, instead of returning Thanks to their worthy Master, should now and then drop some hard and undeserved Speeches concerning him; acting too much like those ungrateful Clouds, which darken the Sun, that raised them. But notwithstanding this, the Honour of Your Name, like the Beams of the Sun dissipating and breaking through such empty Clouds, doth and will shine as bright as ever.  
And now, as I am loathe to displease You by Publishing, so am I unwilling to injure the World by concealing Your exemplary Acts of Piety to God, and Charity to Men; Your erecting a decent Parochial Church for Divine Worship; a convenient Parsonage-House for the Minister, and an Alms-House for the Poor; Your frequent sending considerable Supplies to Prisoners for Debt; Your relieving distressed Ministers, turned out of all by the fury of blind Zealots, the Rabble, and Dregs of Mankind. But these things I only name, leaving them to be illustrated and recorded by some abler Pen, and transmitted to Posterity as Great Examples, which all Men must commend, but, I fear, few will imitate, at least in the same Degree and Eminence.  
'tis now high time to take my leave; and yet before I do so, I would beg one thing from You, and another thing for You; from You, I would beg a Pardon for this Presumption; and for You, I would beg that Your Passage to Heaven may prove as easy, as, I know, 'tis safe; that when Your Candle shall grow near the Socket, it may not be extinguished by any violent Storm, but expire of its self, and go out only for want of Oil; that every Sand of Your Glass may run out gently and freely, even without a shake; that You may do no more than quietly fall asleep. So prayeth,  
Your Obliged Scholar, Affectionate Friend, and Humble Servant, Francis Gregory.   

TO THE Christian Reader.  
Good Reader,  
THis little Tract, here presented to thy view, was very lately written, and is now published, not to gain Applause, for it deserves none; not to gain Money, for its Author is not mercenary; but to do Good, to defend a Truth, and a very great one too. Though it be not penned so well, as I do, and thou mayst wish, yet the Justice of its Author's Design may somewhat excuse and atone for the Imperfections of the Work itself. And the rather, because it may be hoped, that this attempting a weak Defence, may provoke some abler Person to make a strong one.  
We are all commanded, 
judas 1.  To contend earnestly for the Faith, which was once delivered to the Saints. This Faith stands recorded in our Bibles; this Faith hath the catholic Church embraced and vigorously maintained against all its Opposers. And for this Faith must we also contend, though it be with Blood; not by shedding other Mens; but, if just occasion should so require, by losing our own. We must likewise contend for this Faith, as well as we can, by strength of Argument; but our chief Weapon, to be used in this Quarrel, is, The Sword of the Spirt, and that must be fetched and drawn from the Armoury of God; for, 
1 Sam. 21.9.  there is none like that.  
With this Divine Sword did the great Champions of this Faith in the Four first General Councils contend against Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Macedonius; with the same Sword did the Fathers, who were famous both for Piety and Learning both in the Eastern and Western Churches, contend against all the Heresies, which arose in their respective Ages. And of the same Weapon have we need enough in this unhappy Age of ours.  
For, we find that prophesy of St. Peter's fulfilled this Day in England, which saith, 
2 Pet. 2.1.  There shall be false Teachers among you, who shall privily bring in damnable Heresies, and the only damnable heresy, which he particularly names, is this, even denying the Lord, that bought them. There are indeed several ways of denying our Lord; but of them all, I think, the denying of his Divinity is the worst. For that denieth the highest Dignity of his Person, the Infinite value of his Satisfaction; and, by a necessary consequence, the Redemption of the World by his Blood.  
We grant indeed, that if it had been the good Pleasure of God so to do, he might freely have forgiven the Sin of Man; but since, for the Glory of his Justice, he was pleased to demand a Satisfaction that might be proportionable to the Infinite guilt of Sin, and the Contempt thereby offered to his Infinite Power and Holiness; if our Lord and Surety had been no more, than Arius, and his unhappy Spawn Socinus, allowed him to be, {αβγδ}, a more naked Man, stripped of Divinity, his Blood, though never so Innocent, must have been too cheap a Sacrifice for Sin. But St. Paul hath  told us, God hath purchased his Church with his own Blood; i.e. with the Blood of that Sacred Person, who was God as well as Man; Man, that he might have Blood to  shed; and God, that his blood might be of sufficient value.  
Besides, they, who deny the Divinity of our Lord and his Holy Spirit, whom we own and adore as God, do charge the whole Christian Church with Idolatry; and if so, if all they are counted Idolaters, who do Religiously worship our Lord and his Spirit; this Lord of ours, and this Spirit of his, must in these Men's esteem be reckoned Idols. And what Blasphemy can be worse? What more damnable than this?  
And yet this Opinion, as bad as it is, amongst the crowd of other Errors, is now revived amongst us, and to the shane of our Nation, the ruin of Souls, and for a punishment of our gross Irreligion and foul Immoralities, is permitted to grow and spread. Now, to preserve my own little Flock from the Infection of this Pestilent heresy, I wrote this little Tract; and because it may be of some use, as well to some other Persons, as to those of my own Charge; remembering the old Rule, Bonum, quò communius, eo melius, I was induced to make it public.  
Now, if any, who do already believe the Doctrine of the Glorious Trinity, shall be more confirmed hereby in their present Faith; if any, who yet waver in their Judgments about this Doctrine, shall hereby be better satisfied of its Certainty and Truth; or if any, who yet deny this Doctrine, shall hereby be convinced of their Error, and recant it; as I shall obtain my End, so let God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, have all the Glory. Amen.   

THE DOCTRINE OF THE Glorious Trinity, NOT Explained, but Asserted.  
IT is our great misfortune to live in this unhappy and licentious Age, wherein the Ancient and Apostolical Government of the Church is reduced almost to a perfect Anarchy; in so much that Men of corrupted Minds have took occasion from a general Liberty, allowed in favour to tender Consciences, to vent and spread several erroneous Opinions, and some damnable Doctrines, whereby they have already seduced, and are very like eternally to ruin, a great Number of ignorant and too credulous Souls.  
'tis certain that the Heresies of Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius, Socinus, and their Abetters, are more dangerous, and consequently more to be abhorred, than any of those Errors, which are taught by the Roman Church, which are said, Fundamentum tangere, to touch and strike at the Foundation of our Christian Faith, and that is bad enough; but the fore-named Heresies, which deny the Divinity of Christ and his Holy Spirit, the Trinity of Persons in the Glorious Godhead, and our Lord's Satisfaction to his Father's Infinite Justice for the sin of Man, do Fundamentum tollere, quiter subvert and root up the main Foundation of our Faith, and that is a great deal worse.  
These Heresies are justly chargeable with some tincture of Atheism; for, though the Defenders of them do aclowledge a God, yet they contract and limit the Deity, by denying it in the Second and Third Persons, in whom it doth as really and as certainly subsist, as in the First. Now, amongst the crowd of Hetrodox Opinions, which, since the late variety of our Civil Revolutions, through the great Indulgence of our Governors, have been broached and spread amongst us; these Pestilent Heresies, long since very justly condemned by the catholic Church, have crept in, and found entertainment amongst such Persons, as make, not the Word of God, but human Reason, the Ground of their Faith.  
These abominable Heresies being thus revived by Men, who bear and engross to themselves the Name of Unitarians, as a mark of distinction, as if other Men, who own the Trinity of Persons, did not also own the Unity of God; several Divines of the Church of England, Persons of great Piety and excellent Parts, both natural and acquired, have endeavoured to explain this Mysterious Doctrine of the Trinity, with a design to acquit it from those Absurdities, Contradictions, and that Impossibility; with all which it stands unjustly charged by its Opposers.  
But although these several Explications were very piously intended by their respective Authors; I mean, to render this abstruse Doctrine the more intelligible and easy to the Apprehensions of Men, to remove all Scruples about it, and to obviate all Exceptions against it; yet it is too evident, that these Explications have not yet obtained any happy Success; and it is to be feared, that they never will attain that blessed End, for which they were designed. For,  
1. These Explications of this Doctrine, were they never so convincing and satisfactory in themselves, and to learned Persons; yet illiterate Men, who are the far greater part of Mankind, and do most need the plainest Instructions, can never receive any benefit from them; for, these Explications being full of nice distinctions, and dressed up in Logical, Metaphysical, and scholastic Terms; unlearned Men, who are perfect strangers to such hard Notions, can never understand them.  
2. These Explications of this Doctrine have not proved convincing and satisfactory to those learned Men, who have been, and still are its Opposers. For, they yet raise Objections against it, and still testify as great a dislike of these Explications, as of the Doctrine itself intended to be explained. Nay, they are so far from being satisfied, either with the Doctaine or its Explications, that they have took occasion from the one to ridicule and scoff at both.  
For the blessed Trinity, 
Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 10.11.  as its Doctrine stands explained by several Men, is styled by way of Sarcasm and Irrision, The Ciceronian, the Cartesian, the platonic, and the peripatetic Trinity; as if this great Doctrine were founded upon, and could be maintained by, not the Scriptures, but the Schools. I am persuaded, that we had never heard of these and the like base Affronts and Contumelies against the Doctrine of the Trinity, had we never heard of such and such its Explications.  
That late Explication, written by an acute Divine of the Church of England, is, as its Author hath very learnedly proved, the very Sentiment of the ancient Fathers and Schoolmen; and he, that shall attempt to pen a better, hath very good luck, if he do not stumble upon a worse. And yet as plausible as that Explication is, as being invented and approved by Men of great Abilities; yet amongst our modern Socinians it hath but a very ill Character indeed. It's true, they are so just as to commend the judgement of that eminent Person, who collected it, telling us, That it is a true and Oxthodox Explication of what the Church intends to say; but as to the Explication itself, they presently brand it with the most ignominious Terms, and say, That it is a great Untruth, a great piece of Non-sense, neither Rational, nor Intelligible, nor Possible.  
A Reproach most insufferable! A Remark most shamefully reflecting, not upon that learned Divine, who only delivered the Sense of the Church; but upon the universality of those ancient Fathers and Schoolmen, whose Authorities are cited by him; as if Sense and Reason, Learning and Divinity, were no where else to be found, save only in Socinus, Crellius, Episcopius, and their Abetters.  
Since therefore the Event of these late Explications, how well soever designed, hath proved no better; I think it may be wished, that they had been spared; and the rather, because they have not only exposed this great Doctrine of the blessed Trinity to the obloquys and Contempt of its professed Adversaries; but they have occasioned hot Disputes, open Contests, and bitter Animosities, betwixt some of its known Friends. For, the Explications of this Doctrine being very different, some of our own Divines, even Men of great Abilities and Reputation in the Church of England, who do perfectly agree in the Truth and Substance of this Mysterious Doctrine, do as much disagree in its Explications.  
That so it is, we learn from that late and learned Book of Animadversions, wherein one Divine hath essectually overthrown the new Hypothesis of another; and too justly charged its Author, that instead of maintaining the Trinity in Unity, he had, by an unwary Expression, opened a gap for Tritheism, the unhappy Brood of John Philoponus. It must be confessed that this Book of Animadversions was framed by a Rational Head, and written with a Golden Pen, but too deeply dipped in Vinegar and gull; a Book, which, I think, had been much more commendable, had it been much less satirical; at least considering that high Post, wherein the Person so treated stands; and that the Tritheism, with which he is charged, might be charitably imputed to an over-sight, a {αβγδ}, the slip of an inconsiderate Pen, since 'tis very far from being his avowed Profession.  
But, alas! all Men cannot learn that curious Art, which the Epigrammatist commends, Parcere personis, dicere de vitiis, so to distinguish betwixt Crimes and Persons, so to abstract the Fault from the Man, that commits it, as to censure the one, yet not expose the other; at least not in the highest manner, not so far, as any Man's Envy can provoke, or Wit enable.  
Such sad Inconveniencies, and such deplorable Contests have arose from the Endeavours of Men to explain this Mysterious Doctrine, which indeed can never be well explained.  
Nor indeed can we wonder that it should be so; for, 'tis just with God to blast the Attempts of Men, who make bold to peep within that Curtain, which he himself hath drawn; and to prie into those Arcana, those Matters, which he hath thought fit as yet to conceal from us. That we might direct our worship aright, it hath been the good Pleasure of God so far to reveal to us the Doctrine of the Trinity, as to assure us, quòd sit, That there are indeed Three Glorious Persons in the Deity to be adored; but, quomodò sit, how it should be so, the Scriptures do not inform us; nor do they allow us, much less oblige us, curiously to inquire into it.  
'tis well said by one of the Greek Fathers, {αβγδ}. When God hath revealed any thing for a certain Truth, which the Reason of Man cannot readily comply with, if we dispute the Matter with ourselves or others, and demand, as the Virgin Mary did, How can this be? even such an Enquiry is a very shrewd Argument, that we believe it not. But although such and such revealed Truths may be far above the reach of human Understandings; yet when we have a clear Revelation for it, our own Reason doth oblige us to believe every thing to be a Truth, which that God, who cannot lie, hath discovered as such, though we ourselves cannot comprehend it.  
'tis that we pretend to in some other Cases; for, the Doctrine of the Trinity is not the only Article of our Christian Faith, which transcends the Apprehension of human Reason; there are some other Truths, which confounded and puzzle our Understndings as well as this; and yet we commonly pretend to believe them. The Creation of this glorious fabric of Heaven and Earth without any praeexistent Matter, is a thing so contrary to Reason, that it passed for an undoubted Maxim amongst the old Philosophers, Ex nihilo, nihil fit, of nothing, nothing can be made. And as for the Resurrection of the Dead, the Reason of Man judged it a thing so absolutely impossible, that when St. Paul preached it to the learned Men of Athens, they called him, {αβγδ}, a more babbler; and as for the Doctrine itself, the Text saith, {αβγδ}, they mocked, maxim ridiculum putantes Resurrectionis mysterium, saith Lorinus; They thought the Mystery of the Resurrection, for such indeed it is, to be no better than a most ridiculous Fable.  
So did Celsus in Origen, 
Origen. contra cells. l. 5. p. 240. Edit. Cantabrig.  where he thus demands, {αβγδ}; What Body, being once wholly corrupted, is in any capacity to be restored to its former Constitution? 'tis that, saith he, which God {αβγδ}, neither will do, nor can. And for that reason he styles our recourse to God's Omnipotence, {αβγδ}, a most absurd Refuge; and so peremptorily concludes, That the Doctrine of the Resurrection is, {αβγδ}, abominable, and impossible.  
Nor was Celsus alone in this Opinion: for it was indeed the general Opinion of the most knowing Men in the Heathen World. Pliny, amongst other things, which he thought to be beyond the Power of God, mentions these Two, Mortales aeternitate donare, vel revocare defunctos, To keep mortal Men from ever dying, or to revive them being dead. And of the latter Aeschylus thus concludes, {αβγδ}. Of a Man once dead there is no Resurrection. 
Tertul. de Resur. Carnis.  And Tertullian tells us, That this Opinion, De una Omnium Philosophorum Schola sumitur. Although the Immortality of Man's Soul was granted by many of the old Philosophers; yet the Resurrection of a dead Body dissolved, corrupted, and crumbled into Dust, and that Dust dissipated, scattered, and intermingled, was generally denied by them all, as being in their Opinion an utter Impossibility.  
Now, though the Creation of the World out of Nothing, and I may add, the framing of Man's Body, so very curiously wrought, ex inhabili materia, out of an untoward and unlikely matter, altogether unsuitable to such a Production, and the Restitution of the same Body, though quiter corrupted, out of the self-same Dust, though scattered and intermingled, of which it once consisted; though these Acts do puzzle the Reason of all Mankind, and that to such a degree, as to be thought impracticable, and that by Men of choice Parts, and the most approved Understandings; yet we of the Christian Church do aclowledge the Creation, as an Act already done; and the Resurrection, as an Act that certainly will be, as undoubted Articles of our Creed.  
Tell me then, How come we to believe the Creation of the World, and the Resurrection of the dead, being things which have seemed impossible to great numbers of other rational and learned Men? Certain I am, that the Ground of our Faith in both these Cases can be nothing else, save only the written Word of God: For, we cannot think, without too much Arrogance, that our Understandings in these later days of the World, are so much improved, as to be able merely by their own natural Light to discover these Truths, and to baffle all Objections against them, with stronger Arguments, and clearer Evidence, than other Mens Reason could do in former Ages.  
But it hath been the good Pleasure of God in this last Age of the World to bless the catholic Church with a Divine Revelation, and to tell us clearly, especially in his Gospel, That as he created the World in its beginning, so at its end he will raise the dead; and by virtue of such Testimonies we must think ourselves obliged to believe both, even though we cannot resolve all Doubts, nor answer all Objections framed against either. And if so, why should we not, by virtue of a like Warrant, believe the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead? 'tis certain that Moses and the Prophets, and our Lord's Apostles, were all inspired Men; and since they were so, they are equally credible: Wherefore if we believe Moses, when he tells us, 
Gen. 1.1.  God created the Heavens and the Earth; if we believe St. Paul, when he saith, There shall be a Resurrection both of the Just and the Unjust; 
Act. 24.15.  Why should we not believe St. John, when he tells us, 
1 Joh. 5.7.  There are Three that bear Record in Heaven? the Authority of which Text shall in due time, and a more proper place, be considered.  
Now, since a Divine Revelation is enough to silence all the Objections of human Reason against any Truths that are Revealed, the best, and I think, the only way to confute all the Cavils of our Modern Socinians against the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity is, not to attempt an Explanation of the manner how these glorious Persons are distinguished, but by Sacred Writ to prove their number, and the certainty of their distinction. And were this once effectually done; were the Unity of the Godhead consistent with, and subsisting in the Trinity of Persons, clearly demonstrated even to vulgar Capacities by infallible Texts of Scripture, the Socinian Pretences of Impossibility must cease for ever. For it is an old Rule and a true one, Frustrà quaeritur de posse, cum constat de esse; When once 'tis evident, that any thing certainly is so or so, it were prodigious Folly to inquire any more, whether it might be so. For 'tis another Rule, Quicquid est in Actu, fuit in Potentia; Whatsoever is in present actual Being, must needs be granted to have been in a former Capacity to be that which now it is.  
And upon this Consideration, had those worthy Men who have endeavoured to discover the manner how the Three Glorious Persons in the Trinity, though they are but One God, do yet stand really distinguished from one another; had they, I say, employed their great Abilities in proving the certainty of their Distinction, they had, I think, more effectually baffled the Opposers of this great Doctrine, and thereby done far better Service to the Christian Church.  
If it be said, That this Work is happily done already; That the Doctrine of the Trinity hath been sufficiently proved by several learned Men in several Ages, and so needs no further Proofs: I answer, for the same reason it needs no new Explications neither: For, have not the Fathers and Schoolmen already explained it as well as any other Man can hope to do? But withal, so long as there shall arise a new Donatus or Pelagius, there will be need enough of a new St. Austin: If there start up another Arius, there is need enough of another Athanasius too: So long as there shall be new Opposers of our Faith, it should have new Defenders. When old Heresies are revived, the old Arguments must be refreshed, and newly mustered up against them.  
Now, since this is the present and very unhappy Case of the Church of England; since old Heresies, long since condemned by the catholic Church, are now crept in amongst us, and propagated by Men who bear a new Name; who, because there can be but One God, deny the Possibility of a Trinity of Persons, and charge the Doctrine of it with Contradictions, I shall endeavour, by the Divine Assistance, to make good this Doctrine, as to its Truth and Certainty.  
To this end the use of Philosophical Arguments from human Discourse, ordinary topics, and Logical Conclusions, save only such as are founded in, and drawn from the Word of God, would be vain; for the Reason of Man of itself can never afford us any solid Proofs to confirm such Doctrines, the Contents whereof do infinitely transcend its utmost Capacity. We find indeed, that Men, who are loathe to believe what they cannot comprehend, have employed their Understandings to find out such Arguments in opposition to these mysterious Truths, which more natural Reason, without some higher Light, doth scarce know how to answer.  
Were it my present Business to prove the Being and Attributes of God, it were easy to produce Arguments from a great variety of topics; as from the Creation of the World, from the Usefulness, Beauty, and Order of the Universe; from the regular Motions of the Sun, Moon, and Stars; from the constant Succession of Night and Day, Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter; from the universal Consent of Nations; from the Faculties of the Rational Soul; from the secret Operations of Conscience, and from the Fears and Hopes of dying Men. And since God is Ens necessarium, a necessary Being, Primus motor, the first Mover, and original Cause of all created Beings, we may thence by Discourse, and the strength of natural Reason infer his Unity.  
But when we are to prove a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, there is but one way to do it, and that is by Divine Revelation, by the Testimony of that God, who alone doth perfectly know his own Being, whatsoever is in it, and belongs unto it. True it is, this Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity being first revealed in the Scriptures, some things in Nature have been thought to be weak Emblems, and imperfect Resemblances of it. As for instance; there is in the Sun, Light, Heat, and Influence; Three distinct things, and yet but One Sun; there is in the Soul of Man an Understanding, a Will, and a Memory; the Soul of Man hath a Power of Reason, Sense, and Vegetation, Three distinct Faculties, and yet the Soul is but One. But, alas! these Similitudes are not Arguments; they are not used as Grounds of our Faith, but only as Illustrations to facilitate our Belief, and render it somewhat the easier. There is nothing found in nature that can demonstrate the certainty of a Trinity in Unity; but these faint Resemblances are made use of to assist our Reason, and help our Conceptions in apprehending its Possibility.  
Now that this Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead, is not only possible, but certainly true, I shall endeavour to evince against our Modern Socinians, who are the unhappy Spawn of the ancient Ebionites, Sabellians, and Arians, by the Testimony of God, recorded in the Holy Scriptures, as they have been expounded by those pious and learned Men, who are deservedly esteemed the most judicious critics, the ablest Interpreters, and the choicest Defenders of the catholic Faith.  
To prove the certainty of this great Doctrine I shall use Three sorts of Texts. 1. Such Texts as in the judgement of many learned Men, do import a Plurality of Persons, or more distinct Subsistences than One in the Deity. 2. Such Texts as do restrain and limit this Plurality of Persons to the number of Three, no more, no less. 3. Such Texts, as do prove each of these Three distinct Persons, singly considered in his own Hypostasis or Subsistence, to be God; so called, not Metaphorically, as our Socinians would have it, but in the most proper, strict, and usual Sense of that Notion, as it imports a Being Eternal, Immense, Omnipotent, Omniscient, &c.  
1. There are several Texts, some of which do very probably, and some very certainly, import a Plurality of Persons, or distinct Subsistences in the ever-blessed Godhead.  
So do several judicious Men interpret the very first Verse of our Bible, as if it had been the Pleasure of Almighty God to give his Church a very early Intimation of this mysterious Doctrine, which was more clearly to be revealed in after-Ages. The Text runs thus: 
Gen. 1.1.  In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. God, so we red it: But 'tis otherwise in the Hebrew {αβγδ} So saith the Original; which being exactly translated, must be rendered thus: The Gods created. But are there more Gods than One, who had an hand in this great work of Creation? if not, Why is the only Creator here expressed by a Noun of the Plural number? Pererius answers, That this Expression intimates, Divinarum Personarum Multitudinem; So he; and Munster thus, Insinuatur ab exordio Scripturae in Deo esse& Pluralitatem& Unitatem: And so Fagius, who delivers it as the Opinion of many other Divines; for thus he tells us, Nostri hinc colligunt Trinitatis Mysterium, Trinitatem personarum è nomine Elohim, Unitatem Substantiae ex adjuncto verbo singulari. From this Text do our Divines collect the Mystery of the Trinity, from the Noun Plural a distinction of Persons, and from the Verb singular joined with it, the Unity of Essence.  
From the same Text doth St. Augustine, that great Luminary of the Christian Church, infer the Second Person in the Trinity: For his Words are these: Personam filii evidenter ostendit; This Expression doth evidently show the Person of God the Son: For whereas 'tis said, In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth, this great Man doth thus demand, Quem alium Principium intelligendum putamus, nisi filium? Whom else can we here understand by this Word Beginning but the Son? This Interpretation, which refers not to the Time, but to the Author of the Creation, is much countenanced by that which is given by the Targum of Jerusalem, which translates the first Words of the Verse, not In Principio, In the Beginning, but In sapientia, In, or by Wisdom; and under that Notion many Christian Writers have ascribed it to our blessed Saviour, the Second Person in the Trinity; being, as St. Paul speaks, The Wisdom of God, by whom he made the World.  
Accordingly St. Augustine elsewhere tells us: 
Aug. de Gen. ad Lit. l. 1. cap. 6.  In ipso exordio inchoatae Creaturae Trinitas insinuatur Creatoris. In the very first mention of the Creation there is a fair Intimation of our Creator's Trinity; for when Moses saith, In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth: Intelligimus Patrem in Dei nomine,& in Principii nomine Filium. By the Word God, we understand the Father; and by the Word Beginning, we understand the Son; and since the next Verse mentions the Spirit of God, Completam commemorationem Trinitatis agnoscimus; We own it as a complete account of the Trinity: So thought this ancient and learned Father.  
But there is another Verse in the same Chapter, which is, and well may be urged to prove a Plurality of Persons in the Deity; where Moses brings in God Almighty speaking thus, 
Gen. 1.26.  Let us make Man. Great St. Basil here puts this Question, 
Basil. M. in Hex. Hom. 9.  {αβγδ}; Is there but One single Person here mentioned and concerned in the Creation of Man? Doubtless there must be Two at least; the Person speaking, and the Person or Persons spoken unto. But the Question is, saith Athanasius, 
Athan. Dial. 3. de Trin. pag.( mihi) 224.  {αβγδ}; To whom did God say, Let us make Man? To this Question there are Four Answers given.  
1. There is mention made by Munster of one Moses Gerundensis, whose Opinion it was, that God Almighty spake these Words, Let us make Man, to the Earth; as if God and the Earth, as Co-workers, made Man betwixt them; the Earth his Body, and God his Soul.  
St. Paul indeed rightly tells us, 
1 Cor. 15.47.  The first Man is of the Earth, Earthy, {αβγδ}, made of the Earth. But though he was made of the Earth, yet he was not made by the Earth: For Moses saith, The Lord God formed Man of the Dust of the Ground. The Earth did indeed contain in it the Materials of Adam's Body, but contributed nothing towards its Frame: There was not in the Earth any Active Principle that could enable it to transmute its own Dust into Flesh, Blood, Bones, &c. There was not in the Earth any such {αβγδ}, such a formative virtue, as could any way tend towards the Composure of such a curious and most admirable piece of Work, as the Body of Man most certainly is; For so intimates the Psalmist, where he saith, 
Ps 139.14.  I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Acu pictus sum; My Body is so curiously wrought, as if it were embroidered by the Work of a Needle: And if so, could the dull Earth do this? it could no more quicken or frame Adam's Body, than it can now restore or revive its dead.  
No; in the Creation of Adam's Body the Earth was wholly Passive, as indeed all other Matter is, of which any Artist makes such or such a Vessel; the whole Work was God's, and done by his Almighty Power: For, if it were a Miracle in Egypt for Dust to be turned into Lice, then certainly for Dust to be turned into the Body of a Man, of an erect stature, consisting of various Members, artificially placed in a most excellent Order, can be no less.  
Now, if it would be perfect Folly for any Workman to say to his Materials, Let us make such or such a thing, What reason hath any Man to think, that God should say to the Earth, Let us make Man? 'tis certain, that God Almighty could not want any assistance towards the Creation of Man; and 'tis as certain, that if he had needed any help, the Earth could have yielded him none. So that this first Opinion deserves rather to be exploded with Contempt, as being ridiculous, than to be confuted by Arguments, as if there were any show of Reason and probability in it.  
2. The Second Opinion about this matter is this; some have thought, that when God said, Let us make Man, he spake of and to Himself, according to the present Custom of the Kings and Princes of this World; who, to show their Power, Majesty, and Distinction from other Men, are commonly wont to speak of themselves, though but single Persons, in the Plural number.  
But this Opinion is a mere Conjecture, for which there is no Ground; 'tis indeed a frivolous pretence first imagined by such Persons as were Enemies to the Divinity of Christ, and would fain exclude him from being concerned in this Text, and consequently from having any Hand in the Creation of Man. 'tis indeed the usual Style of Earthly Kings and Princes to speak of themselves in the Plural number; to say, We, Us, and Our: But this is not the usual Style of Almighty God: For amongst those thousands of Texts, wherein God speaks of himself, there are but Five to be found, wherein he doth not speak in the Singular number.  
'tis observed, that the Kings of this World, to show their Sovereign Authority and Dominion over their Subjects, do speak of themselves in the Plural number at no time so much, as when they sand forth their Royal Edicts and Proclamations; their common Style then runs thus, We Command; 'tis Our Royal Will and Pleasure. And certainly if it had been the Pleasure of God to display his Glory, and to show his absolute and universal Dominion after the same manner, he would have done it, when there was most occasion for it; I mean, when he came to prescribe and proclaim his Royal Law. But this he did not do; for Moses tells us, 
Exod. 20.1  God spake these Words and said; but what did he say? And how did he style himself? Why thus, {αβγδ} I am the Lord? 'tis not We, in the Plural, but I, in the singular number. And since God, to show his Majesty, did not use this manner of Speech, when there was the greatest Reason for it, we may easily think, that he did not use it to that end, when there was far less Reason, if any at all.  
But methinks this fond Cavil should not be so much as pretended to elude another Text, where God speaks after the same manner; Behold, 
Gen. 3.22.  the Man is become as one of Us: Here again God was pleased to speak of himself in the Plural number; but why so? 'tis very seldom that he doth it, and why then here? There was now no extraordinary occasion for him to show the greatness of his Majesty, like the Kings of this World, by a form of Speech, common indeed to them, but to him very unusual. No, St. Basil hath left us another, and a far better account of it than this; for thus he saith, 
Basil. M. adversus Eunom. l. 5. p. 132.  {αβγδ}. 'tis evident, that God doth not here speak of himself, as of one single person only; but he speaks of himself in the Plural number, for this Reason, {αβγδ}, &c. That we might understand, that together with himself he reckoned his Son and his Holy Spirit.  
But there is yet another Branch of this Opinion, as if God spake these Words, Let Us make Man, not only of himself in the Plural number, with a design to display his Glory, but to himself alone. With this Opinion, St. Basil in his afore-named Book doth charge the Jews, who asserted, {αβγδ}, That God did here discourse in a Soliloquy with himself alone. This Opinion that learned Man deservedly thought to be very absurd, and such a practise to be seldom or never seen; for thus he demands, {αβγδ}, &c. What Smith, what Carpenter, what Shoemaker, sitting alone amongst his Tools, and having no other Man to work with him, doth even speak to himself, and say, Let us make a Sword, a Plow, a show? as that Father there goeth on. And if this practise be a thing unusal, and would be thought but foolish amongst Men, we cannot without Blasphemy ascribe the same thing to God. But,  
3. The Third Opinion about this Matter is this; namely, That when God said, Let Us make Man, he spake these Words to his Angels; as if those blessed Spirits had an Hand in our Creation.  
With this Opinion also doth great St. Basil charge the Jews, who say, {αβγδ}, 
Basil. M. in Hex. Hom. 9.  God spake these Words to many Persons, even the Angels that stood round about him. The same Opinion doth St. Chrysostom charge them with: 
Chrysostomus in Gen. 1.26.  {αβγδ}; The Jews say, That God spake these Words to some of his Angels, or Archangels. And why they said so, St. Basil tells us, 
Basil. M. ubi suprá.  {αβγδ}; The Jews, despising the Son of God, confer upon his Servants the Dignity of being his Fellow-Counsellors, and make our Fellow-Servants the Lords of our Creation.  
St. Basil calls this Opinion, {αβγδ}, a Jewish Fiction, and St. Chrysostom in detestation of it, breaks out after his Rhetorical manner; {αβγδ}; O the madness! O the great Impudence of these Jews! For when God said, Let Us make Man after our own Image, 'tis evident, that he spake to some Persons, whose Image was the self-same with his own; but that cannot be said of Angels. For, as St. Basil demands, {αβγδ}; Is the Image of God and Angels One and the same? No, 'tis St. Augustine's peremptory Assertion, 
Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 16. cap. 6.  Nefas est credere ad Imaginem Angelorum hominem esse factum, aut eandem esse Imaginem Angelorum& Dei; To believe that Man was made after the Image of Angels; or that the Image of God and Angels is the same, 'tis no less than sin.  
For the Scriptures do every where ascribe the Creation of Man, not to Angels, but to God alone; and of him 'tis said, He Created, not They, importing God and Angels; but in the singular number, He, importing none but God: 'tis said again, God created Man, not in Their Image, but his own.  
Now, from the Authority of this and other Texts we may safely conclude, That this Speech of God, Let Us make Man after our own Image, could not be directed to Angels; the contrary Opinion being, as St. Chrysostom well styles it, {αβγδ}, the more dotage of the blind and blockish Jews.  
4. The fourth Opinion about this Matter is this, namely, That when God said, Let Us make Man, he spake these Words to his only Son, and to his Holy Spirit.  
This was the General Opinion of the ancient Fathers, and of the later and best Interpreters; so thought Athanasius, 
Athan de Virgin. Tom. 3. p. 1043. Athan. Dial. 3. de Trin Tom. 2. pag. 224.  {αβγδ}, God spake these Words to his Son; and so elsewhere, {αβγδ}, God the Father spake thus to God the Son. Of the same judgement was Cyril of Jerusalem, whose Observation is this; God did not say, Let Us make Man, 
Cyril. Cat. 10. pag. 84.  {αβγδ}, Not according to My Image, but according to Our Image; and for that he gives this Reason, {αβγδ}, When God said, Let Us make Man, and, according to Our Image, with himself he comprehended his Son, that it might be made evident, That the Creation of Man was the Workmanship, not only of God the Father, but also of our Lord Jesus Christ, he also being the true God. To these Testimonies we may add that of St. Chrysostom, who having put this question, {αβγδ}; Who is this, 
Chrys. in Gen. Hom. 8.  to whom God said, Let Us make Man? return'd this Answer, {αβγδ}; and at last, more plainly thus, {αβγδ}, to whom else did God speak these Words, but to him who is the Angel of his great Counsel, his wonderful Fellow-Counsellor, the Potentate, even the only begotten Son of God? And accordingly St. Basil doth instance in the Creation of Man, as a proof of this Proposition, 
Basil. M. adversùs Eunom. l. 4. p. 89.  {αβγδ}, The Operation of the Son and of the Father is one and the same:  
But this Expression, Let Us make Man, must not be so applied to God the Son, as to exclude God the Holy Ghost, nor did the ancient Fathers ever so intend it; for they take in the blessed Spirit too. So doth St Basil, who puts the Question thus, {αβγδ}; To whom did God say, Let Us make Man, save only to the Word, by whom all things were made, and to the Spirit? To the same purpose speaks Athanasius, 
Athan. Dial. 3. de Trin. Tom. 2. p. 227.  {αβγδ}. God, together with his Son and his Holy Spirit, created Man. And so Gregory Nyssen, who tells us, that when Moses saith, God made Man in his own Image; {αβγδ}; He means God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  
St. Augustine in several places hath declared himself to be of the same judgement; for, expounding these Words, 
Aug de Civ. dei, l. 16. cap. 6.  Let Us make Man, he saith, Recte illic intelligitur pluralitas Trinitatis. And again he saith, that God spake of himself in the Plural number, 
Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 1. cap. 6.  Ad insinuandum scilicet Trinitatem Personarum, To give us a fair Intimation of the Trinity; for, saith he, since this Expression runs in the Plural number; Non recte diceretur, 
Aug. de Trin. l. 12. cap. 6.  si homo ad unius personae imaginem fieret●; This Expression could not have been right, had Man been created after the Image of One Person only.  
The Testimony of this Text I shall conclude with that Expression of Elias Cretensis, Verba illa, 
Elias Cretensis in Nazian. or. 1. pag. 213.  faciamus hominem, filium cum Patre Creatorem esse ostendunt; Those Words of God, Let Us make Man, do show, that the Son, together with the Father, was Man's Creator. So that in the judgement of these learned Men whom I have cited, this Text doth prove the thing for which I brought it, I mean a Plurality of Persons in the ever-blessed Godhead.  
But had these Authorities been insufficient, I might have added more; and particularly that of Tertullian, who expressly saith, 
tart. adversus Praxeam. cap. 12.  That God Almighty was pleased in this Text, Let Us make Man, to speak of himself in the Plural number; for this reason, Quia jam adhaerebat illi filius, secunda Persona;& Tertia, Spiritus; Because his Son and his Spirit, a Second and a Third Person, were already, before the Creation of Man, closely united to him.  
And now from these and the like Testimonies we may learn what was the judgement of the ancient Fathers about the Sense of this Text, Let Us make Man, and of the intention of God in it; they did not imagine, that God here, or any where else, spake of himself in. the Plural number to show his Majesty, as the Kings of this World are now wont to do: Nor did they think that God spake these Words to Himself alone, as one single Person, or to his Angels, who were then about him; these Opinions are only the Dreams of Jews and heretics, who are glad of any pretence to escape the force of all such Texts, which in opposition to their great Error, do evince and prove a Plurality of Glorious Persons in the Godhead, of which number this Text is one, if we may rely upon the judgement of those ancient and very learned Fathers, who, writing with more Reason, and less Prejudice, are much more to be valued than Jews or Socinians.  
And since our Socinians, to prove that God is but One, draw an Argument from the First Commandment, which runs thus, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me; Or as it is in our Liturgy, But me. Since they from the Pronoun Me, being of the Singular number, infer the Unity of the Godhead; why might not the Fathers, as indeed they do, from the Pronoun Us, infer the Plurality of Persons?  
But because Jews and Socinians are not satisfied with these or any other Texts out of the Old Testament, which they interpret another, though far more improbable, way; the Jews, who quiter cashier the whole New Testament, must be left under their present Judicial blindness; but for the conviction of such as believe the Gospel, and yet question this great Doctrine of the Trinity, I shall thence produce a Text or two, which prove a Plurality of Persons in the Deity, with as clear Evidence as any Words can give.  
The Texts which I shall produce, were penned by St. John; to whose Gospel I shall at present confine myself; not for want of other Testimonies, but because St. John wrote his Gospel purposely to confirm the Divinity of Christ; and the occasion of his doing so was this: In the time of his Banishment and Absence from his Flock, certain pestilent Heresies were crept into the Church, and particularly that of Cerinthus and Ebion, a Man who asserted, That our Lord was conceived and born, as all other Men are; That he had a Man for his Father, as well as a Woman for his Mother; That before his Birth from Joseph and Mary he had no being, and consequently that he was not God.  
Now, to stifle this damnable heresy, like a deadly Cockatrice, in the Egg, and to prevent its future growth, St. John, as an ancient Author tells us, 
Prafat. in ad Aug. expos. in Joaunis Evangelium.  Compulsus ab Episcopis Asiae de Coaeterna Patri Divinitate Christi scripsit adversus Haereticos, qui Christum ante Mariam fuisse negabant. St. John being importuned by the Bishops of Asia, wrote his Gospel against those heretics, who denied that Christ had any being, till he was born of Mary; and in this Gospel, to the confusion of those heretics, he hath delivered the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity, as being coeternal with God his Father.  
The like Story is recorded by Eusebius, though with some different Circumstances; for, of St. John he speaks thus, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. cap. 14.  {αβγδ}; St. John well knowing that the other Evangelists, who had wrote before him, had delivered the History of Christ, especially as it related to his human Nature, and the Actions done therein, being so exhorted by his Friends, and moved by the Spirit of God, wrote a Spiritual Gospel; and that, as the same Historian saith elsewhere, 
Euseb Hist. Eccles. l. 3. cap. 24.  {αβγδ}, beginning his Gospel with the Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity. And why the delivering of this great Doctrine was by the blessed Spirit of God reserved for St. John, and not committed to the other Evangelists, the Historian hath left us this Account; namely, That the clear Revelation of our Lord's Divinity was left to St. John, {αβγδ}, as to one that was better, as being what he is called, {αβγδ}, Christ's bosom Friend, and more beloved than any of the other Apostles.  
Now, since this beloved Disciple, by the Inspiration of God, wrote his Gospel on purpose to overthrow the heresy of Ebion and his Followers, who asserted, That our blessed Redeemer was but a mere Man, and nothing more; we have all reason to conclude, that those usual Texts which are cited out of this Gospel as pregnant Proofs of our Lord's Divinity, were intended as such by the Holy Spirit, who dictated, and by the Evangelist himself, who wrote them.  
The first of these Proofs is contained in the very first Verse of this Gospel, which runs thus; 
Joh. 1.1.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; a Text so express, that it cannot be fairly interpnted any other way, nor without much violence wrested to any other Sense, save only that wherein the assertors of our Lord's Divine Nature do generally understand it.  
Why our blessed Saviour is here called, {αβγδ}, the Word, I am not now concerned to inquire: And that his Sacred Person is certainly meant by the Word, I need not stand to prove, because I think that the Socinians themselves do generally grant it. And indeed, considering the subsequent Verses in the Context, they cannot without shane deny it, nor with any show of Reason so much as doubt it.  
Now, 'tis said of this Word, {αβγδ}, He was; 'tis not said, He was made, or created, but He was, He had a Being, and that In the beginning {αβγδ}, from the beginning, not only the beginning of the World and Time; for our Lord was, as Nonnus styles him, {αβγδ}, without and before all time, {αβγδ}, before all Creatures; as Justin Martyr tells us, cited by Grotius; who also saith, Mos est Hebraeus, &c. The Hebrews are wont by this Expression to describe Eternity. And so doth St. Chrysostom expound it, 
Chrysost. in ●oan. Hom. 3.  {αβγδ}; This Expression, The Word was, sheweth only his eternal Being.  
The Text goeth on, and tells us, The Word was with God, where by that known Rule, {αβγδ}; we must understand that the Word was with God in the beginning, and since he was, 'tis well observed by Clarius, Ecce Personarum distinctionem: Here we may see the distinction of the Divine Persons; for, as Tertullian rightly argueth, 
tart adv Prax. cap. 21.  Indubitantèr alius ostenditur, qui fucrit à Principio, alius apud quem fuit; without all doubt, he that was with God, is thereby shewed to be one Person, and that God, with whom he was, is another; for 'tis not imaginable, that the Evangelist should mean that One Person was with himself.  
And as this Expression, The Word was with God, doth necessary imply a distinction of Persons, so doth the next Clause as necessary import an Identity of Nature; for 'tis expressly said, The Word was God; though a distinct Person, yet One and the same God. And this is yet farther evident from our Lord's own Mouth; for thus he saith, 
Joh. 10.30.  I and my Father are One. These Words, I and my Father, do undeniably prove the distinction of their Persons; and whereas he saith, I and my Father are One, that clearly sheweth the Unity of their Essence. 'tis not said in the Masculine Gender, I and my Father are {αβγδ}, One Person; but in the Neuter, {αβγδ}, I and my Father are One thing; and if that thing be not the Divine Being, they cannot be One. For, since the Father is confessed to be God, the Son cannot be One thing with him, unless he be God too.  
And in this Sense, according to the genuine Construction of the Words did our Saviour's Hearers rightly understand this Speech of his; for when our Lord had said, I and my Father are One; the Evangelist tells us in the very next Verse, Then the Jews took up Stones again to ston him, and gave this Reason for it; We ston thee for Blasphemy, because thou, being a Man, makest thyself God. The Jews took his meaning right, and were satisfied, that when he said, I and my Father are One, he made himself God; and indeed so he was, and his Words do so clearly import it, that if he had not been God, for this Speech of his he had deserved to die.  
I know that our Socinians, to elude the force of these Words, which make so much against them, do find themselves concerned to interpret them another way, as if their meaning were this, I and my Father are One; i. say they, there is, {αβγδ}, we are One in Will and Affection. And indeed so they are; 'tis a great Truth, but withal 'tis such a Truth, as is not the proper import of this Text: For the Connexion of our Lord's Discourse in the Context doth naturally led us to another Interpretation; 
Joh. 10.28, 29.  for, having said, No Man shall pluck my Sheep out of my Hand: And again, No Man is able to pluck them out of my Father's Hand; he gave us an Intimation that his Sheep were equally safe in his Father's Hand, and in his own too; and then immediately subjoined this Reason for it, I and my Father are One; but in what Respects are they One? 
Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. 61.  St. Chrysostom answers, {αβγδ}; They are one in Power; and thence he draweth this inference, {αβγδ}; If betwixt the Father and the Son there be an Identity of Power; 'tis very manifest, that there is an Identity of Essence too.  
To the same purpose doth Theophylact expound this Text, 
Theophyl. in locum.  I and my Father are One: But how are they One? He answers, {αβγδ}; They are one in Nature, Essence, and Power; and so concludes, That by these Words our Lord did make himself to be, {αβγδ}, Consubstantial with God.  
Gregory Nazianzen expounding this Text, I and my Father are One, 
Greg Naz. Or. 49. pag. 728, 729.  refers the Word One, Ad unitatem Divinitatis, to the Unity of their Deity; and the Word Are, to the Plurality of their Persons; and tells us, That our Lord spake these Words, Ut duarum Personarum vocabula Unius Deitatis Majestatisque demonstraret, that he might demonstrate the Names of Two Persons, his Father and himself, to be of One Deity and Majesty. And so Nicetas, who saith, this Word, 
Nicet. in Naz. Or. 24 pag. 881.  One, Essentiae conjunctionem indicat, declares the Conjunction or Unity of their Essence. And so doth Gregory Nyssen thus conclude, {αβγδ}; 
Greg. Nyssen. contra Eunom. Or. 1. p. 7.  This Word One, comprehends not the Father alone, but the Son too.  
That Son, who is so closely united to the Father, that he elsewhere tells us, I am in the Father, and the Father in me; 
Joh. 10.38  Of which Words St. Chrysostom hath left us this Paraphrase; 
Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. 61.  {αβγδ}; I am nothing else but what the Father is, yet continuing the Son; the Father is nothing else, but what I am, yet continuing the Father: Which Expression doth clearly import, That there is no difference betwixt the Father and the Son in respect of Nature and Essence; and yet that there is a Personal Distinction between them, arising from, and founded upon their mutual Relations of Paternity and Filiation; the same Nature being still equally common to both.  
So common, that St. Basil tells us, 
Basil. Sel. Orat. 24. pag. 132.  {αβγδ}; When you name the Father, you proclaim an Identity with the Son; and for that Reason he hath left us this Counsel, {αβγδ}; Divide not that which is but One. This Counsel our Socinians will not follow; for, so far as they can, they divide the {αβγδ}, and part the God and the Man. These Men are of the same Stamp with those heretics of whom the same St. Basil doth elsewhere thus complain, {αβγδ}, &c. 
Basil. Sel. Or. 32. pag. 171.  They see 'tis written, I and my Father are One; and what then? He saith, {αβγδ}; They hate this Speech, as being the Mother of Truth; such a Truth, as being entertained, would infallibly stifle those Errors, which are the unhappy Brats of their own corrupted Brains. But though our Socinians would fain elude this Text, as their Sire Arius endeavoured, but in vain, in the first Nicene Council, who being asked by Athanasius, 
Athan. Disput. contra Arium, p. 116.  what our Lord meant, when he said, I and my Father are One, answered thus, They are One; i. {αβγδ};; he meant, One in Mind and agreement of Will and Operation, as if that were all which this Text imports.  
And yet this, {αβγδ}, and this, {αβγδ}, this Oneness of Will and Operation, doth suppose and prove an Oneness of Nature too; so thought St. Basil, who expressly saith, {αβγδ}; If they, i. the Arians and Eunomians say, That the Father and the Son are one in Operation, they must needs grant, that they are One in Essence too; i. That the Father and the Son are Consubstantial. Accordingly St. Cyril of Jerusalem explaining these Words, I and my Father are One, tells us, 
Cyril. Hieros. in Catech. 11. p. 99.  That they are One in several respects; and the very first which he names is this, {αβγδ}; They are One as to the Dignity of their Deity, inasmuch as God begot a God.  
Athanasius likewise tells us, That our Lord spake these Words, I and my Father are One, 
Athan. Disput. contra Arium, p. 132.  {αβγδ}; knowing that he did not differ from his Father in point of Substance, but was united to him in the Godhead.  
The Latin Fathers are of the same judgement: Accordingly St. Ambrose saith of our Lord and his Father, Etsi Personis dvo, 
Ambros. in luke. l. 2. c. 2.  Potestate unum sunt, Though they are Two in respect of their Persons, yet they are but One in respect of their Power. 
August in Joan. Tract 36. p. 61.  St. Augustine also, who was Contemporary to St. Ambrose, and in some degree his Convert, doth from these Words, I and my Father are One, collect the Distinction of their Persons, and the Unity of their Godhead, and doth urge this Text as an Argument both against the heresy of Arius and Sabellius; for thus he writes, Quòd dixit, Unum, liberat te ab Ario; quòd dixit, sumus, liberat te à Sabellio: Whereas our Lord mentioned himself and his Father as One; this Word One is enough to preserve or free us from the heresy of Arius: And whereas our Lord said of himself and his Father, We Are, this Word Are, is enough to preserve or free us from the heresy of Sabellius: For thus he goeth on, and argueth, Si unum, ergo non diversum; si sumus, ergo& Pater& Filius; sumus enim non diceret de uno, said& unum non diceret de diversis; since our Lord styled himself and his Father One thing, 'tis evident, that they are not divers things; for had they been so, he would not have called them One: And since our Lord said, We are, 'tis evident, that there is both Father and Son; for our Lord would not have said, We are of One. 'tis plain from this Discourse of his, that this great Man, St. Augustine, did infer from these Words the Divinity of Christ, which was denied by Arius; and the reality of distinct Persons in the Deity, which was denied by Sabellius, who thought them to be more Denominations of One and the same Person only.  
This one Text, I and my Father are One, being thought by the ancient Fathers a full proof of that for which I urged it; namely, the Divinity of Christ, and consequently a Plurality of Persons in the Deity, I need not add any more particular Authorities to confirm it. For, as Maldonate observes, 
Maldonatus in lo●●.  Catholici omnes dicunt essentiam significare: All catholic Writers expounding these Words, I and my Father are One, do agree with one consent, that our Lord did mean One Essence, One Nature, One and the same God.  
Wherefore forbearing the present mention of any more either Sacred Texts or human Authorities, I shall conclude this Head of Discourse, with the Saying of that ancient Author, whosoever he were, who doth bear the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, 
Dion. Areop. de Div. nom. pag. 173, 174.  and tells us, {αβγδ}; There is in the Godhead an Unity, and yet a Distinction; an Unity of Nature, and yet a Distinction of Persons; but how it comes to be so, 'tis not possible either to say, or comprehend.  
2. And now having, I think, sufficiently proved a Plurality of Persons in the Deity by several Texts according to that Sense, wherein the ancient Fathers did, and the generality of later Interpreters still do, with great reason, understand them; my next work must be to consider those Texts, which determine and restrain this Plurality of Persons to the number of Three, no more, no less. In this case, Tria sunt Omnia, Three are All.  
We red what a great respect Pythagoras and his Sect had for their {αβγδ}, their Quaternary number; such an esteem had they for it, that {αβγδ}, was with them a Religious Oath. And as for the Septenary Number Gregory Nazianzen styles it, 
Greg. Naz. orat. 42. p. 687.  {αβγδ}, of all numbers the most mystical, and even Contemporary with the World. And yet the Ternary number was long before it: And as it is the most ancient, so is it the most perfect, not only, Quia habet Principium, 
Corn. à lap. ex Damasc. in l. 5 c. 6. v. 3.  medium& finem, which is the Reason commonly given; but Quia Divinitas in Trinitate est: It is the number of the glorious Persons in the Godhead.  
And although this number of the Divine Persons was not of old so clearly revealed to the Jewish Church, as now it is to the Christian; yet the Jews were not altogether left without some Intimations of it. 
Greg. Nys. de Trin. adv. Judaeos, p. 993.  Gregory Nyssen mentions several Texts out of the Old Testament, and saith, That by them, Perspicuè& clarè Sancta Trinitas, Patris inquam,& Filii,& Sancti Spiritus, demonstrari atque probari potest, The Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be demonstrated, and very clearly proved.  
But yet we have reason to believe that those Texts of the Old Testament, which are now urged as Arguments to prove the Trinity, were not understood, at least not so well, by the ancient Jews, as now they are by us. 'tis usually said, Testamentum Novum velatum est in Veteri, vetus revelatum in novo: The New Testament was couched and veiled in the Old, and the Old is revealed and unfolded in the New; Moses and the Prophets are in many things very much explained by our Lord's Evangelists and Apostles.  
And a pregnant Instance of this we have in our present Case; whereas the Evangelical Prophet tells us, 
Esa. 6.1.  I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne; above it stood the Seraphims, and cried one to another, Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts. From this {αβγδ}, this three-fold repetition of the Word Holy, do the ancient Fathers and Modern Divines infer the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, and that deservedly too.  
This was the Opinion of Athanasius, who writes thus; 
Athanas. de hum. Christi not p. 601.  {αβγδ}; When the Cherubims glorify God, saying Three several times, Holy, Holy, Holy, they glorify the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And to the same effect Gregory Nazianzen writes thus, 
Greg. Naz. Or. 42. p. 679.  {αβγδ}, &c. God is glorified by these Three Acclamations of Holiness meeting in one Lordship and Godhead. 'tis that which Oecumenius delivers more plainly thus, 
Oecum. in Apoc. c. 6. come. 8.  {αβγδ}: By this three-fold Repetition of Glory and Holiness we have reason to understand, That there is a threefold distinction of subsistences in the Deity. But there is no Man who speaks more positively about this matter than St. 
Aug. de fide ad Pet. Diac. tom. 3. p. 48.  Augustine himself, who expressly saith, In eo quòd dicitur tertiò Sanctus Personarum Trinitatem; in eo vero quòd dicitur semel, Dominus Deus sabbath divinae naturae cognoscimus unitatem: Whereas the Seraphims cried Holy a Third time, we know thereby the Trinity of Persons; and since they mentioned the Lord God of Hosts but once, we know thereby the Unity of the Divine Nature.  
Now the Question is, What moved these and other learned Men thus to interpret this Prophetical Text, and to conclude from it the Doctrine of the Trinity? Cornelius à Lapide tells us, 
Corn. à Lap. in locum.  Veteres Rabbini sic exponunt; the ancient Jewish rabbis expound it thus; Sanctus hic est Pater, Sanctus hic est Filius, Sanctus hic est Spiritus. 'tis here meant, That the Father is Holy, the Son is Holy, and the Spirit is Holy. But our Christian Divines were not lead to this Exposition of the Text by the Example of any Jewish Doctors; for indeed they had a far better Authority for it; I mean, the Authorities of an Evangelist and an Apostle, St. John, and St. Paul.  
When Esaias was writing this Text and the Context, he tells us, I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne. St. 
Joh. 12.41  John referring to this Vision, saith, These things said Esaias, when he saw his Glory, and spake of him. St. Paul also, referring to the same Vision, 
Act 28.29.  saith, Well spake the Holy Ghost by the Prophet Esaias. Now, from these Texts compared together, great St. Basil doth, and well might, infer the Doctrine of the Trinity; for thus he tells us, {αβγδ}; 
Basil. M. adversùs Eunom. l. 5. p. 115.  The Prophet introduceth the Person of the Father, on whom the Jews believed; the Evangelist referring to the same Scripture, doth undoubtedly mean the Person of the Son, and St. Paul, with the same Reference, mentions the Person of the Holy Ghost; each of which Persons is called by this one common Name, the Lord of Hosts, and was seen by the Prophet in that Vision of his.  
Now, since this Prophetical Text hath been this way interpnted by some of the Jewish rabbis, and certainly is so, and with better Reason, by many eminent Writers of the Christian Church, who thought this Exposition to be much countenanced, nay sufficiently warranted by the Authority of St. John, and St. Paul; St. John saying, that the Prophet spake when he saw his Glory, and spake of him, undoubtedly meaning the Glory and Person of Christ; St. Paul also saying, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias, meaning the Words relating to that particular Vision: Since 'tis thus, we have reason to look upon this Text, which contains this threefold Acclamation of the Seraphims, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts, to be a pregnant proof of the Holy and Blessed Trinity.  
And yet because this Prophetical Text hath been thought capable of another Interpretation; and because Calvin himself, who was no Socinian, doth yet blame those Divines, who pled this Text as an Argument to confirm this great Article of our Creed, as if we wanted fairer Proofs to do it. And because this mysterious point of Faith is so very difficult to human Reason, that some deny it, and others doubt it; 'tis necessary that such Evidences should be produced for it, as may satisfy the Minds of impartial, unprejudiced, and reasonable Men.  
But to satisfy the Understandings of Men about this matter, no Arguments can be sufficient, save only such as are drawn from undoubted and clear Divine Revelation. And altho' it be a difficult Task to produce any fairer evidences to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity, than those already name out of the Old Testament; yet we find good Store of them in the New. Our Lord himself by his Evangelists and Apostles hath furnished us with such Proofs, as no Man, who dares not offer violence to such and such Texts, can ever gainsay. It's true, Men who make the Sacred Scriptures the Subject of their Drollery rather than the Grounds of their Faith, and the Rules of their Manners: Men of corrupted Brains and wanton Wits may, if they please, by unwarrantable Distinctions and false Interpretations, seemingly elude and enervate the force of the plainest Texts: But whosoever is of a sober, meek, and teachable Spirit, whosoever is not unalterably wedded to his present Opinion, as Men are to their present Wives, whether good or bad, may find in the New Testament such evident Proofs of the blessed Trinity, as are sufficient to fix and settle his judgement in the firm belief of this great and necessary Point of Faith.  
And if we do indeed believe the whole Gospel to be the infallible Word of that God who cannot lye, grant we must, That any one clear and undoubted Testimony of our Evangelists or Apostles were enough, though we had no more, to confirm any Article of our Creed, even such as are the most difficult to human Reason; God's {αβγδ}, being enough to end all Controversies, and to silence all Objections. And upon this Consideration I do not think it necessary to name abundance of Texts, lest by so doing I should seem to distrust the force of a few; and yet, though one single Text might suffice, because in other cases two Witnesses are commonly required, I shall make choice of two, and no more, because the Evidence of each to me doth, and I hope to others will appear so plain, as to be sufficient to do our Work.  
The first Text, which I shall use to prove the Trinity of Glorious Persons in the Godhead, is that which contains the first Institution, and prescribes the solemn Form of Baptism, wherein our Lord gave his Apostles this Commission and Command, 
Mat. 28.19  Go ye and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Here is an express mention of Three distinct Persons, in whose name all Converts to the Christian Faith were to be baptized.  
'tis the Observation of Maldonate, 
Maldonatus in locum.  Ex hoc loco rectè veteres Authores Trinitatis mysterium probaverunt; By this Text did the ancient Authors prove the Mystery of the Trinity, and that very justly too. The Word Name in this place seems capable of two Interpretations, and no more: We may, as Expositors do, understand by it either, 1st. the Command, or 2dly, the Worship of God; and in both Senses it will prove the Truth in hand. For if by this Word Name, our Lord means the Warrant and Precept of God, then the Three Persons here mentioned, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are represented to us as Persons of equal Power and Authority. But if our Saviour's meaning be, as some render his Expression more suitably to the Original, Baptizing them, {αβγδ}, Into the Name, i. say our English Annotations, Into the Profession of the Service of One God in Three Persons; then the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are here plainly recommended to us as equal Objects of Divine Adoration, and consequently each person must be God.  
And accordingly Athanasius, 
Athan. in Epist. 'd Serap. tom. 2. p. 14.  to prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost, makes use of this Text, and tells us, That when our Lord prescribed this Form of Baptism, {αβγδ}, he did found and root the catholic Church in the Trinity; and then to prove that the Holy Spirit is God, he adds, {αβγδ}, i. If the Spirit had been a Creature, our Lord would never have placed him in the same Rank with the Father, lest a Person of another Nature being added to it, and joined with it the Trinity should be unlike to its self.  
Gregory nazianzen surnamed {αβγδ}, the eminent Divine, 
Greg. Naz. Or. 32. p. 52.  styles Baptism, {αβγδ}, The Abrenunciation of Atheism, and the Confession of the Deity, and the Deity subsisting in Three distinct Persons: For the Profession of the Trinity was, {αβγδ}, One of the main things required in order to Baptism. So doth this great Man intimate, {αβγδ}, i. We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, being of one and the same Substance and Glory, in whom also Baptism hath its Perfection; and believing thus we are made perfect, i. Baptized, knowing that God is One in Substance, and undivided in Worship, yet Three in point of Subsistence; according to that of Synesius, 
Synes. Hymno 4.  who makes this address to God, {αβγδ}, Thou being a Trinity, art an Unity too; Three in One respect, and One in another, and that is no Contradiction.  
And, that the Three Persons mentioned in this Form of Baptism are One and the same God, constituting a Glorious Trinity, is yet further evident from those Reasons, 
Greg. Nys. in Baptis. Christi, p. 804.  which Gregory Nyssen hath left us, why our Lord was pleased to prescribe the form of Baptism in this manner, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: But why in the Name of the Father? So Nyssen demands, and answers thus, {αβγδ}, because the Father is the Original of all things and Persons: But why in the Name of the Son? he gives this Reason, {αβγδ}, because he was the Worker and Author of the Creation: And why in the Name of the Holy Ghost? his Account is this, {αβγδ}, because it is he that doth finish and perfect all things; each of which Works doth speak each Person to be no less than God.  
And from this Form of Baptism doth Theophylact take a just occasion to condemn the Heresies both of Arius and Sabellius, 
Theophy●. in locum.  the one denying the Divinity, the oath Personalities of the Son, and Holy Ghost. For whereas our Lord here mentions not Names, but Name in the Singular number; thence he concludes against Arius, {αβγδ}, The Name of the Three is but One; and that One is the Deity; and therefore these Three are One God. And whereas Sabellius affirmed, That there is but One single Person in the Godhead, our Lord here doth expressly mention Three.  
But not to mention the Opinions of any more particular Persons touching the Interpretation of this Text; methinks the whole catholic Church hath declared her judgement about it, by her known practise in the constant administration of Baptism, whereby she hath discovered her Belief, That this Form of Baptism prescribed by our Lord, doth contain and prove the Doctrine of the Trinity. That practise of the Ancient Church, which I mean, was their Trina Immersio, their Custom of dipping every baptized Person, except the Clinici, or Bed-rid, in or under the Water Three times over. This practise was thought by some to be of Apostolical Institution, because St. Paul mentions the Doctrine, {αβγδ}, 
Heb. 6.2.  of Baptisms in the Plural number, though no Person ought to be baptized more than once. But whether this practise were derived from the Apostles or not, it was used very early in the Primitive Church; 
tart. adv. Prax. cap. 27. p. 516.  so it was in Tertullian's time, who mentions it as their common Custom, Ter mergitamur, We are dipped three times; so he.  
Nay, this threefold Dipping was required with the greatest severity by the apostles Canons; 
Apost. Canon. 50.  one of which runs thus; {αβγδ}, &c. If any Bishop or Presbyter in the administration of any one Baptism shall not use Three Dippings. What then? {αβγδ}, saith the Canon, i. let him be deposed. And for this Custom I find Two Reasons given; One by Athanasius, namely this, 
Athan. quaest. de Parab. Ev. 94. T. 2. p. 345.  {αβγδ}, the dipping of the Child in the Font Three times, and his rising again out of the Water, represents the death of Christ, and his lying in the Grave Three days, and his Resurrection upon the Third; and that's one Reason why this triple Immersion was used.  
But there is another Reason given us, which is to my present purpose; 
Zon. in Apost. Can. 5  Zonaras, expounding that Canon of the Apostles which relates to this matter, tells us, {αβγδ}, i. The Canon determines, That Baptism shall be administered by three dippings; and that he who doth baptize, should at every dipping pronounce the Name of One of the Persons in the Glorious Trinity. A like account we have from Tertullian too, who saith, 
tart. ubi suprâ.  Ad singula nomina in singulas personas mergitamur, We are dipped and baptized into the several Persons of the Trinity at the pronunciation of their several Names. And to this threefold Dipping great St. 
Basil. M. de Sp. S.  Basil seems to add a threefold Supplication, to each Person of the Trinity One; for thus he writes, {αβγδ}, The great Mystery of Baptism is perfectly performed by Three Immersions, and an equal number of Invocations: By which he probably means one Prayer to the Father, a Second to the Son, and a Third to the Holy Ghost, begging their joint Blessings upon their own joint Institution.  
Now then, since in this prescribed Form of Baptism, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are plainly represented as Three Persons of equal capacity to institute this Sacrament, and to be worshipped by it; since it is not reasonable to imagine, that our Lord would here have joined himself and his Spirit to his Father, as Persons coordinate with him, had they not indeed been his Equals. And since it hath been the practise of the catholic Church in the administration of this Sacrament, to name and invoke each of these sacred Persons; we have all reason to conclude, that this Form of Baptism, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth indeed contain and prove the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Distinction of Persons, and Unity of Essence.  
And the truth is, were the Son and Holy Ghost, in whose Name we are baptized, no more than Creatures, our Lord's Form of Baptism would not be of much better account than that of martion; who baptized, {αβγδ}, i. In the Name of the unknown Father of the Universe, of the Verity, the Mother of all things, and of him who descended upon Jesus. For if to be baptized into the Worship of Creatures, be to be baptized into downright and gross Idolatry, whether the Institution were from Christ or martion, it would make no difference. Nor do I see how those Persons who will not allow this Form of Baptism to be a proof of the Trinity, can discharge themselves from Blasphemy against our blessed Saviour, not only by denying his Divinity, but also by charging him with the Institution of a new Sacrament in the name and for the Worship of Creatures: for such it is, if their Supposition be true. But if this Text, with some Men, will not do our Business, let us yet try another.  
2. The second and only Text, which I shall yet use to prove the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead, is that known place of St. 
1 Joh. 5.7.  John, where he saith, There are Three that bear Record in Heaven: What Three? not Three Angels, for of them there are Millions; not Three mere Denominations, but Three Persons, the Father, the Word, i.e. the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and of them the Text saith, These Three are One; One in the same Sense wherein our Lord had said, I and my Father are One, {αβγδ}, One Thing, One Being, and that must be the Being of God. For since the Father is confessed to be God, the Son cannot be One thing with him unless he be God too,  
The force of this Text is so unavoidable, that our Socinians, not knowing how to elude it, do find themselves constrained to deny its Authority, and to pretend that it is indeed no part of the Canon; to which I answer,  
1. In General, that it hath been the common Course of heretics to disown the Authority either of such whole Books, or such particular Texts, as did gull and pinch them, and overthrow those erroneous Opinions, which they had entertained, and were resolved to maintain either through Prejudice or Ignorance, or shane, to recant. Of such Men Irenaeus thus observes, 
iron. adv. Haeres. l. 3 c. 2.  cum ex scriptures arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex Authoritate; when they are confuted by such and such Texts, they blame the Scriptures, as if they were not right nor authentic. Upon this Score, the Jews, being obstinate in their Infidelity, deny the Authority of the whole New Testament, because it being compared with Moses and the Prophets, it doth so evidently prove our Christ, whom they disown, to be the promised messiah. Upon a like account did the Ebionites reject all our Gospels, except that of St. Matthew only. And Irenaeus saith again of martion, 
iron. adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 29.  Evangelium secundùm Lucam circumcidit,& Apostoli Pauli Epistolas abscidit; He circumcised St. Luke's Gospel, and quiter cut off St. Paul's Epistles, i. from the Canon. And truly since our Socinians are not ashamed in favour of their own ill Opinion to corrupt, invert, and wrest the plain and obvious Sense and Meaning of St. John in the beginning of his Gospel, we need not wonder, that for the same Reason, they should endeavour to obliterate, expunge, and blot out a Passage of his Epistle too. But,  
2. We answer more particularly thus; namely, That the Pretence which our Socinians pled against the Authority of this Text, is very weak and insufficient; for 'tis only this; they tell us, That in several Manuscripts and printed Copies this Text is not found; to which we thus reply:  
1. By way of Concession; we confess with Calvin, Totum hoc à quibusdam omissum fuit; this whole Verse by some hath been omitted. And we believe what Erasmus tells us, That in one Greek Copy he found no more than this, {αβγδ}; That there are Three that bear Record, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood; to which St. Cyril adds, as Erasmus cites him, Hi trees unum sunt; These Three are One. The Truth of this we grant. But,  
2. We answer, That the Copies, wherein this Text is found, as now it stands, are more in number, and of greater Credit, if we may believe Tradition, than those Copies wherein this Text is either omitted or altered.  
Estius, a learned Interpreter of St. John's Epistle, tells us, and cites an Author for it, That of Sixteen ancient Greek Copies, which were brought together from Italy, France, and Spain, Seven wanted this Text, and Nine had it. But because the disparity betwixt Seven and Nine is not so very considerable, he farther tells us, That of a great number of Manuscript Copies that were gathered together by the Divines of louvain, there were but Five wherein this Text was wanting. And an eminent Divine of our own Church, {αβγδ}, now with God, being famous as well for his great Piety as for the depth of his Learning, hath left us this Testimony; namely, that this disputed Text, as it is now red in our Bibles, hath the Authority of many ancient, and All printed Copies but One.  
Now, if from these Instances we may take an Estimate of the difference betwixt those Copies, which have this Text, and those which want it in point of number; the Majority of Voices will certainly be on our side, and that doth always carry the Cause, at least where the most Testimonies are of equal, but much more where they are of greater Credit than the fewest; and that is the present Case.  
For according to the old Rule, Quod Antiquissimum, Verissimum: Those Copies which are most ancient, are supposed to be of the greatest Credit; and those Fathers who lived nearest to the Apostles times, as they are the more venerable for their Antiquity, so are they the less liable to any suspicion of Partiality in their Writings, much less of Fraud and Forgery, and that in a Case which needed none.  
Now if our Socinians shall object, that St. Austin doth not mention this Text, when he disputes against the Arians; we answer, 'tis very possible that St. Austin might have a corrupt Copy before him; or if not so, yet having sufficiently proved his Doctrine by other Texts, he might see no need of this: but however, tho' St. Austin use it not, yet his Contemporary, St. Hierom, owns it, and blames those as Infidels who left it out. And surely St. Hierom, since he wrote a Book, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, was well acquainted with the Writings of that and former Ages.  
But if St. Hierom alone be not of gravity enough to be put in the Scales with, and to counterbalance that great Man St. Austin, to help to make up weight we shall add to him the Testimony of St. Cyprian, who writes thus, 
Cypr. de Unit. Eccles. p. 181.  Scriptum est de Patre,& filio,& Spiritu Sancto: Et hi trees unum sunt: It is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: And these Three are One. But where is it so written? certainly in this disputed Text, or no where. Now to make over-weight, and turn the Scales, we shall put in some Ounces more, I mean the Testimony of Tertullian, that very early Author, whom Eusebius styles {αβγδ}, 
Euseb. Hist Eccles. l 2. cap. 2.  a famous Man; and of the Roman Writers the most celebrated; 
tart. adv. Praxeam, c. 25. p. 515  this Tertullian having mentioned the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, immediately subjoins, Qui trees unum sunt, which Three are One; and he thus expounds it, non unus, They are not One Person; but Unum, One Thing: The Word, saith he, referring, Ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem, To the Unity of their Substance, not to the Singularity of number. And from these instances 'tis evident, that although St. Austin doth no where mention this disputed Text. Yet St. Hierom, who lived in the same Age; and St. Cyprian, and Tertullian, who lived long before St. Austin's time, do; which sheweth, that in those early Days it was took for a part of the Canon; and if so, why should it not be thought so still?  
But further yet, if as to some Greek Writers, our Socinians shall object, That Oecumenius, who expounds this Epistle of St. John, takes no notice of this disputed Verse; we thus reply; namely, That Athanasius, 
Athan. Cont. Arium Disp. p. 147.  who was at least as great a Divine, and certainly of greater Antiquity, not only hath it, but useth it as a convincing Argument in his Disputation against Arius; for thus he tells him, {αβγδ}, St. John saith, And these Three are One; he doth not only name the Words, but their Writer too, and peremptorily ascribes them to St. John. And had they not then been generally received as St. John's indeed, we cannot imagine but Arius then, as our Socinians now do, would have denied the Authority of that Text which made so much against him, had it been in those Days thought liable to the suspicion of being supposititious.  
And since this Text in those early Days was received by the most eminent Divines of the Primitive Church as an undoubted part of the Canon; and by them urged against those heretics, who denied the Doctrine therein contained; we have the same reason to own it as caconical still; for the omission of it in some Copies, which comparatively are but few, and those few far more liable to suspicion than the Text itself, cannot justly derogate any thing from its Authority: And the rather, because,  
3. We answer, that if this Text be left out, and the next Verse be admitted, as it is in Oecumenius, the Connexion of the apostles Discourse will not be so genuine, so coherent, and consonant without this disputed Text as with it.  
The next Verse runs thus; There are Three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, and these Three agree in One. Now in the foregoing Verse there is a fit Antithesis to every Clause in this, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; the Three Witnesses in the former Verse stand contradistinguished to the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, the Three Witnesses in this. Again, those Words, in Heaven, in the former Verse, stand contradistinguished to the Words, in Earth, in this; and yet once more those Words, These Three are One, in the former Verse, stand in opposition to this Clause, These Three agree in One, in the subsequent Verse. Now if the foregoing Verse were wholly omitted, the following Verse for want of a fit {αβγδ} answerable to every Member of it, would seem somewhat uncouth: For to what end should the Apostle tell us of Three Witnesses in Earth, had he not, by way of distinction, already mentioned Three Witnesses in Heaven?  
Calvin, who well knew that this disputed Text was not found in several Copies both Greek and Latin, did yet think fit to receive and interpret it, as a part of St. John's Epistle; and he hath left us Two Reasons why he did so, and they are both considerable: His first Reason is this, Quia contextus optimè fluit, si membrum hoc addatur, because the Context runs best if this part be added to it. His second Reason is this, Video in optimis& probatissimae fidei codicibus haberi; because, saith he, I see that this Verse is found in the best and most approved Copies. by which it appears, that it was the Opinion of this Judicious Person, That this Text, which renders the Series of the Apostles Discourse the more agreeable to its self in its several parts, being found in Copies of the greatest Credit, should not be cashiered, barely because in some Copies it is left out: So he. But to say no more of this.  
4. We answer, That the Reason of that difference, which is found betwixt several Copies, some having this Text, and some others wanting it, must arise either from carelessness, or from design, or Forgery.  
1. 'tis very possible that this Text might be omitted through the mere carelessness of some Transcriber, whose too much hast might betray him, or whose Eye being oft took off from his Copy, might deceive him. And if this were the Case, we cannot wonder that this first mistake should grow and multiply: For if we grant, that any one Copy was made defective merely through the supine negligence and inadvertency of the Scribe; it must of necessity follow, that all other Copies, faithfully transcribed, and derived successively from that, must be guilty of the same defect; and what number of such Copies there may be in the World, who can tell? And if this little part of St. John's Epistle were indeed omitted merely for want of more Care and better Intention either of the Mind or the Eye of some Transcriber, whose Pen this Passage escaped; shall the same Passage, being found in other Copies more faithfully transcribed, be counted the less authentic? But,  
2. If it will not be allowed, that the first omission of this Text was occasioned by the over-sight of some careless Scribe; then it must needs follow, That if this Text be caconical, it must be first left out by some fraudulent Design; or if it be not caconical, it must at first be put in by down-right Forgery.  
And indeed such a fraudulent Design is on the one hand imputed to those Persons, who in former Ages denied the Trinity; and on the other hand, such a down-right Forgery is imputed to those Persons who in former times did own the Doctrine of the Trinity, and did vigorously defend it. Now the question is, whether this imputation of Fraud to some, or of Forgery to others, do carry the fairer show of Reason, and consequently the greater probability in it? Methinks this Question may be easily resolved, and the Resolution of it by all impartial and unprejudiced Persons may be as easily believed. For that the Christians of those times, who professed and maintained the Doctrine of the Trinity, should forge this Text, is a Pretence that hath nothing of Probability in it: For,  
1. Had the learned Men of those times forged this Text, and inserted it into several Copies, they might well have imagined, that the Enemies of their Profession, who were Active and Inquisitive Men, would quickly have detected such a Forgery, as did so much tend to their disadvantage; and being once detected, they would have objected it to their eternal shane; a thing which in those Days, so far as I yet know, no Man ever did.  
2. The learned Men of those times had not the least Temptation to forge this Text; for had they done it, they must have done it to this end only: namely, to confirm that Doctrine of the Trinity, which they asserted: But that Doctrine being already and sufficiently established by a great variety of other Scriptures, and unanswerable Arguments deduced from them, they had no need to coin and counterfeit a new Text to help support it. And is it imaginable, that Men of eminent Piety, who owned the Holy Spirit to be God, and as such adored him, would make bold to counterfeit his Hand, and lay the Brats of their own Brains at his Door? Is it imaginable, that Men who knew the danger of adding any thing to the Word of God, should add a Text of their own Invention to the Sacred Canon, and impose it upon the catholic Church, as if it had Been the immediate Dictate of the Holy Ghost? We cannot think it consistent with the known Piety of the ancient Fathers, that they should ever coin a Counterfeit Text, and then obtrude it upon the World, and make it pass, as if it bore the Spirit's Stamp. Certainly, 'tis no way credible that such Men should, upon any pinch, commit such horrid Villainy; but much less Gratis, without any need, without so much as a Temptation to it.  
Now, since the Primitive Christians, who owned the Doctrine of the Trinity, cannot with any Reason, and fairly be charged with the guilt of Forgery, as if they of their own motion had surreptitiously inserted this Text into the Sacred Canon: Some other Persons, more liable to just suspicion, must of necessity be charged with fraudulent and ill-dealing in leaving it out. This fraudulent dealing St. Hierom imputes, Infidelibus Translatoribus, by whom he means, as Authors judge, those Arian heretics, who had then crept into the Latin Church: and in their Latin Translations had left out this Verse, which St. Hierom himself then found in the Greek Copies.  
And indeed tho' those ancient Fathers, who asserted the Trinity, had no need to forge, and add this Text to the Canon; yet they who denied the Trinity, had a very strong Temptation to leave it out. For this Text is, as Erasmus styles it, Telum, quo maximè confici poterunt Ariani: And again, efficax telum adversus Arianos, An effectual Argument against the Arians; and doubtless so it is against the Arians and the Sabellians too. And, upon that score, Fulgentius, as cited by Estius, having mentioned this Text, subjoins these Words, Audiat Sabellius, 
Fulg. in libro de Trinitate.  sunt, ut audi, trees,& credat esse trees personas: And then again. Audiat& Arius Unum;& non dicat filium differentis esse naturae; Let Sabellius hear, that there are Three that bear Record in Heaven; and let him believe that they are Three Persons; let Arius also hear, That These Three are One, and let him no more say, 
Fulg. in lib. Repons. ad decem Ob. Arianorum.  That the Nature of the Son differs from that of the Father: For, as the same Author saith elsewhere, when St. John tells us, These Three are One, Unitatem substantiae accipimus; We take it, that the Apostle means the Unity of Substance, such a numerical Unity as is peculiar to these Three Glorious Persons: For as a learned Interpreter well observes, 
Jac. Capellus in locum.  had the Apostle meant no greater Unity than that of Kind or Consent, he had said no more of the blessed Trinity, than may be truly said of all the Inhabitants of Heaven; for in respect of such an Unity all glorified Saints and Angels are One.  
But to conclude this Matter; this Text being generally received as a part of the Canon, and being expounded as it is, by pious, learned, and judicious Men, both ancient Fathers, and later Divines, according to the Analogy of Faith, and the manifest Sense of many other Scriptures; the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity stands built upon it, as a firm Basis, and an impregnable Rock: And methinks in the judgement of all Men, who are not wedded to Heterodox Opinions, but are willing to submit to Truth, the contrary Doctrines of Ebion, Sabellius, Photinus, Arius, Socinus, and other heretics, like Dagon before the Ark, should fall to the Ground: And indeed every modest Man's Understanding should stoop and yield up itself to this Divine Revelation, though it contain such a Doctrine, as doth exceed the Comprehension of human Reason.  
3. My third and last Work is this; namely, to prove the Deity of those Persons in the Trinity, which hath been, and still is, so much disputed.  
As for that glorious Being, whom we call the First, and heretics have thought the only Person in the Godhead, there is no controversy, unless it be with perfect Atheists, who, like other Monsters, the Miscarriages of Nature, are but few, and those few condemned by the common consent of all Nations. The dispute of old betwixt the Fathers and the Arians, and the present dispute betwixt us and our Modern Socinians, doth concern the Deity of the Second and Third Persons, each of whom we esteem and religiously adore as God, equal with the Father.  
To prove the Deity of both these Persons, I shall use Two sorts of Texts: First, such Texts as do plainly and most expressly ascribe to both these Persons the Name and Title of God. 2. Such Texts as do ascribe to both these Persons such Attributes and Works as are peculiar to God alone. I begin with the Second Person, whom we commonly call God the Son. And.  
1. There are several Texts, which do in the most plain and express Terms ascribe to this blessed Person, the Name and Title of God.  
The Evangelical Prophet styles him, the Mighty God; and which is much the same thing, 
Esa. 9.6.  the Everlasting Father. St. Thomas, who knew him well, who saw his stupendious Miracles, who heard his incomparable Discourses, and was thoroughly acquainted with his holy Life and Conversation, 
Joh. 20.28.  calls him, My Lord, and my God. St. Paul, who was an inspired Apostle, and knew well enough what he said or wrote, styles him, 
Rom. 9.5.  God blessed for ever. St. John, who lay in his Bosom, who wrote his Gospel purposely to prove his Deity, 
1 Joh. 5.20.  saith of him, This is the true God. These Texts are so plain, and such evident proofs of our Lord's Divinity, that our Socinians, because they cannot fairly deny them, endeavour to elude them by a distinction. Accordingly they tell us, that there is a God by Nature, and there are Gods by Office: Kings, Princes, and other Supreme Magistrates, who are Men by Nature, yet in regard of their Authority, being the Deputies and Vicegerents of God in governing this lower World do bear his Name, and are called Gods. 
Zetzes in Comment. in Hesiodum.  The King, saith a learned Man, is, {αβγδ}, an Earthly Jupiter, a Terrestrial Deity: And so the Psalmist saith of Magistrates, 
Ps. 81.6.  I have said, ye are Gods: And so God Almighty  told Moses, 
Exod. 7.1.  I have made thee a God to Pharaoh. Now, such a God do our Socinians allow our Lord to be, and no more; a God by Office, a Metaphorical or Equivocal God; who hath the Name, but not the real Nature of a God indeed.  
But how can this consist with those glorious Titles, which St. Paul gives our Lord, where he mentions, 
Tit. 2.13.  The Glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ? That both these Titles, the Great God and Saviour, do equally belong to our Lord, and were by the Apostle intended for him, we have the opinion of considerable Persons; and for their being of that judgement they are commended too. 'tis a Learned Man, 
Jo. Pricaeus in Annot. in locum.  who saith, Benè faciunt, qui utrumque hic Praedicatum ad idem subjectum, nempe Christum, referunt. They, who refer both these Titles, the Mighty God and Saviour, to Christ, do well. And so doth Oecumenius, {αβγδ}. St. Paul doth here manifestly aclowledge, that Christ is the Great God. 
Oecumen. Theoph.& Chrysost. in locum.  So thought Theophylact too, who speaks thus to such as denied our Lord's Divinity; {αβγδ}, Let them hear St. Paul saying, that he is God, and the Great God. Of the same mind was St. Chrysostom too; who, taking it for granted, that both these Titles do indeed belong to our Lord, breaks out into this Expression; {αβγδ}; Where are they, who say that the Son is inferior to the Father, since St. Paul doth here style him, the Great God?  
The same Interpretation of these words is given by Drusius, who saith, Non solùm Deus, said etiam Deus Magnus vocatur hic Christus: Christ is here called, not only God, but the Great God. And so Cornelius à Lapide, Filium hic utrobique intelligi patet: It is manifest, saith he, that by both these Titles, the Great God and Saviour, the Son is understood. And indeed there is very good reason for it.  
For the Text mentions, The Glorious Appearance of the Great God and Saviour; which without all controversy, relates to the Day of judgement; wherein, not God the Father, but the Son, shall visibly and gloriously appear, and sit as Judge. Besides, the want of an Article in the Original before the word {αβγδ}, Saviour, is an intimation, that S. Paul doth here mean but one single Person: For, if by the Great God, he had meant the Father, as by the Saviour, he must mean the Son; he would, in all probability, have used the Article {αβγδ}, as a Note of Distinction between them; that being the known and common use of that Article in other Authors.  
Now then, if from the force and Phrase of the Text, and the Authority of these and other judicious Interpreters, we may conclude, that our blessed Saviour is indeed the Person here called the Great God; this glorious Title must needs distinguish him from, and advance him far above, all those Persons, who, by virtue of some great Office, are Nominal and Titular Gods, and no more.  
That any Prince, by virtue of his Office, was ever styled, the Great God, is more than I do yet know; I red, that some notorious Sycophants have styled the Bishop of Rome, Pontifex Maximus, the Greatest of Priests. Nay more, Dominus Deus noster Papa; Our Lord God the Pope; but not Magnus Deus, our Great God the Pope. It's true, that Idol of the Ephesians was called, the Great Goddess Diana: And that Sorcerer Simon Magnus, was styled by the bewitched Samaritans, the Great Power of God; and to him was there a Statue erected at Rome with this Inscription, 
Lorinus in Acti. c. 8. come. 24.  Simoni Sancto Deo: To Simon, not the Great, but the Holy God. The King of Persia, and the King of Assyria, did, each of them, style himself, {αβγδ}, the Great King, but the Title of the Great God, so far as I know, was never yet given to any mortal Man, save only Psaphon, who, to make himself adored as a Deity, sent abroad several Birds, being first taught to Sing, {αβγδ}; Psaphon is a Great God. 
Cael. Rhod. Antiq. Lect. l. 3. c. 5.   
But Erasmus, who is observed to be too kind to the Arians, tells us, that some Men of their persuasion, being induced, as may be well supposed, by this Text; Christum Magnum Deum fatentur, said verum negant, do confess, that Christ is a Great God, but deny that he is a True one. 'tis very strange that Men should be of such an opinion, considering what St. John saith of our Lord, This is the True God: But doth he mean the Father or the Son? Of that we may judge by his words immediately foregoing: For, having said, We are in him, that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ, he subjoins these words, not a syllable intervening; This is the True God: i.e. in common construction, This Jesus Christ, the Person last mentioned.  
'tis a Rule in Grammar, That when there are two Antecedents, the Relative Hic, This, doth generally relate, ad Posterius& Propius, to that Antecedent, which is the latter and the nearer to it. Suppose we then that there be two Antecedents here in the Context; God the Father, one; and Jesus Christ, the other; the first being at a distance from the Relative, and the second being contiguous to it, the Relative must, according to the Rule of Grammar, and Propriety of Speech, refer to the latter; and then the apostles meaning is, Jesus Christ is the True God.  
And this Interpretation of the Text is much confirmed by the words that follow; 
Joh. 10.28.  This is the True God, and Life Eternal, i. the Author and giver of Life Eternal; and who is that, our Lord answers, I give unto them Eternal Life: And again, I am the Life: And so St. John, He that hath the Son, 
Joh. 11.25.  hath Life: And to the same purpose run many other Texts. Now, since St. John expressly saith of One and the same Person, 
1 Joh. 5.12.  This is the True God: And, This is the Life Eternal. And since by, This Life Eternal, he must needs, according to many other Scriptures, understand our blessed Saviour, who is the Fountain of Life; we have all reason to believe, that, when he saith, This is the True God, he means him too.  
But because, notwithstanding these Evidences, our Socinians may raise some Cavils against this Interpretation, and endeavour, without just reason, to divert these Scriptures to another sense; to prove that our Lord is more than a God by Office, to these Texts I shall add two Arguments,  
1. My first Argument is this: That blessed Person, who was a God before the Creation, is more than a God by Office. But our Saviour is that blessed Person, who was a God before the Creation.  
The mayor Proposition may be thus explained: Gods by Office are so termed only in respect of that Authority and Government, which God Almighty hath by his Providence committed to them. But before the Creation there was no occasion for, no use of any such delegated Power; there were none such to govern, there were none to be governed; and consequently there could then be no God by Office.  
But our blessed Saviour was a God even then; for, St. John saith of him, the word was God: But when was he so? the Text answers; In the beginning: which must needs import some space at least before the Creation, because it follows, 
Joh. 1.3.  All things were made by him; which must of necessity suppose his own Praeexistence; and if our Lord were a God, when there could be no God by Office; he must be God under another Notion, even by Nature, and from all Eternity.  
2. My Second Argument shall be this, That blessed Person, who now is, and will be a God, when the World shall be at an end, is more than a God by Office. But our blessed Saviour is, and will be such a God.  
To such as are Gods by Office, and no more, God Almighty speaks thus by the Psalmist, 
Ps. 81.6.  I have said ye are Gods, but ye shall die like Men. And when once they die, their Authority ceaseth, their Breath and their Authority, and with it their Godship, expire together.  
But 'tis not thus with our blessed Saviour; for tho' the Offices of his Mediatorship shall one day cease; yet his Power, Authority, 
Isa. 9.7.  and Government shall last for ever; when he shall be no longer King of Nations, he shall still remain King of Saints. For the Evangelical Prophet hath given us this Assurance, Of his Government there shall be no end. And to him God the Father hath said, 
Heb. 1.8.  Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: And him doth St. Paul style, God blessed for ever. And are these the Characters of Gods by Office? Doth their Government last for ever? And are they Gods sitting upon a Throne to Eternity? Are they Gods Blessed without an end? 'tis well for Gods by Office, if when they die, and their Godship ceaseth, they prove so much as Saints, and Companions fit to converse with Angels. 'tis our blessed Saviour, who is such a God as justly deserves that Character which Homer bestows upon those falsely supposed Deities, whom he styles, {αβγδ}, 'tis our Lord who was from Eternity, and whose Person and Deity shall exist for ever. To him we may say, as the Psalmist doth, From everlasting to everlasting thou art God.  
Now these Texts that I have name, and these Arguments which I have urged, I think, are such as our Socinians can never fairly answer; I conceive them sufficient to confute the pretence of those Men, who, because they cannot deny that our blessed Saviour is once and again styled a God, that they may with some little colour rob him of his Essential Divinity, do give it out, That he is a God by Office, as many other Men have been, and no more. But to go on.  
2. There are several Texts which ascribe to our blessed Saviour such Attributes and such Works, as do plainly prove him God, and that in the strictest and most proper Sense of that Notion, as it imports a Being Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, &c. From which Attributes, and the Effects of them, we may raise Arguments enough, and very sufficient, to prove him the true God. As for instance;  
1. That blessed Person, who is Omnipotent, who can by his own Almighty Power do whatever he will, whatever can be done, is the true God. But such an Omnipotent Person is our blessed Saviour.  
The utmost Power of Men and Angels is so restrained and limited, that they cannot do whatever may be done, at least by any strength which is their own. But now 'tis otherwise with God, that God who thus demands, Is there any thing too hard for me? 
Jer. 32.27.  To this Question we may answer in the Words of Job, 
Job 42.2.  I know that thou canst do every thing: So saith our Lord, 
Mat. 19.26.  With God all things are possible. Whatsoever is not contradictory to Truth, whatsoever is not repugnant to his own Perfections, whatever he can Will, he can also do, and he alone.  
The Devil indeed can play Tricks, and work lying Wonders, as he did by the Magicians in Egypt, and Simon Magus; but real Miracles he cannot do. Their Demand was reasonable, who put this Question, 
Joh. 10.21.  Can a Devil open the Eyes of the blind? 'tis sure he cannot. We also red, that Moses, and some of the Prophets, and our Lord's Apostles did several real Miracles; but yet they could not work them, when, where and as oft as they pleased. So complained the Father of a lunatic Son, I brought him to thy Disciples, 
Mat. 17.16  and they could not cure him. Doubtless they did attempt a Cure, but in vain. And the Reason must be this; The Power, whereby they wrought other Miracles, was not their own, and the efficacious exercise of it was lent them upon a Condition, wherein at that time they failed.  
But that our blessed Saviour was and is a Person of Omnipotent Power, able at all times, and in all Cases, to do whatsoever his Pleasure was, is, or shall be, may be proved by these Four Arguments.  
1. The Omnipotent Power of Christ may be proved by the Miracles which he wrought in his own Person whilst he conversed in this lower World.  
What his Miracles were the Evangelist tells us, The blind receive their sight, 
Mat. 11.5.  and the lame Walk, the Lepers are cleansed, and the Deaf hear, the dead are raised up. The truth of his Miracles was not denied by his most bitter Enemies: The Pharisees themselves who persecuted his Person to the Death, did thus confess, This Man doth many Miracles. And as his Miracles were more in number, so were they greater in their Nature, and in their Circumstances, than had ever been wrought amongst them; for why else did the amazed Multitude cry out, 
Mat. 9.33.  It was never so seen in Israel?  
That his raising the dead only by his Word; that his cleansing a Leper only by his Will; that his curing a Centurion's Servant, and a Nobleman's Son at a distance, no natural means being used; that when he had fed Five thousand Persons with Five Loaves, and Two Fishes, the Fragments that were left, should be a greater Quantity than the whole Bread at first; that his curing a blind Man with a Cataplasm of Spittle and day, a thing more likely to put out seeing Eyes than to enlighten blind ones, I say, that these and other Miracles of his should ever be wrought by the proper Power or Art of any more Man, Is utterly impossible. And so Nicodemus rightly judged, when he spake thus to our Lord, 
Joh. 3.2.  No Man can do these Miracles which thou dost, except God be with him.  
And that God was with him indeed, is evident from several Expressions. That of our Lord is one; 
Joh. 8.29.  The Father hath not left me alone. St. Paul tells us, that in working Miracles, 
Act. 10.38.  God was with him; and not only with him, but in him too: So saith the same Apostle, 
Col. 2.9.  In him dwelleth all the fullness of the God head bodily, i. saith a learned Interpreter of our own Church, 
Davenant. in Col. 2.9.  per unionem Hypostaticam, by a Personal Union; an Union so close, that our Lord saith elsewhere, The Father is in me, and I in him; and by reason of this Inhabitation, which, I think, the Greek Fathers mean by their {αβγδ}, 
Joh. 10.38, 39.  our Saviour saith, I and my Father are One: How One? One in Essence, and consequently One, as in all other Perfections, so in point of Power.  
They indeed, who unjustly deny the Hypostatical Union of the Divine and human Natures in the Person of Christ, may by a just Consequence, were their Opinion true, affirm that our Lord wrought all his Miracles, not by his own Power; but, as other Men did, by a Power that was only lent him. But since St. John tells us, The Word was made Flesh; 
Joh. 1.14. 1 Tim. 3.16.  since St. Paul saith, God was manifest in the Flesh; and the same Apostle in one place styles our Saviour, God blessed for ever; 
Rom. 9.5. 1 Tim. 2.5.  and in another place, The Man Christ Jesus. We must either deny the Authority of these Texts, or else confess that our Lord certainly is both God and Man; and that the Miracles which he did whilst he appeared in his human Nature, were done by the Power of his own Divinity, and that power was Omnipotent. For he did such Miracles, and with such Circumstances, as could never have been done by any power less than that Omnipotent one of God, and that Omnipotence was his own.  
The Evangelist tells us, 
Mar. 4.39.  He rebuked the Wind, and said unto the Sea, Peace, be still: And there was a great Calm: His Disciples being amazed at this, said one to another, What manner of Man is this, that even the Wind and the Sea obey him? He that could do this, 
Theoph. in locum.  {αβγδ}, saith Theophylact; seemed to them to be, and indeed was, more than a Man. For, as our Lord saith, 
Joh. 3.8.  The Wind bloweth where it listeth; 'tis not in the Power of Man to prevent it; no, to have a command over Wind and Water is God's Prerogative; and as such doth the Psalmist mention it: 
Ps. 107.29.  He makes the Storm a Calm. 'tis mentioned as an Argument of God's Omnipotence: 
Ps. 89.8.  O Lord God of Hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? And the very first instance of God's infinite Power there given is this, Thou rulest the raging of the Sea; and when the Waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. 'tis an Act of Divine Omnipotence; and since our Saviour did it, 'tis an Evidence of his own Almighty power, and such a Power must needs prove him God.  
2. That our blessed Saviour was a Person, who had an Omnipotent Power of his own, is evident from those miraculous Works which were done by his Apostles, both before his Death, and after his Ascension.  
During the time of our Lord's conversing in the World, the generality of Persons, who wanted help in any kind, making their Applications to his own Person, we do not find many Instances of miraculous Works done by his Apostles, whilst he himself was with them; only when he had sent them abroad, the Evangelist tells us, That when they were returned, 
Luk. 9.10.  They  told him all that they had done; many Miracles no doubt, though they are not particularly recorded. The Seventy Disciples mention but one, 
Luk. 10.17  namely this, Even the Devils are subject to us. Doubtless the Devil, who is called The Prince of this World, 
Joh. 14.30.  and is a very powerful Spirit, is so loathe to quit his Possessions, that nothing less than Omnipotence can eject and turn him out.  
But when once our Lord had left the World, and no more immediate Addresses could be made to him as a visible and present Person; they who wanted extraordinary help in several Cases, betook themselves to his Apostles, and found that relief from them, which they could not find elsewhere. St. Luke tells us, 
Act. 2.43.  Many Wonders and Signs were done by the Apostles: And again he mentions special Miracles wrought by the hands of Paul: 
Act 19.11.  They healed the Sick, cured the Lame, and raised the dead; such mighty Works they did, that they were took for Gods in the shape of Men.  
Nor indeed can we much wonder that it should be so; that those Persons should mistake our Lord's Apostles for Gods, who saw them do such Works as were far above the Power of Men. The Spectators of those Miracles saw the Instruments who were employed about them, and looked no farther, the Hand that did them being invisible. And whose Hand that was, St. Luke informs us; God wrought special Miracles by the Hands of Paul. Paul was but a Tool, the Workman was God; and not the Father only, but the Son too; for to him did St. Peter aferibe the miraculous Cure of a Man who had been lame from his Infancy, His Name, 
Act. 3.16.  ( the Name of Christ) hath made this man strong, &c. And that the Apostles did indeed work their Miracles by our Lord's Authority, is yet more evident from the Cure of Aeneas, who had kept his Bed eight years, of which we have this Account; 
Act. 9.34.  Peter said unto him, Aeneas, arise, and make thy Bed: And he arose immediately. Here was an easy, and a very quick Cure indeed; but by whom was it wrought? not by Peter himself, who  told his Patient thus, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole. That Power whereby the Apostles wrought their Miracles, their Lord, whose presence went along with them, was pleased to exert, when any just occasion did so require. Accordingly the Evangelist tells us, That when he sent them first abroad, 
Mat. 10.1.  He gave them power over unclean Spirits to cast them out, and to heal all manner of Sickness, &c. And certainly, our Lord gave them nothing but that which was his own; since he communicated such a Power to his Servants, as enabled them to be instrumental in working so many mighty Miracles, we must conclude, That he had such a Power, and in a far greater measure, Originally in himself; even such an Omnipotent Power, as still proves him God. But,  
3. That our blessed Saviour is a Person, who had and still hath an Omnipotent Power, may be strongly proved by the Resurrection from the dead; I mean other Men's and his own too.  
1. That our blessed Saviour is a Person, who had and still hath an Omnipotent Power, may be strongly proved by the Resurrection of other Men from the dead.  
There are not many Articles of our Creed, which seem more difficult to human Reason, which have been more impugned, doubted, and denied by Jews and Pagans, than that, which concerns the Resurrection of the dead. It hath been thought by some to be needless, by others to be inconvenient; and, which is to my present purpose, by many it hath been judged impossible. Such an intimation we have from St. Paul, who thus argued this Matter with King Agrippa; 
Acts 26.8.  Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? Hence 'tis evident, that they were of the same opinion with Celsus in Origen, who said of the Resurrection, that 'tis a Work, which God, {αβγδ}, neither will do, nor can.  
And indeed the great difficulty of this Work is evident from that demand of God to his Prophet; Son of Man, 
Ezek. 37.3.  can these dry Bones live? Is it possible to revive them? certainly not to Men or Angels; and, for that reason, they who  told the Ruler of the Synagogue, Thy Daughter is dead, 
Mar. 5.35.  added this withal, why troublest thou the Master any further? It was their opinion, that Christ himself in such a case could do no good. Nor had these Men been at all mistaken, had not our Lord been a far greater Person, than the Jews did then suppose him to be; had he had no more Power, than could belong to the Son of Mary, as merely such; to a dead Person his presence, and his very best assistances would have proved but vain.  
But we are well assured that our Lord did revive, not only this dead Woman, but several dead Men too; and hath engaged himself, that he will one day raise all the rest. For thus he hath  told us, 
Joh. 5.25.  The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear, shall live: And again, 
Joh. 6.40.  I will raise him up at the last day. 'tis mentioned as an Act of his own Power; why else did he say, 
Joh. 11.25.  I am the Resurrection and the Life? We cannot doubt, but he, who spake these Words, and made these Promises, knew his own Power to perform them; and that Power must be Omnipotent, and this Act of that Omnipotence doth again prove him to be no less than God. It's true, his Apostles raised the dead, and yet were not Gods: But here's the difference, they did it by his Power, but he by his own.  
2. That our blessed Saviour was, and still is, a Person of an Almighty Power, may be strongly proved by his own Resurrection form the Grave.  
That our Lord did indeed arise from the Grave is an undoubted Article of our Creed; 'tis confirmed by the united Testimonies of good Men and glorious Angels; 'tis proved by such undeniable Arguments, as cannot fail us. The Truth of our Lord's Resurrection being granted, all the Question is touching the author of it; whether it were himself, or some other Person. It may be demanded, whether a Man truly dead, as our Lord was, be in any capacity to revive himself, to come out of his Grave, and live a second life: 'tis that, which no more Man ever did or can do; and yet our Lord did it.  
Plutarch indeed tells us, That Cleomedes and Alcmena being dead, revived. Plato writes, That one Er, an Armenian Soldier, being slain in a battle, lay dead in the Field ten days together, and afterwards being carried home to be butted, {αβγδ}, the 12th day he revived and lived again. And Herodotus reports, 
Herodotus in Melpomene. p. 230.  That one Aristaeus, being dead and prepared for Burial, his Body vanished, and after seven Years was found alive in Proconnesus. Were any of these Stories true, these Persons must be revived by some other Power, whereas our Lord arose by his own.  
True it is, our Lord is sometimes said in a Passive sense, {αβγδ}, to be Raised; and sometimes in an Active sense, {αβγδ}, to rise again. But this variety of Expression doth not alter the Nature of the thing, nor weaken the Argument which I am drawing from it; for, our Lord's Resurrection in either sense, is an undeniable proof of his Omnipotence. When he is said Actively to rise, 'tis meant, that so he did by his own Power; and when he is said Passively to be raised, 'tis meant, that his human Nature was raised by his Divine, that the God raised the Man.  
Nor is this, gratis dictum; 'tis not said without a sufficient ground: For, that our Lord did not want a Power able enough to raise himself from the Grave, is evident from that expression of his, 
Joh. 10.18.  I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again. Certainly, by the taking of his life again, he can mean nothing else but his Resurrection from the dead: For, as Drusius saith, Animam ponit, qui moritur; assumit, qui resurgit: He layeth down his life, who death; and he resumes his life, who riseth again: and so to do, our Lord doth here claim a sufficient Power. And surely, since our Lord did use this power to raise other dead Persons, he would much more use it to raise himself; especially considering to what a glorious estate his Resurrection would and did advance him.  
This Power of his to take his life again at his pleasure, is very highly and very justly magnified by the Fathers: St. Chrysostom calleth it, {αβγδ}, a thing very strange and wonderful: Theophylact saith, That it proves our Lord to be, {αβγδ}, the Sovereign Lord and Commander both of Death and Life: And St. Athanasius speaks of it thus; 
Athan. contra Arianos Or. 4. p. 508. Cypr. de pass. Christi. p. 337.  {αβγδ}: To have a power to reassume a departed Soul, is by no means the property of Men, but it belongs to, and is an evidence of the power of the Word, i. of Christ. That blessed Lord of ours, whom St. Cyprian thus bespeaks: 
Cypria. de passione Christi. p. 337. Edit. Purifuis.  Tu, Domine, qui Potestativè ponis animam,& Potestativè resumis. An expression, which sheweth that our Lord had as much power to resume his life, as he had to lay it down; it was wholly at his own choice to die, and it was in his own power to raise and revive himself again, even when he pleased. And as his capacity to die shewed the Infirmity of his human Nature, so his Ability to raise himself proved his Omnipotence, and that Act of Omnipotence did again prove him God. But yet once more:  
4. That our blessed Saviour is a Person, who had and still hath an Almighty Power, may be yet further and strongly proved by the works of Creation and Providence.  
Works of Creation, and consequently of Providence, the Scriptures do every where ascribe to God; 
Gen. 1.1.  so Moses, God created the Heaven and the Earth; And so again, 
Exod. 20.  The Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea, 
Esa. 40.28.  and all that in them is. 'tis he, whom the Evangelical Prophet styles, The Everlasting God, the Lord, the creator of the Ends of the Earth. And indeed it must needs be so; for, since Creation is, Productio Entis ex non enter, the production of something out of nothing, there being a vast distance betwixt these two Terms, it must be the effect of an Infinite Power, and such power there is none, save only that of God.  
Now, that our blessed Saviour did create the World, we are  told again and again: St. John saith, All things were made by him, 
Joh. 1.3.  and without him was nothing made, that was made. St. Paul tells us, 
Col. 1.16.  By him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, visible and invisible. And again, 
Heb. 1.2.  God by him made the Worlds: But how by him? Not by him, as a Man, for then he was not such: Not by him, as a Servant, not as an Instrument; for, our Lord saith, My Father worketh, 
Joh. 5.17.  and I work. Here he speaks of himself, not as a Tool in his Father's hand, but as a Fellow-worker with him.  
But had not our Lord's Power been equal with his Father's, had he been no more than a Creature, he could have had no hand in the work of Creation. St. Austin tells us, 
Aug. de Trin. l. 3. cap. 8. Tom. 3.  Nec malos, said nec bonos Angelos fas est putare Creatores: 'tis not lawful to think that evil Angels, no nor good ones, can be Creators. 
Bellarm. de effectu Sacram. l. 2. cap. 11. p. 156.  So thought Bellarmine, Nullam Creaturam posse Instrumentaliter concurrere ad Creationem. And before him Aquinas, who sets this down as a certain conclusion, 
Aquin. 1. par. qu. 45. Art. 5.  Impossibile est, quòd alicui Creaturae conveniat creare, neque virtute propria, neque instrumentalitèr, sieve per Ministerium: i. 'tis impossible for any Creature to create any thing, either by its own Power, or as an Instrument in anothers hand. 'tis the judgement of these and other learned Men, that a Creating Power, through the Incapacity of all Creatures to be the Subjects of it, is absolutely incommunicable.  
And if so, since we are sure that our Lord had an equal Hand with his Father and his Holy Spirit in creating the Universe, we must conclude, That he hath an equal Power, and that Power being Omnipotent, he is and must be God. And that is my first Argument to prove him so.  
2. That blessed Person, who is Omniscient, is truly God: But our blessed Saviour is a Person that is Omniscient.  
'tis said of Man in common, We are but of yesterday, 
Job. 8.9.  and know nothing. we are so far from knowing every thing that comparatively we know very little or nothing. But as for God, that is truly affirmed of him, which can be affirmed of none besides, 
Ps. 147.5.  His Understanding is infinite: To him St. Paul saith, 
Heb. 4.15.  All things are naked and open; so they are to him, and to him alone: And yet so they were, are, and ever will be to our blessed Saviour: So said St. 
Joh. 21.17  Peter, Lord, thou knowest all things: And so the other Apostles, Lord, 
Joh. 16.30  we are sure that thou knowest all things, even such things as pass the knowledge of Men and Angels: As, to instance in Two Particulars.  
1. 'tis certain that our Lord knew the Hearts, understood the Thoughts, the secret Inclinations, and inward Affections of Men.  
The Prophet tells us, 
Jer. 17.9.  The Heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it? What Man doth know his Neighbour's Heart? nay, What Man doth perfectly know his own? so to do is the peculiar Prerogative of Heaven; so the next Verse tells us, 
Ps. 139.1, 2  I the Lord search the Heart; so the Psalmist found it, O Lord, thou hast preached me, and known me, thou understandest my Thought afar off, i. antequam sit, even before I think it. Such a {αβγδ}, a Knower of Hearts was our blessed Saviour; for St. John tells us, He knew what was in Man: 
Joh. 2.25. Luk. 6.8.  And St. Luke saith, He knew their Thoughts. Nay, it seems very evident from the Series of the Evangelical History, that our Lord foreknew the Inclinations and Thoughts of Men before the Men themselves were acquainted with them. St. John tells us, 
Joh. 6.64.  Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray him, even before Judas had any thought of it, or Temptation to it. And certainly St. Peter had no thought of denying his Lord, when he said, That he would rather die than deny him; and yet our Lord foresaw that he would surely do it.  
Now the Question is, How came our Lord by this Prescience and Fore-knowledge of his? All the Knowledge of Man is either natural, or acquired, or infused, and from Divine Revelation. If we consider our blessed Saviour as a mere Man; 'tis certain that all his natural or acquired Knowledge could never enable him to understand the Thoughts, and foresee the Inclinations of Men; and if so, he must needs do this, as he was Man, by Divine Revelation.  
But if our Lord knew the Hearts and Thoughts of other Men by a Divine Revelation, it may be said, that such a Knowledge cannot prove him God; for such a Knowledge hath been found in some other Persons, in Prophets and Apostles, who yet were no more than Men. When Elisha  told Hazael, 
2 Reg. 8.12, 13.  I know the Evil that thou wilt do; he knew the Heart of Hazael better than himself; for he thus replied, 
1 Chr. 12.10.  Is thy Servant a Dog, that he should do this great thing? And yet he did it. St. Paul tells us, that there was in his time a gift of discerning Spirits, i. either of that inward Sincerity, or secret hypocrisy, that lay hide in the Hearts of Men. Such a discerning of Spirits very probably was found in St. Peter, when he attacked Ananias thus, 
Act. 5.3.  Why hath Satan filled thy Heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? And yet again, Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy Heart? Upon which Words Lorinus makes this Observation, 
Lorinus in locum.  Hic deprehenditur Petro communicata divinitùs occultarum rerum scientia; From hence we may perceive that God was pleased to communicate to St. Peter the Knowledge of secret things: For such was the Fraud and hypocrisy of Ananias, which could not probably be discovered to St. Peter by any Informations from Men, but by Revelation from God. Now if we suppose and take this for a granted Truth, That St. Peter knew the Heart of Ananias, and the dissimulation that lurked therein, by an immediate Revelation from God; yet notwithstanding Peter himself still remained no more than a more mortal Man. And if so, how can any such Knowledge, gained by Revelation, prove our Saviour to be a God? To which demand I thus reply:  
1. That Knowledge which our Saviour had of the Hearts of Men, was a great deal larger, and much more extensive than that Knowledge, which any Prophets or Apostles ever had. For whereas they understood the Hearts only of some very few particular Men, and that upon some extraordinary and emergent occasion, worthy of a new Revelation; 'tis expressly said of our Lord, 
Joh. 2.24.  He knew all Men. Upon which Words Theophylact hath this Paraphrase, {αβγδ}. Our Lord was not ignorant what were the Thoughts of every Mans Heart; and certainly such an Universal Knowledge speaks him more than a Man, for no more Man ever had it, or can attain it. St. Paul was an inspired Person, and had abundance of Revelations, and yet he thus professeth, 
1 Joh. 3.20  We know but in part. No; who it is that hath an Universal Knowledge St. John tells us, God is greater than our Hearts, and knoweth All things. This Omniscience is peculiar to God alone; and if so, since it was found in our blessed Lord, who knew the Hearts of all Men, which no Prophet or Apostle ever did, he must be truly God.  
2. That Knowledge which our Saviour had of the Hearts and Thoughts of Men, differed from that of the Prophets and Apostles, as in its Extension, so in respect of its Cause, Ground, and Principle; they received all this Knowledge by Revelation, and by that alone, which our Lord did not do; they had all their Knowledge of Mens Hearts from another, but his he had of and from himself.  
The discerning of Spirits by our Lord's Apostles, or some few other Apostolical Men is called a Gift, and whose Gift both that and some other were, St. Paul tells us, 
1 Cor. 12.11.  All these worketh that One and the same Spirit. It was by the secret Illuminations of the blessed Spirit, and nothing else, that our Lord's Apostles were enabled to discern the Hearts of Men; but this was not our Lord's Case altogether.  
They who denied that our Lord had Two distinct Wills suitable to the Two distinct Natures that were united in his Sacred Person, were branded with the Name of Monothelites, and condemned as heretics by a Council at Rome gathered by Pope Martin the First in the Year 652, or, as some say, 650. And if it be heresy to deny a distinction of Will in our Saviour's Person, it must be reasonable to allow a like distinction of Understanding too. As he was God, his Understanding was Infinite: For, as Aquinas tells us, with God, Esse& Intelligere idem sunt; His Essence and his Understanding are one and the same thing; so that the One being infinite, the other must be so too.  
But our Lord's human Understanding was capable of several degrees and measures of Knowledge. Accordingly the Evangelist tells us, 
Luk. 2.52.  Jesus increased in Wisdom and Stature. As his Body grew in Age and Stature, so his Understanding increased in Knowledge. And we cannot doubt, but all that Knowledge, which might any way be useful to him in the dispatch of that great Work for which he came, was by his own Deity communicated to his Manhood. One part of his Work was to instruct the World by his Doctrine and Example; but the most considerable part of his Business was to die. But lest he might have been surprised with Death before his time, and thereby some other parts of his Work might have been left undone; it was convenient for him to understand the Hearts, Intentions, and Designs of his Enemies, who sought to kill him; and this he knew, considered as Man, by Revelation.  
And, by the way, the Reason why our Lord's human Understanding was kept in ignorance touching the Day and Hour of the last judgement, might well be this; namely, because God Almighty did not see it convenient, but rather prejudicial, that the World should be taught that Lesson; and, upon that Score, our Lord, who in his human Nature was the Teacher, had no need, as such, to know it.  
But, that our Lord knew the hearts of Men by another sort of Knowledge, besides that by Revelation, seems evident from that expression of the Evangelist, 
Joh. 6.61.  Jesus knew in himself; not by the hearing of his Ear, not by any Information from other Men, no nor merely by any Revelation from Heaven; but {αβγδ}; In and by himself. Nemine indicante, saith Maldonate; he knew the matter without any Intimations given him by any other hand. And from this Knowledge of his may we justly infer our Lord's Divinity; and to assure us of it did he at this time take occasion to manifest his own Omniscience; so saith Theophylact, who tells us, that our Lord spake some words there mentioned in the Context; 
Theophyl. in Joan. 6.61.  {αβγδ}, being willing to show that there is nothing in the hearts of Men concealed from him, as being God. But,  
2. 'tis certain that our blessed Saviour foresaw the future Actions of Men, and infallibly foreknew the future Events and Issues of things; even such Events, as depended upon Causes, that were not necessary but contingent only.  
Indeed, where Causes are Natural and Necessary, fixed and determined, ad unum. What their Effects yet to come, will certainly be, judicious and learned Men can easily foresee. The Change, increase, full, and wane of the Moon, the Eclipses of the Sun and the Moon, the rising and setting of both at such or such an hour depending upon such Causes, as cannot be interrupted by any Accident, are certainly foreknown by our skilful Mathematicians. But where Causes are Contingent, such as may be suspended or crossed in their Operations; where Agents are free, ad utramlibet partem, it being at their own choice to act or not to act thus or thus; what will be, or not be, is to the wisest of Men altogether uncertain.  
Such a Prescience as this of future Events is the peculiar Prerogative of God, and thereby, as by an Infallible Character, doth the Prophet distinguish the true God from false ones: 
Esa. 41.22.  Let them show us what shall happen, and declare us things to come; show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are Gods. This Text imports the truth of that, which Tertullian long since asserted; 
tart. in Apolog. cap. 20. p. 18.  Testimonium Divinitatis veritas divinationis; The true Prediction of things to come, is a Testimony of Divinity. By this very Argument was God Almighty pleased to evidence the truth of his own Deity; Behold, 
Esa. 42.9.  the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth, I tell you of them. 'tis an Argument of his Omniscience, and that is no where to be found, but in a God.  
And the ground thereof is thus given us by Aquinas; 
Aqu. 1. Par. qu. 14. Art. 12.  Contingentia infallibilitèr a Deo cognoscuntur, in quantum subduntur Divino conspectui secundùm suam Praesentialitatem: Future Contingencies are infallibly known to God, forasmuch as they are present to him, and within his view. 
Ejusdem qu. Art. 9.  And again he tells us, Quaecunque possunt per Creaturam fieri, vel cogitari, vel dici;& etiam quaecunque ipse facere potest, omnia cognoscit Deus, etiansi Actu non sint: Whatsoever things can be done, thought, or said by any Creature; whatsoever things God himself can do, though they are not yet in Actual being, God knoweth them all, Scientia Visionis, by immediate Vision and Intuition. To the same purpose speaks Bellarmine, 
Bellarm. de grat.& lib. Arb. l. 4 cap. 13.  Deus intelligit res omnes, quae quoquo modo esse possunt: All things, whether in present Existence, or but in a Possibility of future Being, are certainly known to God.  
And such a Knowledge was there found in our blessed Saviour, who well knew, not only the present Thoughts of Men, but their future Actions too; the Treason of Judas, the time when, the place where, the Persons by whom, and the manner how he should suffer, and when he should rise again; all this he knew beforehand, and foretold his Apostles. That all his Disciples should forsake him, that Peter should three times deny him; he was ware, and gave them warning of it.  
These and many other Testimonies of our Saviour's foreknowledge of things to come, have our Evangelists left us upon Record; so that we may confidently make the same Address, and say toour Redeemer, as St. Peter did, Lord, thou knowest All things; and if so, he that is Omniscient, is and must be God. It's true, the Sun is called Oculus Mundi, the Eye of the World; and it is said, {αβγδ}, To see and hear all things: And for that Reason, as well as some other, it was thought and adored as if it had been a God that knew, {αβγδ}, Things past, present, and to come. They who had entertained such thoughts of the Sun, may be justly blamed for their gross Ignorance; but upon their Supposition, they are excusable for their Adoration. For that Being which hath {αβγδ}, an All-seeing Eye, an Infinite and omniscient Understanding, is God; and as such must be worshipped.  
And the truth is, the grand Reason, why our Lord thought fit to foretell so many future Events, which depended upon free Agents, and merely contingent Causes, was to declare his own Omniscience, and thereby to prove himself to be, what indeed he was. To this end he  told his Disciples thus, 
Joh. 13.19.  Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he: What He doth he mean? What He could certainly foretell so many things to come? not a more Man sure; 
Jam. 4.14.  for, as St. James saith, We know not what shall be on the morrow: But then what means our Lord, when he saith, That ye may believe that I am he? Maldonate well answers thus, Ut credatis me verum esse Christum, non simulatum; verum Deum, qui res omnes, antequam eveniunt, perspectas habeo, quod proprium est Divinitatis; That ye may believe that I am not a Counterfeit messiah, but the True One; yea, and the True God too, who clearly do foresee all things to come; and that's a Perfection proper and peculiar to a Deity.  
But if after all this our Socinians shall pled again, that our Lord foresaw future Events, as Prophets and Apostles did, by Revelation only: I answer this is Gratis dictum, said indeed, but can never be proyed. But since it is proved by many other Arguments, which cannot be fairly answered, that our Lord is truly God, as well as truly Man; we must conclude, That as he knew things to come by Revelation, considered as Man; even so, considered as God, he knew all things, Intuitivè, by his own immediate Inspection, and Intuition. But,  
3. My Third and last Argument to prove our Lord's Divinity shall be this; That blessed Person, who is Omnipresent, Immense, and Infinite, is truly God. But our Lord is such a Person.  
There is no Creature capable of being so; for all created Spirits are in some one certain place, definitivè, they are determined and limited; and all Corporeal Beings are in one certain place, Circumscriptivè, they are bounded and circumscribed; 'tis the Prerogative of God alone to be every where at once. For, as his Eternity is coexistent with all Successions of Time, so is his Immensity commensurate with all distances of places, wherein he is Repletivè, per Essentiam, Potentiam,& Praesentiam, by his Essence, Power, and Presence, as the Schoolmen speak.  
And the certainty of this Divine Ubiquity we may learn from that demand of God mentioned by the Prophet, 
Jer. 23.24  Can any hid himself in secret places, that I shall not see him, saith the Lord? Do not I fill Heaven and Earth, saith the Lord? This Question the Psalmist thus resolves, 
Ps. 139.8.  If I ascend up into Heaven, thou art there; if I make my Bed in Hell, behold thou art there, &c. by these and some other Expressions doth the Psalmist assert God's Omnipresence; and that's a thing, 
Aquin. 1. par. qu 8. Art. 4.  Quod Divinitatis proprium est. Peculiar to a Deity: So speaks St. Ambrose, cited by Aquinas.  
And thus it was with our blessed Saviour, even whilst he conversed here below; for though his human Nature then was, and still is, contrary to the Opinion of the Ubiquitaries and the Roman Church, confined to, and contained in one certain place; yet his whole Person never was, never will be so. See that Speech of his to Nathanael, 
Joh. 1.48.  I saw thee under the Fig-tree: How so? Surely not with his bodily Eyes; for our Lord was then present in one place, and Nathanael at too great a distance in another; and yet saith our Lord, I saw thee, {αβγδ}, saith Theophylact; though our Lord, as to his human Nature, was remote from Philip and Nathanael, yet he saw their Persons, and heard their Discourses, and thereby he did, {αβγδ}, He gave them an early intimation of his own Divinity, and that by his Omnipresence, and Omniscience.  
And this Truth receives a farther and undeniable Confirmation by that Speech of Christ to Nicodemus; 
Joh. 3.13.  No Man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in Heaven. 'tis a strange thing that any Man who believes these Words of Christ, which do so clearly import his Omnipresence, should deny, or doubt of his Divinity; for he was now discoursing with Nicodemus here on Earth; and yet he calls himself the Son of Man, {αβγδ} which is, now is, in Heaven. But how so? not as Man: for 'tis impossible for any Man, as such, to be at the same time on Earth, and in Heaven too. No, we must grant that he was, as Theophylact words it, on Earth, {αβγδ}, in regard of his Corporeal Presence; but in Heaven, {αβγδ}, in respect of his Divinity; on Earth as Man; in Heaven as God.  
There is yet one Text more, which I shall use to prove the same Truth; I mean that Promise which our Lord gave his Apostles immediately before his Ascension up to Heaven; lo, 
Mat. 28.20  I am with you alway, even to the end of the World: But how could that be? He was now removing his human Nature up to Heaven; his Apostles by his Command were to go into all the World, and to preach the Gospel, one in this Kingdom, and another in that: And since our Lord himself was to be in Heaven, and his Apostles were to be separated, dispersed, and scattered abroad throughout the whole Earth, how could this Promise be made good, I am with you, with every one of you, and that alway, at all Times, and in all Places? Certainly this Promise could not have been performed, were not our Lord Omnipresent, and he that is so, is and must be truly God.  
And thus by these Three Attributes, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence, which the Scriptures do ascribe to our blessed Saviour, and which are peculiar to God alone, I have endeavoured to confirm the certainty of his Divinity; which I might have proved by some other Arguments, had I not thought it needless; for he that will not be convinced by these, will be convinced by none.  
3. My Third and last Work is to prove the Divinity of the blessed Spirit, who is the Third Person in the Glorious Godhead.  
What various Opinions have been entertained about this blessed Spirit, we learn from several Authors: 
Greg. Naz. Or. 37. p. 595.  Gregory Nazianzen tells us, {αβγδ}. So speaks St. Austin, 
Aug. de ver. Dom. Ser. 11. ●. 10. p. 9.  Sadducaei Spiritum Sanctum negabant, The Sadduces did utterly deny, that there is any such being as the Spirit. And what do the Sabellians less? For of them St. Austin saith, Spiritum prorsus ita negant, ut ipsum Deum negent Trinitatem esse, said tantummodo esse Deum Patrem asseverant, & ipsum aliquando vocari filium, aliquando vocari Spiritum Sanctum; They do so far deny the Spirit, as to deny the Trinity, affirming, that the Father alone is God; and that He it is who is sometimes called the Son, and sometimes the Spirit, as if they were not distinct Persons, but only different Names.  
St. Austin tells us again, That the Arians, Eunomians, and Macedonians, allow the Spirit to be a Person; 
Basil. M. adv. Eunom. l. 2. p. 76. Basil. M. de Sp. S. cap. 19. p. 194.  but, Non Creatorem, said Creaturam, not the Creator, but a Creature, {αβγδ}. So Eunomius in St. Basil, styles him; as if he were created by our Lord; and as being such, that heretic looked upon him, 
Huetius Origen. l. 2. c. 13.  as the same Father writes, {αβγδ}, as an Instrument, a Subject, of the same rank with other Creatures, and our Fellow-servant. And amongst many other Errors with which Origen stands charged, this is one; namely, that he styled the Son and the Spirit, {αβγδ}, ministering Creatures. Against the Men of this Opinion Gregory Nazianzen doth thus declaim, 
Naz. Or. 44. p. 709.  {αβγδ}. They who degrade the Holy Spirit of God, and make him but a Creature, are Blasphemers, evil Servants, and of all evil ones the worst.  
But besides these bolder heretics, there were some others, who did not think the Holy Spirit to be a more Creature, but, 
Naz. Or. 37. p. 595.  as Nazianzen tells us, {αβγδ}, the virtue and Efficacy and operative Power of God. But some there were yet more kind, who allowed to the Spirit some Share of the Divine Nature, and thought him a God; but, as Gregory Nyssen saith, 
Greg. Nys. adv. Eunom. p. 63.  {αβγδ}, not equal to the Son. There is yet another sort of Men, of whom Nazianzen saith, 
Naz. Or. 37. p. 595.  {αβγδ}, They do neither dishonour the Spirit, nor adore him, as being uncertain, whether he be a Creature or a God.  
These ill Opinions being once raised, were much advanced by the Writings of Origen, being a Person of great Learning and Reputation; of whom 'tis said, Ubi been, nemo melius; ubi male, nemo pejus; When he wrote well, no Man wrote better; but when ill, no Man worse. Nay, these ill Opinions do still receive some Countenance from the Writings of such Men as were Orthodox in their Judgments, but too unwary in some Expressions. 'tis well known that Athanasius was the prime Defender of the Truth, professed by the Nicene Council against the Arians; and yet even he hath left some Lines behind him, which are interpnted and do seem to favour that Opinion, which he himself condemned; for, speaking of our Lord and his Holy Spirit, 
Athanas. adv. Arianor Or. 2. p. 357.  he saith that our Lord shewed himself to be, {αβγδ}, No way inferior to the Spirit, but greater than He, and equal to him. This Expression seems inconsistent with itself, and repugnant to the judgement of this great Man, who wrote it. And truly he must be a very candid and favourable Interpreter, who will excuse great St. 
Basil. M. adv. Eun. l. 3. p. 78.  Basil for saying thus, {αβγδ}. Nor do I think that Expression of Tertullian, 
Tertul. adv. Praxcan, p. 558.  if well weighed, to be justifiable, wherein the blessed Spirit of God is styled, Tertius Majestatis gradus: As if there were any Inequality, {αβγδ}, higher and lower degrees in those essential Excellencies, which are inseparable from each of those Three glorious Persons, 
Nazianz. Or. 20. p. 365.  of whom Nazianzen doth thus affirm, {αβγδ}, The Spirit is of the self-same Substance, and of equal Honour with the Father and the Son. The same thing intimates Dionysius the Areopagite, 
Diony. Ar. de div. nom. p. 167.  or he who bears that Name: {αβγδ}; The Scripture doth ascribe to the Divine Spirit whatever essential Perfections do belong either to the Father or to the Son, their natural Excellencies being equal. And that the blessed Spirit is truly God, equal with the Father and the Son, I shall now endeavour to prove by these following Arguments.  
1. That the blessed Spirit is truly God, hath been in all Ages the general Belief and common Profession of the most Pious, Learned, and Judicious Persons, who were as conversant in, and as well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, which are the only Rules and Grounds of Divine Faith, as any mortal Man can ever hope to be.  
To prove the Being of a God against our Modern Atheists, one Argument commonly used, is drawn from the general consent of Nations; and to prove that this blessed Spirit is that God, we may raise an Argument from the general consent of the catholic Church. Our common Belief, that there is a God, ariseth from the Discourses and Inferences of human Reason, concluding the necessity of such a Divine Being from the visible Works of Creation and Providence; and our common belief, That the blessed Spirit is God, doth arise from the Testimony of those Sacred Oracles, which being well understood, and rightly apprehended by the Reason of Man, are infallible, and cannot fail us. And as we do not doubt the Being of a God, because some Atheists, contrary to the united Sentiments of all Mankind besides, have denied it; so neither should we doubt the Divinity of the blessed Spirit, because some heretics, contrary to the joint Suffrages of the Universal Church, have made bold to oppose it.  
What hath been, and still is, the belief of the catholic Church concerning the blessed Spirit, we learn from those several Creeds and public Confessions of Faith, which have been, and still are, generally received and owned, as short abridgement of all those Doctrines of Faith, which are delivered more largely in the Holy Scriptures, and are necessary to Man's Salvation. The first of these Creeds is that, which bears the Name of our Lord's Apostles, as being compiled either by themselves before their dispersion, or else collected out of their Writings, to be a standing Rule of Faith, by other Apostolical Men, who were their Immediate Successors.  
This most Ancient Creed, as to the blessed Spirit, saith no more than this; {αβγδ}; I believe in the Holy Ghost: and with this Article some Creeds ended, but none did omit it; no not that, 
Socrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 26.  which Arius himself delivered to that famous Emperour Constantine the Great, and that with this solemn Protestation; {αβγδ}. We have received this Faith from the Holy Gospels, our Lord saying to his Disciples, Go, teach all Nations, 
Mat. 28.19.  baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. If we do not thus believe, if we do not truly aclowledge the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as the whole catholic Church, and the Scriptures, to which we assent in all things, do teach us, God is our Judge at present, and will be so, when the great Day comes. This Protestation of Arius and his Friend Euzoius was so Solemn, that Sozomen saith, 
Sozom. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 27.  {αβγδ}; he swore an Oath, That without any Equivocation he did hearty believe all the Articles contained in that Creed, whereof that, which relates to the blessed Spirit was one.  
And certainly this general profession of Faith in the Holy Spirit, contained in the Apostles Creed, is an undeniable Evidence, that the whole catholic Church did suppose and verily believe him to be truly God, Equal to the Father and the Son. True it is, were not the blessed Spirit truly God, the belief of all Mankind could not make him so; but such a Faith is a strong Argument, that all they, who believe in him, do judge and conclude, that he certainly is a God indeed. So argued that great Divine Gregory Nazianzen, 
Nazianz. Orat. 37. pag. 596.  who mentioning this blessed Spirit, writes thus: {αβγδ}; If the Spirit be a Creature, how come we to believe in him? {αβγδ}, To be thus believed on, is a thing peculiar unto God. So that the profession of this Article, as it is barely set down in the Apostles Creed, I believe in the Holy Ghost, without any further Illustrations, was thought enough to show the belief of the catholic Church, that this blessed Spirit is really God. For when we say, We believe in the Holy Ghost, we do it, {αβγδ}, saith Epiphanius, 
Epiphan. Haer. 74.  we profess our Faith in the Holy Spirit to show our belief that he is One God, one and the same Individual Substance with the Father and the Son.  
And that this was the known Faith of the catholic Church, and whence they received it, we learn from Irenaeus, whose words are these; 
iron. adv. Haeres. l. 1. cap. 2.  {αβγδ}, &c. The Church, though dispersed throughout the World, received from the Apostles and their Disciples their Faith in One God the Father, and in One Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; {αβγδ}, &c. who by the Prophets preached and foretold the whole economy of the Gospel.  
Which words being added to the Apostles Creed, I mean to that particular Article which relates to the blessed Spirit, do infallibly prove his Divinity. And for this very end, 'tis thought, that one Clause like this of Irenaeus, and some other, in opposition to the heresy of Macedonius, were added to the Nicene Creed by the second General Council, gathered by Theodosius at Constantinople; where( though some think it was done by the Nicene Council itself) this Article of the Apostles Creed was thus enlarged: 
Usserius Archiep. Armach. de Symbolis.  {αβγδ}; I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the Prophets. Of this Creed thus enlarged in this and other Articles, Epiphanius, cited by the late learned Archbishop Usher, gives this high Commendation; {αβγδ}; The Doctrines of Faith contained in this Creed were delivered by the Holy Apostles.  
And these enlargements were not added to the Apostles Creed, as if that had been judged insufficient; but it was thought fit to explain, amplify, and illustrate those Articles especially, which relate to the Person of our blessed Saviour, and his Holy Spirit; our Lord's Divinity being denied by the Arians, and the Deity of the Holy Ghost being as stiffly opposed by the Macedonians. Of these later, {αβγδ}, 
Epiphan. Har. 74. Sect. 1.  Epiphanius writes thus; {αβγδ}. The same thing is testified by Socrates of Macedonius himself; 
Socra Hist. Eccles. l. 2. cap. 45. p. 159.  {αβγδ}. He and his followers refused to number and reckon the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son; Eum esse Creaturam dicentes, saying that he is a Creature. So writes St. Austin. 
August. de Haeres. Tom. 6. pag. 6.  {αβγδ}; They thought him to be, as to the Divine Nature, a perfect Stranger. 
council. Constanti. Can. 1.  So saith the second General Council of Constantinople, as Balsamon expounds it. And by this Council was Macedonius and his followers branded with the name of Semi-Arians, and accordingly Anathematized as heretics.  
And certainly those severe Censures, which were passed by the Governours of the Primitive Church against all those who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, are undeniable Evidences, that they themselves did own it as a necessary and undoubted Article of the Christian Faith. And this Faith of theirs they did not only profess in Words, but they did second and confirm it by their practise too. For, in their Solemn Acts of Religious Worship, Doxologies, and Supplications they were wont to make their humble Addresses, as well to the Holy Spirit, as to the Father and the Son. 
Nazianz. Or. 44. p. ●09.  So did Gregory nazianzen, {αβγδ}; Let the Spirit be present with me, and grant me as great a faculty to speak, as I can wish; but if not so, yet as much as suits the occasion. And thus he prayeth elsewhere to the whole Trinity, 
Nazianz. Carm. 5. p. 72.  {αβγδ}; But thou, O Father, and thou, O Word of the Father, and thou, O Glorious Spirit, forsake me not. Thus also prayed St. Cyprian to the Spirit alone by name, 
Cypr. de Sp. Sancto, p. 345.  Adesto, saint Spiritus,& Paraclesim tuam expectantibus illabere caelitùs, Sanctifica Templum corporis nostri, &c. Be present, O Holy Spirit, and from Heaven inspire and influence those, who wait for thy Consolation, sanctify the Temple of our Body, &c.  
Nor did the Primitive Christians direct their Petitions only, but also their Doxologies and Thanksgivings to the Holy Spirit as well as to the Father and the Son; there is one cited by St. Basil out of Dionysius Alexandrinus, which runs thus; 
Basil. de Sp. Sancto, cap. 29. p. 218.  {αβγδ}: To God the Father, and the Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be Glory and Dominion for ever and ever, Amen. This Doxology St. Basil styles, 
Basil. cap. eodem. p. 220.  {αβγδ}, and speaks of it thus, {αβγδ}; Never were they thought to be guilty of Impiety, who said, We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God.  
Now then, if the Ancient Fathers, who were Men of great Abilities, signal Industry, and exemplary Piety; who preached the Scriptures to the utmost of their power, and in so doing earnestly begged and doubtless found the assistances of Heaven; if such Men as these, after their devout Petitions and strictest scrutiny into such and such Texts, found cause to believe the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and did accordingly perform Religious Services to him, methinks their Faith and practise should be a very great Inducement to us to believe his Godhead.  
For, 'tis not reasonable to think, that the Divine Providence should permit such great numbers of the most learned and pious Men, who were the Pillars of the catholic Church, to lye under such a gross Mistake in a matter of such great Importance, as must needs led themselves into an Idolatrous Worship, and by their Example and Writings transmit the same to all succeeding Ages. 'tis a Supposition, I think, not reconcilable to several Promises; our Lord  told his Apostles, 
Joh. 16.13.  The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth. And if it be supposed that this Promise was Personal, and concerned none but the Apostles only; yet there is another, which relates to the Church in general; for, saith our Lord, 
Mat. 16.18.  The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it: nay, there is a Promise, which reacheth every good Man in particular; 
Joh. 7.17.  If any Man will do his Will, he shall know of the Doctrine, whether it be of God: These and the like Promises being considered as to their Matter, and acknowledged as to their Truth, 'tis not imaginable, that the Divine Providence and Goodness should permit the catholic Church, and the choicest Members of it, and that from Age to Age, to lye under so great a Mistake, as to believe the blessed Spirit to be truly God, and to worship him as such, if he were not so indeed.  
I conclude this Argument with the Testimony of Hildebert, Archbishop of Tours, and an excellent Poet, who, in a very elegant Hymn touching the glorious Trinity, writes thus concerning the blessed Spirit.  
Paracletus increatus, neque factus neque natus,  
Patri compar filioque sic procedit ab utroque  
Ne sit minor Potestate, vel discretus qualitate:  
Quanti Illi, tantus iste; quails Illi, Talis Iste;  
Ex quo Illi, tantus iste; semper Illi, semper Iste;  
Quisque trium plenus Deus; non trees tamen Dii, said Deus.  
2. My second Argument to prove the Divinity of the Holy Spirit shall be this: That blessed Person, who doth regenerate, quicken, revive, and sanctify the Soul of Man, is God. But the Holy Spirit is that blessed Person, who doth regenerate, quicken, revive, and sanctify the Soul of Man.  
St. Paul  told his Converts at Ephesus, 
Eph. 2.1.  Ye were dead in Sins and Trespasses; That by Nature is the common Case of all Mankind; and for that Reason our Lord hath said, ye must be born again: 
Joh. 3.7.  But, as Nicodemus replied, How can a Man be born again? Certainly 'tis a Work which requires an Almighty Power, it must be the Work of an Omnipotent God. True it is, St. Paul  told his Converts at Corinth, 
1 Cor. 4.15.  I have begotten you through the Gospel: I, as an Instrument, in and by the use of the Gospel as the Means, but still the Principal Agent in this great Work, without whom Paul and the Gospel could have done no good, was God. So he  told the Saints at Ephesus; And you hath he quickened, 
Eph. 2.1.  who were dead in Sins: Not I, not the Gospel, but He, i. God. So St. James, 
Jam. 1.18.  Of his own Will he begot us. And for this Reason, the regenerate Person is said to be born of God, a Child, a Son, an Heir of God.  
And as every good Man's new Birth or Regeneration is ascribed to God, so more particularly is it ascribed to the Spirit; he that is said to be born of God in one place, is said to be born of the Spirit in another; so speaks our blessed Saviour, 
Joh. 3.5, 6.  Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit, &c. And again, 
Joh. 6.63.  That which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit. And yet again, It is the Spirit that quickeneth. So Intimates St. Paul, 
1 Cor. 6.11  Ye are sanctified by the Spirit of our God. And so again. 
Tit. 3.5.  He saved us by the washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Such Texts as these gave just occasion to Gregory Nyssen to say of the Scripture, 
Greg. Nys. adv. Eunom. Or. 1 p. 60.  {αβγδ}. It doth in express Words testify, That the Regeneration of the Children of God is the proper Work of the Holy Spirit; 
Cyril. Hierosol. in Catech. 16. p. 176.  whom St. Cyril upon the same account styles {αβγδ}, the Sanctifier of all God's Elect; and then he adds, {αβγδ}, 'tis the Spirit which illuminates all Righteous Men's Souls.  
Now from this Supernatural Work of Man's Regeneration we may justly infer the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and conclude, as Gregory Nyssen doth, 
Greg. Nys. adv. Eunom. Or. 1. p. 59.  {αβγδ}. They who have received the Privilege of being made the Children of God, do, by their very being so, testify the Divinity of his Spirit. For since Man's Regeneration is the undoubted Work of God, and yet the proper Work of the Spirit; it must follow by an undeniable Consequence, that the Spirit is God indeed.  
3. My third Argument to prove the Divinity of the Holy Spirit shall be this: If the Scriptures be the Word of God, then is the Holy Spirit God. But the Scriptures certainly are the Word of God.  
The Divinity of the Holy Scriptures, did our Socinians deny the Authority of the whole Bible, as they do that of some particular Texts, might be proved from a great variety of proper topics. The punctual accomplishment of its Prophecies, such as foretold future Contingencies at the greatest distances of time; even such Events as were exceedingly improbable; nay some Events as were, according to the common course of Nature, utterly impossible: Such were our Lord's Birth from a Virgin, and his Resurrection from the dead. Besides, the incomparable Excellence of Scripture Precepts far transcending the choicest Rules of the best ancient Moralists; the stupendious Miracles, which were often wrought by our Lord himself, by his Prophets and Apostles, purposely to confirm their Doctrine; the undaunted Courage and matchless Patience of the Martyrs, who suffered the greatest Tortures which Men or Devils could invent, for the Profession, and in the defence of Scripture-Truths; it's wonderful Preservation from Age to Age against the Swords of powerful Tyrants, and the Pens of subtle heretics; its mighty Effects and Influence upon the most obstinate Hearts of Men; each of these, together with the constant Tradition of the catholic Church, and the frequent Testimonies of the Scripture itself, might be managed as an Argument to confirm its Divine Authority.  
But there is one Argument more, which alone would be sufficient; and this it is: The Scripture cannot proceed from Men or Angels, whether good or bad; for as to religious Men, and Holy Angels, it were utterly inconsistent with their Goodness to forge and counterfeit such and such Records, and then to father them upon God, and impose them upon the World, as the Oracles of Heaven: And as for wicked Men and wicked Angels, the Scriptures cannot with any show of Reason be imputed unto them, because they across their designs, contradict their Inclinations, forbid what they love, command what they hate, condemn their Practices, and sentence their Persons to everlasting Flames. Now, if the Scriptures came not from Men or Angels, they must come from God; for no other Author of them can possibly be imagined.  
Now, if the Scriptures be, as most certainly they are, the Word of God, then may we thence infallibly conclude, that the Holy Spirit is God, because to him, as their immediate and undoubted Author, the Scriptures are once and again entitled. St. Luke tells us, God spake by the Mouth of his holy Prophets: 
Luk. 1.70.  And St. Paul saith, All Scripture is given by Inspiration of 
2 Tim. 3.16.  God; but was it by the Inspiration of God the Father, or God the Son? St. Paul answers, 
Act. 28.25.  Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the Prophet. And again, 
2 Pet. 1.21.  Holy Men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So St. Peter. 
Basil M. de Sp. Sancto, c. 21. p. 198.  And hence St. Basil saith, That the Apostle styles the Scripture, {αβγδ}, Inspired of God, because it was written by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit; and hence Irenaeus concludes the Perfection of the Scriptures; for thus he writes, 
iron. adv. Haeres. l. 2. c. 47.  Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt, quip à Spiritu Dei dictae; the Scriptures are perfect indeed, because dictated by the Spirit of God. So then, since the Scriptures are the Word of God, and withall the Word of the Spirit, this Consequence is undeniable; namely, That this blessed Spirit, being the immediate Author of the Holy Scriptures, is and must be God.  
4. My fourth Argument, and the last which I shall or need use, to prove the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, shall be this: If our blessed Saviour, in respect of his human Nature, be indeed the Son of God, then is the Holy Spirit God. But most certain it is, that our blessed Saviour, in respect of his human Nature, is indeed the Son of God.  
I do not red of any one Person throughout the whole Gospel, that ever called our blessed Saviour Son of Man, but he was pleased frequently so to style himself; nay he styles himself the Son, not {αβγδ}, but in the Masculine Gender, {αβγδ}, a Title, from which some heretics took occasion to say, That Joseph was, not his supposed, but his real Father. But, the truth is, that as our Lord, in respect of his Divinity, was {αβγδ}, without a Mother; so in respect of his Humanity, he was, as to Men, {αβγδ}, without a Father. And yet notwithstanding this, he might well be called The Son of Man, as he was the Son, i. one of the Posterity of David and Abraham, who were Men, and from whom his Virgin Mother was lineally descended.  
But as our Lord did frequently call himself, The Son of Man, so did he many times style himself, The Son of God too. And the Son of God he was and is, in respect of his Deity, by an eternal and necessary Generation; and, in respect of his Humanity, by a voluntary and miraculous Conception and Birth, in the fullness of time. His Sonship to God by an eternal Generation our Socinians will not grant; but his Sonship to God in regard of his wonderful Incarnation, I think, they do not deny.  
Now, if it be granted, as indeed it ought to be, that our Lord is indeed the Son of God in respect of his human Nature, it must also be granted, that the Holy Spirit is God; for to him, as its undoubted Author, is the human Nature of Christ ascribed. When Joseph was minded to put away his Wife, as being then with Child, 
Mat. 1.20.  but not by him, an Angel was sent to tell him thus, That which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost: And that it should be so, the Angel Gabriel, styled Angelus Misericordiae, The Angel of Mercy, had foretold his Mother before her Conception; The Holy Ghost shall come upon Thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow Thee: And what then? 
Luk. 1.35.  Therefore also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. From hence it is evident, that our Lord, as Man, is the Son of God, because his whole human Nature was framed by the Invisible Power and operation of the Holy Ghost; who, for that very reason, if the angels Inference have any thing of Truth and Pertinence in it, is and must be acknowledged God.  
And thus have I endeavoured to prove the Deity of the Holy Spirit by four Arguments; First, by the general belief of the catholic Church, consisting of such great numbers of pious and learned Men, so well acquainted with the word of God, and so well qualified for the assistances of Heaven, that we cannot piously or charitably imagine, that after all their indefatigable industry in searching the Scriptures, and their daily Petitions to God for the Illuminations of his Holy Spirit, they should still be mistaken from Age to Age in such an Important Article of our Creed. Secondly, By the work of Grace or Regeneration; by virtue whereof every Sanctified Soul is said to be born of God, because born of the Spirit. Thirdly, By the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture, which is therefore the word of God, because it was dictated to the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles, by the Immediate Inspirations of the Holy Ghost. Fourthly, By our blessed Saviour's being the Son of God in respect of his Manhood; his Soul being immediately created, and his Body miraculously framed of his Mothers Substance, being first perfectly Sanctified by the powerful Operation of the Holy Spirit.  
But to elude all Arguments drawn from those Divine Operations, which the Scriptures attribute to the Holy Spirit, and whereby we prove his Deity; our Socinians affirm that he is no Person: So thought Socinus himself, who made bold to say, Credo me satis ostendisse Spiritum Sanctum non esse Personam, I believe that I have sufficiently shewed that the Holy Spirit is not a Person; but what is he then? Virtus Dei vel efficacia, He is the virtue, Power, or Efficacy of God, and no more: so He.  
To this Heretical Opinion of Socinus we might oppose the sounder judgments and vast numbers of learned Men. 
Nazianz. Or. 32. p. 520.  Nazianzen speaking of God, saith that he is {αβγδ}, One in Substance, but Three in Persons. 
Nyssen. in Bapt. Christi, p. 804.  Gregory Nyssen styles Baptism, {αβγδ}, The Mystery of the Three Holy Persons. Theophylact mentioning the Institution and Form of Baptism, saith, {αβγδ}, Our Lord made mention of Three Persons: And as to the blessed Spirit in particular, 
Cyr. Hier. Cat. 16. p. 176.  St. Cyril proves him to be a Person thus, {αβγδ}, He lives, and is an Intelligent Being. 
Elias Cret. in Naz. Or. 1. p. 83.  And, to name no more, Elias Cretensis writes thus of the Holy Ghost, Spiritus est Essentia, quae per se in peculiari Hypostasi consideratur, The Spirit is an Essence, considered in a Subsistence peculiar to himself.  
These and a multitude of other learned Men, found sufficient reason to believe the Personality of the Holy Spirit by the consideration of several Actions, which are clearly ascribed unto him, even such Actions, as are proper and peculiar to Persons only. 'tis evident that the Spirit is said to reprove, to teach, to guide, to quicken, to sanctify, to distribute Gifts and Graces in what measure and to whom he pleaseth; these and other Actions with some dispositions too, ascribed to the Spirit, since they cannot belong to Qualities, do abundantly evince his Personality.  
But that such Personal Actions, ascribed to the blessed Spirit, do indeed prove him to be a Person, our Socinians will not grant; for, say they, and truly too, Personal Actions, in other cases, and in other Texts, are clearly ascribed to things, which are not Persons. Solomon tells us, 
Prov. 1.20  Wisdom crieth without, she uttereth her voice in the Streets. To cry and utter a voice is a Personal Action, and yet 'tis here ascribed to Wisdom, which is no Person: St. Paul saith of Charity, It beareth all things, 
1 Cor. 13.7.  believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. These and other Actions, which are proper to Persons, are attributed to Charity, which is no more than a Gracious disposition, quality, or habit. And indeed 'tis usual in all sorts of Authors to ascribe those Actions, whether good or bad, which any Person doth, to those inward Principles, by virtue whereof he doth them. And such a Metonymy or Prosopopoeia, do our Socinians urge to enervate those Arguments, which are drawn from the Divine operations of the Holy Spirit, to prove his Deity.  
That such Actions are clearly ascribed to the Spirit, as are peculiar to God alone, our Socinians cannot deny, and from such Actions, being Personally his, the Fathers do justly conclude his God head. 
Athan. in dial. adv. Maced. p. 272.  So Athanasius, {αβγδ}, where there is the self-same Operation, there is the self-same Nature too. And so Gregory Nyssen, 
Greg. Nyssen. de Trin. p. 445.  {αβγδ}, The Identity of Operation betwixt the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, doth manifestly show the Identity of their Nature.  
Now, because the force of this Argument cannot be escaped by a downright denial, our Socinians found themselves concerned to think of some Evasion, and fixed upon this; they tell us, that those Divine Actions, which are fignratively ascribed to the Spirit, were really done by God the Father; for, say they, the Spirit is nothing else, but {αβγδ}, the working and effectual Power of God; and to this Spirit such and such works are ascribed. Not that this Spirit is a Person subsisting in and operating of himself, but by a Metonymy or Prosopopoeia, because he is the Power, by which God the Father doth the works.  
But this slender pretence of our Socinians is clearly overthrown and utterly baffled by the Pen of a late and very learned Bishop of our own Church, 
Pearsonus in Exposit. Symboli apostle.  who, to the satisfaction of all sober Men, and to the shane of these {αβγδ}, hath unanswerably demonstrated, that there are several Actions ascribed to the blessed Spirit, which can never be ascribed to God the Father. The Spirit is said to make Intercession for us, but that the Father cannot be said to do; for, with whom can he be thought to Intercede? Again, the Spirit is said to be sent by the Father and the Son; but the Father himself cannot be said to be sent, and to come as being sent, as the Spirit doth; for, who should sand him? Yet once more, our Lord saith of the Spirit, He shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. This cannot be said of God the Father; for, whatever he speaks, whatever he doth, he speaks and doth of himself.  
Since therefore such and such Actions are ascribed to the Spirit, which cannot be attributed to God the Father; this pretence of a Prosopopoeia is altogether insufficient; because the Spirit, considered, as our Socinians represent him, namely and only as a powerful quality or Energy, by which God the Father Acts, cannot be thought to do such Actions, as are by no means applicable to God the Father.  
And as those Operations, which cannot be imputed to God the Father, do prove the Spirit, which doth them, to be a Person distinct from the Father; so his Glorious Attributes and many Divine Operations, do prove him to be a Person Equal to the Father. For, that he is Coeternal with him, is a truth warranted by several Texts, and accordingly testified by Gregory Nazianzen, 
Nazianz. Or. 44. p. 711.  who writes of him thus; {αβγδ}, The Holy Spirit alway was, is, and will be, without beginning, without end, coordinate and reckoned in the same rank with the Father and Son. That he is Omnipotent, the same Father testifieth by virtue of several Texts, and doth thus evince it; 
Nazianz. Or. 44. p. 714.  {αβγδ}, The Spirit had a joint hand with the Son in the works of Creation, and will have in the work of the Resurrection too. St. 
Cyprian de SP. S. p. 346.  Cyprian saith of him, Solo nutu perficit omnia; quod dicit, facit; quod jubet, implet; regit, componit, consummat, 
iron. adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 19.  perficit. And Irenaeus thus, Deus per verbum& Spiritum suum omnia faciens, disponens,& gubernans. All which Expressions do import the Spirit's Interest and Almighty Power in creating, preserving, ordering, and governing the World.  
And by these and some other Divine Attributes and Operations was St. 
Cyril. Hierosol. Cat. 4. p. 30.  Cyril induced to say, {αβγδ} The Spirit, with the Father and the Son, is honoured with that Glory, which justly belongs to the God-head. And so Nazianzen, 
Nazianz. Orat. 32. pag. 520.  {αβγδ}. We believe on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as being of the same Essence, Substance, and Glory.  
And here I may take occasion to answer that saucy Question, which was once propounded by a Macedonian heretic; 
Naz. Or. 37. p. 599.  {αβγδ}; Who ever worshipped the Spirit? Who amongst the Ancients? Who of the neoterics? Who ever prayed to him? Where is it written, that we ought so to do? To this bold Demand I answer, That for our worshipping the Holy Spirit we have both Commands and Examples.  
1. For our worshipping the Holy Spirit we have Commands; for besides our Lord's Injunction requiring us to be Baptized into the Name, the Faith, the Religion and Service of the Holy Ghost; every Text which commands us to worship God, commands us to worship the Spirit too. For, as Nazianzen well determines this matter, {αβγδ}. The Adoration of One God is the Adoration of the Three Persons, because they are of the same Honour, Dignity, and Godhead. And whenever we pray to God without a particular Application to this or that particular Person, we pray to them all, as being one and the same God undivided.  
2. For our worshipping the Holy Spirit we have Examples; and such Examples as deserve and require our Imitation.  
That of St. Paul is one, who thus concludes one of his Epistles, The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
2 Cor. 13.14.  and the Love of God, and the Communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. That these Words are a Prayer, I think no Man will deny: As such doth Theophylact and Oecumenius own it; and St. Chrysostom expressly saith of St. Paul, {αβγδ}. He doth here end his Discourse with a Prayer. And if it be a Prayer, to whom doth St. Paul direct it? either to no body, or else to the whole Trinity in Conjunction. For, as Grotius observes, Sunt hic, ut& in Baptismo, apertè nomina, {αβγδ}. The whole Trinity is here expressly name, as it also is in the Form of Baptism; so that if St. Paul doth here pray at all, he prayeth to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost too.  
And since St. Paul did direct his humble Petitions for Spiritual Blessings to none but God; we may from this Request of his very justly infer the Doctrine of the Trinity: So thought several Interpreters of this Text: 
Estius in locum.  Hoc loco distinct nobis insinuantur trees in Divinis Personae: So one: And thus another; 
Corn. à lap. in locum.  Notant hic significari Sanctissimam Trinitatem {αβγδ}, consubstantialem, eam scilicet ejusdem esse naturae, potentiae, operationis, 
Gre. Thaumat. in Exp. Symboli, p. 101.  &c. And from this place doth Gregory Thaumaturgus draw an Argument, Quòd venerabilis est Sancta Trinitas non separata, nec alienata. Hence also doth St. Chrysostom, and after him Theophylact, break out into this Expression, {αβγδ}; Where now are they who slight the Spirit, as if he were not God, since St. Paul himself doth here address his solemn Petition as well to the Holy Spirit, as to the Father and the Son.  
And after the Example of this great Apostle, and in a firm Belief, That the blessed Spirit is God, have many pious and judicious Men made their Religious Addresses to him; particular Instances I have already name; as that of Nazianzen, {αβγδ}. And again, {αβγδ}. And that of St. Cyprian, Adesto, saint Spiritus, &c. Nor did particular Persons only thus invocate the Holy Spirit in their private Devotions; but whole Congregations did so in their public Supplications too; such a Prayer I find in that Liturgy, which is ascribed to St. Chrysostom, 
Chrysost. Liturg. tom. 6. p. 986  and is extant amongst his Works, wherein God Almighty is petitioned thus, {αβγδ}. Grant thy Mercies to thy Servants, who call on thy Name, even the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And as the Holy Ghost was thus particularly mentioned in their public Supplications; so was he as particularly name in their public Thanksgivings too: So I find it in that Doxology, which is repeated over and over: {αβγδ}. It is meet and just to adore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that Trinity of Persons, which is Consubstantial and Indivisible. To this I may add that Eucharistical Appendix to the Te Deum, 
Usserius de Symbolis, p. 2.  cited by our late very learned Archbishop of Armagh, Te Patrem adoramus aeternum, te sempiternum Filium invocamus, Teque Spiritum Sanctum confitemur; Tibi uni Deo in Trinitate debitas lauds& gratias referimus; We adore Thee the Father eternal; We invoke Thee the Son everlasting; We aclowledge Thee the Holy Spirit; To Thee, One God in Trinity, we return those Praises and Thanks which are due.  
And now I could hearty wish that all our Socinians would seriously consider, but not corrupt those Texts which do clearly assert the Divinity of our blessed Saviour and his Holy Spirit; such Texts as do most expressly give the Title of God to them both; such Texts as do plainly ascribe to them both such Attributes and Operations, as no Creature can be capable of; I wish they would consider the Example of St. Paul, and the constant practise of the catholic Church in making their Religious Addresses to them both in their public Supplications and Thanksgivings; That they would no longer reject the Doctrine of the Trinity, which is so clearly revealed, barely because their own narrow Understandings are no more able to comprehend it, than a little Spoon is to contain the Water of the whole Ocean. That they may quit and repent of their Heretical Opinion, lest they run themselves into that Blasphemy which, through final Impenitence, will certainly prove irremissible. I shall conclude this Discourse with that Prayer which I find in the Liturgy ascribed to St. Chrysostom, 
Chrysost. Lit. Edit. Eton. p. 999.  {αβγδ}. Lord, grant to us, that we may with one Mouth, and one Heart glorify and praise thy most Honourable and Magnificent Name, that of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: And let every good Man say Amen; that we may all do it, and that for ever and ever.  
FINIS.   

Books lately Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard.  
1. A Treatise, relating to the Worship of God; divided into Six Sections: Concerning 1st. The Nature of Divine Worship. 2. The peculiar Object of Worship. 3. The true Worshippers of God. 4. Assistance requisite to Worship. 5. The Place of Worship. 6. The Solemn time of Worship. By John templar, D. D.  
2. A Defence of revealed Religion; in Six Sermons, upon Romans 1.16. Wherein it is clearly and plainly shown, That no Man can possibly have any real Ground or Reason to be ashamed of Christianity. By Henry Halliwell, M. A. and Vicar of Cowfold in Sussex.  
3. Miscellanies; in Five Essays: 1. Upon the Office of a Chaplain. 2. Upon Pride. 3. Upon clothes. 4. Upon Dealing. 5. Upon General Kindness: The four last by way of Dialogue. By Jeremy Colkliers, A. M.  
4. Mysteries in Religion Vindicated: or, The Filiation, Deity, and Satisfaction of our Saviour, asserted against Socinians, and others: With Occasional Reflections on several late Pamphlets. By Luke Milbourn, a Presbyter of the Church of England.  
5. A Discourse concerning the Nature of Man, both in his Natural and Political Capacity; both as he is a Rational Creature, and Member of a civil Society: With an Examination of some of Mr. Hobb's Opinions relating thereunto. By Ja. loud, Rector of Settrington in York-shire, some time Fellow of Clare-Hall in Cambridge.  
6. Apparatus ad Theologiam, in usum Academiarum: 1. Generalis: 2. Specialis. Autore Stephano Penton, Rectore de Glympton, Oxon.  
7. Guardian's Instruction; or, The Gentleman's Romance. Written for the Diversion and Service of the Gentry.  
8. New Instructions to the Guardian; showing that the last Remedy to prevent the Ruin, advance the Interest, and recover the Honour of this Nation. 1. A more serious and strict Education of the Nobility and Gentry: 2. To breed up all their younger Sons to some Calling and Employment: 3. More of them to Holy Orders. With a method of Institution from Three Years of Age, to Twenty-one.  
9. Bishop Overal's Convocation Book 1606, concerning the Government of God's catholic Church, and the Kingdoms of the whole World. 4o.  
10. Institutiones Grammaticae, Anglo Saxonicae,& maeso-Gothicae. Auctore Georgio Hicsio, Ecclesiae Anglicanae, Presbytero. 4o.  
11. Chr. Wasii Senarius, sieve de Legibus& Licentia veterum Poetarum. 4o.  
12. Misnae pars Ordinis primi Teraim titul. septem. Latinè vertit& Commentario illustravit Gulielmus Guisinus, Accedit Mosis Maimoradis praefatio, Edvardo Pocokio interpret. 4o.  
13. Joannis Antiocheni, Cognomento Mallalae, Hist. Chronica, è MS. Bibliothecae Bodleianae. Praemittitur Dissertatio de Authore. Per Humph. Hodium, D. D. 8o.